I mean, I guess having people physically line up behind their candidates eliminates the possibility of ballot-box-stuffing (though not of vote-buying), but in a public vote, there will always be a possibility for people to be pressured (by family, by neighbors, by employers) to vote for a given candidate.
Perhaps its because we've both spent time in environments where the voting system is rather openly subject to such pressures? Hence we're sensitised to the possible problem?
But even in the States, I also know that one of my relatives was "expected" by her (abusive) husband to vote a certain way, and while usually that coincided with how she probably would have voted anyway, it didn't always, and I'm pretty sure she's glad for secret ballots.
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Yet remember, these aren't the kind of numbers we'll see when the caucuses are over. This isn't a secret ballot situation. This is a social event, where campaigns will be herding people around trying to reach the magical "viability" numbers to garner delegates and deny them to their opponents. There will be a "first ballot" that might approximate what the polls tell us, but then the horse trading will begin, and then all predictive efforts get tossed to the wind. In 2004, Iowa's results were impacted by Gephardt's unexpected collapse in a state where he was a co-front runner, requiring his supporters to unexpectedly choose a rival campaign to caucus with once their candidate had been eliminated. It was affected by Kucinich's decision to direct his supporters toward Edwards to harm Dean (who had, in Kucinich's view, unfairly taken the "anti-war" mantle from him). It was affected by Kerry's superior organization -- utilizing trusted local political leaders to run the caucuses, and using their experience and skill to herd caucus goers toward Kerry. (Remember, this is not a secret ballot, what better way to suck up to the local political bosses than to publicly caucus for their candidate?) It was affected by inexperienced Dean caucusers, who huddled together quietly as their rival campaigns skillfully scooped up caucausers for the non-viable candidates. (A fate that might befall Obama's also inexperienced base of support?) Iowa isn't an accurate reflection of the will of Iowa's voters. It's a reflection of a tiny percentage (6-10%) of Iowa voters who turn out, and then a reflection of the bizarre whims of the caucus as chairs get shuffled around the deck all night until a final result is announced. I'm glad this is likely to be Iowa's swan song in the primary process. This is a horrible way to pick a nominee. But I must betray that -- especially since I have no strong feelings for or against any of our top candidates -- this is about as exciting as political theater is ever going to get. If this is Iowa's final bow, it's sure going out with a bang.
Yet remember, these aren't the kind of numbers we'll see when the caucuses are over. This isn't a secret ballot situation. This is a social event, where campaigns will be herding people around trying to reach the magical "viability" numbers to garner delegates and deny them to their opponents. There will be a "first ballot" that might approximate what the polls tell us, but then the horse trading will begin, and then all predictive efforts get tossed to the wind.
In 2004, Iowa's results were impacted by Gephardt's unexpected collapse in a state where he was a co-front runner, requiring his supporters to unexpectedly choose a rival campaign to caucus with once their candidate had been eliminated. It was affected by Kucinich's decision to direct his supporters toward Edwards to harm Dean (who had, in Kucinich's view, unfairly taken the "anti-war" mantle from him). It was affected by Kerry's superior organization -- utilizing trusted local political leaders to run the caucuses, and using their experience and skill to herd caucus goers toward Kerry. (Remember, this is not a secret ballot, what better way to suck up to the local political bosses than to publicly caucus for their candidate?) It was affected by inexperienced Dean caucusers, who huddled together quietly as their rival campaigns skillfully scooped up caucausers for the non-viable candidates. (A fate that might befall Obama's also inexperienced base of support?)
Iowa isn't an accurate reflection of the will of Iowa's voters. It's a reflection of a tiny percentage (6-10%) of Iowa voters who turn out, and then a reflection of the bizarre whims of the caucus as chairs get shuffled around the deck all night until a final result is announced.
I'm glad this is likely to be Iowa's swan song in the primary process. This is a horrible way to pick a nominee. But I must betray that -- especially since I have no strong feelings for or against any of our top candidates -- this is about as exciting as political theater is ever going to get.
If this is Iowa's final bow, it's sure going out with a bang.
The caucuses are a mixture of wonderful participation and thuggish behavior. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
