Comments on: Who’s Keeping Word On Early State Pledge? http://iowaindependent.com/1828/whos-keeping-word-on-early-state-pledge Iowa politics, news, and commentary Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:46:10 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Lori http://iowaindependent.com/1828/whos-keeping-word-on-early-state-pledge/comment-page-1#comment-12327 Lori Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:44:55 +0000 http://iowaindependent.com/1828/whos-keeping-word-on-early-state-pledge#comment-12327 <strong>Should Iowa be first in the nation?</strong> This is probably an unpopular opinion for an Iowan, but I don't think Iowa necessarily deserves to be first in the nation any more. <p><br>This election year was hailed as "record turnout" for Iowan caucuses--but this record turnout was only 18% of registered voters. Compare this to 60% of voters who turned out in New Hampshire. </p><p><br>Iowa gets plenty of benefits to being first in the nation. Massive amounts of money are spent in our states. Iowans get to see canidates up close and personal. There are news crews from all over the nation following every voter whim. However, I don't think most Iowans appreciate it. I did a number of campain calls this election season and over and over I heard "Oh I'm not going to caucus; it's too much trouble." If it is too much trouble, maybe the money and exposure should go to somewhere else. </p><p><br>I would propose a new system of determining who gets to go first. Let the state who gets the biggest voter turnout in the prior general election be the first the next time. Since it would be percentage of voter turnout, small states would still have an equal chance to compete, and Iowa could still be first--if Iowans really want it. </p><p></p> Should Iowa be first in the nation? This is probably an unpopular opinion for an Iowan, but I don't think Iowa necessarily deserves to be first in the nation any more.

This election year was hailed as “record turnout” for Iowan caucuses–but this record turnout was only 18% of registered voters. Compare this to 60% of voters who turned out in New Hampshire.

Iowa gets plenty of benefits to being first in the nation. Massive amounts of money are spent in our states. Iowans get to see canidates up close and personal. There are news crews from all over the nation following every voter whim. However, I don't think most Iowans appreciate it. I did a number of campain calls this election season and over and over I heard “Oh I'm not going to caucus; it's too much trouble.” If it is too much trouble, maybe the money and exposure should go to somewhere else.

I would propose a new system of determining who gets to go first. Let the state who gets the biggest voter turnout in the prior general election be the first the next time. Since it would be percentage of voter turnout, small states would still have an equal chance to compete, and Iowa could still be first–if Iowans really want it.

]]> By: Lori http://iowaindependent.com/1828/whos-keeping-word-on-early-state-pledge/comment-page-1#comment-5136 Lori Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 http://iowaindependent.com/1828/whos-keeping-word-on-early-state-pledge#comment-5136 <strong>Should Iowa be first in the nation?</strong> This is probably an unpopular opinion for an Iowan, but I don't think Iowa necessarily deserves to be first in the nation any more. <p> This election year was hailed as "record turnout" for Iowan caucuses--but this record turnout was only 18% of registered voters. Compare this to 60% of voters who turned out in New Hampshire. <p> Iowa gets plenty of benefits to being first in the nation. Massive amounts of money are spent in our states. Iowans get to see canidates up close and personal. There are news crews from all over the nation following every voter whim. However, I don't think most Iowans appreciate it. I did a number of campain calls this election season and over and over I heard "Oh I'm not going to caucus; it's too much trouble." If it is too much trouble, maybe the money and exposure should go to somewhere else. <p> I would propose a new system of determining who gets to go first. Let the state who gets the biggest voter turnout in the prior general election be the first the next time. Since it would be percentage of voter turnout, small states would still have an equal chance to compete, and Iowa could still be first--if Iowans really want it. <p> Should Iowa be first in the nation? This is probably an unpopular opinion for an Iowan, but I don’t think Iowa necessarily deserves to be first in the nation any more.

This election year was hailed as “record turnout” for Iowan caucuses–but this record turnout was only 18% of registered voters. Compare this to 60% of voters who turned out in New Hampshire.

Iowa gets plenty of benefits to being first in the nation. Massive amounts of money are spent in our states. Iowans get to see canidates up close and personal. There are news crews from all over the nation following every voter whim. However, I don’t think most Iowans appreciate it. I did a number of campain calls this election season and over and over I heard “Oh I’m not going to caucus; it’s too much trouble.” If it is too much trouble, maybe the money and exposure should go to somewhere else.

I would propose a new system of determining who gets to go first. Let the state who gets the biggest voter turnout in the prior general election be the first the next time. Since it would be percentage of voter turnout, small states would still have an equal chance to compete, and Iowa could still be first–if Iowans really want it.

]]>