Worth reviewing the 2012 Republican party Iowa caucus (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/iowa-second-caucus-debacle-eight-years/ https://www.wa

Worth reviewing the 2012 Republican party Iowa caucus (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/iowa-second-caucus-debacle-eight-years/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/iowa-seco...) "This isn’t the first time in the past decade that the process has failed to produce a timely result, which in turn arguably affected what happened next (which, after all, is what makes Iowa important). In 2012, it was the Republican caucus that was a mess. Back then, Mitt Romney was named the winner of the caucuses by eight votes — a narrow victory, yes, but still a victory for the favorite to be the Republican nominee. Romney went on to win the New Hampshire primary comfortably, apparently winning the often-elusive double in the first two contests — he would have been the first Republican to ever win both Iowa and New Hampshire — and setting him on course to face incumbent President Barack Obama. Except eight days after that New Hampshire win, we found Romney actually finished second in Iowa. The Iowa GOP announced, 16 days after the caucuses, that Rick Santorum had actually finished first — by 34 votes. But even that result was tinged by uncertainty" If you read the article, I'm actually leaving out the worst details (lost votes, misallocated votes, secret votes). The same explanation applies as this one. Caucuses are an overly complicated relic and should be discontinued by all parties. This current embarrassment has recent precedent in the other major party and in that respect is respecting tradition of demonstrating the fundamental, intrinsic ridiculousness of caucuses.