"You have to respect the absurdity of it,"
January 25, 2016 6:47 AM Subscribe
Iowa's caucus system, explained. [YouTube] [Vox] Each US primary election season kicks off in Iowa. Learn the process behind one of the pivotal events of the general election.
Related:
- Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? Because everyone thinks they do. by Andrew Prokop [Vox]
Related:
- Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? Because everyone thinks they do. by Andrew Prokop [Vox]
The state is small. Its population is overwhelmingly white. Turnout for the caucuses is absurdly low. Democrats don't even get a secret ballot. And vanishingly few of the delegates who will actually determine each party's nominee at the national conventions will be from Iowa. So why do we care so much about who wins? As I'll explain, Iowa became super-important because we — the media, party insiders, activists, the candidates themselves, and even voters to an extent — gradually decided to make it so important. These key players think the caucus results reveal a great deal about which candidates can win elections elsewhere, and the contest for Iowa isn't really a contest for delegates — it's a contest to look good in their eyes.- How Jimmy Carter Revolutionized the Iowa Caucuses [The Atlantic]
But what Carter and his advisers understood from day one was that the old rules of campaigning no longer applied. The power of the party bosses, who used to decide on the candidate during the convention, had been destroyed as a result of reforms that were pushed by McGovern after the disastrous 1968 convention. Now, voters in each party held the balance of power through their pick at the primaries and caucuses. There was also more money available for non-establishment candidates.- Investigating Why Iowa Has Caucuses And Why Iowans Vote First In Presidential Elections by Sam Sanders [NPR] [Interview]
SANDERS: Tell me your full name and your title.- How Closely Does Iowa Resemble the U.S.? by Laura Lorenzetti [Fortune]
YEPSEN: OK. I'm David Yepsen. For 35 years, I was a political writer for The Des Moines Register.
SANDERS: Yepsen is the Iowa politics writer of a record. He helped answer a few questions. First of them being what exactly is a caucus?
YEPSEN: In a caucus - it's a neighborhood meeting. In fact, the term caucus is thought to be a Native American term - an Algonquin term for meeting of tribal leaders.
SANDERS: It's more than just a vote. People gather and talk about why they're supporting their candidate. And they try to convince other people to support their guy or gal. The process can sometimes take hours. I also spoke with Kathie Obradovich.
OBRADOVICH: The really important thing to remember about Iowa is not that it's fist because it's important. Iowa is important because it's first.
SANDERS: It all began in 1968.
OBRADOVICH: It happened after the 1968 National Convention - Democratic National Convention, which is marred by violence over the Vietnam War and racial tension. And the Democratic Party nationally and in Iowa decided they wanted to change their process to make it more inclusive
SANDERS: Part of that meant spreading the schedule out in each state. Because Iowa has one of the more complex processes, they had to start really, really early.
As it turns out, Iowa is fairly close to representing America, according to a new study by WalletHub. A look at 31 key measures, including economic, demographic, religious, and education, found that the overall resemblance index for Iowa to the whole U.S. is 97%.“While Iowa is small and racially homogeneous, if you evaluate it on social and economic indicators, it is more representative than people think,” said Christopher Faricy, an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. “There is no one state that will perfectly represent the country’s diversity.” Like Faricy mentions, the study found that Iowa most aligns with the U.S. average when it comes to economic concerns. For instance, the unemployment rate, average number of hours worked each day, and the distribution of household income is very close to the national standard. (Though, the wealth gap is slightly more pronounced.)- Iowa Democratic caucus runs into difficulties amid volunteering crisis. by Ben Jacobs [The Guardian]
The Guardian first reported in November that the Iowa Democratic party was unprepared for the first caucuses in the nation and Time magazine reported Saturday the state party lacked at least 200 temporary chairs. The shortage of party volunteers to preside over each individual caucus is not a localized phenomenon. According to information provided to the Guardian by a local Democrat familiar with the planning, at least one precinct needs a caucus chair in over half of the state’s counties. The shortage is so dire that some counties are planning on having the same person chair multiple precinct caucuses simultaneously. Problems are not limited to caucus chairs. Caucus locations have often been shifting abruptly, leaving caucus-goers and campaigns with uncertain information about which location to go to.- Another Reason to Caucus in Iowa: The Restaurants by Jonathan Martin [The New York Times]
“These are the places where people meet: This is where you’re going to get the scoop,” said Grant Young, an Iowa Republican strategist who is something of a culinary ambassador for the out-of-staters who move to Iowa to work on campaigns. “It’s where your grandpa has been going forever and they talk about the local high school football team, corn prices and, oh, yeah, I don’t know about this Trump guy.”- The forgotten victors of the Iowa caucuses. by Becca Stanek [The Week]
Rmember when Rick Santorum almost won the Republican presidential primary? Yeah, neither does anybody else. The former Pennsylvania senator placed first in the Iowa caucuses in 2012 and then put up a long challenge to eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Now he's relegated to the Republican undercard debate with Mike Huckabee — who also won the Iowa caucuses, in 2008. Although the first-to-caucus state occupies a lot of space in the political imagination, it is actually a pretty terrible predictor of who is going to be each party's nominee. Since the Democratic Party made Iowa the first stop in its primary in 1972, only five victors there became the eventual nominee. For Republicans, the record is even worse: Only three of their Iowa caucus winners have ever been crowned the nominee.- Tech is Finally Disrupting the Archaic Iowa Caucuses by Issie Lapowsky [Wired]
For a process that plays such a major role in determining the future leader of the world’s most powerful country, the Iowa Caucuses can seem archaic, opaque, and hard to understand. But this year, thanks to mobile tech and social media, they’re about to become more open and transparent—an evolution that could also play an outsized role in influencing the outcome of the nation’s first presidential contest. Back during the 2008 Iowa Caucus, Rachel Paine Caufield says she had never even heard about Twitter. The platform was not quite two years old and hadn’t yet broken into the mainstream. But that year, a friend came to town to observe the proceedings and told Caufield this new tool had the power to radically change the process.- History of the Iowa Caucus [YouTube] [Iowa Public Television]
Oops, forgot one.
2016 Primary Forecasts: The odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily. [Five Thirty Eight]
posted by Fizz at 6:59 AM on January 25, 2016
2016 Primary Forecasts: The odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily. [Five Thirty Eight]
posted by Fizz at 6:59 AM on January 25, 2016
Ah, a clear explanation of why I hate the Iowa caucuses, thank you.
Because it really is a big deal made of a whole lotta nothing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:03 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because it really is a big deal made of a whole lotta nothing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:03 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Iowa, where every four years the presidential hopefuls of at least one, and possibly both, parties go to see who can praise corn ethanol the most.
I also loved the part about how Iowa is totally the most awesomely perfect representation of America, as long as you ignore all the parts where it doesn't represent America. But that's the kind of deep analysis I've come to expect from Fortune.
