What if Iowa Caucused and Nobody Listened?

This Thursday evening, approximately 0.05 percent of the United States population will gather together for an arcane ritual in which they will prematurely anoint the next Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

Skull and Bones Society? Stonemasons? Nope. The Iowa caucuses.

This process is so out-of-synch with American democratic values that it's hard to believe it even exists, let alone plays such an overwhelming role in the presidential race. Not only does a state with a small population get an oversize say in who the parties nominate, but the archaic process means only a small percentage of this state's voters even turn out to caucus. The result: about 150,000 people will make a decision that greatly affects 300 million. The truth is, the Iowa caucuses are just about the least inclusive, least populist, and least democratic voting system anyone could come up with.

Every four years, mainstream media outlets tell us how seriously Iowans treasure this rare responsibility, and how important it is for these special voters to meet the candidates face to face, as if the rest of the country just isn't up to the task.

If Iowans treasure this responsibility so greatly, then why is it that four out of five of them don't even show up to caucus? The most offensive part is, they then have the nerve to hit us with a string of stories about how fed up Iowans are with all the political calls and mailings. Message to Iowans: If you all are frustrated with how this process is playing out, the rest of the country - you know, those of us whose votes don't matter - would be more than happy to have a conversation about changing the system.

The big secret of the Iowa caucuses is that there's no reason why they have to matter so much - even this year. Relatively few people participate, and the number of delegates Iowans send to the party conventions are highly unlikely to make a difference in the end.

It's the media attention lavished on the caucuses that gives them their tremendous impact, anointing the caucus winners with that much-heralded momentum, and virtually dooming the hopes of those who underperform. If news media outlets ever decide to stop treating this bizarre event as if it's the most important political story of the year - then guess what? - it will stop being the most important political story of the year.

Iowans have the right to pick their convention delegates any way they choose, and it would be inappropriate for us coastal elites to tell them how to run things in their own state. But what we can do is stop paying so much attention.

I'm not saying the media should boycott the caucuses - when Iowans finish their voting ritual on Thursday, news outlets should by all means report the outcome - but the story belongs on Page A24 of your newspapers, minute 55 of your nightly broadcasts, and the bottom right-hand corner of this web site.

Comments

[sculptor]

We need to listem to all of America and not just Iowa. The primary system should be scraped and replaced with a series of nationwide elections. Each election would be for an increasing percentage of the vote and the early elections should be slanted towards those that use no ourside funding.

[larry278]

As of Sat, 1/5/08-it is evident that the MSM didn't ignore Iowa this year. If the MSM & voters will ignore Iowa in 2012-who knows?

[IntrepidReader]

I believe it was an Iowan upthread who pointed out that the media didn't used to make their caucus the circus event it's become in the last few decades. As the author rightly points out, it should have the impact it deserves, which is a small one. If that happened, however, the media might be forced to report on things that require more thought and effort and not have the fun of attending the horse race they have made of our elections. They could no longer write stories about haircuts, wives, and children; or most importantly, who is raking in the most loot and buying the most advertising from.....the media.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could ask for evidence that Iowa has a disproportionate effect on elections when the media has turned it into a do or die event for the candidates and we the sheep dutifully go along with that pronouncement.

[Livetotell525]

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

[larry278]

I had to scroll up to see who had written this blog for it read like what Christoper Hitchins had written for SLATE. The view expressed by this blog & Mr Hitchins may become CW & received wisdom in politics in '08 & thereafter despite the MSM's pilgrimage to subarctic Iowa every 4 years. No, the Iowa caucuses won't become a non-event right away but who knows if the MSM's bean counters will end the party by cutting the expense allowances for covering Iowa? That could kill the party quite quickly regardless of the possibility that the results from Iowa will be reflected on the tickets of both parties in Nov '08. Reporters have never taken a vow of poverty. If the MSM won't pay to send reporters to Iowa-the predictive value of Iowa will be ignored.

[IowaGirl]

Another sign this is taking in place in Iowa and not, say, Florida is the serious degree of security for the votes themselves. Organizers say there are seven layers of "back-up" to ensure the validity and/or transmission of the votes. That's a lot of back-up but it is very reassuring to participants. I shouldn't disparage other states, but it seems unlikely that every state would be equipped or inclined to go this far.

[research]

Great Kucinich Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXM-H3__Og

[Mr.Fitz]

Dean's downfall in Iowa, although he was infinitely better against Bush than Kerry could have ever been, was all I needed to see regarding that state. As one citizen said, "Our state laws require that we go first." And? Why does your state get to decide for the rest of the country who will be seen as presidential?

[IowaGirl]

It's true that Iowans are at this point educated to a faretheewell on all of the candidates' policies and stray thoughts. This is a good thing: an educated body of voters, no? But it is also true that there are lots of people who cannot attend evening caucuses b/c they have to work or care for kids or are too old/infirm. A lot of people are intimidated by the process, which is very public and made to sound confusing...though it really is not. And a lot of people have been turned OFF of the whole thing b/c of the way it has sucked the air out of nearly every other story (save sports) for months on end. 24/4 hour commercials featuring the Romneys and Huckabees of the world--sheer torture for all of us, I assure everyone.

It must seem very unfair that we get so much coverage but here's the deal: it didn't use to be this way. The media is overinvested in the horse race aspect of it b/c so many billions of dollars will flow in one direction or another based on who wins the next election. The MSM don't want to cover issues in a serious way--can't annoy their corporate overlords--so this gives them a great excuse to just talk endlessly about polls and haircuts, etc., and shove their mikes in the face of one poor unsuspecting Iowan after another for filler anecdotes.

Don't hate us! We're privileged voters, but at least we really do take it seriously. I know people who are taking weeklong vacations to go around and listen to all the candidates' stump speeches, multiple times. Hey, there's nothing else going on in this frozen tundra in Jan.

GO EDWARDS!!!!

[ButterflyWeed]

I applaud Iowans for caucusing in the primary process. Their system is true democracy in action. Why? It's witnessed and fair - totally Dibold-proof, selection of the best candidate to represent each party. The R's produce a paper trail for validation. The D's produce counts of support (and sound rationale) in front of a whole auditorium of witnesses.
As automated voting states poll, Iowa's results can serve as a base to alert skewed crookedness in action. I advocate voter fraud be life imprisonment for treason, but I'd have sent Bush-Cheney Co. to jail years ago.

[robotfog]

I agree with Mr. Siegel

Maybe the order of primaries should be drawn at random so that other states can go first.

also, we might have a real chance of weeding out the bad candidates early on instead of the good ones.

[OhgReaTone]

True enough - it is out of sync - but is real this year and the results will dramatically impact the future.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/03/why-iowa-matters/

[ParacleteofKavorka]

Today on Chris Matthew's show he kept asking pundits to predict the Iowa outcome. Of what possible value to me is their predictions? Do they get a prize if they're right or do they get a penalty if they're wrong? Is it just entertainment? It reminds me of kids shaking their Christmas presents to see if they can guess what's inside.

[isis]

A caucus is a form of approval balloting. It would be a good idea for elections to have approval balloting.

[research]

Here are the articles of impeachment against Cheney that have already been filed:

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm