  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Iowa Caucus ConPosted on Dec 26, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa—This may be the last place in America where political journalists are embraced as heroes.
I covered the first highly publicized Iowa caucuses in 1976, when unknown Jimmy Carter finished ahead of all the Democratic candidates and went on to win the Democratic presidential nomination and the presidency. We reporters found the unfamiliar system a welcome change from what we usually covered. Iowans were friendly and eager to talk, and the caucuses were peculiar but intriguing. After the caucuses, I moved on to the next stop, the New Hampshire primary, not giving any more thought to the Iowa system. That’s a reporter for you: Out of sight, out of mind. In the intervening years, my career took a turn toward covering city councils, boards of supervisors, fixers, angry community leaders, lobbyists and the rest of the cast that makes local politics compelling. Down in the muck of real politics, I became more cynical. I learned that everybody has an angle, and you have to understand the system to know it for what it is. As I prepared to fly to Iowa on this current assignment, I wondered if I’d be able to figure out what the angle was for caucus participants. I talked to a lot of people here, but oddly enough, I learned more from Iowa’s State Historical Museum, where there is a large display that explains a lot about the caucuses. The exhibit tells the history: The caucus system was created in 1846, when Iowa entered the union, and took the form of a New England town meeting to decide political matters, such as picking national convention delegates. Democrats and Republicans hold caucuses in each of the state’s precincts. These precinct caucuses choose delegates to a county convention. Nobody paid much attention to Iowa’s way of doing things until 1972, when some of the state’s sharpies moved up the date to January so their caucuses would be held ahead of the New Hampshire primary and would thus become the first presidential campaign test in an election year. Presidential candidate George McGovern jumped on the idea, did pretty well that year, and won the nomination. Carter did even better in the 1976 caucuses.
In another area of the museum, I found something more interesting: large cut-out figures of men and women. One looked as heroic as workers did in old Soviet Union statues. He was a reporter, dressed in a perfectly fitted brown sport coat, nicely cut blue jeans and brown loafers. His gray hair was cut short. He had a press pass around his neck and a pad and pen held loosely in his hands. I wondered how he managed to look so good, thinking of my own shaggy hair and heavy winter shoes, my clothes rumpled from being in a suitcase. This cut-out reporter, the accompanying text informed us, “has spent the last two presidential elections covering the caucuses and has discovered Iowa’s best Thai restaurant, martini, burger and round-trip airline schedule.”
In other words, the caucuses are a promotional device, just like the Rose Bowl is a way for Pasadena to pitch itself to the world. The caucuses put Iowa on television, promoting the state to businesses like Google, which is opening a data center in Council Bluffs in 2009, a $200 million investment that will produce 200 jobs. But the Rose Bowl is a football game operating under strict rules, with officials enforcing them. That’s not the case with the Iowa caucus system. The caucuses are a game with few rules and no real enforcement. I fault the media for not explaining this and for giving the false impression that the caucuses are an exercise in democracy. Here’s how the caucuses work, as explained patiently to me by several participants, supplemented by my reading of the rules. Democrats and Republicans in each Iowa precinct hold a caucus. This is the first step in a long process. Any registered voter living in the precinct can attend. You can register at the door. Remember this important point: The Democratic and Republican caucuses merely select delegates to county conventions, who pick delegates to district conventions. Participants at these events select representatives to the state convention, where the actual national convention delegations are chosen. So the highly publicized caucuses are merely the first step in a long process that is unimportant nationally because Iowa has relatively few delegates at the national conventions. The Republicans’ system in Iowa is pretty straightforward. Their precinct caucus opens with a secret ballot straw poll on the presidential candidates. The caucuses then pick delegates to the county convention. The results of the secret ballots are phoned in to Republican state officials in Des Moines, where they are tabulated and released to the media. That’s not the case with the Democratic caucuses. Caucus attendees cast a vote for their candidate or vote “undecided.” Candidates not reaching the 15 percent mark are dropped, and their supporters are urged to vote in a second round for a stronger candidate. That’s where the bargaining starts. The bargaining concept set my city hall mind working. What if one of the candidate’s supporters was a city council member or some sort of commissioner? Couldn’t a commissioner, trying to switch a vote, mention to a caucus-goer: “You know that garage conversion permit you’re having trouble with? Don’t worry about it.” When I outlined this scenario to a prominent Democrat, she said it would be illegal. But, she added, it wouldn’t be illegal for the commissioner to remind the caucus-goer that he had taken care of the garage matter. People tell me about promises of lawn care, pet sitting, cookies and other goodies, big and small, being made during the vote-switching process. The final tally from each