I think Iowa has had enough of the spotlight, next cycle can we get the parties to force Iowa back and let someplace that doesn't have a caucus, and maybe isn't quite so overwhelmingly rural and white, have a shot? If for no other reason than I'm really getting tired of hearing people who don't want to annoy the awesome might of Iowa coming up with transparently thin excuses for why it should totally keep on being first.
posted by sotonohito at 7:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
I also loved the part about how Iowa is totally the most awesomely perfect representation of America, as long as you ignore all the parts where it doesn't represent America. But that's the kind of deep analysis I've come to expect from Fortune.
I think Iowa has had enough of the spotlight, next cycle can we get the parties to force Iowa back and let someplace that doesn't have a caucus, and maybe isn't quite so overwhelmingly rural and white, have a shot? If for no other reason than I'm really getting tired of hearing people who don't want to annoy the awesome might of Iowa coming up with transparently thin excuses for why it should totally keep on being first.
posted by sotonohito at 7:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wouldn't call corn and corn based products a 'whole lotta nothing.' Just look around you and ask yourself, "Is there corn involved in its manufacturing?" If you're looking at your fancy smart phone or comfortable pair of slacks, then the answer is yes! If you're riding in the back of a taxi cab or eating a fresh apple, the answer is still yes! If you're engaging in a conversation with a Russian named Vlad, who has a lisp, but it's not noticeable because of his accent, then the answer is still yes!"
I, too, am excited that Iowa will be in the rear view mirror in just about a week.
posted by Atreides at 7:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I, too, am excited that Iowa will be in the rear view mirror in just about a week.
posted by Atreides at 7:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't particularly love that Iowa gets to be first, but I do love the idea of a community having to debate and negotiate candidates. I wish it was built into more aspects of politics.
posted by lownote at 7:14 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by lownote at 7:14 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think anyone can explain the Iowa political experience who isn't Professor Irwin Corey.
posted by delfin at 7:17 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by delfin at 7:17 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I lived in Iowa in 1999 and participated in the caucus. It was bitchin', seriously. On caucus night, all of the Democrats got together at the elementary school and initially split up into camps: Bill Bradley folks over here, Al Gore folks over there, Howard Dean folks over there, etc. We all got excited about "our candidate" and then all groups got together and tried to convince others that "our candidate" was the best. It did not take long for our district to come to a consensus, but I've heard that some caucuses can go on all night long.
Once we had a consensus, we all went into the lunchroom and voted for our delegates. And after all that, the public was welcome to go up front and submit platforms and raise issues that the Democratic party should focus on in the next four years.
It was snowing outside and there was plenty of coffee and hot chocolate for everyone. The atmosphere was electric. Since I was in college we had plenty of students who showed up for the caucus, but a healthy number of Townies as well. It was one of the few times that I witnessed the students and townies mingling together. I had a broken ankle at the time but didn't even mind having to run from room to room and stand in the lunchroom because it was overflowing with people participating in the democratic process.
It was so perfectly American I couldn't stand it. I wish that everyone could have that Capra-esque feeling of AMERICA!!! *fist pump* that I had during the Iowa caucuses back when I was young and idealistic.
posted by Elly Vortex at 7:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [26 favorites]
Once we had a consensus, we all went into the lunchroom and voted for our delegates. And after all that, the public was welcome to go up front and submit platforms and raise issues that the Democratic party should focus on in the next four years.
It was snowing outside and there was plenty of coffee and hot chocolate for everyone. The atmosphere was electric. Since I was in college we had plenty of students who showed up for the caucus, but a healthy number of Townies as well. It was one of the few times that I witnessed the students and townies mingling together. I had a broken ankle at the time but didn't even mind having to run from room to room and stand in the lunchroom because it was overflowing with people participating in the democratic process.
It was so perfectly American I couldn't stand it. I wish that everyone could have that Capra-esque feeling of AMERICA!!! *fist pump* that I had during the Iowa caucuses back when I was young and idealistic.
posted by Elly Vortex at 7:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [26 favorites]
MeFi: You have to respect the absurdity of it
posted by fairmettle at 7:25 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by fairmettle at 7:25 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
We all got excited about "our candidate" and then all groups got together and tried to convince others that "our candidate" was the best.
This is the part I hate about the caucus system in Iowa as it currently is. You've spent the last year or two being bombarded with appearances and ads and stories and conversations and blah and blah and blah, and people are still changing their minds on the day of the caucus? No, fuck that noise. People who haven't made up their minds by that point shouldn't have any influence.
posted by Etrigan at 7:27 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is the part I hate about the caucus system in Iowa as it currently is. You've spent the last year or two being bombarded with appearances and ads and stories and conversations and blah and blah and blah, and people are still changing their minds on the day of the caucus? No, fuck that noise. People who haven't made up their minds by that point shouldn't have any influence.
posted by Etrigan at 7:27 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
People who haven't made up their minds by that point shouldn't have any influence.
The great thing about this country is that you can, absolutely, do that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
The great thing about this country is that you can, absolutely, do that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ugh, sorry, my mistake -- I meant to say "shouldn't have that level of influence." Because Iowa makes a big deal about how they're methodical and careful and they really need to meet all the candidates themselves, not just see a bunch of ads like everyone else, and it gives them a deep personal understanding of their, like, souls or whatever, and how they discuss this stuff and really figure it all out, and then they're in a high school gym and someone they vaguely recognize from church says "Bernie Sanders is unelectable!" and they're all "Oh, well, in that case..."
And that's the big story for the next week, and it makes and breaks campaigns, and it is stupid.
posted by Etrigan at 7:40 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
And that's the big story for the next week, and it makes and breaks campaigns, and it is stupid.
posted by Etrigan at 7:40 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
I also loved the part about how Iowa is totally the most awesomely perfect representation of America, as long as you ignore all the parts where it doesn't represent America. But that's the kind of deep analysis I've come to expect from Fortune.
Seriously. Even if they're representative of the rest of the country on a bunch of other things, they're 97% white. And it's not like race is a non-issue. We've seen time and time again how people who may align with nonwhite voters on every other thing can still have a serious blind spot when it comes to race. That entire article being a great example.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seriously. Even if they're representative of the rest of the country on a bunch of other things, they're 97% white. And it's not like race is a non-issue. We've seen time and time again how people who may align with nonwhite voters on every other thing can still have a serious blind spot when it comes to race. That entire article being a great example.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Preach. It's just complete bullshit. There hasn't been a national election where in my life time that the choice isn't pretty obvious a month or so in, so the year long slog is a waste of time and money.
If you're still undecided on who should be President after a few months of the election, then I really don't know what to tell you. It's not that complicated or hard.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you're still undecided on who should be President after a few months of the election, then I really don't know what to tell you. It's not that complicated or hard.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think that this election will be obvious by early March.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Something tells me we could never get away with pulling this kind of stuff down here in Voting Rights Act Land.
