A Symbol of Democracy Is Criticized as Undemocratic

[MADem]

The article, about the Iowa Caucuses and the caucus system in general, is long, but interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/politics/after-iowa-reliability-is-questioned-in-caucus-system.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Any number of examples — including the George W. Bush-Al Gore battle in Florida — serve as reminders that the closest elections, even those run by the professionals, are rarely as simple as tallying the votes and declaring a winner. Totals change as errors are discovered. Big turnouts strain systems. Media pressure to quickly declare winners sometimes overstates initial results, and all of this can be exaggerated by a close race at the top.

Because of Iowa’s elevated role in the nomination process — the four remaining candidates in the race were the top four vote-getters in the caucus — the stakes are high. Some political observers argue that the current dynamics of the race would be different had Mr. Santorum, not Mr. Romney, properly been declared the winner.

Hugh Winebrenner, a retired professor who wrote a book on the Iowa caucuses, said they had a history of problems. At times, he said, it appeared that leaders from both parties were filtering or spinning results to support establishment candidates, a charge that emerged this year as well....The problems added a new line of attack for critics, prompting fears here that the negative publicity had jeopardized the state’s position on the election calendar. Gov. Terry Branstad, saying the process was already transparent, brushed aside those concerns. “I think they generally did a good job,” he said. “Remember this is a caucus, not a primary. So you don’t have all the professionalism that you have with the county auditors and all of those people handling it. You have volunteers.”

After the Iowa caucus, The Associated Press added a disclaimer about caucuses in its election advisories: “This event is a party run, party administered affair. No voting equipment is being used, and professional election administration officials are not managing the process.”

[gopiscrap]

1. I truly believe Willard not as done nearly as well in NH

as he did had Ricky been declared the winner...momentum might gone to Paul and the with Willard losing 3 in a row, he would have been deflated in FL

[MADem]

2. I think he still would have won (he has a home there) but his margin would have been smaller,

and Santorum or even Huntsman might have seen a bit more bounce. I think Paul had pretty much saturated his following in NH by the time Iowa wrapped up--he may have gotten a point more, but probably not much more than that. We'll never know, though, will we?

I will say, I know Iowa relies on all that money rolling in every four years--they may have something, from a state fiscal perspective, to worry about if the bloom is off the caucus rose.

I am not a real champion of the caucus system; it had merit in the old days, but today, I think they're very undemocratic, myself. The way they insist that everyone show up at a specific time--like everyone is a fucking corn farmer and has the time off to just yammer about their favorite candidate--is just exclusionary. The people who work shifts, and most importantly, are in the types of JOBS where people work shifts, are a specific demographic--many blue collar, retail workers, taxi drivers, hospital and nursing home help, that kind of thing--they're just told "Fuck you--this is when we meet, and if you can't make it, you and your lousy opinion don't count."

Of course, I don't live there, so my opinion is just one of those things I've got! The people of the state will probably not want to change to a primary model any time soon, because those caucuses are a year-long cash cow.