What is ‘integrity of order’?

I’m sure we all agree that “integrity of order” must be ensured. After all, it’s a matter of integrity. And order! Both vital qualities in a democracy.

But what is “integrity of order?”

My own first encounter with the phrase occurred today, in this story from the Des Moines Register. It seems that Colorado is considering moving up the date of its presidential caucuses, threatening the right, as embedded in our founding documents (detailed citations to follow), that the traditional first four caucus and primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Caroilina, Nevada) will always and forever be the first four.

Responding to the threat from Colorado, Iowa Republican Chair said” “The four sanctioned early states have been very clear that we’ll move together if necessary to ensure integrity of order as outlined in (Republican National Committee) rules.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 09/26/2011 - 02:54 pm.

    Having been a participant in Colorado’s caucuses, I can assure you that the participants therein are no more representative of the mainstream than are the participants in Iowa or New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada.

    “Integrity of order” simply means, “We were here first, and we don’t want to give up the publicity (and money) that comes to our state from early presidential campaigns that would result from someone ELSE intruding upon our position on the calendar.”

  2. Submitted by Ken Wedding on 09/26/2011 - 03:43 pm.

    How about encouraging them to move their circuses earlier and earlier so they reach irrelevance? Iowa, NH, SC, or Nevada as signifiers of national sentiment? What’s the next joke?

  3. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 09/26/2011 - 04:43 pm.

    Mr Black:
    Looks like you’ve already received one reasonable answer.

    But always good to get another opinion.

    Try this one on Bachmann…always knows she knows even what she seldom knows.

    Or ask Abbott and Costello…”Who’s on first, etc”…?

  4. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/26/2011 - 06:09 pm.

    It’s interesting that a Google search on ‘integrity of order’ came up only with your article. So, the phrase means whatever the Iowa Republicans want it to.
    In other words, what Ray said.

  5. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 09/27/2011 - 09:56 am.

    Personally, I think we should just let the states interested in doing so move their caucuses and primaries forward, leapfrogging each other until we reach the point where the first of them are within the week after the previous election.

    Or better yet, why not move the first caucuses and primaries into the first week after the midterms elections, after a previous president is elected – you know, to put that soon-to-be preceding president on notice that, if he/she doesn’t change their ways, their party is likely to lose the White House six years down the road.

    Of course it won’t matter how ridiculous or meaningless the whole primary/caucus system becomes, the mainstream media will continue to cover the endless debates, popularity polls, and money race as if those things told us anything about what the potential candidates would or would not be willing and able to accomplish if any of them became president.

  6. Submitted by Tom Miller on 09/28/2011 - 06:39 am.

    A google search led me to this quote on lifepurposetips.com:

    “Integrity of Order — Am I building in the proper sequence being conscious of the seasons of God?”

  7. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/28/2011 - 10:38 am.

    That would seem to indicate where the speaker was coming from.
    Good catch!

Leave a Reply