(Even with the defanged version.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:06 AM on January 25, 2016
(Even with the defanged version.)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:06 AM on January 25, 2016
While Iowa is small and racially homogeneous, if you evaluate it on social and economic indicators, it is more representative than people think.
Overall, when it comes to accurate national representation, “[Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina] do a pretty good job of capturing the country’s diversity
I can't... how do you put these words together, in this order, and still get to hold the title "Professor of political science"?
Fun electoral quiz!
Which of these states have populations less than 92% white?
Of those, which has voted for a democrat in the last forty years?
Of these four states, what is the median and mean percentage of caucasian residents?
A.
(Nevada, SC)
(Nevada, though they also voted for Bush twice)
(80%)
Yep. They're definitely the first four primaries because they're representative of the population of the country, and CERTAINLY not because the national parties are holding a gun to every other state's head.
posted by Mayor West at 8:15 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Overall, when it comes to accurate national representation, “[Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina] do a pretty good job of capturing the country’s diversity
I can't... how do you put these words together, in this order, and still get to hold the title "Professor of political science"?
Fun electoral quiz!
Which of these states have populations less than 92% white?
Of those, which has voted for a democrat in the last forty years?
Of these four states, what is the median and mean percentage of caucasian residents?
A.
(Nevada, SC)
(Nevada, though they also voted for Bush twice)
(80%)
Yep. They're definitely the first four primaries because they're representative of the population of the country, and CERTAINLY not because the national parties are holding a gun to every other state's head.
posted by Mayor West at 8:15 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
I thought of selling my caucus vote on eBay just to see how much Hillary would pay.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:23 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 8:23 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, in precis, maybe:
- It's easy, lazy reporting: let the buzz of the event bring the story to the reporter
- The caucusoids look and sound exactly like the reporter and their channel's target demographic.
Of those, which has voted for a democrat in the last forty years?
South Carolina went for Carter in '76, so your answer isn't quite right. Just for the record, here are the general election results of the last ten elections in the first four primary states:
South Carolina went for Carter in '76, so your answer isn't quite right. Just for the record, here are the general election results of the last ten elections in the first four primary states:
- Iowa: 4 times for the Republicans ('76, '80, '84, '04), 6 times for the Democrats; voted for the ultimate winner 7/10 times
- New Hampshire: 5 times for the Republicans ('76, '80, '84, '88, '00), 5 times for the Democrats; voted for the ultimate winner 8/10 times
- South Carolina: 9 times for the Republicans, 1 time for the Democrats ('76); voted for the ultimate winner 6/10 times
- Nevada: 6 times for the Republicans ('76, '80, '84, '88, '00, '04), 4 times for the Democrats; voted for the ultimate winner 9/10 times
I didn't realize early enough that Colorado has primary caucuses and that you need to have registered with a party at least two months beforehand to participate, so I'll be showing up at my local precinct as a visitor. Bit of a downer not to have a say, but at least it'll be interesting to see how the caucus process works here.
posted by asperity at 8:46 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by asperity at 8:46 AM on January 25, 2016
I wouldn't call corn and corn based products a 'whole lotta nothing.' Just look around you and ask yourself, "Is there corn involved in its manufacturing?" If you're looking at your fancy smart phone or comfortable pair of slacks, then the answer is yes! If you're riding in the back of a taxi cab or eating a fresh apple, the answer is still yes! If you're engaging in a conversation with a Russian named Vlad, who has a lisp, but it's not noticeable because of his accent, then the answer is still yes!"
So back around 2000 or so, I did well in the regional science fair and was invited, along with a bunch of others, to a big tour of the local USDA lab. Note that my project was in acoustics and had nothing to do with agriculture, but no matter, the feds were here to convince the scientists of tomorrow to pursue agriculture.
Anyway, on this tour, I learned that not only does the US Government subsidize the crap out of corn production, it also pays for a whole bunch of scientists to try to figure out to do with the glut of extra corn that results (this was before we started burning corn on a massive scale for ethanol). We had prototype machines to make hamburger boxes out of corn, corn syrup production experts, folks trying to make plastics out of corn, etc... All trying to find uses for the inedible foodstuff we price well below its cost.
So yeah, corn is in everything, but you have your causation backward. The Iowa caucuses aren't a big deal because corn and corn based products are a big deal; corn and corn based products are a big deal because the Iowa caucuses are a big deal.
posted by zachlipton at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
So back around 2000 or so, I did well in the regional science fair and was invited, along with a bunch of others, to a big tour of the local USDA lab. Note that my project was in acoustics and had nothing to do with agriculture, but no matter, the feds were here to convince the scientists of tomorrow to pursue agriculture.
Anyway, on this tour, I learned that not only does the US Government subsidize the crap out of corn production, it also pays for a whole bunch of scientists to try to figure out to do with the glut of extra corn that results (this was before we started burning corn on a massive scale for ethanol). We had prototype machines to make hamburger boxes out of corn, corn syrup production experts, folks trying to make plastics out of corn, etc... All trying to find uses for the inedible foodstuff we price well below its cost.
So yeah, corn is in everything, but you have your causation backward. The Iowa caucuses aren't a big deal because corn and corn based products are a big deal; corn and corn based products are a big deal because the Iowa caucuses are a big deal.
posted by zachlipton at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't understand how the idea of being open minded about your preference for the next president of the United States (At an event designed around debating this topic) should disqualify you to vote. This goes double for a primary with a wide field where people may have a preference that is not popular, but lines up with another candidate who is potentially viable to become the nominee.
posted by lownote at 8:51 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by lownote at 8:51 AM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
My favorite part of election years as an Iowa caucus voter is the part where all the progressive types line up to shit on Iowa for being so small, stupid, religious, rural, white, old, unsophisticated, corn-addled, bad at predicting the eventual nominee, and disproportionately influential. Like if you could only articulate the exact level of awful that Iowa is and how stupid the people who live in it are, it would magically transfer the first caucus/primary to some other state.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:52 AM on January 25, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:52 AM on January 25, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think, Spathe Cadet, its more just a collective groan of frustration. Don't get me wrong, corn is nice and all, and I'm not really anti-Iowan. Its just that like so much else of our political reality we're seeing the parts of America where most people live sidelined and made largely irrelevant in order to, yet again, grant a tiny number of white rural conservatives an incredibly outsized chunk of political power.
"Oh, you live in a city or a populous area? Sucks for you then, your rural lords and masters are deciding who you'll be permitted to vote for in the general election!"
posted by sotonohito at 8:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Oh, you live in a city or a populous area? Sucks for you then, your rural lords and masters are deciding who you'll be permitted to vote for in the general election!"
posted by sotonohito at 8:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
I get the frustration, I do. At the same time, directing that frustration at Iowan voters is not going to change anything. The parties decide how the primary system goes, and in what order: if you want to change it, tell them. Yell at them. All I can do about it is feel bad and quietly curse other states. (At the moment, I wish first caucus/primary status on Michigan.)
