What the Iowa caucuses really told us

The 2008 Iowa caucuses had the obvious effect of propelling Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee off to a quick start towards each party's candidacy, but the less obvious, more disturbing ramification lay in the decisions by presidential hopefuls Joe Biden and Chris Dodd to drop out of the race altogether. That's the reality of economics in politics. Mind you, only 236,000 democrats cast a vote out of a state of roughly 3 million, which, by the way, set a new all time high. 116,000 republicans voted, meaning only 352,000 residents voted statewide. That's too few of votes having too big an impact.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17831592&ft=1&f=1001

We are stronger as a society when we have greater options to choose from, in especial regards to politics. Greater minds bring varied views. That's why the current system is so detrimental to our well being. By allowing campaigns and campaign financing to exploit the free market, as with the rest of society, those with the most cash fair the best, but by far are no means the best. We're allowing economic might to determine our leaders, the very reason the system is so corrupt. Hillary Clinton could have afforded a few more losses outside of New Hampshire had she not won. Dodd and Biden could not. That's not reason enough to be excluded from the race, but with such poor showings, it was far too expensive for the two to continue to burn cash in light of such gloomy outlooks. The problem is 236,000 Iowans represent such a small percentage of the U.S population and it would stand to reason had another state Biden or Dodd fared better in led off in the primaries, either could have continued in the race with a better showing, or even garnered momentum by winning as Obama did in Iowa. Why not look at the entire situation in a whole new light?

Throw the current system into the trash and start afresh. Set a spending limit restriction on each candidates' overall campaign. Outlaw third party endorsement propaganda and forcibly keep the advertised campaigning to actual candidates. Most importantly, use television for the tool it can be. This is what C-SPAN is for. Televise numerous debates including all the candidates running, (there would have to be a public support cutoff as in a petition, but such logistics can be hashed out) and hold round table discussions grilling the candidates to actually answer real questions that matter, instead of allowing political speak. Let the candidates bark it out and actually act like one would expect a president to act when met with confrontation, no holds barred. This would serve our society well, judging candidates by their ability to tackle issues instead of judging their ability to avoid controversy. There is no reason that 236,00 voters should have such a large impact on such a large society. That's reason enough to seek real change.