Really, Rand Paul is willing to pay for a switch to a Caucus system?

I honestly thought it was a joke..

When I read “Rand Paul vows to to foot bill for switch in Kentucky”. Valley girl moment here, but like what?

A screenshot from my Twitter Page.

The irony of this article and perhaps why the post infuriated me so, is I read the above tweet moments upon finishing a mock caucus resource for Iowa’s college campuses. After some research, I understand the reasoning behind switching from a caucus to a primary. It is extremely less stressful and saves time & energy. No wonder about 40 of the 50 states already switched over.

If Rand Paul wanted to switch the Republican Party nomination system to Caucus for these reasons (let’s just say it was the other way around), then I would get it. If he had a valid plan to aid in halting corruption in Kentucky’s government by utilizing the Caucus system, I could hop on that train.

BUT he literally, not figuratively, vowing to pay the $500,000 needed to switch from a primary to caucus system. He is honest that the soul reason is so he can both be on the ballot for President and in case he loses, have the opportunity to remain as State Senator for Kentucky.

Besides the fact that this is the most vain, pompous, and self-righteous action ever made, it is outright disheartening that this a) is being taken seriously and b) made national news.

The fact it is taken seriously as an act makes me pessimistic of the outlook on our country. Just because Rand Paul has $500,000 to “just throw around” can be taken legitimately within the Republican party to potentially throw an election, actually, two! The fact that no one else is enraged by this pompous act, specifically anyone in Kentucky, tells me that we see so much of these sorts of actions that it is not considered outrageous. If asking to toss in a little $500k to change an election process in a whole state is nothing to the helicopter rides Trump is giving at the Iowa State Fair, then we have a problem.

This potentially means anyone in the same 1% we continue talking about has the potential to make influential decisions for the rest of the population without anyone paying attention. For the same folks that discuss the corruption in our government and the “being done with people in Washington”, maybe you should check out those you are voting for, both in Kentucky and for the president of the United States. Hello, are we not voting for someone to represent us? I don’t think I see someone that has $500,000 to whip out at any point in time as similar to my views as someone that gets paid $10 per hour..

The reason the disheartens our governmental outlook is that if this is public knowledge, what sort of amounts of money are thrown around behind bars. A few million, no a few billion, trillion? What happen to a true a fair election where we only list to voices, not people’s pocket books? If to win an election a candidate needs millions upon millions to even be considered viable, what sort of opportunities are there for my generation? What will it look like in 10 years, 15 years… 20 years?

As much work I do for electoral engagement on college campuses, this discourages but encourages me simultaneously. I wonder what sort of impact the general population make in comparison to those controlling elections from their bank accounts, maybe a small dent? But on the flip side, by increasing the general population’s voter participation, it might do more for democratic idealism than we ever thought. If our free and fair elections become not free and not fair, then what are we doing America? Seriously, what are we doing?

This post might be my own personal cry, but I think it is a cry for something greater than myself. It is a cry for a functionable democracy that requires a fight for equality and justice in the United States. Iowa is not only paying the price, it sounds as if the rest of the country is, too.


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.