Personally, I would be ecstatic at the prospect of a couple decades without a competitive caucus in Iowa. Seriously, point me to a petition and I'll sign it. Presidential election cycles here are like 22 months long, with the pollsters, the mailbox full of flyers, the ads everywhere you look, the robocalls, the door-knockers, etc. I don't enjoy it. The only part of it that's at all pleasant is the actual caucusing itself, and that's one night long. Not even one night. Like three or four hours. It's not worth it just to have politicians pretend that your opinions are important, especially since they are also often condescending and snotty about it.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:17 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Personally, I would be ecstatic at the prospect of a couple decades without a competitive caucus in Iowa. Seriously, point me to a petition and I'll sign it. Presidential election cycles here are like 22 months long, with the pollsters, the mailbox full of flyers, the ads everywhere you look, the robocalls, the door-knockers, etc. I don't enjoy it. The only part of it that's at all pleasant is the actual caucusing itself, and that's one night long. Not even one night. Like three or four hours. It's not worth it just to have politicians pretend that your opinions are important, especially since they are also often condescending and snotty about it.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:17 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't understand how the idea of being open minded about your preference for the next president of the United States (At an event designed around debating this topic) should disqualify you to vote. This goes double for a primary with a wide field where people may have a preference that is not popular, but lines up with another candidate who is potentially viable to become the nominee.
In the Democratic caucuses (not sure about the Republican), it's not just about convincing the undecided voters. A candidate needs to meet a minimum viability threshhold (15%?) in order to get any delegates from a precinct. You can visually gauge support levels just by looking at the sizes of the groups in the room, so the caucusers for the front-runners will be trying to convince supporters of the long-shots to switch to a candidate who will actually come away with votes. I initially caucused for Kucinich in Iowa in '08 before moving to the Obama group, and this time around, I imagine both Clinton and Sanders supporters will be trying to sway the O'Malley voters.
posted by bassooner at 9:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
In the Democratic caucuses (not sure about the Republican), it's not just about convincing the undecided voters. A candidate needs to meet a minimum viability threshhold (15%?) in order to get any delegates from a precinct. You can visually gauge support levels just by looking at the sizes of the groups in the room, so the caucusers for the front-runners will be trying to convince supporters of the long-shots to switch to a candidate who will actually come away with votes. I initially caucused for Kucinich in Iowa in '08 before moving to the Obama group, and this time around, I imagine both Clinton and Sanders supporters will be trying to sway the O'Malley voters.
posted by bassooner at 9:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can see that. And perhaps its simply because I'm not from Iowa, I don't think I've seen much anti-Iowan sentiment here, just anti-Iowa being so important sentiment. But I may be overlooking some things because I'm not an Iowan?
posted by sotonohito at 9:20 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by sotonohito at 9:20 AM on January 25, 2016
There are occasional anti-rural, anti-flyover rumblings around MeFi, which occasionally get pointed at Iowa specifically when it's in the news, but you're right that it's less bad here than it is some places.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:32 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:32 AM on January 25, 2016
My favorite part of election years as an Iowa caucus voter is the part where all the progressive types line up to shit on Iowa for being so small, stupid, religious, rural, white, old, unsophisticated, corn-addled, bad at predicting the eventual nominee, and disproportionately influential.
That's how people talk about Texas all year every year. As I still have deep roots in Texas, I have to say, I feel Iowa's pain.
posted by nushustu at 9:33 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's how people talk about Texas all year every year. As I still have deep roots in Texas, I have to say, I feel Iowa's pain.
posted by nushustu at 9:33 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maine has caucuses. Go to your caucus and you have a good chance of being a delegate to the state convention. You meet your Democratic neighbors, you meet local politicians and candidates. It can be a great intro to involvement. 8 years ago, I was still living in and registered in Portland, Maine. The day of the caucus there was freezing rain. Turnout was huge, far bigger than expected. I stood in a long line outside with many other Democrats of all ages, then stood in line indoors some more. It was chaotic, but people were calm and mostly patient. Some people had to leave, accommodation was made so their choice would be heard. It was a beautiful example of the democratic process at its very best, and made me proud. I've been to many caucuses, gone to my state convention several times, and it's kind of a cool process.
While we stood in the cold, waiting to get inside to participate, campaigners for Obama came through the line with hot coffee and hot chocolate for everyone, regardless of candidate choice. Nice introduction to our future president. Thanks, Obama.
posted by theora55 at 9:37 AM on January 25, 2016
While we stood in the cold, waiting to get inside to participate, campaigners for Obama came through the line with hot coffee and hot chocolate for everyone, regardless of candidate choice. Nice introduction to our future president. Thanks, Obama.
posted by theora55 at 9:37 AM on January 25, 2016
The parties decide how the primary system goes, and in what order: if you want to change it, tell them. Yell at them.
Specifically, you can yell at [Insert State Here] Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmann and [Insert State Here] Democratic Chair Andy McGuire, who insist that "The caucuses represent grassroots politics at its finest.... Iowans don’t put a premium on name ID or fundraising numbers – we put a premium on ideas.... Every four years, we hear the same old refrain from caucus detractors seeking to undermine our role in the presidential nominating process.... We take time to learn about each candidate’s background, study their policy proposals and ask spirited questions in order to vet each candidate thoroughly."
Go ahead, guess which state is [Insert State Here]. It's not party hacks from New York and D.C. and California who get all up in arms whenever someone says "Hey, maybe not Iowa every time..." because Iowans are uniquely qualified to judge the fitness of candidates or because they love hanging out in Des Moines for a third of their lives.
posted by Etrigan at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Specifically, you can yell at [Insert State Here] Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmann and [Insert State Here] Democratic Chair Andy McGuire, who insist that "The caucuses represent grassroots politics at its finest.... Iowans don’t put a premium on name ID or fundraising numbers – we put a premium on ideas.... Every four years, we hear the same old refrain from caucus detractors seeking to undermine our role in the presidential nominating process.... We take time to learn about each candidate’s background, study their policy proposals and ask spirited questions in order to vet each candidate thoroughly."
Go ahead, guess which state is [Insert State Here]. It's not party hacks from New York and D.C. and California who get all up in arms whenever someone says "Hey, maybe not Iowa every time..." because Iowans are uniquely qualified to judge the fitness of candidates or because they love hanging out in Des Moines for a third of their lives.
posted by Etrigan at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like this primary season has been strangely silent on reform proposals as compared to the last few cycles. That might be because this primary season feels like it started sometime around when early tetrapods began crawling out of the ocean onto land, so there's plenty of time left to wrangle over the screwball nature of the primary calendar. But I still feel like primary reform has been absent from the conversation so far.
