5 ms·

> Politics should act to ban some classes of insecticides. My fear (in the US anyway) is that this will never happen because of one simple reason: Iowa Corn Fa

> Politics should act to ban some classes of insecticides. My fear (in the US anyway) is that this will never happen because of one simple reason: Iowa Corn Farmers. Presidential elections in the US start and end for many candidates in one state. Iowa. That's where the first primary election is held. And the key to winning Iowa is the make the corn lobby and corn farmers happy.

njarboe 4y ago
The Democrats have voted to change the first primaries (I know Iowa has a caucus) to North Carolina. That should change things a bit.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  *South Carolina.
- giantg2 4y ago
  What they (and others) should be doing is looking at nationwide same day primaries to remove the bias, not just shift it around.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    Fucking thank you. I can’t believe the DNC lets their absurd primary rules stand year after year. Superdelegates are still a thing too, even after the Hillary/Bernie debacle. Tuck that one away in your memory because it’ll become relevant again 25 years down the road, even though everyone thought they were abolished after 2016.
    - cycrutchfield 4y ago
      What debacle? The more popular candidate won
      - NLPaep 4y ago
        A fair vote should be held. Showing one candidate with a massive lead, even if artificial, can influence voters.
      - jimbob45 4y ago
        Yes, I agree Hillary would have won no matter what. That doesn’t mean the DNC primary system wasn’t rigged. It still is. Staggered primaries mean earlier elections influence later elections and superdelegates allow individuals to steal the votes of voters for themselves. This isn’t like the 2020 election conspiracies. DNC primary rules are demonstrably unfair with no benefit other than to allow party elites to override voter choices.
        cycrutchfield 4y ago
        You mean the party is allowed to influence the selection of the candidate that will represent them? And put their thumb on the scales against populist candidates from the fringe with rabidly delusional adherents? One could argue that the GOP primary process would be better off with superdelegates in order to avoid the tendency to nominate fringe weirdos with absurd populist policies.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Perhaps, but we'll never know for sure considering that the DNC leadership manipulated the process to tilt the scales in favor of their preferred candidate.
  - testfoobar 4y ago
    The point of staggered primaries is to ensure that the eventual winner gets the majority of funds for the general election. Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race - leaving the eventual winner with a larger donor base.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race" Not really true. They are only the weaker candidates in those states. You have plenty of attractive candidates in other states drop out before those primaries.
      - testfoobar 4y ago
        You can approach this as a statistical sampling problem. Out of a field N candidates, one will become the representative of the party in the national election. Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests. Each test exacts a financial and political cost on the eventual candidate. To have the most viable candidate in the general election, you want to do the fewest number of tests that give you the final result with high confidence. The staggered system of primaries does just that.
        giantg2 4y ago
        "The staggered system of primaries does just that." It actually causes the devaluation of the votes of later primaries. Due to the difference in concerns of different geographic areas, you would have a shitty sample based on the current line-up. "Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests." If that were the case, you wouldn't even do primaries and you'd just rely on the surveys, which arguably have better sampling (primaries are biases toward the vocal minority due to the low turn outs and not necessarily the overall voter pool).
        testfoobar 4y ago
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    No one wants to remove the bias, they want to shift the bias so they win.
  - MarkSweep 4y ago
    The argument I’ve heard for Iowa being the first state is it somewhat levels the playing field for candidates. Iowa is a small enough state you can drive around it and meet people, without having the budget for a bunch of flights. The media market is also smaller and thus cheaper.
- njarboe 4y ago
  South Carolina - Too late to edit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 4y ago
"Presidential elections in the US start and end for many candidates in one state." Eh, this isn't the biggest issue. If it was, we would have had bills for this that were vetoed. There has to also be support for banning this in the legislature, which depends on many other states.
lasc4r 4y ago
Corn doesn't get much insecticide, herbicide yes.
- myshpa 4y ago
  "The chemical compound glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, can weaken the immune systems of insects ..." https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/ingredient-in-common-weed-killer-impairs-insect-immune-systems-study-suggests https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/ingredient-in-common-weed-... Negative Effects of Common Herbicides on Non-target Invertebrates https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3107&context=etd https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c... Direct and Indirect Effects of Herbicides on Insect Herbivores in Rice, Oryza sativa https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502833/
testfoobar 4y ago
Iowa has been replaced by South Carolina. But New Hampshire law has introduced a race condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_presidential_pri... "New Hampshire state law[6] stipulates that the presidential primary shall be on the second Tuesday in March (the date when town meetings and non-partisan municipal elections are traditionally held), but that the Secretary of State must, if necessary, change the date to ensure that the New Hampshire primary will take place at least seven days before any "similar election" in any other state. The Iowa caucuses are not considered to be a similar election. In recent election cycles, the New Hampshire primary has taken place the week after the Iowa caucus." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-change-order-of-2024-presidential-primary https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-chan... "PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Democratic Party on Saturday approved the reordering of its 2024 presidential primary, replacing Iowa with South Carolina in the leadoff spot as part of a major shake-up meant to empower Black and other minority voters critical to its base of support."
- calgarymicro 4y ago
  Only by the Democrats. Iowa is still first in the nation for Republicans, and most of those Iowa corn farmers are voting for them anyway.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    Today's Republicans were never going to vote for anyone that will allow the EPA to do anything anyway.
myshpa 4y ago
A third of that corn is used for animal agriculture as feed, a third for production of ethanol (environmentally worse than gas anyway), and just one third is for human consumption [0]. We could easily eliminate 2/3 of that crop (by switching to electric and plant based) and 2/3 of associated pesticides/herbicides as well. [0] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/07/29/corn-americas-largest-crop-2019 https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/07/29/corn-americas-lar...
- kuhewa 4y ago
  Not so easy considering it requires decimatàtion of corn belt state GDP
  - myshpa 4y ago
    We could always grow different crops and practices. Just because we subsidize bad things now (meat, dairy, corn ethanol), doesn't mean it's wise to do so in perpetuity.
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      I'm not arguing status quo is wise, but it's folly to pretend that upending the economic mainstay of that whole region would be done "easily". Similarly, replacing corn with a crop that is profitable (without subsidies), suited to the region, and also doesn't require pesticides that affect insects would not be easy.
      - myshpa 4y ago
        > upending the economic mainstay of that whole region would be done "easily" Change the incentives (remove animal subsidies), and the problem will solve itself. There is a big demand for plant based protein now ... we know how to grow peas, beans, lentils ... however it's not profitable to do so now because we continue to subsidize animal agriculture (one of the most harmful things we can do to the environment) with obscene amount of money. That's the main reason plant-based cheeses cost 3x more than cow-milk-based, although it should be other way around. > crop that is profitable (without subsidies), suited to the region, and also doesn't require pesticides that affect insects would not be easy Easy is not the important part. Easy led us to the hell (or purgatory), where we currently are. Those problems you're writing about can be solved with biodiversity. Let's imagine smaller fields, with different crops, interplanted with trees and shrubs to enable a lot of life [0], and you won't have problems with mice or bugs, because diversity will take care of any infestations. If you're interested how to farm economically without pesticides/herbicides, may I suggest movie The Biggest Little Farm (2018), where the role of biodiversity is nicely illustrated. [0] https://fotobanka.chrudimskenoviny.cz/sites/default/files/imagecache/big/a3.jpg https://fotobanka.chrudimskenoviny.cz/sites/default/files/im... [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/

