How Iowa Hijacked Our Democracy

[Beacool]

The first symbolic hurdle of the presidential campaign is anti-democratic, meaningless, even harmful.

By Jeff Greenfield
1/24/16

The armies of the media are gathering in the American heartland. With each new poll come shrieks of joy, or panic. When Monday night finally arrives, this first test of the candidates will be treated as an immeasurably consequential event, honored by column-miles of type and pixels, and uncountable hours of analysis—almost all of which will conceal the cold, hard reality: The Iowa caucuses have become a blight on American politics.

For 40 years, a state with an otherwise admirable civic life has been the scene of a quadrennial exercise that is the antithesis of a rational, accessible democratic process. By any measure—participation and representativeness, to mention two—it fails the most basic test of what you would want in an exercise that so dominates the attention and resources of campaigns and the media.

Iowa looks nothing like the rest of the nation, and its wintry, time-consuming caucuses make participation difficult, if not impossible, for much of the citizenry—especially those with limited economic means. The Democratic caucuses in particular take two of the core principles of a free system—the secret ballot and one-person-one-vote—and throw them away.

Indeed, if you look beyond the color and the pageantry, beyond the county fairs and butter cows, and appreciate the real workings and impact of the caucuses, you realize that Iowa is neither a useful bellwether or an important test for candidates. Moreover, there are baleful consequences of the inflated status of Iowa: It distorts the political process and leads to bad public policy.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/how-iowa-hijacked-our-democracy-213557#ixzz3yIIGrkPw

I completely agree that caucuses are undemocratic and shouldn't exist anymore. I've been saying it for years. We should have gotten rid of them a long time ago. Primaries are far more democratic and representative of the voters of a state.

[Dawson Leery]

1. Iowa may lose it's first status.

[Kentonio]

33. Says who exactly?

[brooklynite]

38. Not a chance...

[hrmjustin]

2. I think it is time to review IA and NH being first.

[sadoldgirl]

3. In my state the voters decided against a primary.

Thus not everyone agrees about the primary system
being better than the caucus.

[dsc]

23. yea I just love a system where those in the military defending our rights can't vote

just awesome.

[KansDem]

4. Personally, I've never understood this "First-in-the-Nation" voting...

Just have all the states vote the same day. Then we can move on to the general election.

[NCTraveler]

6. Wouldn't work.

A candidate like Sanders would never stand a chance.

[draa]

8. That's exactly right.

The current system gives the lesser known candidates a chance to be heard.

[NCTraveler]

10. I believe the current system is extremely flawed.

That's more of a fact than a belief.

[draa]

11. Of course it is but that wasn't what was being discussed.

[NCTraveler]

14. It's what the op is about. Nt

[draa]

16. True, but the discussion you were having was

Just have all the states vote the same day. Then we can move on to the general election.

You said:

Wouldn't work. A candidate like Sanders would never stand a chance.

Which I agreed with. That has nothing to do with the system being flawed other than being first to caucus.

[Kentonio]

34. You and all the other Hillary supporters who are watching the 'flawed' system defeat your candidate.

Again.

[NCTraveler]

41. I have no idea what your point is.

I have been saying this about the system for a long time. Before Sanders was running for President. About twenty years before that. Not everything is about Sanders.

[Kentonio]

44. I'm saying it's very amusing that the people lining up to insult the Iowa caucus system

a) Are nearly all Hillary supporters.

and..

b) Were surprisingly quiet about how democratic or otherwise it was before Hillary fell behind in the Iowa polls.

Suddenly its a big issue. Not because of Bernie or anything though, no, its just a giant coincidence.

[NCTraveler]

46. I have posts on this very board from well before Sanders put his hat in the ring....

About this process. It isn't all about Sanders and Clinton. You need to think past personalities. It is an extremely flawed system and pretty much everyone agrees.

I get it. You think it is a good system. I and many other progressives are able to see past personalities and see its oppressive flaws. Our current system is truly oppressive. Not sure why you are so exuberant in portraying it as anything else.

Once again, it has nothing to do with Clinton or Sanders. I hate how personalities create peoples worldview. Shouldn't be that way. Flawed is flawed.

I don't think you get it. I believe Clinton is going to win the primary easily. I'm still calling the primary process what it is. Oppressive.

[Kentonio]

48. You also call yourself a progressive despite not supporting the progressive candidate in the race

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on multiple points.

[NCTraveler]

49. There is simply nothing to disagree with when it comes to the primary process.

It is provably oppressive.

I'm sure you will be saying something completely if your candidate doesn't win. You made it clear in your replies it is about winning to you. That's it. When it doesn't work out well for you, I guarantee you will join me in calling the process oppressive. I look forward to that day.

