Iowa Caucus -- More Than You Want to Know

by ATinNM
Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 02:58:09 AM EST

This is an in-depth look at the Iowa caucus.  Contained herein is more information than anyone outside of Iowa cares about, or needs.  The primary (HA!) purpose is to provide a basis for understanding, in my opinion, a sterling example of participatory democracy.

I have attempted to highlight the most important parts of the process.

The Iowa caucuses meet, precinct by precinct, to elect delegates and alternates to the county convention.  At the county convention delegates are elected to the district convention who elect delegates to the state convention who elect delegates to the National Nominating Convention.    

Naturally, other business happens at those other conventions but this thing is long enough.  


Short History

Some form of caucus has existed since the early 1800s, even before Iowa became a state in 1846. Developing from the congressional and legislative caucuses, the pioneers of the Iowa constitution chose caucuses rather than a primary to nominate candidates, preferring the grass-roots democracy-in-action approach.

n the early 1970s, the Iowa Democratic Party made several reforms to their delegate selection process. These reforms included requiring a minimum of 30 days between the precinct caucuses and the county, district and state conventions, and publicizing the events to allow more people to take part in the process. When the 1972 Democratic State Convention was set for May 20, the new rules dictated that the precinct caucus would be January 24, thereby making it the first statewide test for presidential candidates in the nation. In 1976, recognizing the increased exposure, the Republican Party of Iowa moved their caucus to the same date as the Democrats. The candidates and national media have observed the Iowa caucuses as the "First in the Nation" ever since.

The Process  [Note: HTML, reformatted from pdf]

I.  The Caucus is Called to Order (6:30 PM, or thereabouts)

  1.  The temporary Chair will briefly read through the caucus agenda.

  2.  The Chair will explain that the primary purpose of the caucus:

  •  Elect delegates, alternates and convention committee members to the county convention.
  •  Discuss and adopt resolutions to be recommended to the county platform committee.
  • Elect new leadership for the precinct - the precinct committee persons who will serve as voting members on the county central committee.

II.  Iowa Democratic Party Presentation

blah, blah, yippie-ya-hoo for us  

See link for more information.

III.  Elected Officials Presentation

blah, blah, yippie-ya-hoo for me  

See link for more information.

IV.  Election of Permanent Officers

Before any official business is conducted at the caucuses, the caucus as a whole must elect permanent officers. These officers include a permanent chair and a permanent secretary. The temporary chairs that were recruited by the County Democratic Party are encouraged to seek office as permanent chair or permanent secretary.

The Chair will call for nominations for the office of permanent chair. Persons may nominate themselves. It is not necessary to second these nominations.  Written ballots may be used if several persons are nominated for the position.

Note: If ballots are used, attendees must write their name on their ballot as the Democratic Party does not allow secret ballots to be used in party procedures.
If only one person is nominated, the caucus may elect the person by unanimous voice vote:

"All those in favor of electing ____ as permanent caucus chair, please signify by saying 'aye'."

Repeat the above steps to elect the permanent caucus secretary.

Note: The permanent officers take over the caucus proceedings.

V.  Nomination Papers and Candidate Letters

Candidates seeking office on the federal, state, and local level are required to obtain a certain number of signatures to have their name listed on the ballot in Iowa.  Many of these candidates will have their petitions as well as letter at the caucuses.

Candidate letters may be read aloud, passed around to each attendee or posted for the attendees to read before or after the caucus.

VI.  Election of Delegates and Alternates

Note: This process may not begin until 7:00pm

1.  Determining Viability

In order to be entitled to elect delegates to the county convention, candidates must have a minimum number of eligible caucus attendees in their group.

The Permanent Chair will count the number of eligible caucus attendees and announce the number.  Viability is then determined based on the number of delegates the precinct will elect.

Note: see link for special rules for counties that only elect one delegate.

The Chair will determine whether the caucus attendees wish to divide into preference groups. When more than 15% of the caucus attendees wish to divide, then the caucus will divide into preference groups. If more than 85% of the caucus attendees do not wish to divide, then the delegates shall be elected by the caucus as a whole.

2.  Now the Chair will determine the viability threshold that a preference group must attain in order to be considered viable.

The Chair will count the number of eligible voting caucus attendees and announce the number to the caucus.

After the number of eligible caucus attendees has been determined, the viability threshold is calculated based on the number of delegates the caucus is to elect.