njarboe 4y ago

The Democrats have voted to change the first primaries (I know Iowa has a caucus) to North Carolina. That should change things a bit.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
*South Carolina.
giantg2 4y ago
What they (and others) should be doing is looking at nationwide same day primaries to remove the bias, not just shift it around.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Fucking thank you. I can’t believe the DNC lets their absurd primary rules stand year after year. Superdelegates are still a thing too, even after the Hillary/Bernie debacle. Tuck that one away in your memory because it’ll become relevant again 25 years down the road, even though everyone thought they were abolished after 2016.
  - cycrutchfield 4y ago
    What debacle? The more popular candidate won
    - NLPaep 4y ago
      A fair vote should be held. Showing one candidate with a massive lead, even if artificial, can influence voters.
    - jimbob45 4y ago
      Yes, I agree Hillary would have won no matter what. That doesn’t mean the DNC primary system wasn’t rigged. It still is. Staggered primaries mean earlier elections influence later elections and superdelegates allow individuals to steal the votes of voters for themselves. This isn’t like the 2020 election conspiracies. DNC primary rules are demonstrably unfair with no benefit other than to allow party elites to override voter choices.
      - cycrutchfield 4y ago
        You mean the party is allowed to influence the selection of the candidate that will represent them? And put their thumb on the scales against populist candidates from the fringe with rabidly delusional adherents? One could argue that the GOP primary process would be better off with superdelegates in order to avoid the tendency to nominate fringe weirdos with absurd populist policies.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Perhaps, but we'll never know for sure considering that the DNC leadership manipulated the process to tilt the scales in favor of their preferred candidate.
- testfoobar 4y ago
  The point of staggered primaries is to ensure that the eventual winner gets the majority of funds for the general election. Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race - leaving the eventual winner with a larger donor base.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Weaker candidates are identified early and fall out of the race" Not really true. They are only the weaker candidates in those states. You have plenty of attractive candidates in other states drop out before those primaries.
    - testfoobar 4y ago
      You can approach this as a statistical sampling problem. Out of a field N candidates, one will become the representative of the party in the national election. Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests. Each test exacts a financial and political cost on the eventual candidate. To have the most viable candidate in the general election, you want to do the fewest number of tests that give you the final result with high confidence. The staggered system of primaries does just that.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        "The staggered system of primaries does just that." It actually causes the devaluation of the votes of later primaries. Due to the difference in concerns of different geographic areas, you would have a shitty sample based on the current line-up. "Your optimization challenge is to identify the winner with high confidence while conducting the fewest number of tests." If that were the case, you wouldn't even do primaries and you'd just rely on the surveys, which arguably have better sampling (primaries are biases toward the vocal minority due to the low turn outs and not necessarily the overall voter pool).
        testfoobar 4y ago
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  No one wants to remove the bias, they want to shift the bias so they win.
- MarkSweep 4y ago
  The argument I’ve heard for Iowa being the first state is it somewhat levels the playing field for candidates. Iowa is a small enough state you can drive around it and meet people, without having the budget for a bunch of flights. The media market is also smaller and thus cheaper.
njarboe 4y ago
South Carolina - Too late to edit.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

