Iowa Caucus 101: How It Works (and It Does. Really.)

Thanks, Zeitgeist.

BTW, if you can, let us know how you would feel if some other state got to be the kingmaker instead of Iowa. The attitude I always get from Iowans and people from NH is “get over it” as if that’s a decent answer to the question “what the hell makes you so special?”. If (and I don’t know) someone has to go first, why should it always be the same two states? Since Iowa is only 7% non-white, it would seem to be a bad place to have such prominence in picking a Democratic candidate.

Zeitgeist wrote: (and It Does. Really.)

A little pushy, don’t you think?

What about the media phenomenon CB talked about in a post a couple of days ago- everyone acting like the person who wins the Iowa caucus has to be a shoo-in?

And what about all the ways the Iowa caucus is run that keep people from voting? These aren’t things people are imagining. These are the same types of things that were intentionally used in the South (and are still used by the GOP today) to keep blacks and liberals from voting, historically. Any civil rights lawyer would recognize that immediately. There is no way this process is not screwed up.

Thanks for doing this Zeitgeist – it helps a lot to understand what is happening and what it means.

Will look forward to Parts II and III.

Since Iowa is only 7% non-white

And it’s not just race, it’s gender too – I can guarantee that Hillary will do better among men under a secret ballot system.

Can those in a “non-viable” group join another “non-viable” group to get to the 15% threshold, or are they limited to joining those that met the 15% threshold in the first pass?

Thanks for the rundown, Zeitgeist. As one who’s been taking some of the potshots at the caucus system, I appreciate the effort to clarify. I’ll just echo the Hitchens point that a conventional primary (such as what we have here in Missouri) doesn’t require a three-part explanation [/snark].

It may surprise you to hear that I was born and grew up in Iowa, and thus have direct memories of the caucuses. I was too young to participate, but I do remember how the folks coming back from the ’76 caucuses were all on about some dude we’d never heard of called Jimmy Carter. I think it’s safe to say that without the Iowa caucuses, Carter would never have become President. Whether that’s a good or bad thing I’ll leave to others.

Iowa Caucus 201: Beyond the Basic Framework – Part II

Ok, so if that is how caucuses work in general, what does it mean to the campaigns?

Anne asked a question in comments the other day, and since I always enjoy Anne’s posts, I want to make sure it gets addressed. She asked about the theory that Edwards has a unique strength in rural Iowa that may surprise folks. There have been mentions that a small rural precinct may have as much weight as a large urban precinct. The answer is (not to be lawyerly, but. . .) yes and no.

I mentioned in the earlier post that this is representative democracy — there are over 1700 precincts and what they are really doing is selecting a limited number of delegates (representatives) to the district conventions. What I glossed over is how each precinct’s number of delegates is determined.

An unavoidable mathematical issue with representative democracy is that everyone has to be represented by someone – that is, no matter how small a given political subdivision’s share of the population is, we never “round down” to zero representatives, we round up (this is one reason small states are over-represented in the Electoral College – even the smallest states have two Senators and one Representative). As a result, the smallest units will almost always be overweighted in a representative system. In Iowa, the number of delegates is based on “Democratic performance” in the prior Presidential and Gubernatorial (off year) elections – for each precinct, what share of the total statewide vote for the Democratic candidate came from that precinct? That ratio is applied to the total number of district convention delegates to determine the number of delegates from a given precinct – but that number will always be at least one, as shown in this table of the apportionment of all of tonight’s delegates.

In this regard, a strong showing by Edwards in rural areas likely does result in a disproportionate number of delegates for Edwards. There are three confounding factors, however. First, the apportionment is, of necessity, backward-looking. A sudden burst of turnout in a given precinct may help a candidate get all of that precinct’s delegates, but it cannot increase the number of delegates the precinct has. Second, “small” and “rural” are not necessarily the same here: urban areas may be carved into enough precincts that some have fewer attendees than some rural precincts. Third, while thee rewards of a rural strategy may be disproportionate, so is the effort required – the population density in truly rural areas can be very low, making things like door knocking or providing rides to caucuses much more resource intensive than it is in an urban or suburban area.