While there have been some recent grumblings about changing the primary schedule, there haven't really been any new ideas about how to change it, nor any evident will to do so. This summary of proposed alternate plans from 2008 is still relevant, and still just as likely to become reality, it seems.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:10 AM on January 25, 2016
While there have been some recent grumblings about changing the primary schedule, there haven't really been any new ideas about how to change it, nor any evident will to do so. This summary of proposed alternate plans from 2008 is still relevant, and still just as likely to become reality, it seems.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:10 AM on January 25, 2016
It's maybe not super-surprising that the party chairs for Iowa would insist that it's a good idea for Iowa to go first. I'm pretty sure they don't actually set the order for the entire country, though; that's what national party committees are for.
My guess is that the actual reason Iowa persists in going first is because 1) the national party apparatus thinks that they understand how it works, so they're loath to switch to a different state for fear of getting results they can't control, and 2) rural-state media is relatively cheap compared to other parts of the country, so you get more ads bought for the same amount of money. Neither of those are things that ordinary citizens can easily change, which is why you have to yell at the national parties about it directly.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:18 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
My guess is that the actual reason Iowa persists in going first is because 1) the national party apparatus thinks that they understand how it works, so they're loath to switch to a different state for fear of getting results they can't control, and 2) rural-state media is relatively cheap compared to other parts of the country, so you get more ads bought for the same amount of money. Neither of those are things that ordinary citizens can easily change, which is why you have to yell at the national parties about it directly.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:18 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
It was so perfectly American I couldn't stand it. I wish that everyone could have that Capra-esque feeling of AMERICA!!! *fist pump* that I had during the Iowa caucuses back when I was young and idealistic.
And yes, that's beautiful. I wish everyone could too. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to organize their lives to appear at a particular spot at 7pm on February 1 and spend several hours participating, publicly, in English, in this lovely expression of Democracy. Huge numbers of people are disenfranchised from the caucus process by practical concerns ranging from work to childcare to transportation to language barriers to... And then when you're done, there's no secret ballot (for the Democrats, the Republicans in Iowa use a different process).
posted by zachlipton at 10:21 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
And yes, that's beautiful. I wish everyone could too. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to organize their lives to appear at a particular spot at 7pm on February 1 and spend several hours participating, publicly, in English, in this lovely expression of Democracy. Huge numbers of people are disenfranchised from the caucus process by practical concerns ranging from work to childcare to transportation to language barriers to... And then when you're done, there's no secret ballot (for the Democrats, the Republicans in Iowa use a different process).
posted by zachlipton at 10:21 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was absolutely amazed when the ethanol subsidy died a quiet death recently. That was a cornerstone of most Iowa politics for years—saying a bad word about ethanol was Just Not Done.
All I know is every conversation I have with my folks back home indicates they are sick to death of the political ads. The local stations must love it since it's padding the crap out of their bank accounts, but the saturation point for ads was hit months ago.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:29 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
All I know is every conversation I have with my folks back home indicates they are sick to death of the political ads. The local stations must love it since it's padding the crap out of their bank accounts, but the saturation point for ads was hit months ago.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:29 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's maybe not super-surprising that the party chairs for Iowa would insist that it's a good idea for Iowa to go first. I'm pretty sure they don't actually set the order for the entire country, though; that's what national party committees are for.... Neither of those are things that ordinary citizens can easily change, which is why you have to yell at the national parties about it directly.
So even though Iowa's party chairs insist on Iowa going first, they don't really matter in the process, and it's some other nameless, faceless people at the national party that are inflicting this scourge on the people of the Hawkeye State.
Remember back in 2007, when Michigan did try to jump ahead in the line?
So even though Iowa's party chairs insist on Iowa going first, they don't really matter in the process, and it's some other nameless, faceless people at the national party that are inflicting this scourge on the people of the Hawkeye State.
Remember back in 2007, when Michigan did try to jump ahead in the line?
All eight Democratic presidential candidates signed a “pledge” sponsored by the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina not to campaign in states that hold primaries before the opening of the window. It should be noted that this pledge was organized by the four early states and had no relationship to the DNC RBC. (from the 38-page PDF linked in that article)posted by Etrigan at 10:36 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Honestly, New York or California would be so much more representative of the US: you have cities, suburbs, white rural areas that hate the cities ... just like America! I guess the dominance of rural white people matches the electoral college tho. So I'll just keep voting for leftist kooks here in Brooklyn since it doesn't matter anyways!
posted by dame at 10:37 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dame at 10:37 AM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
I was an Iowa canvasser for Howard Dean in 2004. I'm shivering just thinking about it. Jebus, I had never been colder in my entire life.
Had pho for the first time. Took a photo of me with Peter Jennings on my phone, back when that was still a novelty. Watched all that volunteer work crash and burn because none of the door-knocking translated into doing the actual convincing and bargaining at the actual caucuses.
I'll be so glad when this shit is over.
posted by RakDaddy at 10:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Had pho for the first time. Took a photo of me with Peter Jennings on my phone, back when that was still a novelty. Watched all that volunteer work crash and burn because none of the door-knocking translated into doing the actual convincing and bargaining at the actual caucuses.
I'll be so glad when this shit is over.
posted by RakDaddy at 10:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I experienced the Iowa caucuses volunteering for the Dean campaign in 2004, and it really soured me on them because of the whole no secret ballot/vote again mechanic. I think a lot of us were worried as it tends to benefit the older, more manipulative or seasoned politico. If you are young or otherwise easily impressionable, you run the risk of getting steamrolled by peer pressure on the second vote, which I believe was a huge problem for the Dean campaign as so many of our supporters were young/first time caucusers; they tended to fold under pressure. I know some observers saw it happen before their eyes.
And don't get me started on Edwards and Kucinich's "vote trade agreement," where each candidate told their supporters to vote for the other if their candidate wasn't viable... Kucinich and Edwards were far away enough from each other on some pretty big issues, so i just lost respect for both of them at that point to instruct their caucusers to vote like that. Plus all the other "dirty tricks" we ran into from other campaigns (telling people the wrong time for the caucuses, wrong locations, lying, etc).
It was an amazing experience to be out there, and I'll treasure the memories forever, but it really makes me think the caucuses, while a neat thing, are ultimately negative as they currently stand, at least for the Dems.
(haha! I had pho the first time in IA too, and remember meeting Peter Jennings on the street like at 5am in downtown Des Moines the day of caucuses! He was making his way to do his first report I guess, keyboard poking out of his computer bag. Super cool)
posted by tittergrrl at 11:02 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
And don't get me started on Edwards and Kucinich's "vote trade agreement," where each candidate told their supporters to vote for the other if their candidate wasn't viable... Kucinich and Edwards were far away enough from each other on some pretty big issues, so i just lost respect for both of them at that point to instruct their caucusers to vote like that. Plus all the other "dirty tricks" we ran into from other campaigns (telling people the wrong time for the caucuses, wrong locations, lying, etc).
