Home

In Praise of the Iowa Caucuses: Transparent Democracy at Its Best

Submitted by mark karlin on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 9:26am.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com

January 5, 2008

BuzzFlash has come across quite a bit of commentary on the blogosphere critical of the Iowa caucuses.  There are many reasons people cite for their disenchantment with the quadrennial emphasis on Iowa as the first "testing ground" for presidential candidates.

Among the top two are these:

  • The candidates and the media overplay the importance of a small percentage of the voting population of one small state annointing a "winner" who then sets the pace for the presidential race, at least until New Hampshire.
  • Iowa with its nearly homogenous white population is a Midwest agricultural state that does not represent the true "face" of the voting American public.

There is no question that the second point is factually correct, but does it really matter? 

What is probably more significant, and a valid point, is that the voters in the Iowa caucuses tend to lean conservative/evangelical on the Republican side and liberal/progressive on the Democratic side.  That may or may not be representative of all potential voters for a party's nominee (as the number of independents and lapsed Republicans drawn to this year's caucuses indicates), but Iowa voters -- based on party affiliation -- do basically represent the base of both parties to a large extent in terms of outlook.  Furthermore, the caucus attendees are the ones almost certain to vote in November. They are the committed voters.

But that caveat aside, it is fair to say that Iowa as a state (even though it's a swing state and has a populist Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, and a Democratic Governor) is indeed not representative of America, but what state is?

Why does BuzzFlash believe that the Iowa caucuses are a positive force in the election process?

We'll cite two big reasons:

  • Iowa is retail politics at its best.  This is a campaign won in living rooms, school auditoriums, church chapels and diners.  Big Media may magnify the race to jumbo-screen proportions, but Big Media does not decide the election as it does in a state like California or Florida.  Even advertising doesn't generally have the impact in Iowa (just ask Mitt Romney) it has elsewhere. Why? Because many caucus voters make decisions based on actually hearing or seeing the candidates, or hearing from their campaigns via phone calls or house visits.  Iowa isn't the Big Media test for presidential candidates; it's the town hall test.  And that's good for democracy.
  • Voting is transparent in Iowa.  With all the threats electronic voting machines and GOP tactics at voter suppression pose to democracy, Iowa represents the vision of our founders at its most ideal.  What could be more inclusive than allowing just about anyone registered to vote to show up at either party caucus and openly and visibly declare themselves for a candidate.  Where else does one's body represent one's vote? There is no electronic voting machine, not even a paper ballot; everyone's body is their ballot.  There is no secret selection, no secret counting.  This is as open and public and as basic an exercise in democracy as one can imagine.

So, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to the editor of BuzzFlash, Mark Karlin, the Iowa caucuses are a role model for democracy.  If the first caucus or primary were in a big state, the campaign would be waged through the television tube, and the vote would probably be tabulated on an electronic machine.

Does it serve democracy well to have such a small state in America's heartland play such a big role in the presidential selection process (and the importance of the Iowa caucuses has only developed over the last three decades)?

Yes, as long as a person's body is their vote, counting is public, and personal encounters with candidates and campaign organizational ability trumps television and media "brand packaging."

We may lament the concept of the political horse race, but that is our political process.  There is only one winner in every election for a specific office.  Voters have to make their decisions somehow, and the retail politics of Iowa and the voting process are about as ideal as it gets; maximizing the power of the voter and minimizing the impact of "boob tube electioneering."

You can't ask for much more than that. 

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | yahoo yahoo | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

Iowa Rethugs

Submitted by Will on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 7:58am.

Has anyone noticed the stark differences in the collective temperment of glum Iowa Rethugs and exuberant Iowa Demos? Particularly echoed in their presidential selections, one appears enslaved by conservative evangelical Christianity and the other is relatively free from religion in making their group voting decisions in a secular, public context.

» login or register to post comments

The Voters' Preferences Show That Ending The Iraq War Is The Key

Submitted by crackerjack on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 7:40pm.

If we're to change the world, that is.

» login or register to post comments

Transparent Democracy at Its Best

Submitted by lastbastionofreason on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 2:54pm.

I like the idea of one body, one vote, in a small group of neighbors. It does make it harder to steal the vote, at that point. But, I see a glaring problem. The counted body vote is put down somewhere and added together with all the other gatherings. Either on paper or electronic, so it can be changed along that path. Don't know how to fix that other than to teach every American, that the will of the people, even if you don't agree with it, is the law of the land, as long as it is Constitutional. So don't mess with it! Stealing is stealing, no matter if it is a tv or a vote. It is just wrong and stealing a vote is unAmerican, a Banana Republic mentality.
I do not like the practice of allowing any registered voter to go into any place and "vote" in a primary election. Both the registered Republicans and the registered Democrats are suppose to be electing the person that they want to represent the ideals and policies of THEIR PARTIES. The Independants must either come up with their own cacaus/primary elections, or wait to vote in the General Election. Many States do not allow this crossover voting, or undeclared party affliations to vote for a Party candidate.
These primary elections etal., should be for Party only members.
When you open this up to others than your party members, you are not getting a clear picture of what is important to that Party.
You also run the risk of stuffing the ballot. A Party decides which candidate they would rather have their nominee run against, and they vote for that person.
Possibly, the Democratic party did "get out the vote" to a greater extent than did the Republicans, the numbers are there, but could it have been a bunch of "sheeps in wool clothing" messing with the Democratic Party's decision? Come November 2008, then all registered to vote Americans get to vote for whomever we believe will be the best President for all Americans, which ever Party they belong to. This is the best of America.

» login or register to post comments

My caucus site "looked" like America

Submitted by ETS on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 11:11am.

There were 152 citzens crowded into the cafeteria of the neighborhood elementary school that served as my precinct caucus site. In 2004 82 of us jammed into the neighborhood library.

I can't give you an accurate demographic breakdown but on the whole I'd say that woman slightly outnumbered the men with newcomers to the process outnumbering the old hands. Most of the news faces were young, under 40, a signifcant number of these female or African American. Many of the folks I have seen around the neighborhood but do not know personally.

My nextdoor neighbor, who brought her grade-school aged daughter, was in attendance as were the couple who live just three houses down the block from me. First timers all and they all caucused for Obama. His preference group was the largest out of three viable groups, Edwards, Clinton, Obama, but according to the caucus math still only eligible for two county convention delegates, the same as for the other two candidates.

My oldest friend's cousin was attending his first caucus. That kind of surprised me, he's the treasurer of the United Steel Workers' local. But I convinced he that he'd be a good Edwards delegate for the county convention in March.

I might add that the Edwards precinct captain was a first time caucus goer and, I must admit, she handled the chore with greater aplomb that I, when I served as a Dean precinct captain in 2004. She brought cookies too.

» login or register to post comments