caucus is based on a rather complex mathematical formula. Suppose that in a caucus of 100, Sen. Barack Obama got 49 votes, former Sen. John Edwards 32 and Sen. Hillary Clinton 19. The delegates would be distributed in this manner: Obama 5, Edwards 3, Clinton 1. But as I pointed out earlier, the news you receive about the Democratic caucuses are not statewide totals, just the numbers of delegates sent to county conventions. It has no relation to actual support. In my mythical match, Obama’s five votes probably mean his organization did a better job in bringing people to the caucus. I discussed my doubts with a sharp young journalist, Chase Martyn, managing editor of the Iowa Independent, one of the Web sites established around the country by the Center for Independent Media to promote independent online journalism. The Independent has citizen journalists—also known as part-timers—filing reports on the caucuses around the state, and Martyn does his own reporting. So it is a plugged-in operation. I told him I didn’t think much of the caucus system. He likes it. “It forces candidates to compete in a state where it doesn’t take a lot of money to win,” he said. Face-to-face meetings between Iowans and candidates, as reported by the national media, help the nation “pick a good nominee and president.” But the caucuses aren’t democratic, I said. “Nobody would say they are democratic,’” Martyn replied. “The sense I get [from Iowans] is that “‘this is the game, these are the rules of the game, and don’t argue about the rules in the middle of the game.” But if political journalists were to explain the rules, the rest of America would know that the caucuses don’t mean much. They are a fraud, like “The Wizard of Oz.” But explaining the rules is tough. I have spent a career describing complex budget formulas, health care plans and water projects. This is one of the hardest processes I have ever had to explain. It took a long time, and now that I am done, I have no idea whether my editors or readers will know or care what I am talking about.
But the media should try to shed light on the process instead of helping Iowa keep this promotional device alive. Unmask the wizard, journalists, and set America free from the shackles of the Iowa caucuses.
Previous item: An Enabling Virtue Next item: Peace With the Earth Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Conservative Yankee, January 2 at 2:36 pm # By Sue, January 2 atBy Sue, January 2 at 10:21 am # “My point is, Hillary has the audacity to run for president in a man’s world! How dare she? All this negativity towards her is for that reason and that reason alone.” No it’s not. The FALN placed a bomb in my father’s office building, killing a person (a security guard) I knew...I joked with, who rode me around on his shoulders… On his way out of the White House, Bill pardoned the FALN terrorists at Hillary’s behest so she could pick up a few more hispanic votes in her first Senate campaign. That’s what my negativity is about. Add to that her Walmart sojourn where she was a member of the board of directors but never once advocated for their under-paid under-insured workers, or all the sweat shop children they use in China, India, and elsewhere. I know victim-hood is the new US pass time, if Obama doesn’t get it it is because he’s black, if Richardson dosen’t get it it is because he’s Hispanic, and if Kucinich doesn’t get it it is because he’s short.. If US citizens could count (Men 48% of population, Women 52% of population they would see that if the gender based vote was solid, we’d never have another male president.... Fortunately some women do more than complain, some women study the issues, and the spin… Hill-the-business-shill comes up short in the “believability” category.
By Sue, January 2 at 10:21 am # The main stream media is a joke.As I was saying before I was unexpectedly interrupted… If you want the truth on what’s happening in Iowa and New Hamsphire, you’re better off traveling there and seeing it for yourself. If Hillary loses, it won’t be because of her lack of self-proclaimed expirience, her looks, her supposed stumble over drivers licences for illegal immigrants, her playing negative politics with Obama, her playing the gender card, her miss-speaks, mis-steps and what have you. All these things you see have been reported by the main stream media, either in print or on air. When the report about her inexpirience in the White House came out, I remember reading the header caption stating that “this article is in-part to on-going articles on all the candidates”. Well guss what?, I havent’t seen any other articles on the other candidates yet. None that read anything like they are portraying her. Her experience is all the years spent in the governers house, the white house, and now the senate. Looks like more expirience than some candidates can boast. My point is, Hillary has the audacity to run for president in a man’s world! How dare she? All this negativity towards her is for that reason and that reason alone. I love watching the circus, but I know deep down that because she’s a woman trying to make her high mark in a man’s world, well there you have it. She’s doing pretty well so far and holding her own in spite of all the bad press against her. Good for her for that. But, she’ll face much more scrutiny and bad press if she can manage to make it past these next two states. I’m sure she is well aware, and will stand up and press on like the expirience she has with that. I only hope for her sake the good people in the states of Iowa and New Hamshire are in this for true politics and voting for who they think we’ll make the better candidate for America, and not turn this into a popularity contest which the media is spent on making it look like. I say to all the media outlets, Report the truth!
