The Instigator
stumartin
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Leonitus_Trujillo
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,302 times Debate No: 1156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

stumartin

Pro

I live in the most populous state in the union, and my vote is much less important then some small town farm boy in Iowa. Thats not fair.

We should have a national primary, to allow my voice to be just as important in picking my nominee as someone in a diner when its 10 degrees outside and snowing.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

So your saying you live in California correct? ok.

Well we are all Americans we believe in one head one vote, So I don't think it's fair that you say your vote is more important than that of another person.

Now one person one vote would translate into a national primary election, but thats impractical. The candidates would have to be all over the nation. Travel cost would be huge and for candidates who lack the budget their message can't get across. Indeed a national Primary election would see the richer candidates with huge leverage and that would discourage little known or poorly funded candidates. Not just becuase of travel cost but also they would have to run national advertisement which is a huge dent in ones campaign budget. Indeed its taking a grassroots campaign and shattering it.

So what we do is follow the same pattern we do when electing our president, we make it a state function with the exception that the primaries take place at different times. This is becuase the Primaries are a function of the state government and the state party headquarters, not a function of the Federal government. Remember we are talking about parties who's organization is wholly outside the federal government- you will not find the mentioning of a political party in the constitution.

Because its a function of the state government and state party headquarter they try and decide whats best for the party. And having a progressive campaign that starts somewhere and ends somewhere else is the most economical in spreading the message of the candidates.

So if you were going to start somewhere and end somewhere , what would be your starting point?

Well thats how we get to the fact that Iowa holds the first caucus, because technically New Hampshire holds the first Primary- the difference is just the selection process.

Iowa is the starting point becuase its a small state, by allowing candidates to focus there , it gives voters a really good chance of having a one on one encounter with the candidates. This is good because its give more democratic opportunity for the election. Candidates with little money have almost the same opportunity with candidates that have a huge campaign budget. This allows for that grass-roots campaign that can really take off. And the more supporters the get the more publicity they get.

People do not want to vote for a candidate that they don't think has a chance of winning, thats called candidate viability. And if you wouldn't vote for a person because he's not viable you certainly wouldn't give him your money. But by making the small state of Iowa (and New Hampshire) the center of attention, we really give those unknown candidates a better chance to take on the bigger guys. If they have a good message, and their campaign begins to take off, their voter viability will go up, that means more money as people donate to their campaign. With money and a good viability they can leave Iowa with good field position to tackle on the other states.

By having Iowa first the election becomes more fair, richer and more known candidates are pushed to be on the same level as unknown candidates. Which makes the election about your message and your ideals not the amount of money in the bank.

Mike Huckabee is the best example of this. Before Iowa is not over and already he is in a great position to take on other primaries across the nation. Yet before he was not even known by more than a few percent of the population (outside the Arkansas-Alabama-Louisiana region), much less had much backing. But he was able to leverage that face-to -face campaign, really leverage the equal opportunity campaigning and now he's not only first in Iowa, but becuase his voter viability went up he is first or second in almost every national poll and the caucus hasn't even taken place. If he can win the caucus he will set the tone for other states. And as for other candidates, some are wishing to just pull third in Iowa because that gives voters in other states the confirmation that he has a shot to win this thing if you rally behind him.
Debate Round No. 1
stumartin

Pro

stumartin forfeited this round.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Ironically today is the day of the Iowa Caucus. GO MIKE HUCKABEE!!! SUPPORT THE HUCKABOOM www.mikehuckabee.com
Debate Round No. 2
stumartin

Pro

If we had a more controlled political campaign in our country, it would not take $100 million + to be a President.

Iowa is not diverse, and also very "inwartd thinking" according to sqharawa below in the comments section. Thats not a represnetation of the majority of this country. 60+% of Iowa cacus-goers were white evangelivcals. 60%. Thats not represneting of our contry at whole.

Huckabee has his party. We'll see how the upcoming states go for him.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Thats why there are states in this country. Because a person in New York can never represent me in South Florida. We can't look to a state to represent the entire country we will never find that. Instead we need to focus on the logistics of the campaign, what will give more options to the candidate which translates into more options for the people. An Iowa first approach means a face to face approach and when your campaign is chronically running on low you need to count on that.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gack1224 9 years ago
gack1224
Ron Paul. 25 characters in length.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
Huckabee or McCain
I can't decide
Posted by gack1224 9 years ago
gack1224
Get over it. You all get your primaries and caucuses later. In fact, the states that are more populous are given considerable attention because they are somewhat of a litmus test for presidential electability. Furthermore, Iowa does in fact have some urban space and while it may lean right-wing, there are Democrats in the state (i.e. the Governor). While it may have a small minority group(s) it is balanced out by it's opposite of New Hampshire. It's prized because it provides momentum. So what. You all get your chance later.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Ironically today is the day of the Iowa Caucus. GO MIKE HUCKABEE!!! SUPPORT THE HUCKABOOM www.mikehuckabee.com
Posted by sqharawa 9 years ago
sqharawa
I go to college in Iowa and it seems quite odd to me that such a homogenous state is as politically powerful as it is. In my experience, Iowans are not exactly what one would denote as "wordly." It is a very inward-thinking place. Furthermore, with less than a 9% minority population, and virtually no urban space, is Iowa even an accurate representation of the US as a whole? I think not.
Posted by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
I would've taken this debate if he hadn't beat me to it.

But the only people who would be able to fund a national primary campaign are millionaires who pay for it themselves. Nobody could raise enough money on their own without the united support of their full party.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
stumartinLeonitus_TrujilloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
stumartinLeonitus_TrujilloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
stumartinLeonitus_TrujilloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by stumartin 9 years ago
stumartin
stumartinLeonitus_TrujilloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
stumartinLeonitus_TrujilloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
stumartinLeonitus_TrujilloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03