A New Political Buzzword Gets Invented in a High School Online Newspaper
(Part I of IV)
Author’s note: While sitting with the lights out and the volume low in front of a glowing 37” television at 4 am in the morning, I watched appalled with the rest of the international community at the Iowa caucuses. I was shocked not because of the outcome, but rather at the methodology employed by the unrivaled greatest democracy in the world to arrive at a result. That night, I decided I could at least do one thing. I could write about what no other wannabe journalist else seemed to notice. That is the inspiration for this paper, and that is what I intend to do.
Additionally, while I cannot and would not put my own opinion on who should be the next president of the United States in this article (or probably any), I would like to highlight that it is possible that the potentially flawed caucus/primary system for nominating a president may not be the only crisis currently facing the United States. When one considers the behavior, the resume, and the history of the candidates the United States has running for the presidency today, it may make some wonder, is this the very best we’ve got? The above banner artwork was created as a caricature that would let the reader consider all three of those things—candidate behavior, resume, and history—at once without ever having to read one word about them. No insult was intended, nor any disrespect for the highest office of the land. Choose well America.
What are Crimaries? It’s an undiscovered vocabulary word not yet found in books anywhere. Maybe it will also one day be a media buzzword meant to better define the political process by which a two party political system attempts to steal a democratically-elected presidency from its people. This buzzword is efficient. As opposed to having to say ‘caucuses’ and ‘primaries’ that are the milestones on the pathway to being nominated for the U.S. presidency, one can simply say ‘Crimaries’ and at once also reference the crime of stealing elections that our two party political system has been doing since George Washington, the first president of the United States, left office. But before a word can take root in the lexicon of a republic that basically condemns its own search for leaders promising a more perfect union, one must prove that Crimaries are an accurate description. Thus, for the brave, commences this nosedive.
What is a caucus?
https://youtu.be/tQBtht_-vAQ
Merriam-Webster, a dictionary, defines the word caucus to be “a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy; also: a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause.” In layman terms, it means a group of people get together and decide to move in a particular direction.
In reference to U.S. politics, when one says the word ‘caucus’ most Americans think of one of the two types of elections that Democrat and Republican parties set up every four years in the pursuit of their presidential nominee (Factcheck.org). According to Factcheck.org, “Caucuses were once the most common way of choosing presidential nominees. Today, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming and Iowa are the only states to rely solely on the caucus, according to the Federal Election Commission. The territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands use the caucus also.”
But as informative as Factcheck’s definition sounds, it really does not describe the picture of what happens when a political party chooses a ‘caucus’ method for choosing its nominee. Only an explicit step by step detail of the process can paint the picture of its truest definition.
In the interest of painting that picture, a person should try to picture some cornfields at dusk, and that he is driving into a parking lot in the middle of Somewhere, Iowa. The setting before you is a high school gym, the time is 6:00 pm, and the weather is brisk. You, like so many of your neighbors, are congregating at the same place you met four years ago, and four years before that, and so on.
The reason you have chosen to meet your neighbors at this place is that someone else chose it for you. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a very small group of mostly men (and occasionally women) who act as their respective party’s county leadership get together and organize access to this critical vote. They choose who gets to vote in the caucus based on set criteria, how those voters will be ‘registered’ need to be registered with the party (if at all) to be eligible to vote, when the caucus will take place, and where. As an example, in the state of Minnesota, one need not be registered to vote. Rather, one need only have a neighbor vouch for someone that the person in question is indeed a resident of Minnesota living in his neighborhood, eligible to vote, and in his precinct. This only is necessary should someone be so ‘un-neighborly’ as to question someone else’s Minnesotan authenticity. As evidence, the published information online provided by the Minnesota Republican party states clearly that, “The criteria for attending a caucus is similar to voting in the general election: 1) You must be at least 18 years old and eligible to vote in the November general election; 2) You live in the precinct; 3) Your views are generally aligned with the political party whose caucus you’re attending (http://www.winthrop.com/Portals/0/PDF/Top%205%20Things%20to%20Know%20about%20the%20MN%20Caucus.pdf).”
The assumption in the caucus set-up calculus that sets the tables in motion is that men will always act in the best interest of other men. Therefore, giving a handful of people in leadership positions this much power to organize a caucus is thought to be a legitimate way to choose a president. After all, ‘the people’ still get to vote even if everything else is done for them.
Additionally, every caucus state has a different system, as if to say separate but equal caucus procedures somehow guarantee the same voting opportunity across state lines. Some states require people to ‘register’ to vote as a Republican or Democrat. Others will have people register at the door for identification purposes only and allow independents access to their primary. One interesting allowance was made this year in Iowa. As reported by Vox.com, “(This) year, for the first time, both parties are letting out-of-state members of the military participate by web, and Democrats are making some allowances for other Iowans who might have trouble showing up.”
The variances are too numerous to list. But suffice it to say here that, in the opinion of this author, one could make an argument that the differences in voting customs are infinite.