By Bob Kull, January 1 at 10:58 am # While I appreciate Boyrasky's attemptWhile I appreciate Boyrasky’s attempt to explain the caucus system, from my perspective he was unsuccessful. The following two paragraphs, which seem to be the heart of the matter, make no sense to me. “The final tally from each caucus is based on a rather complex mathematical formula. Suppose that in a caucus of 100, Sen. Barack Obama got 49 votes, former Sen. John Edwards 32 and Sen. Hillary Clinton 19. The delegates would be distributed in this manner: Obama 5, Edwards 3, Clinton 1. But as I pointed out earlier, the news you receive about the Democratic caucuses are not statewide totals, just the numbers of delegates sent to county conventions. It has no relation to actual support. In my mythical match, Obama’s five votes probably mean his organization did a better job in bringing people to the caucus.” Why does the the final outcome have no relationship to the level of support? What does it mean to say: “Obama’s five votes probably mean his organization did a better job in bringing people to the caucus.” Isn’t this like saying that strong support for the winner of any election probably means that the winner’s organization did a better job of bringing people to the polls? If anyone can clear this up, I would appreciate it.
By John Hanks, January 1 at 10:51 am # Blame the messengerEvery important election enriches the crook media, which does the first and last cul. If a candidate doesn’t look good on the screen, he is no longer a candidate. If he insists on making full and intelligent comments, out he goes. We need direct voting for candidates that are never on the TV screen.
By CJ, December 31, 2007 at 8:15 pm # Such is traditionBoyarsky’s piece struck this reader as descriptive of a microcosm (Iowa caucuses), all too illustrative of what passes for “politics” in America, whether by means of caucusing or primary. Upshot is most likely someone no one really wants to vote for come the big show. First, there’s the problem of a petrified two-party system, in the end, winner take all. How anyone could describe such a system as “democratic” is beyond my comprehension. Our system is not, in fact, intended to be an exercise in any kind of participatory democracy, so much as it provides for the illusion of participatory democracy. NO WONDER Boyarsky has found Iowa caucuses harder to explain than machinations of city councils and budgets incorporating creative bookkeeping. Ideologies (as opposed to political creeds) are not easy to penetrate, much less explain. Trying to do so is akin to trying to convince a paranoid schizophrenic that he’s not being surveilled—seriously, man! The museum Boyarsky describes is nothing less than an site, purpose of which is to maintain ideological illusion. Not as a matter of conspiracy, but as matter of systemic constraint, which in the end amounts only to doing a thing in a certain way for the simple reason that certain thing has always been done in a certain way. Tautology goes by the name, “tradition.” (Because we’ve always done so-and-so in such-and-such way, we MUST continue to do so-and-so in such-and-such way.) Well, until shit hits fan. At which times, people’s imaginations seem finally to fire up. Or so they have in the past. (History by now concluded according to Fukuyama. Aside from absurdity of Francis’ claim, how DULL!) Imagination isn’t lacking, so much as it seems to enter hibernation for periods of decades, if not centuries. Candidates’ mantra has been, for many decades by now (in words of daddy Bush): “Read my lips…” Democrats some time ago, as led by DLC, finally took a hint from Republicans re “big government.” All well and good, no doubt, not least for those of us who are most radically left, since our own ideal envisions no government of any kind. (The actual purpose of government, in the end, is maintenance of status quo, no matter claims on the part of right- and left-wing candidates.) What passes for “politics” in America is indeed a charade, invariably about lesser of two evils. Maybe appropriate enough, given that government is by definition evil. What’s more, however, government relieves citizens of responsibility, but for annoying trip to booth to pull levers or push buttons for one or another set of idiots and corporate-sponsored propositions. Or to caucus, in the case of Iowans. Intricacies of caucuses hardly matter, since result is always the same—lesser of two evils, third-, fourth- or fifth-party candidates, for all practical purposes, IED-ed by Dems and Repubs. Which is to say: Anyone with an actual idea has far less chance of attaining throne than do the Miami Dolphins of attaining the Lombardi trophy this season. What with winner-take-all, such that anyone who imagines something different will never find representation in this here republic. I have to give Boyarksy points for hanging in under circumstances of big-media collusion in maintenance of ideology (tradition). Nothing new about that, given ideology; namely, a la Walter Lippmann via Chomsky: Two democracies—one for us (Lippmann, himself, along with those for whom he toiled) and one for them (the rest of us, who quite obviously are incapable of participatory democracy, thanks in large part to dumbing down exactly on the part of big media, which is both owned by and operated in the interest of the few who’ve yet to let go the old ideology of divine right of kings). Happy New Year and good luck to humanity, those not human even more so, as humans have about done in other species entirely.
