Letters to the Editor: Why Iowa, why caucuses, and why never-ending presidential campaigns?

To the editor: In two months I will be 80. I have suffered through a lot of presidential campaigns. (“Trump’s victory in Iowa puts him on track for comeback bid, despite criminal charges,” Jan. 15)

Reading these articles on primaries and campaigns, I have become increasingly frustrated and flummoxed by having to endure two years out of every four dealing with inane, repetitive and often insulting campaigns. Most other countries spend a tiny fraction of the time we do on these contests.

Also, can anyone tell me why we in the United States still have the electoral college, something that might have made sense when the Constitution was written in the late 18th century? It is unfair, makes no sense in 2024 and has caused two nominees since 2000 to lose the election despite winning the most votes.

And, why in the world don’t we just have a one-day national primary? The primary season is wasteful, extraordinarily expensive and grossly unfair.

Finally, who came up with the ridiculous concept of the caucus?

Jerry Lasnik, Thousand Oaks

..

To the editor: It’s helpful to know how many voters actually showed up in Iowa. Roughly 110,000 people went to caucus on Monday, representing about 15% of Iowa Republicans.

With those figures in mind, using Iowa to predict the future is about as valid as using the tea leaves in the bottom of a cup.

First, the total number is so small as to be irrelevant, even in Iowa, much less in the entire United States.

Second, a valid alternative analysis is that 85% of Republicans were so disgusted with their options, they saw no reason to participate. Or, perhaps they didn’t bother because they’ve read too many media reports about how former President Trump already has the GOP nomination locked up — at least until he’s possibly locked up.

Stephanie Scher, Los Angeles