It was an amazing experience to be out there, and I'll treasure the memories forever, but it really makes me think the caucuses, while a neat thing, are ultimately negative as they currently stand, at least for the Dems.
(haha! I had pho the first time in IA too, and remember meeting Peter Jennings on the street like at 5am in downtown Des Moines the day of caucuses! He was making his way to do his first report I guess, keyboard poking out of his computer bag. Super cool)
posted by tittergrrl at 11:02 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
*secret Iowa Deanic pho fistbump*
posted by RakDaddy at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by RakDaddy at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is so much great pho and banh mi to be had in Des Moines. I'm glad some of you discovered that.
posted by TrialByMedia at 1:32 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by TrialByMedia at 1:32 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
tittergrrl, it's a bit odd to me that your complaints seem like features, not bugs. For example, the system is set up for people to do vote trades. It's not really a dirty trick. Sometimes you might even talk one of the people in your own group to peel off and go for another candidate just to deprive a candidate you don't like of a delegate. So if Sanders has enough votes to get two delegates, but O'Malley doesn't have enough for any, and there's 5 delegates to be had, you talk the extras into popping over an caucusing for O'Malley. So not the delegates are 2,2,1 instead of 2,3. I caucused for Obama, but at one point joined the one of the other groups. Partly to thwart Clinton, partly because you sometimes feel bad for that candidate's supporters and it's not going to cost you anything to show a little support.
And as to people being wishy-washy with their stances, eh, you can say that about all kinds of things. Workplace, juries, etc. People need to stand up for themselves and this is a good place to learn. I would even argue that if a candidate's supporters can convince someone to vote against their own convictions because of peer pressure, then that candidate deserves the vote. Seriously, if you can't get your supporters to stay resolute then perhaps you don't deserve the support.
I didn't see any people being told the wrong times and locations, or if so I don't remember them. I worked for a newspaper at the time and we embedded shitloads of reporters and stringers into the process (even going so far as to give away Flip cameras to anyone willing to document their experience). I think I would have remembered this, but maybe not.
I went to the second level caucuses, but didn't get selected for state.
I plan to caucus next week. I love the process. I love that it has to be in person and that you can't just hide behind a ballot. If you want to stand up and be counted for the bigots and liars you have to do it.
So if you live in Iowa and are a registered voter of either party you owe it to yourself to caucus. If you are a Republican it's not as important, but if you are a Democrat get your ass out there.
Note: This is not a partisan argument. The two parties caucus differently, and on the Democrat side delegates are actually at stake (and this is where the party platform is hammered out). So if you have opinions get out there and give 'em.
Here's a nice breakdown of how the caucuses play out by a former co-worker of mine: David Elbert on the Iowa caucus.
I consider the caucus to be sort of a super vote. In the general election your vote is one of millions. At the caucuses it's one of thousands. It means something. You can actually move the needle. Even if you do nothing more than represent your demographic you will have accomplished something just by showing up.
If you would like to go, but don't know where or how it plays out let me know or ask and I will try to find out your answer.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:29 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
And as to people being wishy-washy with their stances, eh, you can say that about all kinds of things. Workplace, juries, etc. People need to stand up for themselves and this is a good place to learn. I would even argue that if a candidate's supporters can convince someone to vote against their own convictions because of peer pressure, then that candidate deserves the vote. Seriously, if you can't get your supporters to stay resolute then perhaps you don't deserve the support.
I didn't see any people being told the wrong times and locations, or if so I don't remember them. I worked for a newspaper at the time and we embedded shitloads of reporters and stringers into the process (even going so far as to give away Flip cameras to anyone willing to document their experience). I think I would have remembered this, but maybe not.
I went to the second level caucuses, but didn't get selected for state.
I plan to caucus next week. I love the process. I love that it has to be in person and that you can't just hide behind a ballot. If you want to stand up and be counted for the bigots and liars you have to do it.
So if you live in Iowa and are a registered voter of either party you owe it to yourself to caucus. If you are a Republican it's not as important, but if you are a Democrat get your ass out there.
Note: This is not a partisan argument. The two parties caucus differently, and on the Democrat side delegates are actually at stake (and this is where the party platform is hammered out). So if you have opinions get out there and give 'em.
Here's a nice breakdown of how the caucuses play out by a former co-worker of mine: David Elbert on the Iowa caucus.
I consider the caucus to be sort of a super vote. In the general election your vote is one of millions. At the caucuses it's one of thousands. It means something. You can actually move the needle. Even if you do nothing more than represent your demographic you will have accomplished something just by showing up.
If you would like to go, but don't know where or how it plays out let me know or ask and I will try to find out your answer.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:29 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I basically agree with every single criticism of the Iowa caucuses, but I wish that people could do a better job framing them in a way that wasn't quite so insulting to Iowa. There's nothing wrong with Iowa, but the caucuses are still a mess.
So first of all, it's a problem that both of the first states are so disproportionately white and not-urban. Again: this is not a knock on Iowa or New Hampshire. They're not disproportionately white and non-urban because they're bad places. But it distorts the process that both of the first two states are unrepresentative in those ways. I've heard lots of attempts by Iowans to explain why it's not an issue, but I don't find any of them very convincing.
Second of all, caucuses are undemocratic. A lot of people can't be there for two hours on a Monday night, because they work, because they have to take care of young children, because they have a disability that limits mobility, etc. I'm at the point in my life where most of my friends have small kids, and it's not easy to get a babysitter on a school night. It's also not easy to take your infant, three-year-old and five-year-old to a rowdy political meeting that happens right at bed time. So often, one parent ends up going to the caucus and one stays home with the kids. Guess which one is more likely to stay home? I don't really see how you can be a feminist and support the caucus system. In general, the trend in Iowa has been to make it much easier to participate in the political system, and this seems like a bizarre and inexcusable exception.
So basically, this makes me a big traitor to Iowa, and I get in arguments about it with people whom I respect, but I agree with the critics. However, I wish that people would be careful not to frame this as being about how some dingbat farmers in flyover states shouldn't get to decide things for more worthy and sophisticated people.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:08 AM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
So first of all, it's a problem that both of the first states are so disproportionately white and not-urban. Again: this is not a knock on Iowa or New Hampshire. They're not disproportionately white and non-urban because they're bad places. But it distorts the process that both of the first two states are unrepresentative in those ways. I've heard lots of attempts by Iowans to explain why it's not an issue, but I don't find any of them very convincing.