Note: When calculating viability, always round UP to the next whole number.

a. In caucuses that elect two (2) delegates, preference groups must contain at least 25% of the caucus attendees in order to be viable. This can be calculated by using the following formula:

Number of Eligible Caucus Attendees x 0.25 = Viability Threshold

b. In caucuses that elect three (3) delegates, the total caucus attendees should be divided by six (6) to determine the viability threshold. This can be calculated by using the following formula:

Number of Eligible Caucus Attendees ÷ 6 = Viability Threshold

c. In caucuses that elect four (4) or more delegates, preference groups must contain at least 15% of the caucus attendees in order to be viable. This can
be calculated by using the following formula:

Number of Eligible Caucus Attendees x 0.15 = Viability Threshold

[Note: "can be" = "will be."]

Once the viability threshold has been determined, the Chair will announce that number to the caucus.

VII.  Formation of Presidential Preference Groups

  1.  Before Presidential preference groups form, the caucus chair must read [a] statement to all caucus attendees [saying the caucus is open to any member of the Democratic Party -- see link for text.]

  2.  At this point the caucus will divide into Presidential preference groups. Caucus participants have up to 30 minutes to align with a preference group. If the caucus wishes for more time, it should go to a vote of the whole caucus.  When the caucus divides, the caucus chair will direct the various preference groups to different areas of the room or different rooms, as the case may be.

  3.  Each group will then select a preference group chair.

  4.  The first formal action of the preference group chair shall be to count their members and report the size of their preference group to the caucus chair.

  5.  At this time any preference group(s) that is not viable (has fewer members than the viability threshold) must be given an opportunity to realign.

  • Non-viable groups can join with other viable preference groups or with other non-viable preference groups in order to attain viability.
  • Members of non-viable groups can choose not to realign, however they will not be awarded any delegates if they remain non-viable.
  • Members of viable preference groups are also allowed to realign if they so desire.

VIII.  Awarding Delegates

When all the remaining preference groups are viable, the caucus chair will determine the number of delegates that each preference group is entitled to
elect.

The number of delegates to be awarded to each preference group is determined by:
... the SAME number that was used to calculate viability, above.

After delegates are awarded to all viable preference groups, the caucus chair will total up the delegates awarded and compare it to the number of delegates to be
elected at the precinct.

Note: See link, Steps 23 and 24 for special situations.

6.  The caucus chair will inform each preference group of the number of county convention delegates that they are to elect.

IX.  Reporting the Results

At this point, the caucus chair is required to call the Iowa Democratic Party's toll-free Reporting Line and report the results of the caucus.

A representative from each preference group must be present when the results are reported. This will prevent any reporting errors.

X.  Electing Delegates

Each preference group will elect the number of delegates they have been entitled to the county convention.  They may elect as many alternates as they chose.

The link provides more information regarding special situations and the Democratic Party guidelines for delegate selection.

XI.  Ratification of the Slate

The preference groups are now dissolved, if they were formed, and the caucus now meets as a whole to ratify the delegate selection process.

Ratification shall mean that it is the sense of the caucus that the procedures used by the various preference groups were in conformity with the required procedures under the Constitution of the Iowa Democratic Party, and applicable caucus procedures and rules.

There is more business to be done at the caucus in deciding various local party issues.  See the link for more information.

All this foo-foo is for: 57 total delegate votes - 29 district / 10 at large; 6 Pledged PLEOs; 11 Unpledged PLEOs; 1 Unpledged add-on  

(PLEO = Party Leaders and Elected Officials.)

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Just for the heck of it here are the number of delegates sent from a county (all 99 of 'em) to the state convention:

Polk - 358   Linn - 202   Scott - 142    Johnson - 137
Black Hawk - 117   Dubuque - 90   Story - 77    Woodbury - 68
Pottawattamie - 55    Clinton - 46  Cerro Gordo - 46   Des Moines - 41
Dallas - 39    Warren - 38   Jasper - 35    Lee - 34
Webster - 32    Marshall - 32    Muscatine - 32    Wapello - 31
Boone - 24    Benton - 23  Marion - 23    Bremer - 21
Jackson - 20    Buchanan - 20   Fayette - 18    Jones - 18
Winneshiek - 17    Poweshiek - 17 Cedar - 16    Clayton - 16
Tama - 16    Carroll - 16   Washington - 16    Floyd - 15
Jefferson - 15    Delaware - 15   Dickinson - 14    Henry - 14
Hardin - 14   Kossuth - 14   Hamilton - 14    Plymouth - 13
Iowa - 13    Chickasaw - 13   Mahaska - 13    Buena Vista - 12
Madison - 12    Clay - 12   Allamakee - 12    Butler - 11
Appanoose - 11    Crawford - 10   Wright - 10    Harrison - 10
Cherokee - 10    Mitchell - 10   Winnebago - 9    Cass - 9  
Union - 9    Guthrie - 9   Howard - 9    Hancock - 9
Palo Alto - 8    Grundy - 8  Greene - 8    Clarke - 8  
Worth - 8    Calhoun - 8   Shelby - 8    Keokuk - 8
Louisa - 8    Franklin - 8   Monona - 8    Emmet - 8
Sioux - 7 s   Mills - 7   Humboldt - 7   O'Brien - 7
Sac - 7   Lucas - 7 Adair - 6    Monroe - 6
Decatur - 6    Davis - 6   Montgomery - 6    Pocahontas - 6
Audubon - 5    Van Buren - 5   Fremont - 5    Wayne - 5
Taylor - 5    Ida - 5   Ringgold - 5    Lyon - 4 s
Adams - 3    Osceola - 3

