Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (292013)	2/21/2016 10:02:13 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540803

It continues to baffle me why states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should be deemed by anyone to be somehow "representative" of voters in the US. Why on earth should candidates for the presidency (and their backers) consider the opinion of the relatively few thousand people who live in these states to be somehow definitive as to whether or not they should continue to run? It is bizarre. A totally bizarre system that people appear by their actions to accept, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (But, but, but--I am told that people in Iowa and NH take their responsibility seriously! Hmm, that must be why only about 15% of the voting population shows up at the caucuses, while NH had record turnout at their primary of (wait for it!) over 500,000 people, with about 280k voting in the R primary and about 270k in the D, or about 60% of eligible voters. That's who decides who stays in the race and who doesn't? It is just ridiculous.