Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Despite Media Hype, Iowa's Democratic Caucuses Will Have No True Winner

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted December 30, 2007.


Horserace journalism obscures caucuses' true value: How Iowa Democrats settle on a candidate.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For weeks, critics have said the Iowa Caucuses are less than democratic. They exclude elderly and disabled voters who can't get there. The same is true for soldiers overseas and college students on winter break. They are in a state that is mostly white. And contrary to the national media hype, there is no clear winner -- at least on the Democratic side -- that commits delegates for the party's national convention.

All that is true. But the Iowa Caucuses are really useful if you follow politics. Yet most of the national media won't cover that part of the process. And the state's Democratic Party is not helping either, by not releasing the raw data of the sequence of votes on Caucus Night. Those votes -- and the debate and compromises that go with it -- could inject some realism and perspective into the rest of the campaign.

Because unlike any other state, what the Iowa Caucuses offer is the chance to see people deciding whom to pick after their first choice for president does not make it in the first round of voting. That forced compromise and the debate accompanying it -- coming at the start of the presidential season -- is close to how people vote on Election Day.

"The caucuses were never designed to have a winner," said Doug Jones, a University of Iowa computer scientist who is one of the nation's leading experts on electronic voting. "Fights about who won are a matter of interpretation, since the caucuses elect delegates to the county conventions, who elect delegates to the state and congressional district elections, who elect delegates to the national party conventions."

On the Republican side, that party conducts a straw poll on Caucus Night and releases the raw numbers. They also elect delegates to county conventions. But the Democrats have another system, Jones said, and one whose nuances are little-understood -- especially by most of the political reporters now in the state.

"For the Democrats, the caucuses are not about giving raw popularity numbers, they are about forcing people to make compromises and play politics," he said. "In a way, they accomplish the kinds of things that instant runoff voting accomplishes, but do so through social mechanisms instead of mathematical computation."

Instant runoff voting, which exists in some cites and states, ranks candidates. If there's no clear winner with more than 50 percent, then candidates with the fewest votes get taken out of the mix. When that happens, their supporters' second choice gets counted for one of the remaining candidates until someone has a majority. Iowa's Democratic caucuses are like that. If a candidate does not get 15 percent of the vote, that candidate's people must vote for someone else. That compromise -- that part of the process -- is what is valuable for the rest of the country.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democratic party, iowa, caucuses, delegates, convention

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Outrider
Posted by: outrider on Dec 30, 2007 8:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HUCKABEE ?????

Iowa may be like some other states in terms of its urban population and per capita income but what about the religious beliefs of its citizens? If one can believe the polls and the Hawkeyes vote accordingly, they would abandon our Constitution and substitute a theocracy. There is little evidence that this represents the attitude of the majority of our citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Outrider Posted by: kam
» RE: Outrider Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Outrider Posted by: Afban
instant runoff voting and election integrity
Posted by: ncvoter on Dec 30, 2007 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't even count simple ballots right yet, but some still want to make elections more complex. Some hope that instant runoff voting is going to give them the election results they want. IRV changes how ballots are cast, counted and valued. It is not simply a matter of tallying second or third choice votes. Each single individual ballot has to be examined before a "transfer" can be made.


Scotland used to have hand counted paper ballots, the best voting system around. But this year they adopted a form of instant runoff voting, and were advised that they needed computers (optical scanners) in order to deal with the more complicated vote counting method. That election was described as a "National Humiliation". A combination of election reforms including IRV contributed to the disaster. May 7, 2007 "Not so much an election as a national humiliation - Scotland’s voters were treated with arrogance and contempt".

36% of disabled voters polled by the advocacy group, CAPABILITY SCOTLAND
stated that STV made it more difficult to vote


If you don't trust computerized voting, then you don't want to incentivize more complex computerized voting that requires an algorithm to tell you who won.

If you value hand counted paper ballots, then remember what happened to Scotland. And their ballots are far simpler than what we have in the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the advantage the Caucus has that IRV doesn't
Posted by: ncvoter on Dec 30, 2007 10:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just so as not to add to th confusion of IRV, the Iowa Caucus is not like IRV.

Yes you get a second chance if your candidate doesn't make the 15% threshold, but you make your second choice after you have the information of the first.

This is like a real runoff, not IRV where
you have to choose before you know exacty what you are choosing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would love...
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Dec 30, 2007 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to see both parties go into their '08 conventions with no candidate having the necessary number of delegates to lock up the nomination beforehand.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everything was simpler and more confused
Posted by: dustinblythe on Dec 31, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I miss the good old days where a primary like the one in my home state of Indiana still mattered. When the nominating system was tweaked back in the early 70's it not only eliminated the convention as the actual nominating gathering, it eliminated a lot of the excitement. Everything seems front loaded and more like a drag race than a marathon. Whomever wins Iowa, and sometimes New Hampshire, is quickly anointed as having a lock on the nomination. Delegates are quickly calculated, extrapolated and predicted.