Second of all, caucuses are undemocratic. A lot of people can't be there for two hours on a Monday night, because they work, because they have to take care of young children, because they have a disability that limits mobility, etc. I'm at the point in my life where most of my friends have small kids, and it's not easy to get a babysitter on a school night. It's also not easy to take your infant, three-year-old and five-year-old to a rowdy political meeting that happens right at bed time. So often, one parent ends up going to the caucus and one stays home with the kids. Guess which one is more likely to stay home? I don't really see how you can be a feminist and support the caucus system. In general, the trend in Iowa has been to make it much easier to participate in the political system, and this seems like a bizarre and inexcusable exception.
So basically, this makes me a big traitor to Iowa, and I get in arguments about it with people whom I respect, but I agree with the critics. However, I wish that people would be careful not to frame this as being about how some dingbat farmers in flyover states shouldn't get to decide things for more worthy and sophisticated people.
And as to people being wishy-washy with their stances, eh, you can say that about all kinds of things. Workplace, juries, etc. People need to stand up for themselves and this is a good place to learn. I would even argue that if a candidate's supporters can convince someone to vote against their own convictions because of peer pressure, then that candidate deserves the vote. Seriously, if you can't get your supporters to stay resolute then perhaps you don't deserve the support.This was, for what it's worth, exactly the argument against the secret ballot, which was not instituted in the US until the end of the 19th century. So do you think that all voting should be public, the way it was before 1884? If not, why not?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:08 AM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
The idea behind a caucus seems like a good one, but I think closer examination does show some serious problems such as the ones raised by zachlipton and Arbitrary.
The ideal is fantastic. Yes, let's all get together and talk and come to something resembling a consensus and meet our like minded neighbors and so on. But in the reality a lot of the less white, and male, and wealthy, voices wind up getting pushed to the margins by the system.
I think separating objections to a caucus from objections to Iowa being first is an important part of sorting out the whole issue.
Mostly, I think the real objection is to Iowa having an ironclad lock on being first, and in doing so skewing the nominations towards candidates who do better in whiter, more rural and conservative, areas. The fact that the primary in Iowa is a caucus rather than an election is an entirely separate and vastly less important issue.
Heck, it might even be possible to address the problems of a caucus in a way that does allow for the more marginalized voices to participate equally. The absence of a secret ballot is intractable, but free childcare would help out tremendously, I don't know how to deal with the problem of people needing to work on caucus night could be fixed but there's probably a way.
posted by sotonohito at 8:01 AM on January 26, 2016
The ideal is fantastic. Yes, let's all get together and talk and come to something resembling a consensus and meet our like minded neighbors and so on. But in the reality a lot of the less white, and male, and wealthy, voices wind up getting pushed to the margins by the system.
I think separating objections to a caucus from objections to Iowa being first is an important part of sorting out the whole issue.
Mostly, I think the real objection is to Iowa having an ironclad lock on being first, and in doing so skewing the nominations towards candidates who do better in whiter, more rural and conservative, areas. The fact that the primary in Iowa is a caucus rather than an election is an entirely separate and vastly less important issue.
Heck, it might even be possible to address the problems of a caucus in a way that does allow for the more marginalized voices to participate equally. The absence of a secret ballot is intractable, but free childcare would help out tremendously, I don't know how to deal with the problem of people needing to work on caucus night could be fixed but there's probably a way.
posted by sotonohito at 8:01 AM on January 26, 2016
I actually don't think that Iowa is more conservative than the country as a whole, for what it's worth. We're a pretty classic purple state. The current governor is a Republican, but the last one was a Democrat. One chamber of the legislature has a Republican majority, and the other has a Democratic majority. We tend to go for Democrats in presidential elections. (The only exception since 1988 was in 2004.) What's true is that people who come out for Republican caucuses are, in general, super conservative, but they don't reflect the state as a whole.
Also, we're disproportionately rural, but we're not as rural as people think. More than half of Iowans live in cities and suburbs, and that number is rising. We don't have a big city, though, and I think that matters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:37 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, we're disproportionately rural, but we're not as rural as people think. More than half of Iowans live in cities and suburbs, and that number is rising. We don't have a big city, though, and I think that matters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:37 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Iowa is so conservative that it was the fourth state to legalize gay marriage, to say nothing of all its other conservative milestones.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:40 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 9:40 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually don't think that Iowa is more conservative than the country as a whole, for what it's worth.
It's very slightly towards the liberal side in a ranking of states and the state mean is almost exactly at the national mean. In 2012. Using just the simple liberal-conservative self-placement, not fancier shit.
Iowa is so conservative that it was the fourth state to legalize gay marriage, to say nothing of all its other conservative milestones.
Iowa is not a conservative state but that's a bad example of progressivity; immediately after the judicial decision Iowans voted as many of the relevant judges as they could out of office (in retention elections, no less, which are usually cakewalks).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:21 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's very slightly towards the liberal side in a ranking of states and the state mean is almost exactly at the national mean. In 2012. Using just the simple liberal-conservative self-placement, not fancier shit.
Iowa is so conservative that it was the fourth state to legalize gay marriage, to say nothing of all its other conservative milestones.
Iowa is not a conservative state but that's a bad example of progressivity; immediately after the judicial decision Iowans voted as many of the relevant judges as they could out of office (in retention elections, no less, which are usually cakewalks).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:21 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Iowa is not a conservative state but that's a bad example of progressivity; immediately after the judicial decision Iowans voted as many of the relevant judges as they could out of office (in retention elections, no less, which are usually cakewalks).Right, but that's because most people weren't paying any attention, and the religious right managed to organize a stealth campaign to get their people to vote no. A lot of voters didn't even bother to vote in those elections, because they didn't realize they mattered. After that happened, the anti-marriage-equality people tried it again in the next retention election, and they didn't succeed, because mainstream voters knew it was coming and voted yes. There's a fair amount of support for marriage equality in Iowa, enough that one Republican district committee removed a plank opposing it from their platform in 2014.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:42 AM on January 26, 2016
I can't tell you how glad I am that the first primary is in Iowa and not in Indiana.
Etrigan: "You've spent the last year or two being bombarded with appearances and ads and stories and conversations and blah and blah and blah, and people are still changing their minds on the day of the caucus? No, fuck that noise. People who haven't made up their minds by that point shouldn't have any influence."
The republicans have a wide-open field of candidates. If you're a Republican* who wants to make sure Trump doesn't get the nomination, which candidate is your best option? You walk in thinking you'll have to vote for Cruz, but there's a surprising groundswell for Fiorina at your caucus. So you vote for her instead, even though you weren't considering her at all, because the important thing is making sure Trump loses. I think a lot of republicans may be making those kinds of choices.
Also, freedom to vote means you're free to make your choice the day of the election by reading tea leaves, throwing darts at a dartboard, calling your Mom, hoping the Spirit moves you to make the right marks on the ballot, whatever. Those might actually be decent methods for some people compared to how they would vote if they actually tried to think about it.
