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

[NABNYC]

No, it's not the caucus that's un-democratic: it's the political system by which a very few and very rich people select two persons to run for president, usually tweedledum and tweedledee, and tell 300 million citizens that they get to "choose" which one they want because, after all, this is a democracy.

The fun thing about Iowa is that it makes the insiders crazy to actually have to let ordinary people participate in the political system. It really pisses them off that they have to go to a diner (because most Americans don't eat a linen-tablecloth breakfast), or to some cold school auditorium filled with working people with wool coats and boots, and try to convince those people that the candidates have anything in common with them, which they don't.

It is truly offensive to both the left and right coasts that middle Americans on this one occasion have a small voice in the political system. And in order to try to drown out that voice, the insiders spend millions of dollars trying to fool and mislead the people, just like they do for the rest of us.

I love the Iowa caucuses. I only wish the people who attend the caucuses were the candidates, and the candidates had to get up at 5:00 a.m. tomorrow morning to go drive a truck for a 12 hour shift and a lousy paycheck.

[robertlockwoodmills]

I received an e-mail from a progressive here in Florida. She has two friends in Iowa who aren't able to join the caucus because they're working. They can't submit an absentee ballot, can't vote by proxy, can't do anything. Their opinions count for nothing because they're working during the hours the caucus functions.

This is democracy? Our mainstream media have been all over Iowa for nine months, following this travesty?

[BamaRainbow]

Well, possibly one reason for the low turnout is the state's refusal to treat this as an election. There's been coverage already of people who WANT to attend a caucus, but are being denied by their employers. For some odd reason, it seems that there are employers who have people working at night. In the US in 2008, how is it that there are jobs which have people working past 5pm?
But certainly, if the bigger, "more representative" states (like New York and California) held caucuses, there'd be a far higher proportion of people attending those caucuses since no one in any of those states holds a job which requires them to work after 5 or 6pm.
Maybe instead of criticizing the caucus system for its "flaws" (and really, do PRIMARY ELECTION states have dramatically larger voter turnouts?), someone might be more proactive and suggest ways of improving the system which is one of the last TRUE vestiges of democracy.

[research]

Largest Poll:

FRONT RUNNERS:

Kucinich 31.97%
Gore 24.77%
Edwards 15.6%

Still in the race:

Obama 13.86%

Hillary 4.21%
Richardson 4.09%
Dodd 1.56%
Biden 1.12%
Gravel 0.77%
Other 2.05%

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=249126

[trippin]

Look, the people in Iowa think they're smarter than everyone else. I hear them on TV blathering to pundits how they "pay attention" and "choose carefully" and all that nonsense.

The fact is, our election system is broken when a whitebread, sparsely populated pair of states like Iowa and New Hampshire wield such disproportionate power in choosing our candidates. This is exacerbated by an electoral college which further dispenses power to rural, white, right wing states out of proportion to their due influence, which should be obvious: one person, one vote.

But don't expect those benefiting from this broken system to give it up without a fight. That includes both the states basking in this limelight and the politicians who benefit by not having to campaign where people actually live.

People in these smaller states rationalize it by saying that otherwise they'd be ignored during campaigns. So by their logic, better to ignore states where the people actually are in favor of where they aren't as much. Makes no sense to me.

There's a movement to essentially render ineffective the electoral college, wherein each state passes a law that states that once a sufficient majority of states' delegates have accrued to win the election, all states signing on will simultaneously vote all their delegates to the winner of the popular vote.

We need to be pushing for this creative solution, and we need to insist on one, single, nationwide, bi-partisan primary day so that every citizen in this country can participate in the process.

[ORSunshine]

I agree -- the entire primary system needs to be overhauled. The only arguments I have heard in opposition to an overhaul is that the lesser-known candidates who are less well funded couldn't compete in a primary system in which there was a single voting day for the entire country. But, if we overhauled campaign finance then this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Additionally, with the widespread availability and use of the internet, it seems to me that even less well funded candidates can get their message out there. Face-to-face contact with candidates must be nice, but I wouldn't really know because I'm in Oregon and no one really ever visits this state (except Kucinich).
The primary candidates running to every hamlet in Iowa and constant inundation and focus on the "people of Iowa" makes the real issues and real candidate comparisons get skewed by the MSM who just want happy sound bites and don't give a real damn about anything substantial.

[mpersoon]

Enough of the Iowa bashing!

You claim that "a state with a small population get[s] an oversize say in who the parties nominate," but give no argument for it.

This is problematic because if there is a high historical correlation between Iowa winners and the eventual nominee it could show either: (1) Iowa has an overly deterministic effect (yet there is a dearth of "favorite son" candidates), or (2) Iowan voters are more representative than you think. On the other hand, is there is a low correlation: Iowa has little effect, your complaint is largely pointless, and the "bounce" candidate may keep the race competitive longer, increasing the amount of information available to subsequent voters.

You also attack the "archaic process" of peopel gathering in their communties and talking politics with their neighbors. Yes, this is so much worse than the voting process that worked so well in Florida in 2000.

In the end, I think it is a useful social institution and am not bothered by people being reminded that there is a lot of country in so-called "flyover." (Also a possibility, everyone will start using the Giuliani strategy).

[CintiBlue]

Well said!

I get so angry about the power given to Iowa I can't think straight.

6% of Iowa voters bothered to take part last time around.

[drkazmd65]

I disagree - the Iowa caucuses are just about the most democratic voting process in this whole darned country.

The votes are gathered among those interested enough to vote in at an odd hour, are done at a local level where every vote can matter, and where everybody has a chance to get heard - assuming they show up, express their opinion, and register to vote.

What could be more Democratic?

I do agree that the results will be waaayyyy overinterpreted by the MSM - but that doesn't make the overall process undemocratic.

[LeftRight]

So, wait, you're saying that we might be dealing with President Dean were it not for Iowa? Damn, I knew that I was right when I called BS on the MSM in '04!