Iowa's political monopoly

On The Nightside Project last night, Ethan put to words the question that I've been kicking around in my mind lately: "Who does Iowa think they are?"

I've heard various appraisals of Iowans lately claiming that they "take their responsibility seriously" to guide America's electoral decision-making. Yesterday the Deseret Morning News posted an article announcing that "Iowans like scrutinizing candidates at length."

So what about the rest of us? We're just disinterested? Apparently the other 49 states only like to wade into the shallow end of the political pool, while Iowa monopolizes the deep end.

I've asked questions similar to Ethan's of a lot of different people lately, but no one can give me a very good explanation of why Iowa is deserving of so much attention every four years. Iowa is a small state (not much larger than Utah - 7 electoral votes to our 5... which should be 6) and is not demographically representative of the rest of the United States. It would seem that another state or states would better serve as a political barometer for the US.

I don't like the maneuvering that allowed Iowa to rise to prominence, and the state's caucus seems far too exclusionary and convoluted to really claim to represent the voters' interests. Nevertheless the Republican and Democratic parties have clearly made their bed in the Hawkeye State and seem to have become so entrenched in the Iowan ground war as to be averse to any change of venue. And so it is that these parties hold the rest of the country, and our political process, hostage in Iowa, waiting for Iowans to tell us all how we should think and vote.

I am not opposed to the type of campaigning that takes place in Iowa - in fact I am envious - but I think the disproportionate amount of time and money spent in that state is a waste, and unfair to the rest of the United States.


PS: This is my first time blogging. I welcome your feedback!