5 ms·

And to make things worse, corn farmers are concentrated in Iowa which was one of the first states in the presidential primary. So they had outsized influence ov

And to make things worse, corn farmers are concentrated in Iowa which was one of the first states in the presidential primary. So they had outsized influence over who gets chosen as president and what campaign promises they have to make in order to get elected.

sidewndr46 3y ago
one of the first? Don't they literally have laws requiring them to have the first presidential primary?
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  First caucus, which is like a primary, but worse.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Who do you mean by “they” here? I believe the parties themselves choose when to have their primaries.
  - sseagull 3y ago
    Yep. And the Democrats are changing the order this year. The plan is South Carolina will be first. 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...
  - justin66 3y ago
    States can choose when their primaries happen by law, and the parties can choose when and where their primaries should happen. Entertaining things happen when they differ. The Democratic party cannot force Iowa and New Hampshire to not have their primary and caucus later in the year, but they can threaten not to count their delegates if they go at the wrong time. The sobering thing is, this is not nearly the dumbest part of the American electoral system.
    - parminya 3y ago
      How is this not a breach of the constitutional protection for the right to freedom of assembly? A caucus, in particular, is literally an assembly. Surely for elections to be free and fair, the private associations who put forth candidates should be able to freely determine who those candidates are.
      - DFHippie 3y ago
        Not counting the delegates isn't preventing the assembly. The constitution doesn't ensure free and fair elections, unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the fact that states can pass laws regarding primaries that are mutually inconsistent. States A and B can both pass laws saying they have to have the first primaries in an election.
        lesuorac 3y ago
        Going a step further, the constitution doesn't require states to have their citizens vote on the delegates to the electoral college. The state (Legislature) could decide that the Electors are actually always for one party's candidate and that no state wide election is necessary. > [1] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1...
        sidewndr46 3y ago
        There was an attempt to do this at some point in Alabama. I can't find it right now but a group made up a bunch of "Who decides your X? The party or the people?" with hammer & sickle logos on it.
        lesuorac 3y ago
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  I think it is New Hampshire with the law, but they may not be alone now. Nevada passed a law of their own as I recall.
rgmerk 3y ago
If you want to see a good (fictional but pretty much on the money) depiction of this, check out the episode “King Corn” from season six of The West Wing. Even then it was blatantly obvious that corn ethanol was all about subsidising corn farmers, but the state’s political importance made it impossible to do anything about.

sidewndr46 3y ago

one of the first? Don't they literally have laws requiring them to have the first presidential primary?

empyrrhicist 3y ago
First caucus, which is like a primary, but worse.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
Who do you mean by “they” here? I believe the parties themselves choose when to have their primaries.
- sseagull 3y ago
  Yep. And the Democrats are changing the order this year. The plan is South Carolina will be first. 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...
- justin66 3y ago
  States can choose when their primaries happen by law, and the parties can choose when and where their primaries should happen. Entertaining things happen when they differ. The Democratic party cannot force Iowa and New Hampshire to not have their primary and caucus later in the year, but they can threaten not to count their delegates if they go at the wrong time. The sobering thing is, this is not nearly the dumbest part of the American electoral system.
  - parminya 3y ago
    How is this not a breach of the constitutional protection for the right to freedom of assembly? A caucus, in particular, is literally an assembly. Surely for elections to be free and fair, the private associations who put forth candidates should be able to freely determine who those candidates are.
    - DFHippie 3y ago
      Not counting the delegates isn't preventing the assembly. The constitution doesn't ensure free and fair elections, unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the fact that states can pass laws regarding primaries that are mutually inconsistent. States A and B can both pass laws saying they have to have the first primaries in an election.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        Going a step further, the constitution doesn't require states to have their citizens vote on the delegates to the electoral college. The state (Legislature) could decide that the Electors are actually always for one party's candidate and that no state wide election is necessary. > [1] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1...
        sidewndr46 3y ago
        There was an attempt to do this at some point in Alabama. I can't find it right now but a group made up a bunch of "Who decides your X? The party or the people?" with hammer & sickle logos on it.
        lesuorac 3y ago
rootusrootus 3y ago
I think it is New Hampshire with the law, but they may not be alone now. Nevada passed a law of their own as I recall.

rgmerk 3y ago

If you want to see a good (fictional but pretty much on the money) depiction of this, check out the episode “King Corn” from season six of The West Wing. Even then it was blatantly obvious that corn ethanol was all about subsidising corn farmers, but the state’s political importance made it impossible to do anything about.