Yes, I'm a progressive. You can call me whatever you want if you don't think I'm a progressive. Doesn't bother me a bit.

[Kentonio]

51. It is not 'provably oppressive', that is nonsense.

There are advantages to it, and there are also disadvantages, like with almost any other electoral system. It aids lesser known candidates and provides a counterweight to financial power, whilst also providing the voters with a high level of engagement into the process. At the same time less people engage with the system and its not an equal way to distribute each persons vote.

Advantages and disadvantages, like with most things in life.

[MoonRiver]

36. Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

[NCTraveler]

42. No.

Lesser heard of candidates couldn't do fifty states in the same time they are currently given if all at once.

[Beacool]

12. Other countries do it.

They have an election day, it's usually either on a weekend or the day is declared a holiday and everyone gets a chance to vote. We have an archaic, convoluted system that is not ideal for a modern democracy. I feel the same about pledged delegates as I feel about caucuses. Why do they still exist?

[brooklynite]

39. "Other countries" rarely let ordinary voters select candidates for the General Election.

[Beacool]

53. Really?

Please explain because that hasn't been my experience.

[NCTraveler]

43. I agree for the most part.

Elections should be held on weekends, or a national holiday should be set up. The primary campaign season would be over twice as long if we went all at once in the primary. That is where I diverge.

[NCTraveler]

5. I've been saying it for a long time.

Seems many agree. Simply put, it's oppressive.

[Iliyah]

7. That and electoral. Popular votes should be the ticket.

Therefore, agreed.

[MineralMan]

9. Caucuses are weird, it's true.

However they are far from undemocratic. In fact they derive from the old town meeting method of making decisions. They have a long, long history in this country. Today, only a few states use caucuses for Presidential delegate selection, of course. Iowa is one of those, and Minnesota is another.

I come from California, with an over 50 year residency there. It's a primary state, but still has caucus meetings which have a role in presidential delegate selection. Few Californians are aware of it, and it takes place at the county level. Most never have heard of it, but it still exists as part of the political party system.

I've grown fond of Minnesota's caucus and convention system. Rather than using Democratic Party clubs or other local organizations, the caucus system extends the party organization down to the precinct level. In Minnesota, precincts generally contain about 2000 registered voters, divided, of course, between the two parties. We hold caucus meetings before every election, early in the year. Everyone is invited to attend the precinct caucus for their party. Sadly, few show up.

The precinct caucuses elect delegates to the conventions at the next level, which elect delegates to the level above that. At the precinct level, pretty much anyone who shows up can be a delegate, even in presidential election years. That's how few people show up. My precinct has 14-16 delegate positions to the next level, the state senate district convention. We have NEVER had enough people to field all of those delegate positions.

Yes, the caucus system is limited. People don't show up, because it requires a commitment of an hour of two of time. But those who do show up are politically aware and informed. I like it. Not everyone does.

[Beacool]

13. Yes, but that worked in another era.

Nowadays, there are so many reasons why people find it difficult to take the time to caucus. The main one being that they are usually at work. I also find it unfair how the delegates are allotted. For example, how can a candidate who won a caucus by 1,400 votes get almost as many delegates as the candidate who won a primary by 100,000 votes? How is that democratic???

[MineralMan]

17. People have always had to work.

Minnesota's precinct caucuses convene at 7 PM. They last about an hour to deal with all business. Few show up, despite news coverage. That's unfortunate, but they are a great way to get involved in politics. Often candidates show up and take questions, and those who want can become delegates to the convention at the next level. Those conventions always have candidate on hand.

I've met and talked to many of them, and being a convention delegate means that contacting candidates and elected officials is much easier. We also have a primary election later in the year. Interestingly, the results from that are almost identical with the caucus results.

I know it seems odd to people in states where they don't exist, but caucuses are democracy on a personal participation level. They work well and have the same outcomes as primaries, almost exactly.

[cascadiance]

15. Not a bad analysis. The caucus system isn't a model system that we should advocate everywhere...

... but I think the Iowa caucus serves a unique purpose in this sort of an election.

It offers voters a chance to talk with each other and learn more about candidates that they are finding out about often for the first time, especially when it is the first election like Iowa's is traditionally.

I think it offers candidates opportunities to get their message through other channels and to not be beholden to what the corporatized media spoon feeds voters (who are increasingly more busy lately when they are having to work a few jobs rather than one if they are working at all).

The Iowa caucuses in effect "introduces" our country to candidates from each party to us all, even if more directly to those voting in them that night. They are in effect the "sample" experiment to have other means to check the viability of candidates than just a straight traditional faceless dropping a vote in a box methodology offers.

My first presidential vote was in the Iowa caucuses way back when when I was a freshman in college there then. I think it was a rewarding and engaging experience that served me a lot better than if I'd just dropped a ballot in the mail or pulled the lever of a voting machine then.

