More on Iowa

Following up on yesterday's rant, I ran across a couple of interesting pieces today.

First, Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal. Writing for George Mason University's History News Network Troy said:

Many fundamental rituals which we now see as sacred are actually political improvisations – and some of them are quite new. Party hacks should remember this lesson as they deprive party members in Michigan, Florida and other states of their democratic rights to select the presidential nominees.

Troy goes on to detail the accidental origins of the early Iowa Caucus, and calls for an end to the "New Hampshire/Iowa Monopoly."

I also came across this Q&A from The Chronicle of Higher Education with Christopher C. Hull, Adjunct Professor of Government at Georgetown University. He writes:

Even if Iowa voters hold relatively extreme beliefs, they tend to vote strategically in the caucuses, and that often means choosing candidates with more moderate views. Remember, the caucuses are dominated by party activists. They’re thinking very strategically.

Interesting, but he fails to answer the question posed to him on whether Iowa's disproportionate importance and influence on presidential elections is a good thing for the US. Whatever the case, I'm still not convinced that it's a good thing.