* - I know. Metafilter. "Fuck the republicans, har har". While you're laughing, don't forget they are the only ones who can stop Trump from getting the nomination.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:39 PM on January 26, 2016
Etrigan: "You've spent the last year or two being bombarded with appearances and ads and stories and conversations and blah and blah and blah, and people are still changing their minds on the day of the caucus? No, fuck that noise. People who haven't made up their minds by that point shouldn't have any influence."
The republicans have a wide-open field of candidates. If you're a Republican* who wants to make sure Trump doesn't get the nomination, which candidate is your best option? You walk in thinking you'll have to vote for Cruz, but there's a surprising groundswell for Fiorina at your caucus. So you vote for her instead, even though you weren't considering her at all, because the important thing is making sure Trump loses. I think a lot of republicans may be making those kinds of choices.
Also, freedom to vote means you're free to make your choice the day of the election by reading tea leaves, throwing darts at a dartboard, calling your Mom, hoping the Spirit moves you to make the right marks on the ballot, whatever. Those might actually be decent methods for some people compared to how they would vote if they actually tried to think about it.
* - I know. Metafilter. "Fuck the republicans, har har". While you're laughing, don't forget they are the only ones who can stop Trump from getting the nomination.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:39 PM on January 26, 2016
The absence of a secret ballot is intractable, but free childcare would help out tremendouslyIt sure would, but I don't think it's particularly feasible. For one thing, whoever was providing the free childcare would be disenfranchised, since you have to be at the caucuses to participate in them. (I guess you could staff childcare facilities with children under 17-and-a-half and convicted felons, but I don't think most parents would be super enthusiastic about that. Any citizen over 17-and-a-half who isn't a felon is eligible to participate in a caucus, and one of the ways in which Iowa is unrepresentative is that we don't have a ton of non-citizens here.) Caucus sites are usually not places with daycare centers on-site, so it would be tough to find places to provide free childcare in accordance with legal regulations. There would be issues with liability, especially since the political parties run the caucuses and presumably would be liable for anything that happened to a kid at one of the caucus-night childcare facilities.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:59 AM on January 27, 2016
> Iowa is not a conservative state but that's a bad example of progressivity; immediately after the judicial decision Iowans voted as many of the relevant judges as they could out of office (in retention elections, no less, which are usually cakewalks).
And the judges that replaced them voted to uphold the ruling of those who came before.
> This was, for what it's worth, exactly the argument against the secret ballot, which was not instituted in the US until the end of the 19th century. So do you think that all voting should be public, the way it was before 1884? If not, why not?
I believe a secret ballot is used on the GOP side of the caucusing. People don't realize the two parties actually caucus completely differently with different stakes.
I'm fine with a secret ballot, have no problem with one, but that's not the system on the Dem. side and I am also fine with that. The caucuses were set up specifically to NOT be a primary. More than just the candidates are decided during these. The party platform is also decided, and part of the process is to discuss and convince other people, to persuade and to inform. I would suggest this is not un-democratic, but the very essence of a democracy. What better way for an informed constituency than to actually have to make a case for your candidate and to defend your convictions? Especially in a day and age where many feel the media has abdicated their role of creating an informed electorate?
I like the rumble tumble aspect of it. I can understand where many wouldn't. It's not a process for introverts.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:43 AM on January 29, 2016
And the judges that replaced them voted to uphold the ruling of those who came before.
> This was, for what it's worth, exactly the argument against the secret ballot, which was not instituted in the US until the end of the 19th century. So do you think that all voting should be public, the way it was before 1884? If not, why not?
I believe a secret ballot is used on the GOP side of the caucusing. People don't realize the two parties actually caucus completely differently with different stakes.
I'm fine with a secret ballot, have no problem with one, but that's not the system on the Dem. side and I am also fine with that. The caucuses were set up specifically to NOT be a primary. More than just the candidates are decided during these. The party platform is also decided, and part of the process is to discuss and convince other people, to persuade and to inform. I would suggest this is not un-democratic, but the very essence of a democracy. What better way for an informed constituency than to actually have to make a case for your candidate and to defend your convictions? Especially in a day and age where many feel the media has abdicated their role of creating an informed electorate?
I like the rumble tumble aspect of it. I can understand where many wouldn't. It's not a process for introverts.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:43 AM on January 29, 2016
Aren't similar decision-making processes used in leftish organizations all the time, and don't they usually boil down to "Oh, Christ, just let the annoying jerk who just won't shut up about it have their way so we can move on to something else?"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:06 AM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:06 AM on January 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pick your poison and go (GOP finder doesn't work in Safari, but is fine in Firefox). Site also explains what you can expect.
I'm one of those people that believe even if you don't caucus, and you don't vote in the general election, that yes, you still have a right to bitch. You still have free speech and this is still a democracy, and giving voice to your opinion is part of that. Just don't expect me to value your opinion or to listen to what you have to say. Like every politician out there if you are a nonvoter I don't really care whether your issues are important and receive coverage (unless they are my issues as well). If you're in a marginalized demographic then do your part to represent (or just wait until you get old enough to change your mind and be pandered to).
posted by cjorgensen at 9:59 AM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bleeding Heartland has a good run-down of barriers that can make it difficult for people to participate in caucuses.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:35 AM on January 29, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:35 AM on January 29, 2016
Ted Cruz's Ludicrous Voter-Shaming Mailer Is a Deceptive Sham
posted by homunculus at 10:10 AM on January 31, 2016
posted by homunculus at 10:10 AM on January 31, 2016
In the lead-up to the 2014 election, I kept getting ads on Facebook from Republican organizations threatening to tell my neighbors if I didn't vote. (This was a serious failure of targeting, but Facebook seems to be very confused about my political views.) There's widespread outrage over that Cruz mailer, but I think that vote-shaming is probably the inevitable next step in Iowa Republican politics. In areas where everyone is a Republican, they are going to tell your neighbors if you don't vote in order to put pressure on people to turn up to the polls. I don't know if the Democrats are going to do that, but I definitely have gotten mailers from Democrats that seemed designed to make it clear to me that someone was keeping tabs on whether I was voting or not.
Of course, it's hard to complain about that with one breath and defend the extremely public way the Democratic caucus works with the other.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:30 AM on January 31, 2016
Of course, it's hard to complain about that with one breath and defend the extremely public way the Democratic caucus works with the other.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:30 AM on January 31, 2016
« Older Research integrity: Don't let transparency damage... | Why don't you dance with me? I'm not no limburger! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Helen Santos: Let him say what he wants to say, Josh. He's right.
Josh Lyman: No, he's not.
Matt Santos: Look, you want me to support something I know to be lousy policy and a colossal waste of taxpayers' money to round up a couple of votes for a Caucus I can't possibly win.
Josh Lyman: I want you to support a policy that helps a lot of people, so that a year from now when you are sworn in as President, you can make the changes we both know need to be made.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:57 AM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]