We can ask whether Iowa has a representative enough demographic structure to represent us all to justify a first primary status or other similar questions, but I do think that it being a caucus serves a purpose that I'm thankful for that we have in this country.

Selecting our leader should be a process that finds a way for our potential leaders to talk to us personally so that we can not only understand them more, but they can also understand us too.

I think that's especially important with today's media being a tool of corporate oligarchs far more than it was in the past (since they depend on campaign advertising income today far more than they did in the past which puts them in a compromised position in terms of being independent entities), rather than being an independent entity that keeps our politicians in check, which is a lost art today. Caucuses helps us work around that messy change in our infrastructure. Some candidates relying on the newer corporatized media to get their candidate elected might not like that, but I think it serves us better.

[Frustratedlady]

18. Good post! eom

[Beacool]

22. All good points.

I still think that caucuses favor the candidate who has a better network of people on the ground, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who go out and caucus represent the wishes of the state as a whole. The percentage of people who caucus is always smaller than the number of people who vote in primary states of similar size.

[karynnj]

31. great post - I think of it as Iowa and NH really vetting the candidates

Everyone else in the executive branch gets vetted carefully to avoid embarrassment for the President. If not for Iowa and NH, a candidate could win based on focused groups and well rehearsed speech and puff piece interviews -- and fawning media stories. Those things would still help and they all develop stump speeches, but occasionally there is a real moment - many in Iowa and NH when they have to speak to real people.

[wilsonbooks]

19. I agree. Missouri switched to a primary system and I miss the caucuses.

[MoonRiver]

40. There's also the issue of access for the disabled.

It can be extremely difficult or impossible to get to caucuses and stay until the end. In a primary state we disabled folks can send in our absentee ballots.

[MineralMan]

50. You may have a point. In Minnesota, however, all caucus locations

are ADA accessible. The DFL Party is very careful to treat everyone equally. I can't speak to conditions in other states, though.

[karynnj]

20. completely disagree

Iowa and NH not only don't hijack our democracy, they keep it for us!

I a local election, the person running needs to speak to his neighbors and convince them to elect him or her. At least in many place I have lived, a person could not win just by having the most money. The higher up the ladder, the less likely that the candidate - even if they wanted - could meet face to face with a significant number of people. The election depends on advertising and winning over the media.

At the highest level, the Presidency, we are very dependent on the media for how we perceive the candidate. Worse, the DC punditry is a closed enough circle that speak mostly to each other, that strong biases appear and are then reinforced - as everyone seems to repeat the same line. As in any group, it takes guts to be the contrarian.

I would suggest that Iowa and NH are a break from that. Many people from NH and Iowa speak of how they feel they need to meet all the candidates and hear them out - sometimes more than once. Then, and only then, do they make their choice. In the past, they have made choices that were not the choice of the beltway pundits. Two obvious times were Jimmy Carter and John Kerry. Neither were ever beltway favorites - maybe because both are at heart idealists rather than cynics. Clearly not the cool kids as labeled by the media. Barack Obama was also an Iowa winner, but he was already a favorite of many -- but, in his case, what Iowa did was to shift some in the beltway to stop considering him as a VP or a future - not 2008 - candidate. What Iowa said was that he could win - even against HRC.

However, winning Iowa and NH - especially with the way delegates are allocated does not hijack anything. At the most, what it does is to force the media to stop gazing at its own navel for a day or two and to cover the winner in greater detail than they would otherwise. What Jeff Greenfield, a long time member of the beltway punditry - is that Iowa and NH means that he and his colleagues, who still have a huge voice, can't control this first part of the race.

Now, I know they are rural and white -- but the rest of the country does not have to accept the Iowa or NH choices. The race has only just begun then and later states have their chance to make a choice. I actually liked the primary schedules that existed back in the 1980s and 1990s. The spacing was such that as each state came up in the queue, the candidates went there. Obviously they did not cover those states with as many events as Iowa and NH, but there were many elections where as candidates became better known the front runner changed.

If you want to discuss hijacking, I would suggest that the 2008 super Tuesday was designed to do just that. 23 states had their contest on one day. This was clearly originally designed to be a wall for all but the candidate with - by far - the greatest name recognition.

[Beacool]

25. I see your point.

BTW, I have no issue with NH. It's a small, mostly white state, but at least it holds a primary. My issue is with the caucus system. I have read the other posts and people in favor of caucuses make good points. It is old fashioned retail politics and voters get to see unknown candidates. It's the convoluted way in which people have to caucus what I object to, it doesn't seem democratic in today's society.

