Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Doug Explains the Iowa Caucus

by Douglas Slayton

Editor's Note: this is the first in a new series of articles whereby Uncanny Valley Magazine Professor Editor-in-Chief Douglas Slayton explains important, newsworthy topics. If you would like to read Doug's explanation of a particular topic, please send us an e-mail at uncannyvalleymagazine@gmail.com.

In the run up to the crowning of the new President some of you have walked up to me on the street
and yelled indignantly, "What is Iowa?!" and one even was like, "What is a Caucus?" to which I probably responded by crying or running in the opposite direction, because I thought you said something else. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. In order to make this up to you I will now explain what the Iowa Caucus is.

Firstly, Iowa, contrary to popular belief, is not in fact a state. Iowa is a governing body responsible for transportation and farming regulations. Iowa is actually an acronym, but no one remembers what it stands for because James Garfield possessed the only documents outlying its meaning at the time of his death and everyone forgot he had them until after he had been shot into to space. Coincidentally, that is why we have a space program: to recover these documents from his frozen corpse. As the need to govern both transit and farming grew, the department of Iowa grew to the size of a state after purchasing land from the states surrounding it so the officials and their family would not have to commute in from the coasts any longer. As more people began to occupy the compound, it became necessary to create more civilized infrastructure to support this new population, which led to the current misconception of its statehood.

A popular dictionary defines Caucus as "not what you think it is you perverted little fuck, put the book back on the shelf and go to class." This does not clarify the situation. Throughout the course of the "election cycle" half of what are considered "states" hold Causcuses. They are an ancient and brutal ritual where the supporters of each party must battle each other to prove that the candidate they support leads the strongest warriors and will better protect us from roving clans of geese that Canada uses to oppress the United States.

While all of this is common knowledge, it is important background for the current dispute that is the topic du jour for the media. This past week, this election season's Causcuses began with an especially brutal bout among the Democrats, leaving thousands dead and ten times as many homeless in the rampage across the non-state of Iowa, with the front runners' (Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders) supporters being some of the most vicious and entitled Caucusers1 of all time. Clinton's were mostly armed with money from rich people and Sanders's was composed mostly of those who were young and had nothing to lose. I don't actually know the results; as a noted apolitical and perpetual presidential write-in candidate myself, I am not legally allowed to follow any coverage until there is an official, final announcement.

I would like to take a moment and ask why I haven't been invited to any debates. Is it my unpopular stance on outlawing chicken wire headwear? Anyway...

On the Republican side, some stuff happened too, I am sure. Like, look at them: they obviously did some shit. Although, traditionally, Republicans are less brutal because they are all related and think that fighting within the family is inappropriate.

Now someone just yelled at me from across the bus asking what the difference between a Causcus and a Primary is. This is a good question.

Primaries are what the younger states use to decide the candidates. As such, they are less brutal and more civilized. The constituency all casts double blind ballots for their choice. As the ballots are double blind, the voter does not actually know what they are voting for, so it is basically luck based. Traditionally, the candidate listed on the right side of the ballot has done better because of the right handed dominance in our culture. In the last decade, though, officials finally noticed the trend and have started randomizing the ballots. But usually it ends up with useless results for "other" and comes down to whichever candidate has not been battered into submission from the press and public.

It is important to stay informed on these issues and political events, so when a estranged relative or potential sexual partner (haha, yeah right) asks about who it is you voted for or who you think might pull it out in the end, you can flippantly say something like, "Oh the brutality of it all is too much for my poor heart to take. Please, please let me die already." To which they will respond with a tearful assertion that life and politics have meaning and you will simply shake your head endlessly until they leave, confused.


1 Or, as they are commonly known, Caucasians.


 Douglas Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.

No comments:

Post a Comment