Promptly at ‘showtime,’ precinct captains are seated with their neighbors at assigned tables. On the center of each table is a placard-tent with scribbled handwriting identifying who should be seated there (politico.com). Vox.com at least caught this portion of the Iowa caucus succinctly. According to them, “The caucuses are administered separately by each major party, and Republicans and Democrats have quite different rules. This year, the GOP contest is simple: After some opening rigmarole at their caucus sites, an ordinary secret ballot vote on presidential candidates will be conducted, and the totals will be tallied statewide (Vox.com).”
The meat of the meeting begins shortly after the ‘establishment,’ those people who are highly entrenched with the local party leadership, finishes announcements. Speakers in favor of one candidate or another, and sometimes not in favor of one candidate in particular, are invited to speak for a specified maximum amount of time. Then, the real fights for favorite candidates begin (Iowacaucus.biz).
Fighting, that is, with words.
A caucus system does have one aspect that can’t really be seen as anything outside of supportive of a real democracy. Neighbors who show up (and let’s be clear here that there are plenty who choose not to do so—as an example, only 20% of eligible caucus goers showed up in Iowa this year (Vox.com)) are forced to really discuss what kind of leadership they believe would be best for the country before any voting takes place. But unfortunately, outside of this one silver lining, it’s a bit all downhill in a not so good way at every aspect.
The 2016 Iowa caucus highlighted internationally the severe inadequacies of a caucus system in terms of limiting voter fraud, the potential for bullying other voters as it is not really a secret ballot, and more. Stunningly, popcorn buckets were used to gather what appeared to be un-numbered ballots. Votes were scattered about tables haphazardly in an unsecured environment as they were counted, and more (CNN). More on the 2016 Iowa caucus is discussed later on in this paper.
However, for the sake of argument here, these shortfalls were all broadcast unquestioned for all to see by the local and national media. At the time this report was written, not one online report could be found by this author questioning the possibility that people cheated during the voting process despite the numerous opportunities for it to happen.
And, sadly, that kind of unwillingness to question the system is the pen that draws the big ‘C’ on the concept of ‘Crimary’ to start with. It is fitting that the big ‘C’ starts this newly minted buzzword, as it is the beginning of how a candidate can easily steal an election by utilizing star-struck party leadership at the local level as pawns in a highly lucrative pay-day game. The remaining portion of the word, ‘rimary,’ demonstrates meaning all on its own.
Next month: What is a Primary?
Sources:
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
"Caucus vs. Primary." FactCheckorg. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
"Iowa Caucus." Iowa Caucus. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
"27 Photos from the Nevada Caucuses That Will Make You Feel like You Were There." POLITICO. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
"Why the Iowa Caucuses Have Such a Massive Impact on the Presidential Race." Vox. N.p., 01 Feb. 2016. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
The Caucus System Is A Political Process Put On By The Major Political Parties In Minnesota. At The Caucus, Party Activists Endorse, Candidates And Discuss Issues Important To That Political Party. Caucus Results In Minnesota Help Determine Which Issues Are The, Most Important To The Party And Which Candidate The Parties Will Nominate For President Or Another Elected Office., and Caucuses Differ From Primaries In That They Are Arranged By The Political Party (In Minnesota, Either Democratic-Farmer-Labor. "Top 5 Things to Know About the Minnesota Caucuses." TOP 5 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE CAUCUSES IN MINNESOTA (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
http://www.iowacaucus.biz/ia_caucus_howitworks.html
http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/02/nevada-gop-caucus-2016-photos-002207?slide=0
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/25/10817088/iowa-caucus-2016-poll-trump-sanders
CNN News coverage
Fox News coverage
Image credits:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/25/10817088/iowa-caucus-2016-poll-trump-sanders
Donald Trump: https://www.google.com/search?q=Donald+Trump+image&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=mviNm0r25RO5hM%253A%253Bu5KvH8wffqinOM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.businessinsider.com%25252Fnbc-donald-trump-2015-6&source=iu&pf=m&fir=mviNm0r25RO5hM%253A%252Cu5KvH8wffqinOM%252C_&usg=__xU82ww3ex7hxX8Ft_TZBn6Z0is0%3D&biw=1680&bih=925&ved=0ahUKEwiA3oXstJPLAhUD1hQKHfevAUkQyjcIMg&ei=PzbPVsDCGoOsU_ffhsgE#imgrc=mviNm0r25RO5hM%3A
Marco Rubio: http://www.frumforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Rubio-1024x703.jpg
Ted Cruz: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2015/07/AP_473596995531/lead_960.jpg?1437760759
John Kasich: http://www.post-gazette.com/image/2015/07/21/ca0,0,5550,3700/KASICH0722c-7.JPG
Ben Carson: http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/09/19/it-s-time-to-pull-the-plug-on-dr-ben-carson-s-campaign/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48087751.cached.jpg
Hillary Clinton: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02831/Clinton1web_2831249b.jpg
Bernie Sanders: http://media.washtimes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/image/2015/04/29/APTOPIX_DEM_2016_Sanders.JPEG-04b1d.jpg
