Ernst is a volunteer and state leader at Veterans for All Voters (formerly Veterans for Political Innovation).
The problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to support or refute any argument, and the Iowa caucus results are no exception. But despite some conflicting narratives that twist the results in different ways, Iowa and New Hampshire add two more brush strokes to an already clear painting – one that depicts a broken system of caucuses and primary elections.
Consider the following: On one hand, former President Donald Trump's victory in Iowa, where he won the support of 51 percent of caucus-goers, made him the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Few dispute this reality. On the other hand, the 56,000 votes that propelled him to victory represent only 1.8 percent of Iowa's population, with only 3.5 percent of Iowans participating at all.
Does the will of less than 2 percent of a population (or 7.2 percent of registered Republicans) represent "the will of the people"?
New Hampshire's turnout was much more robust, at 30 percent of registered voters – t but is (almost) a third really worthy of celebration? Democracies around the world would hardly be impressed.
Moreover, the consensus after the first two states is that the eventual victors are all but certain, on both sides of the aisle, with only 400,000 voters casting ballots at all. It's hard to defend such low participation and such a narrow process as the best way to reflect the broader public sentiment. Despite a sense of bewilderment, perhaps these figures give reasons for optimism.
First, we may be close to hitting rock bottom.
Similarly dismal turnout happens in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, so this is not a partisan phenomenon. But the primary process now underway across the nation is unlike any other in America's modern history and might be reaching rock-bottom, or at least a real inflection point, regarding electoral dysfunction.
Surprises do happen, but the primary process has us on track for a rematch between candidates for the first time since 1956. But unlike that year, when both candidates were highly liked, a rematch today would be between two of the most disliked candidates on record. Polls reveal upwards of two-thirds of Americans don't want a Trump-Biden rematch, but are seemingly unable to stop it. Iowa’s 1.8 percent is able to overcome the general will of the majority, which worked fine when candidates were widely liked – but not so well when the opposite is true.
This likely outcome arguably has the key ingredients to finally make it clear to Americans that the status quo is not in our nation's best interest: that electoral reform is finally necessary, and that simply looking forward to 2028 is insanity. Are things finally so bad that it might drive good? It's quite debatable, and largely depends on you engaging with reform movements in your states and communities.
Second, pro-democracy movements are thriving.
If you're interested in revitalizing America's democratic processes, you'll find there are so many organizations and coalitions working hard to bring change, it's almost hard to choose where to plug in. This is a good problem to have, and reason to be even yet more optimistic.
Reforms are being pushed for open primaries, campaign finance changes, an end to gerrymandering, the use of ranked-choice voting and more in all 54 states and territories and are all supported by organizations that are healthily resourced, with growing volunteerism and enthusiasm. This is the energy that will turn the tide, not within a matter of decades, but hopefully in the years ahead.
If you agree that action must be taken but don't know where to begin, then I implore you to find the group that’s right for you and take an active role. Seek out and join a volunteer group, even if only to be informed of what is occurring in your community and state. If you're a veteran, consider joining us at Veterans For All Voters. Knowing that even a few readers will choose to act, I conclude with even more optimism yet.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."