There.  Now the statistically inclined can calculate the number of delegates from each county as the returns come in.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bork! Bork! Bork!

by ATinNM on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 03:14:16 AM EST
A very educational post -- thanks ATinNM.
by The3rdColumn on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 11:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can anyone tell me why they use this bizarrely complicated process instead of a primary vote, with ballots and all that?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 04:35:30 AM EST
Is is an implementation of the single transferable vote, but instead of a complicated ballot-counting system they do it through a social event allowing people to move back and forth between "preference groups".

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 05:43:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I love the idea of a single transferable vote, and I like the idea of a social event that allows for personal campaigning and debate between neighbors... but I also very much like the idea of a secret ballot and political privacy.  I mean, I guess the whole primary process is really a matter of activists and partisans who don't shy away from voicing their support for a given candidate, but the public nature of the voting process can leave room for intimidation, whether overt or subconscious, and therefore can put those holding minority opinions at a distinct disadvantage.  See spiral of silence.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:11:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting link, stormy.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spiral of silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as dynamic process, in which predictions about public opinion become fact as mass media's coverage of the majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely to speak out (Miller 2005:278). The theory, however, only applies to moral issues, not issues that can be proven right or wrong using facts.
Right.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:14:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I didn't write the Wiki, and it's been a good long while since I studied the theory, but my hunch is that the disclaimer is overstated, and may be referring to what Noelle-Neumann studied vs. what she didn't study, not an indication that they theory is "untrue" of particular issues, however they might be defined.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:22:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found the wiki article extreme in its reassurance to the reader that this is only about moral issues. They make the point in just about every paragraph.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the era of absentee ballots and internet voting it seems the concept of secret ballots has gone the way of the dodo.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 07:21:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be interesting to have a system of national ID card with public key encryption: a pair would be generated and the government would keep one key while the ID card would contain the other key.

Other than that, I cannot imagine internet voting ever being secure enough.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 07:37:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The infrastructure already exists in Finland. There are lots of links.

More also here

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 08:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only if you mean "secret" from the State, not from your neighbors, employers and family members.  They do not have access to your absentee ballot or Internet voting record.  (Or shouldn't!)

I think that State reprisals against voters for particular parties or candidates is not a particularly huge concern in the so-called developed world.  But there are still plenty of people within our "Western" societies who could face personal or professional repercussions if their political leanings were to be known, or who for a variety of reasons would rather not have their co-workers or family members know who they vote for, even within the confines of a particular political party.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 08:38:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absentee ballots means nothing prevents say, an employer to gather its employees and ask for them to fill up their absentee ballots. The only prevention from that would be the public outcry, which could be prevented with enough firing threats.

I'm certain some abusive spouses already force their spouses' votes this way.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 09:34:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's true, that's a very real danger.  Some jurisdictions have different ways of trying to deal with that, mainly by discouraging people from voting absentee -- such as placing conditions on who qualifies for an absentee ballot, or only counting the absentee ballots if there are enough of them to affect the outcome of a close vote.  But those don't really deal with what you're talking about, and I can't think of anything systemic that would.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 10:00:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not that complicated really - just hard to explain ;-)

Please consult the MCC Laws of Cricket for comparison: 42 detailed laws each with numerous subclauses, 4 appendices, and a preamble. Cricket might be described as a game of trying to hit a bowled ball with a bat while surrounded by obstacles. And indeed if you play on the beach with the family, that just about covers it, because any disputed detail will be resolved in trust, a sense of fairness and the knowledge that it is being played for fun only.

But as you move up from fun to school to amateur to professional games and gamesmanship, it becomes necessary to define, with ever-increasing detail, a universal set of rules that cover every possible bureaucratic anomaly.

All games are inherently emergent. And democracy too. We are still in the process of defining the new rules of emergent democracy.

I would hope however that we could find very simple rules for interaction that would still produce the required complexity of output.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:11:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am sure there must have been Diaries about e-Government and so on but I don't recall any.

