?
California has 38 million people, they cannot talk to each other and choose candidates. Hawaii only became a state in 1960 so has not the long out-dated practice in Iowa from the 19th century.
Because the national committees of two parties determine how things should work, they wont change this wasteful antiquated approach to deciding on candidates by discussion and bribes.
Candidates have to exert so much time and energy into one or two states, they cant do that in 50 states, so it makes Iowa too important and it is an insignificant place and shouldnt be so important that the outcome determines who the 3 candidates will be.
davidmi711
Each state determines how the primary process works in that state. Many states have caucuses, others have elections. Iowa is the first caucus so many see that as an indicator of things to come.
scott b
Because some states have primaries, and some have Caucuses. There are differences. For instance in a primary election, the electors are required to vote for whoever wins the primary. In a Caucus state, they aren't.
tonalc2
Here's a good explanation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/
And re the "stifle democracy" comment, in states with a caucus, the parties have MORE control than in states with a primary (which is run by the government).
?
Don't worry-
The Dems stifle Hawaii just like a REAL CAUCUS!
NO ALOHA SHIRTS! stand HERE! no SIGNS! NO moving you hands like the shaka!
There no such thing as grass roots.
and democracy is mathematically eliminated in California the same way, too.