2008 Woodie Awards
The Iowa Caucuses: A critique
Erika Hyde
Issue date: 1/29/08 Section: News/Features
The Democrats' Iowa Caucus flagrantly violates the spirit of democracy in our electoral system. Unlike most primaries and caucuses, the Democratic party in Iowa consists of an archaic system of public negotiation, viability statutes, and strategy that is confusing at best and undemocratic at worst. The caucus process is so convoluted that candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had to post tutorials on their campaign websites. Christopher Hitchens of Slate Magazine claimed, "It is an absolutely terrible way in which to select candidates for the presidency, and it makes the United States look and feel like a banana republic both at home and overseas."
Voters meet at precinct locations, which include schools, gymnasiums and private homes, for an initial round of debates. Voters then stand in different areas of the room to express support for their candidate. In most counties, candidates have to meet a "viability threshold" of 15 percent support at this first stage of voting. If a candidate does not receive enough votes to be viable for receiving delegates, his or her supporters must disband and move to a viable candidate's camp. At this point, precinct captains scramble to convince undecided voters to switch allegiance to their respective candidates. After this realignment process, the final head counts are tabulated. Instead of reporting the number of votes each candidate received, precincts award delegates to viable candidates proportionally.
This voting process allows huge opportunities for strategizing. At one Iowa precinct, the Clinton camp sent voters to the Richardson group, which helped Richardson become viable and claim a delegate. The "leftover" voters would not have garnered enough support for Clinton to claim an additional delegate, but in helping Richardson, the Clinton campaign prevented Obama from gaining another delegate.
This process has many apparent flaws. First, it treats voters as commodities that can be traded off for strategic purposes, rather than recognizing their individual preferences. Second, it abandons the private ballot, a tenet of any well functioning democracy, in favor of public negotiation. Voters must endorse a candidate in front of their neighbors and acquaintances. The potential for coercion and voter manipulation in this public process is increased immeasurably from the privacy of the voting booth.
Voters meet at precinct locations, which include schools, gymnasiums and private homes, for an initial round of debates. Voters then stand in different areas of the room to express support for their candidate. In most counties, candidates have to meet a "viability threshold" of 15 percent support at this first stage of voting. If a candidate does not receive enough votes to be viable for receiving delegates, his or her supporters must disband and move to a viable candidate's camp. At this point, precinct captains scramble to convince undecided voters to switch allegiance to their respective candidates. After this realignment process, the final head counts are tabulated. Instead of reporting the number of votes each candidate received, precincts award delegates to viable candidates proportionally.
This voting process allows huge opportunities for strategizing. At one Iowa precinct, the Clinton camp sent voters to the Richardson group, which helped Richardson become viable and claim a delegate. The "leftover" voters would not have garnered enough support for Clinton to claim an additional delegate, but in helping Richardson, the Clinton campaign prevented Obama from gaining another delegate.
This process has many apparent flaws. First, it treats voters as commodities that can be traded off for strategic purposes, rather than recognizing their individual preferences. Second, it abandons the private ballot, a tenet of any well functioning democracy, in favor of public negotiation. Voters must endorse a candidate in front of their neighbors and acquaintances. The potential for coercion and voter manipulation in this public process is increased immeasurably from the privacy of the voting booth.
Be the first to comment on this story