Governor Ted Strickland Pans Iowa Caucus

Governor Ted Strickland told the Columbus Dispatch that he thought the caucus procedure used by Iowa wasn't fair because people who were old, or ill, or who work at night wouldn't necessarily be able to take part. We are glad that Strickland spoke out against the Iowa caucus system. For some reason the media fawns over Iowa and New Hampshire and try mightly to convince the rest of us that a system that will produce less votes than Cuyahoga county has in a presidential primary is a good system. Frankly we just don't buy it.

Neither state has a large minority population, either of Afro-Americans or Hispanic voters. Frankly the absence of such voters means that candidates who manage to win those two contests aren't going to necessarily do well in the general election. Further, New Hampshire allows independents to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, which means that the Democratic winner doesn't necessarily represent the majority of registered New Hampshire Democrats.

In the past, winners of the New Hampshire primary have included John Kerry, who lost the general election; Michael Dukasis, who lost the general election; and Paul Tsongas, who didn't even get to the general election. The last Democratic president came in second in New Hampshire, but went on to win two elections, becoming the first Democrat since FDR to win two consecutive elections for president, and only the third Democrat since the Civil War to do so.

Strickland is right: Get rid of the Iowa caucus and while we are at it, throw out the New Hampshire primary, or, at least, stop penalizing larger states that jump in front of these two states.