As Iowa begins to cool from its heated political attention, questions raised about the accuracy and fairness of the Iowa Caucuses bring into light the flaws of this archaic nomination system. Iowa is one of only a few states that continues the practice of caucusing, which was started by presidential candidate Andrew Jackson in the early 1820s. While most states moved over to a primary election system in 1972 as a more efficient means of choosing delegates, 13 states — including Iowa — have chosen to stay with this inefficient and blatantly broken system.

Caucasus themselves raise questions on the very nature of public discourse. With social advertising campaigns promoting bumper sticker politics, the foundation of this democracy rests in the hands of those politically aware enough to seek the truth. In theory, caucusing provides more of an opportunity to come together as a community to discuss political issues and their relationships to current candidates.

However, public discourse isn’t something that should be reserved for one night. Moreover, it’s a bastardization of the ideals of democracy to believe that one can accurately describe the multitude of issues facing the country in just a six-hour time period. Public discourse should be an everyday occurrence among citizens of all political parties and affiliations.

The issue of public discourse, however, is not immediately addressed by simply switching to a primary system. The attitudes of Americans must change if we wish to have a truly educated populous. Yet, the flaws in the caucus system are in no way justified by the system’s feeble attempts to create intelligent discussion.

As we can clearly see from this most recent caucus, the system’s major flaw comes from its most basic function — deciding who wins the nomination. With accusations of cheating and fraud coming from both parties, but were clearly emphasized by the left, questions about the effectiveness of a caucus to accurately represent the population must be raised.

It’s no secret that Iowa’s caucus is one of the most important processes in selecting delegates, however, this seems to be without actual reason. Iowa, in general, is not very representative of the nation. We have a smaller population per capita and an abundant rural population. Its importance simply comes for its position as the first state to host such an event.

Yet, the problems of a caucus system have been made extremely clear after this first round of nominations. One of the main problems, as I attempted to describe previously, is the representation of the nation’s interest. Because of the lengthy duration of the caucuses, there is a much smaller turnout than most primary elections. Even with the idea of public discourse being upheld — or, in the very least, attempting to be — what good is an election system that doesn’t represent the interest of the people?

Organizations within different caucus locations, at least on the Democratic side, are, in the most forgiving terms, extremely subpar. Since they are hosted by volunteers in community spaces such as school gyms and churches, caucuses tend to be loud and chaotic. The final tally is conducted by separating individuals into groups by who they support and taking a head count. It’s shocking that, with all of our technical advancements and more accurate systems already in place, the final count for one of the most important nominations for the most powerful position in the free world comes down to the equivalence of third grade classroom attendance — not to mention the practice of a coin toss in a tie.

The issues that could be caused by this inaccurate and archaic nomination system are not merely hypothetical. With accusations of cheating and voter fraud aimed directly at the Clinton campaign, the flaws of the caucus system are being exemplified in real life. It’s time for Iowa, and other states like it, to grow up and adopt more accurate nomination systems if we want to continue to play such a crucial role in the presidential elections going forward.