A Centrist Agenda »
By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:
(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.
(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.
(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.
(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.
(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:
(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.
(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.
(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.
(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.
(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.
(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.
(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.
Disclaimer:
--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.
--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.
--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.
--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.
Read and Post at your own risk.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Greetings from Iowa.
(No need for modifiers that add nothing of value.)
Are they greedy? Yes.
No. The states have power and influence relative to their population. (That’s why we have a Senate as well as a House of Representatives, with equal apportionment in the Senate, to counter-balance the advantage normally held by the large states.)
Yes. There is nothing, repeat, nothing sacred about Iowa and New Hampshire going first. There is no reason anyone has to accept a state law defining what it does in terms of what other states are doing.
White: Race or ethnicity (or sex, a.k.a. “gender”) or any other such criterion should play no role whatsoever. In a nation civic, legal, and political equality, in fact that is (reverse) discrimination.
Rural: Yes. Practically all farmable land is intensively farmed, and this state is a constellation of small towns, totally different from the modern major metro area with suburbs (where most voters are, and which effectively define the modern USA).
(Look here — cities and towns are red; most towns are too small to even be seen.)
IOWA DOT map (many, many towns — click to enlarge)
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
BANG! goes the 2008 campaign starting gun here.
Before I leave — I have encountered plenty of criticism of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation role, but not one defense so far of its role.
“This paper provides an investigation of the role of momentum and social learning in sequential voting systems. In the econometric model, voters are uncertain over candidate quality, and voters in late states attempt to infer the information held by those in early states from voting returns. Candidates experience momentum effects when their performance in early states exceeds expectations. The empirical application focuses on the responses of daily polling data to the release of voting returns in the 2004 presidential primary. We find that Kerry benefited from surprising wins in early states and took votes away from Dean, who held a strong lead prior to the beginning of the primary season. The voting weights implied by the estimated model demonstrate that early voters have up to 20 times the influence of late voters in the selection of candidates, demonstrating a significant departure from the ideal of “one person, one vote.” We then address several alternative, non-learning explanations for our results. Finally, we run simulations under different electoral structures and find that a simultaneous election would have been more competitive due to the absence of herding and that alternative sequential structures would have yielded different outcomes.”
– Knight & Schiff, Momentum and Social Learning in Presidential Primaries
“Iowa should have a chance to lead the nation as one of the first states in which voters register their choices for president . . . every 16 years or so. Not every four.”
“Iowa is terribly unrepresentative of the rest of America. It has only about 2.9 million people, barely a decent-sized large city, and it is largely rural, whereas most Americans live in the equivalent of New Jersey.”
“Farewell, Iowa – with your flat frozen land, ethanol subsidies[,] and cosy neighbourly values.”
“some U.S. editorials said the midwestern state was too unrepresentative and voter turnout too small to merit such an outsized role in the U.S. presidential election process”
“That’s why the first-in-the-nation primary elections should rotate. Pick some formula in which two different states get picked every four years. You could have rules accounting for geographic diversity - back-to-back events in North and South Carolina, for example, would be silly. But move it around so that the country isn’t held hostage by the same left-wing and right-wing populists every four years.
But we’d better act now. Because by next week, the Iowans start taking hostages again.”
“80 per cent of respondents call for a system in which states take turns in holding their primaries and caucuses first, while 18 per cent are content with having Iowa and New Hampshire always come first.”
“If Iowa loses its first-in-the-nation status, we won’t miss the nightly phone calls from candidates. But we will miss this unique opportunity to help shape the national political race. It could be the last time Iowans have such a voice. If you want to have a say in party politics, this is your chance to be heard.”