MCC and the Art of Democracy is a good start!

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact, the system is not that complicated. Everything is procedural fluff except for this bit, which is the actual election procedure.

European Tribune - Iowa Caucus -- More Than You Want to Know

VII.  Formation of Presidential Preference Groups

  1.  Before Presidential preference groups form, the caucus chair must read [a] statement to all caucus attendees [saying the caucus is open to any member of the Democratic Party -- see link for text.]

  2.  At this point the caucus will divide into Presidential preference groups. Caucus participants have up to 30 minutes to align with a preference group. If the caucus wishes for more time, it should go to a vote of the whole caucus.  When the caucus divides, the caucus chair will direct the various preference groups to different areas of the room or different rooms, as the case may be.

  3.  Each group will then select a preference group chair.

  4.  The first formal action of the preference group chair shall be to count their members and report the size of their preference group to the caucus chair.

  5.  At this time any preference group(s) that is not viable (has fewer members than the viability threshold) must be given an opportunity to realign.

  • Non-viable groups can join with other viable preference groups or with other non-viable preference groups in order to attain viability.
  • Members of non-viable groups can choose not to realign, however they will not be awarded any delegates if they remain non-viable.
  • Members of viable preference groups are also allowed to realign if they so desire.

VIII.  Awarding Delegates

When all the remaining preference groups are viable, the caucus chair will determine the number of delegates that each preference group is entitled to
elect.

The number of delegates to be awarded to each preference group is determined by:
... the SAME number that was used to calculate viability, above.

After delegates are awarded to all viable preference groups, the caucus chair will total up the delegates awarded and compare it to the number of delegates to be
elected at the precinct.

Note: See link, Steps 23 and 24 for special situations.

In fact, the key is VI.5. The rest is still just procedural, or else common sense (that is, no more complicated than it needs to be).

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean VII.5.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
VII.5 is a feedback system, and as such is an interesting democratic device that is not often available in formal systems - where fast interactive realignment is excluded. It is one form of self-organization ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 06:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
VII.5. is the implementation of (Single) Transferable Vote, but you're right it includes an additional feedback element as people give their second, third, etc preferences as the procedure progresses, not all at the beginning.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 07:03:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good question!

I live in a caucus state (Minnesota) that uses mostly the same rules as Iowa.  And yes, caucusing seems absurdly complex compared to going into a booth and pulling a level.

To me, that is the charm.  It requires folks to spend an evening doing politics.  It requires an active participation in the process.

This means that there are institutional limits to the politics of mass merchandising.  Spending a lot of money is no guarantee that you win--as Mitt Romney is about to discover in Iowa.  

Besides, it is an excellent way to get to know your neighbors.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 07:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All of those things are good, but I am still uncomfortable with the idea of a public vote.

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.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 08:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I feel the same kind of discomfort, stormy.

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?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 08:58:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I think that's certainly part of it.  I've gotten very used to hearing people say, "My vote is my secret," a phrase that one rarely hears in the rich world but which is almost a mantra in Africa.  And in some places, it's only too clear why that phrase is so important.

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.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 09:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From a frontpage post by kos;

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.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 09:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's, indeed a serious concern.  Joe Trippi wrote about how this affected his work for Kennedy in the 1980 Iowa Caucus.  He managed to get 47% of the delegates in his set of couties, and he could've won but for the fact that pressure led some people -- especially young people -- to not switch sides and thereby hand the win to Carter.

The caucuses are a mixture of wonderful participation and thuggish behavior.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 02:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Any system can be "gamed."  That's a fundamental relationship between human nature and a system.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bork! Bork! Bork!
by ATinNM on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 03:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... is an actual organized group of people, rather than just a political factory producing candidates to be purchases with special money called "votes", with every citizen notionally receiving either one or zero "votes" to spend on each elected office, depending on their circumstances.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 04:42:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this is the core of the issue here.

Either you see the process as a party deciding on their candidate. Like the french socialists deciding who they will run for president. Or the UK lib-dems deciding on their chair. Its an internal affair. In that case caucuses sounds like a reasonable way to go. (You can also argue for other methods as better in some way.) Meeting and discussing is essential to the process.

Or you see it as the first step in a national run-offish election, and then secret ballots and high participation is prefered.

As I see it the discussion here arises from the fact that the US primaries/caucuses are a bit of both.

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 03:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because it's far more democratic, because it requires voters to 1) meet with their neighbors, and 2) engage in political discussion and publically support their candidate.  If you are unwilling to stand for your candidate publicallym should you really be voting for them?