[karynnj]

28. I was suspicious of the caucuses until I watched the CSPAN coverage that focused on two districts

This was in 2004. I thought I would watch for a few minutes to get a flavor of what they were like. I stayed for hours because it was fascinating. From the social greeting of people they knew to people going through the arguments of why they were for someone - sometimes recounting both things they liked and their concerns - even for the person they decided for. Then there were the supporters in groups that did not meet the threshold. They were fascinating. Kuchinich had told his people that if they were in this situation, go with Edwards. (I suspect he hoped that neither Dean or Kerry would win - the he would be the liberal anti war choice - rather than the hawkish and conservative 2004 Edwards) His supporters in one place spent time roaming the halls trying to poach people from anyone so they could stay Kuchinich and failed. It did not look like many in any place were willing to follow his wishes.

But - I agree that folksy and communal as this is - I would prefer a primary there. Even if they combined some of the aspects of the caucus. I really wonder how the fact that your choice is public affects things. However, since being in VT, with its tradition of town meeting day - even though Burlington doesn't have a real one - there is a real American democracy (not a republic) that shows through here. It might be in that tradition that the caucus where everyone gets their say makes sense.

[Beacool]

30. As a political exercise it is fascinating.

But, what about the people who for various reasons cannot caucus? Working people who can't get the time off, elderly and infirm people who may be able to vote in a primary but cannot physically withstand the time it takes to caucus, military people serving overseas, etc. Don't they have a right to be able to cast their votes?

[DaGimpster]

56. Perhaps its actually a more accurate reflection of the current state of politics.

My rationale being it seems he/she whom shouts down upon people the loudest often wins.

Full-disclosure, even as an Iowan, I find the caucus process to sometimes be a bit overwhelming. That said, I do my duty and come out.

[Beacool]

57. That's great that you are able and willing to participate.

But what about the others that for various circumstances can't caucus? Their voices are not heard. Primary states give a chance for people to vote from early morning to late night, and those who can't do it in person can still vote through an absentee ballot. To me that's a far more democratic system.

[DaGimpster]

58. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I believe that all voting days should be paid holidays, or at least a contiguous block of time that allows one to vote or caucus. I also agree that an absentee resident should be able to have their voice heard.

I should make it clear, I'm actually a Florida transplant circa 2001. I am more accustomed to the standard primary practice, but this is what Iowa's got.

[cali]

21. I see caucuses as an exercise in democracy

[dsc]

24. yea the military members who can't vote because they are deployed on our behalf

I am sure find it very democratic.

[karynnj]

29. Exactly and not a representative democracy but the real true thing nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Pssst. Your subject line describes DWS to a "T".

[Motown_Johnny]

27. Shouldn't we have known better? You know, like Homeowners???

[Flying Squirrel]

32. I'm sure that you also believe superdelegates are undemocratic.

Right?

[treestar]

35. And they should all be held on the same day

in every state. A day like May or June. The states that go the earliest get all this attention and cause the campaign period to be dragged out ridiculously long.

[Armstead]

47. I think phased primaries are good on some level. Perhaps, though...

it should be a more representative cross-section of states.

The advantage of early primaries is they do help level the playing field, allow for more accessible personalized campaigns and give visibility to candidates who don't have instant access to Early Big Money to campaign nationwide.

But it would probably be more effective if a few early states with greater geographic and demographic diversity were included.

[KingCharlemagne]

37. What rubbish. Caucuses are just as 'democratic' as primaries. Caucuses may not have

a secret ballot, but they still embody the principle of 'one person, one vote' (for those who bother to show up to caucus, that is).

The Iowa caucus allows candidates without immense financial resources to compete on a somewhat level playing field with more well-heeled candidates. You can't get much more democratic than that.

[Armstead]

45. And if somehow Clinton runs into trouble in South Carolina, we'll be hearing....

how ridiculous it is that a state like South Carolina should have such a large role in the Democratic nominating process.

If Clinton holds a comfortable lead there, it'll be a great representative primary.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point of Greenfeld in the OP, by the way.

But it just strikes me as funny how the process is suddenly ripe for criticism when a particular candidate is running into problems there. Why do I think that if Clinton were holding a commanding lead, the process in Iowa would be deemed okay?

[Beacool]

54. This is not about this election or the 2008 election either.

It's about a few states still having an archaic election system that many think is undemocratic.

[Armstead]

59. I tend to agree

[artislife]

52. Caucuses were a large part of Obama winning the election in 2008

My state caucuses and I am glad. Mind you they are holding it on a Saturday and it will start at 10 am.

One thing I must say, Iowans do a good job for first caucus. They are an engaged, informed and tough sell. By tough sell, I mean they seem to want to hear from everyone, a lot and are not firmly entrenched for a candidate from the get go. They take being first seriously.

[DaGimpster]

55. Every time a group's candidate doesn't get their way, people cast stones down on my state. EOM