Voter suppression, Iowa style

Here’s a safe prediction for 2020. The Iowa Democratic caucuses will dominate the news at the end of January and beginning of February. My conservative cousin formerly from New York sees the caucuses as a “glaring example of voter suppression totally ignored by the mainstream media because it provides a boost to left wing Democrats.” He writes:

The winner of the Iowa caucus has become the Democratic nominee in every 21st century election. Yet, turnout is sparse; only 15.7% of registered Democrats showed up for the 2016 caucus and not many more are expected this year. It is easy to understand why.

To participate, voters must drive to a caucus site at night and spend several hours listening to discussions of candidates’ merits. There are no secret ballots, your friends and neighbors know how you voted.

Many who worked evenings can’t participate. Parents of young children are unlikely to show up; especially single moms who can’t afford babysitters. Ditto for farmers and many factory hands whose days start before sunrise. The result is an electorate filled with college professors, college students, union officials and party activists.

Progressive leaders like Eric Holder and Stacey Abrams speak loudly with spurious claims of suppression when electoral rolls are updated or early voting periods are shortened. They are silent about the undemocratic nature of the Iowa caucus system. That’s probably because they like the way this arrangement helps candidates they favor win.

That sums it up nicely, I think.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.