This is a collection of thoughts as we go forward through the primary.
For those who’d still like more information, this piece dug deeper than what I’ve seen elsewhere:
The Democratic caucuses in Iowa on Monday were so close that more than a dozen delegates were awarded based on coin flips.
How many is not exactly clear—the state party doesn’t track all the games of chance that occur as part of the complex process for divvying up delegates at hundreds of caucus sites across the state. But despite initial reports that Hillary Clinton had improbably run the table, it appears that Bernie Sanders won a sizable share of coin tosses as well, according to information provided on Tuesday by the state Democratic Party.
The system ain’t perfect by any means. Having the first primary contest in a state which a) lacks substantial diversity and b) offers no accommodation to participate for those who cannot be physically present due to job shifts scheduled at the appointed time or other challenges to attend (due to such things as transportation, health challenges, or child care) is unsatisfying with respect to accessibility to the paramount right/responsibility in a democracy.
Until now, however, it’s the system we’ve got, and whatever its limitations, it has assisted us in a peaceful process for regime change (or at least the absence of civil war), however imperfectly (please do not mistake this as an endorsement, merely an acknowledgment that it could have been worse).
...more from The Atlantic
The early reports out of caucus sites gave a different impression. The Des Moines Register collected reports from six different precincts that resorted to coin flips—and Clinton won all of them. But Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, said that Sanders fared better in the games of chance that were reported through the party’s official mobile app. He won six of those seven coin flips—a fact that underlines how incomplete the available data remains, and the likelihood that a full accounting of all the coin flips on Monday night would yield a more even result than initial reports suggested.
What I appreciate about Iowa, however, I suspect cannot be easily replicated in any other state as it grown to be what it is through being a long-standing tradition in the state. I really love that Iowans take getting to know the candidates VERY seriously and they act as if they experience democracy as something very personal to them. Or at least some number of them do, and access to experience the candidates up close and personal is not entirely based on whether someone has sufficient income to be a major donor. If we replace the system as it is, I hope we can somehow retain some semblance of wide-scale intimate interaction between candidates and voters.
In our search for fairness in other options, we need to be creative in our efforts at inclusivity and accessibility. I believe public funding of elections could go a loooong way in leveling playing fields and creating a system people can believe in.
I’d like to see debates (however they are called) be transmitted by radio (in addition to television) since there are millions of Americans who do not have cable subscriptions and plenty who work nights. I also feel that ANYONE transmitting over any airwaves owes a debt to the country for use of those waves and that making viewership available to as many as possible should be part of their *payment* for use of public property, as it were. They should not balk about this and act as if they have a civic duty they agree to perform. This is not a major request — we all have taxes of one kind or another toward keeping the nation and our democracy healthy.
* * *
I’m interested in paper trails when it comes to elections because I’ve seen a lack of them involved with outcomes which are not trusted. Until technology can better demonstrate it is un-hackable, I want something which can be re-counted in the event of a dispute.
Both factions for the remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination have strong feelings about fairness, although I would say they have differing priorities in how they feel fairness is effectuated.
Let us hold on to our own truths and abstain from efforts to demean or intimidate those with loyalties which differ from our own.
May whomever is nominated succeed at unifying the country to a greater degree than we have at this moment in time. May peace be a priority for the Commander In Chief and our nation.
I do not have a comment about what was found by The Atlantic, it’s just posted here for any who are interested in that discussion.