{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01888888888888889, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008888888888888889, 'mean_word_length': 5.171232876712328, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Iowa Caucuses: A Poor Geographic Survey

ABSTRACT As the 2016 U.S. Presidential election drew closer, opinion polls highlighted that many potential voters were not pleased with the two major party's presumptive nominees as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had greater unfavorable numbers than favorable (Huffington Post 2016). This situation was not ideal for either candidate and suggests flaws in the primary election process. This article investigates the Iowa Caucuses and illuminates the process and nonrepresentation of front-loaded primary states. The primary election season is distressed by the first step being in Iowa. The fact that Iowa does not resemble the rest of the nation demographically, economically, and culturally indicates that the Iowa Caucuses and other early primary elections should not be considered a useful metric for discerning views of the average U.S. voter.