Primaries give power to candidates that can buy ads, caucuses place a premium on participation in the decision making process. I think that all states should use caucuses for this reason.  If would force candidates to develop grassroots organizations, and lessen the influence of money on the system.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 04:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure it qualifies as being any more democratic than primaries.  More interesting, perhaps, but not more democratic.  I find it very anti-democratic to not decide the outcome based purely on the popular vote.

You're forgetting the important issue of pressure, from friends, family, coworkers, etc.  It's not exactly clean democracy if you find your boss strictly supporting Richardson and pressuring you for supporting Edwards.  And it's not exactly clean democracy when Little Suzie wants to cross over to support Obama but is yelled at by Daddy to stay in the Hillary camp.

And, yes, that does happen in Iowa.

It's nice to talk politics with your neighbors as an institutionalized part of the process, but let's not romanticize the caucuses.  And let's not forget that we may well be leaving the decision on our next president to a (white, rural, subsidy-sucking) state that can hardly claim to be a good representation of America.


Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 01:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Drew J Jones:
I'm not sure it qualifies as being any more democratic than primaries.  More interesting, perhaps, but not more democratic.  I find it very anti-democratic to not decide the outcome based purely on the popular vote.
As I have pointed out, the Iowa caucus process is close to mathematically equivalent to single transferable vote. Though the effect of peer pressure is a valid criticism.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 01:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me throw something out.

If a person isn't willing to publicly stand up, be counted for what they believe, and then take the consequences what good are they?

I submit, that is the only way for Democracy to not be a Tyranny of the Majority.


Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bork! Bork! Bork!

by ATinNM on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 03:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that a serious question?  Because what if the consequences are "My husband will beat the shit out of me"?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 04:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is meant as a serious topic of discussion, yes.

Getting beat up is one of the RW consequences a person faces when they Stand Up.  And not the worst of them, either.  Read any history of the American Left in the 20th century for what can, and will happen, to those who trouble the Powers That Be.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bork! Bork! Bork!

by ATinNM on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 05:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm reminded of Mel Gibson's line from The Patriot: "I'm a parent.  I haven't got the luxury of principles."  Sure, you should be willing to stand up for what you believe in, but you should not have to suffer being beaten or fired for it.  This is a hypothetical manager of some plant firing Bubba, who's got a wife and kids to provide for during a rough time economically (in a state not exactly known as an economic powerhouse), for supporting this or that candidate.  There's enough discrimination in the world already.  We don't need to leave the door open to more.

Further, it's ridiculous to allow some parent to take advantage of his or her power over (say) an eighteen year old daughter who wants to support an Edwards or an Obama when Mommy or Daddy supports Hillary.

It adds the unnecessary potential for bullying, and people get enough bullying already.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 at 12:21:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And, yes, worse was done to many.  King was assassinated for standing up.  That doesn't mean people should be forced into such a situation.  The idea was to ensure that intimidation was not allowed to take place after all.  Should the wife stormy mentioned vote as she likes, and just take the beating?  Or perhaps just come packin' and blow Hubby's face off when he raises his hand?

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 at 12:26:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe the beaten wife should call the police, too ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 at 03:59:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What she should do is probably call the police, leave her husband, get to a place of safety,  and vote and live as she pleases.  But should and will are often very far apart.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 at 04:13:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The point being that in a mature, well functioning democracy, voting pressure would be so much frowned upon as to be unthinkable. (Although relationships getting fainter because of disagreements would not).

We are very far from that, obviously.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 at 05:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that one reason that this system "works" in places like Iowa is that rural communities may be stronger communities. For example, if you go into a rural restaurant on Sunday morning in Kansas or Nebraska or Iowa you'll find neighbors talking openly about their crops, their financial situations, their children, etc., in a way that approaches intra-family discussion. Perhaps because of the daily isolation associated with rural life (especially when farms are thousands of acres in size), the chance to get together with others is a fundamental part of how the people survive. A single city block has more inhabitants than a whole county in the midwest.

So when it comes time to vote, this community-based open discussion forum approach is consistent with their approach to the rest of their lives, and issues of intimidation or vote-buying or other forms of rorting have less of an effect.

On the other hand, I am quite unhappy with the decision to not allow Kucinich into the Democratic debate recently, and it may be that even Iowa is now too urbanized to support the caucus method.

by asdf on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 10:55:01 AM EST
... which is the presence of at least one formal storefront campaign office in the state.

Other debates have used the "holds or has held high elected office", which gave DK an entry, even though nobody has been elected straight from the House since Garfield.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 04:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently that "formal storefront campaign office" rule did not apply to Republican Alan Keyes, though...
by asdf on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 07:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This video might make it easier to understand.



And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Dec 29th, 2007 at 04:59:00 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]