giantg2 4y ago

"Presidential elections in the US start and end for many candidates in one state." Eh, this isn't the biggest issue. If it was, we would have had bills for this that were vetoed. There has to also be support for banning this in the legislature, which depends on many other states.

lasc4r 4y ago

Corn doesn't get much insecticide, herbicide yes.

myshpa 4y ago
"The chemical compound glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, can weaken the immune systems of insects ..." https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/ingredient-in-common-weed-killer-impairs-insect-immune-systems-study-suggests https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/ingredient-in-common-weed-... Negative Effects of Common Herbicides on Non-target Invertebrates https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3107&context=etd https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c... Direct and Indirect Effects of Herbicides on Insect Herbivores in Rice, Oryza sativa https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502833/

testfoobar 4y ago

Iowa has been replaced by South Carolina. But New Hampshire law has introduced a race condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_presidential_pri... "New Hampshire state law[6] stipulates that the presidential primary shall be on the second Tuesday in March (the date when town meetings and non-partisan municipal elections are traditionally held), but that the Secretary of State must, if necessary, change the date to ensure that the New Hampshire primary will take place at least seven days before any "similar election" in any other state. The Iowa caucuses are not considered to be a similar election. In recent election cycles, the New Hampshire primary has taken place the week after the Iowa caucus." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-change-order-of-2024-presidential-primary https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-chan... "PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Democratic Party on Saturday approved the reordering of its 2024 presidential primary, replacing Iowa with South Carolina in the leadoff spot as part of a major shake-up meant to empower Black and other minority voters critical to its base of support."

calgarymicro 4y ago
Only by the Democrats. Iowa is still first in the nation for Republicans, and most of those Iowa corn farmers are voting for them anyway.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Today's Republicans were never going to vote for anyone that will allow the EPA to do anything anyway.

myshpa 4y ago

A third of that corn is used for animal agriculture as feed, a third for production of ethanol (environmentally worse than gas anyway), and just one third is for human consumption [0]. We could easily eliminate 2/3 of that crop (by switching to electric and plant based) and 2/3 of associated pesticides/herbicides as well. [0] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/07/29/corn-americas-largest-crop-2019 https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/07/29/corn-americas-lar...

kuhewa 4y ago
Not so easy considering it requires decimatàtion of corn belt state GDP
- myshpa 4y ago
  We could always grow different crops and practices. Just because we subsidize bad things now (meat, dairy, corn ethanol), doesn't mean it's wise to do so in perpetuity.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    I'm not arguing status quo is wise, but it's folly to pretend that upending the economic mainstay of that whole region would be done "easily". Similarly, replacing corn with a crop that is profitable (without subsidies), suited to the region, and also doesn't require pesticides that affect insects would not be easy.
    - myshpa 4y ago
      > upending the economic mainstay of that whole region would be done "easily" Change the incentives (remove animal subsidies), and the problem will solve itself. There is a big demand for plant based protein now ... we know how to grow peas, beans, lentils ... however it's not profitable to do so now because we continue to subsidize animal agriculture (one of the most harmful things we can do to the environment) with obscene amount of money. That's the main reason plant-based cheeses cost 3x more than cow-milk-based, although it should be other way around. > crop that is profitable (without subsidies), suited to the region, and also doesn't require pesticides that affect insects would not be easy Easy is not the important part. Easy led us to the hell (or purgatory), where we currently are. Those problems you're writing about can be solved with biodiversity. Let's imagine smaller fields, with different crops, interplanted with trees and shrubs to enable a lot of life [0], and you won't have problems with mice or bugs, because diversity will take care of any infestations. If you're interested how to farm economically without pesticides/herbicides, may I suggest movie The Biggest Little Farm (2018), where the role of biodiversity is nicely illustrated. [0] https://fotobanka.chrudimskenoviny.cz/sites/default/files/imagecache/big/a3.jpg https://fotobanka.chrudimskenoviny.cz/sites/default/files/im... [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/