I prefer the idea of regional primaries where groups of states hold their primaries together every four years on a rotating basis. As tradition laden as the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are, we have seen in 2008 an incredible shifting of primaries to try to compete with the media and hype that accompany those states' early contests, making the race even more about money than ever before.

All of that being said, I forsee a John Edwards victory in Iowa, which will cause the major media outlets to question the viability of Obama and the inevitability of Clinton. A victory in Iowa will give Edwards a boost in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and will extend the race into the February 5th round of primaries, where the eventual winner will be determined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Note to Bev Harris...sorry...
Posted by: sausage on Dec 31, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Ms. Harris,

At least a the caucuses I've attended since 1988, the only "real" voting done at an Iowa Caucus is for the permanent caucus chair and secretary, county convention delegates and alternatives; county convention committee representatives and precinct committee members.

Sorry,Bev, but we do not vote for presidential candidates. What we do is: the permanent caucus chair does a head count then determine the viability threshold of preference groups using a mathmatic formula.

That means if I go in as committed to Kucinich and there are not enough fellow Kucinich supporters to remain in a viable group, I have to attach myself to another group. This is where the horsetrading comes in.

Sometimes a caucus attendee who supports a candidate without a viable group, but who wants to go on to the county convention, will go over to another group with the proviso of being elected county delegate or first alternate. This is pretty common because not that many caucus goers are that committed to want to go to the day-long county convention, followed by the district convention and the state convention. O.K.?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we lay a couple myths to rest?
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Dec 31, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On balance this article was mostly fair and accurate (and thank you for not being too judgmental).

As chairperson for my local DEMOCRATIC precinct caucus here in rural southeast Iowa I've spent a lot of time recently trying to educate people about the caucus process and there are several BIG misconceptions many out-of-state people have which I would like to address head on.

First: The Republicans have a SEPARATE caucus from the Democrats. Each party has its own set of rules and procedures, and I am only conversant with those for the Democrats. It is very important not to confuse the two caucuses because the kinds of voters who attend are also VERY different.

Second: Democrats in Iowa tend to be quite progressive on all social issues; the GOP in Iowa may be owned lock stock and barrel by the wing-nut religious right, but we Democrats would NEVER select an anti-choice candidate (even in this little rural precinct). Yes, there are a tiny handfull of anti-abortion Dems here and there (mostly in heavily-Catholic urban centers), but they are so scattered around the state as to have NO INFLUENCE whatsoever. PLEASE STOP complaining about how "conservative" we are. . .just proves you don't know us or how we think.

Third: historically Iowa Democrats have led the rest of the nation in opposition to war going back to McGovern in '72. We are a pretty dovish lot on balance and don't appreciate brain-dead sabre-rattling or "pissing contests" among candidates desperate to prove how "tough" they are. This is tempered, however, with a good strong dose of realism; everybody would love to believe in pie in the sky, but that's not how you win elections.

Fourth: This year we are looking for a candidate who can offer some REALISTIC hope on the economy and an end to the war of choice in Iraq. We also want a candidate who can carry the general election in a LANDSLIDE.

Fifth: We take our job to vett the candidates very seriously and spend a lot of time listening to them, studying their positions and asking them tough questions. We realize that the next president will have a mess of epic proportions on his or her hands and we are looking for somebody who has the intelligence, energy and imagination to deal with that. Fortunately for us, there's a field of extraordinarily good candidates this year!

Sixth: STOP getting your news and views about Iowa and the caucuses from ignorant, lazy reporters from the MSM who don't bother to talk to people like me. The average attendee at the Iowa Democratic caucus is. . .well, above average in terms of committment and intelligence, but you'd never know that from the crap that gets quoted by the patronizing ponces in the press who made up their mind a long time ago that we're all a bunch of ignorant hayseeds. (As the article notes, this state is actually 60 per cent urban!)

I volunteer my time and participate in the caucuses as a chairperson and a precinct captain (for Edwards this year, Dean last time) because I passionately believe in and love representative democracy and I want a better future for all. I won't let you down!

Jerald Thomas Hawhee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with Governor Strickland of Ohio
Posted by: johnmeeks on Dec 31, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Barack Obama may win the Iowa Caucus on the Democratic side but it's weird that it will likely be without the support of minority voters.
The only time I saw or heard a person of color in Iowa is from watching MSNBC's 'doc block' on Iowa State Prison.
I say this because the political establishment seems to be very content with allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to winnow down the packs of contenders and leave the scraps to the other states. And yet the media pays no mind to the idea there 98% of the population needs to have more say in the process.
I voted in the 2004 primary for someone who had dropped out the week before because a state like Iowa deemed him dead in the water. Way to go for that 'momentum' with John Kerry!
It hurts to have to vote in a late primary and all you have left is the 'vetted' person who is supposed to be the standard bearer for the whole nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]