By Robin & Russell Smith, December 31, 2007 at 8:22 am # It's easy now to seeIt’s easy now to see how Iowa is able to get away with its caucus scam. Its image as a state full of corn fed, God fearing folk makes it easier for them to pull it off. Thanks for illuminating this Byzantine sytem.
By Conservative Yankee, December 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm # By Expat, December 29 atBy Expat, December 29 at 5:52 am # Maybe life has been too easy for the younger generation you know, but what I see is our generation never grew up, so the children never had responsible parents. “let the state do it” has been the mantra of the children of the 50’s and 60’s, and now I see them left with what we gave them WHICH (If you will pardon an opinion) is FAR LESS than the WW II generation left us… We all should be ashamed, BUT I see little shame for what we have done, and what we have allowed. History is not going to be kind to us!
By Jim High, December 30, 2007 at 9:25 am # I agree with Bill BoyraskyI agree with Bill Boyrasky about the value of the Iowa Cacus and the fact tht the media makes way to much of it and does not tell the truth about how really insignifant it is. But even he did not tell the whole truth. You see the Democratic Cacus is not by secret ballot. The people attending the cacus are split up to different parts of the room acording to who they are there to support. And then the trading begins until each canidate has at least 15% of the people attending in their corner of the room. This is 180 degrees from a secret balout and in and of itself does not give you a true picture of who those attending are really for. It is sure hard for the public to get the truth when even the journalist who are trying to give us the truth don’t tell the whole story.
By cuento, December 29, 2007 at 10:43 am # History Repeating ItselfGeorge Bush, rigged elections, stolen rights, trampled constitution, Dick Cheney skullduggery, secret prisons, institutionalized torture, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, domestic surveillance, exhausted military, paranoia, apathetic electorate, burgeoning national debt, falling dollar, outing CIA operatives, broken educational system, widening gulf between rich and poor, loss of respect by other nations, and the list continues to mount. None of these, collectively or singularly, are the reasons The United States is in its decline as a world power.
By Conservative Yankee, December 29, 2007 at 8:38 am # I can not comment aboutI can not comment about the IOWA caucus, but here in Maine we have absolute representation. If you are a Maine citizen who could vote in a primary (no matter your disability) you can vote in a caucus. absentee ballots are available, and the ballot is counted at the LOCAL (town or city caucus.) at the local caucus, delegates are selected for the State convention. Having been to many state conventions, I have observed people with disabilities (in wheel chairs, or on crutches) there. At the State Caucus delegates are selected for the national convention. and as we all have observed, folks with disabilities make it to these. In Maine, if you are able to vote in a primary, you can vote in a caucus… Maine does disallow folks with sever mental impairment. I’m embarrassed by this!
