Our View

By:

Shandra Jordan

Colleen Buhrer

Kyle Endres

Jason Kosena

Christopher J. Ortiz

The primary season kicked off Monday as the democratic

candidates fight over the prized Iowa caucus. How backward have we

gotten where a state with less than 3 million – 125,000 are

expected to participate in the caucus – has come into a position to

be an election maker or breaker.

For candidates, winning Iowa offers instant campaign

credibility. Why? There are only 45 delegates – out of 2,162 needed

to win the Democratic ticket – at stake. By the time Colorado gets

its turn to vote, the winner is almost already determined.

We feel this outdated process makes the primary process

dispositional between states with large populations and states with

large influence. The more fair way to run the primaries is to

reduce the time between states voting so that each vote counts.

Iowa is the first to go because instead of running a primary,

the state still uses the old caucus system, which dates back to

1846. Cousin of the New England town-hall meeting, the caucus

requires voters to discuss and debate the candidates for up to

three hours. Each of Iowa’s 1,993 precincts will hold meetings in

libraries, basketball courts and churches to determine who is going

to have the momentum to tackle New Hampshire and the rest of the 48

states.

Iowa hasn’t switched to a primary platform because of the

national spotlight it gets as being the first state to vote.

Candidates spend huge portions of their election treasure chests

trying to win Iowa. Does Colorado get that kind of attention?

Another reason Iowa stays with the caucus is because of the amount

of money that comes in with candidates traveling to every single

county.

Two candidates, Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Gen. Wesley Clark,

have decided to skip Iowa to put their efforts in winning New

Hampshire.

I guess we will have to wait our turn to decide the Democratic

presidential candidate, if there is more than one person running

when our turn comes.