Too Much Influence?

Today is the Iowa caucuses, and I, for one, am glad that it's finally coming to a close. I'm really tired of the unending barrage of commercials, unsolicited phone calls and junk mail from candidates asking for my support. And true to form, my (admittedly limited) experience with the candidates shows them making broad, sweeping statements designed to appeal to the masses without discussing how they plan to accomplish these goals. But that's not really what I want to discuss today. I'm more interested in talking about the hubbub from the media, claiming that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence in the election process.

The premise for these claims that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence, come from their small population size and lack of ethnic diversity. At first blush, I thought these were reasonable arguments, especially as I ran across statements saying stuff like "Iowa has more influence than California," and so forth. As I did a little more research though, I'm no longer convinced that Iowa holds an undue amount of influence. (I won't speak about New Hampshire's influence, because I didn't really research this aspect.)

One reason people are squawking about Iowa going first is that people from Iowa are always first to voice their opinion, and as a result, candidates that Iowans don't support may drop out before a more populous state has a chance to support him (or her, or it). Yeah, true that. But don't you think these politicians (or aspiring politicians) know their chances of winning -- or at least making a good show -- before deciding to drop out? This argument fails to consider that a candidate will certainly do their research before deciding to throw in the towel.

I'd also like to point out a Wikipedia article [sorry, I lost the link when moving this post], which undermines another argument against Iowa going first... the "they always pick the winners" argument." To make a long citation short, this provides statistics showing that the winner of the Iowa Caucuses doesn't automatically win their party's nomination... and in some cases, the "winner" ran unopposed. That's not exactly a win in my book. Even more ludicrous is a fast one that Jimmy Carter pulled in 1976. The majority of caucus-goers remained undecided (effectively saying 'none of the above'), but since Carter was second, he called himself the "winner." This shows that statistics can be manipulated, and that there's always a deeper story.

In conjunction with the "Iowa always picks the winner" argument, I'd like to say something else. If you don't agree with Iowa, then vote your opinion, don't follow them like a bunch of sheep because you want to say you voted for the winner.

At the end of the day, I really don't care if Iowa loses its first-in-the-nation standing. I'd be quite happy if states took turns. As for our mainstream media echoing the typical "not fair" cry of other states though, I'd really appreciate it if you'd report the whole story or just shut the fuck up, instead of parroting all of the whiners. By the way, since the Iowa caucuses will be over tomorrow, I expect you to be out of Iowa by sunrise. After all of the press, commercials, junk mail and unsolicited phone calls, I kind of miss the relatively mild irritation of the Enzyte commercials.