By cyrena, December 30, 2007 at 12:32 pm # Re: Re: The ReasonAh Louise… Thanks for the uplift. And you’re right...it ain’t over till it’s over. Now, this is sort of ‘hot off the press’, though not entirely unexpected. (at least by some of us). So, I thought I’d just sort of throw it out there, and maybe give us something to speculate on. And, for the most part, they’re not asking me to shut up anymore either. (well, maybe some of them. Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
By DELBERT MATHANEY, December 31, 2007 at 4:27 pm # Re: Re: #122790 by Thomas Billis "If--THERE IS A COBNGRESSMAN WHO HAS PICKED UP THE DENNIS KUCHNICH IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AND IS RUNNING WITH IT—I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER LOOKING AT: WEXLEREWANTSHEARINGS.COM /// AND HAPPY NEW YEARS TO YOU SIR. //
By AllenWms33, December 28, 2007 at 8:50 am # Who does it hurt toWho does it hurt to let smaller states play a more prominent role early on? The larger states hold all the power in the actual presidential election, so this is the chance for smaller states to have some impact on the process. Everyone has always known that the Iowa caucuses are, more than anything else, a reflection on organization and execution. And what is wrong with that? Aren’t those important aspects to what a president and his/her administration can get done when in office? There’s more to being president than what you believe in and stand for. Yes, those are very important, but so is what a person can get done as a leader. California and New York can dominate things later on like they always do. For now, Iowa and New Hampshire have the power. You’re going to just have to grin and bear it Mr. Boyarsky, because this is how it is. If you don’t like it, too bad.
By don't feel like logging in, December 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm # Can someone please tell meCan someone please tell me why we don’t have a rotating system of primary voting so that each state has a chance at being first? Why do we have small, predominantly white, predominantly republican states picking our democratic nominee?
By weather, December 27, 2007 at 2:47 pm # Non Credo - my replyNon Credo - my reply to your post wasn’t clear. What you wrote was very funny and profiles so well who goes into politics today. thanks again
By Robert Crawfis, December 27, 2007 at 12:20 pm # Hey, all you Ron PaulHey, all you Ron Paul supporters, look at the new article on the opening page of Truthdig---Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution. Aren’t you tired of anti-science policies and a country run by southern Bible-thumpers? I know I am.
By karina de beers, December 27, 2007 at 1:32 pm # Re: Hey, all you Ron PaulDear Mr. Spin Commenter, Ron Paul leaves his religion out of his politics. He is focused on sound monetary policy and ending illegal wars that have been propagated by religionists. Keep it real about Ron Paul Karina De Beers
By weather, December 27, 2007 at 9:46 am # Non Credo - you goNon Credo - you go directly to the head of the class, your post says alot, thanks.
By Hank Van den Berg, December 27, 2007 at 8:52 am # Being from Nebraska, we haveBeing from Nebraska, we have always had a strong inkling that the whole caucus process next door in Iowa was not terribly democratic. Look at how Dennis Kucinich has been intentionally undermined by his own party bigwigs to prevent his grass roots support from pulling off an upset in Iowa. Unfortunately, Iowa is more democratic than the poltical process in our state, and it is better than in most states where big money simply pushes its favored candidates stright into office. When will Americans wake up and realize they don’t live in a democracy? Our politicians work for special interests, not us, but most Americans still believe the popular myth that we are the World’s leading democracy. In truth, there are at least 50 countries ahead of us in terms of how democratic they are. These countries have public funding of short and focused campaigns, rules about equal access for all parties, and more equal coverage of issues in the media, among other things. But, these countries don’t spend $800 billion per year on their militaries, so they don’t count. We not only get bragging rights but we get to impose our system on the rest of the world. Watch the development of a completely corrupt and complicit government in Iraq, one that we will label “democratic.” There is one thing that Americans can do right now to force change: Change your voter registration to a minor party and participate in grass roots political activity. Help to express the interests of groups that do not hit the radar screens of the corrupt major parties, like the poor, those without healthcare, the poorly educated, the 2.5 million incarcerated, etc. But you must do it through a minor party, like the Greens. If you stay with one of the two majors, your voice will be smothered, and your efforts will be exploited to serve the special interests that run these parties. Go ahead, do it. Register Green, Libertarian, anything but Dem or Repub.
By weather, December 27, 2007 at 7:43 am # Ron Paul w/the hopes he'llRon Paul w/the hopes he’ll ask Jimmy Carter as Secty.of State - we so need Adults w/integrity.
By Jimmy Case (Justins Brother), December 27, 2007 at 2:08 am # Say no to tyranny, voteSay no to tyranny, vote Ron Paul!
By DennisD, December 26, 2007 at 7:05 pm # Caucus...Shamacus - let's see allCaucus...Shamacus - let’s see all your blue thumbs, people. We the voters are already getting the middle finger. Bill, the Wizard of OZ is a fraud too? - Dorothy you’re not in Kansas anymore, it’s Iowa and we do things a “little” differently. Like in it doesn’t make any sense, differently. Let’s hope “undecided” wins so they all go home. |
I’m From the Government and I’m Here to Help
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
) 
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article