Another strategic issue is second choices. Again, Edwards has a bit of an advantage here because a much higher portion of his support has prior caucus experience. The first time one attends a caucus, it is an unfamiliar activity. But several people do come uncommitted, and others will be non-viable, and having precinct captains able to pitch your candidate effectively is a huge asset. For Edwards supporters, this will seem much more familiar – they know how to work the crowd because they have done it four years ago. To answer an earlier question, two non-viable groups can form a viable group — and sometimes in a large field, you can end up with a viable (and sometimes even the largest) group for “uncommitted,” and send uncommitted delegates to the district or state convention.

Part III, my effort to take on the world and defend the caucuses, coming soon. . .

From yesterdays thread:

Mike in Iowa said: “Iowa Democrats are choosing their delegates for their state and national conventions. If you don’t want to pay attention to it don’t.”

And as Zeit has pointed out, they aren’t really choosing delegates until April, so we won’t know how many votes Hilary, Barack and John have at the Convention until then.

So why, wonders I, does IOWA insist on moving its date for this ‘unimportant, just pay not attention to the people behind the curtain’ caucus every time Florida or Michigan tries to get ahead of them?

Because they are trying to warp the outcome of the primary season for the rest of us and they aren’t going to give that up, no matter what?

Ethanol pledge, anyone?

Iowa Caucus 301: Defending Your Thesis – Part III

Every four years there are numerous attacks on the Iowa caucuses. Many (I personally believe most) have to do with Iowa getting the extraordinary attention of going first; even then it seems little of it has to do with Iowa per se, that the same concern would be aimed at any state that starts the process. For the purpose of this post, I am setting all of that aside and focusing solely on the concerns raised about using a caucus rather than a primary to select a state’s delegates.

One of the complaints is that Iowa’s process is, taken as a whole, simply too unusual to be meaningful. But Iowa is not the only caucus state – not even among early states. In addition to Iowa, Nevada is an early caucus, and states like Minnesota, Colorado, and Alaska use caucuses as part of their national convention delegate selection process (some states actually use a combination!) Moreover, many of the specific concerns people have about the caucuses are really attributable to any kind of a proportional, representative system with viability thresholds (they just happen to be more visible with caucuses). As this article explains, using Illinois as an example, even the mechanics of primary states end up looking a lot like those of caucus states behind the scenes:

Another criticism is that Iowa’s caucuses have such low turnout that they don’t even fairly represent Iowans. Again, the relevant question is “compared to what?” As it happens this is not an Iowa caucus phenomenon; this is a problem with the electorate. USA Today reported in the last Presidential nominating cycle that through 2004’s mass primary on March 2, only 7.2% of the population voted. Vermont set a new record turnout for a primary election at just 16% — and that was with a home-state candidate. It also is important to remember that these are partisan functions – choosing the nominee for a particular party. As a result, many states have “closed” or semi-closed processes. Iowa is semi-closed: only Democrats can participate in the Democratic caucus, but you can register as a Democrat at the caucus. In 2004, however, 22% of the already-registered Democrats caucused. The state turnout numbers are low in part because 1/3rd of all Iowans choose not to affiliate with a party. One consequence of that, logically, is that they are not the real constituency for either party’s process of choosing a partisan candidate. You can fault the two-party system, but this particular aspect is not a complaint about caucuses as opposed to primaries.

It was asked in comments how this impacts minorities. I don’t have comparative statistics handy, but one of your listed groups was older voters – those happen to be the most likely participants in the caucuses. Iowa Victory Gardener, who I believe lives in a more diverse part of town than I do, may be able to add some on minorities, but having been a precinct captain in 88 for Dukakis in a precinct where Jesse Jackson won, I certainly have seen racial, ethnic, and political minorities show up to caucus.

The biggest criticism is that the caucuses are “not democratic.” This is really several arguments packed together; mainly that certain classes of citizens are excluded by the lack of an absentee voting mechanism, and that the voting is public, not a secret ballot. Again, the starting point has to be “compared to what?” As we saw in Ohio in the 2004 general, until we have a national election holiday, multi-day or weekend voting, or voting by mail, every system will disenfranchise some – usually, unfortunately, the working class, who have less control over their time. This is, however, a very valid concern that even most caucus defenders recognize. It certainly makes a caucus process unsuitable for general elections or larger scale elections. But I discuss some positive aspects of caucuses below and many here (myself included) believe that for the scale and purpose of the Iowa caucuses, the positives outweigh this negative.

As for the lack of secret balloting, I cannot imagine anything more in sync with the core democratic principles of this country than neighbors coming together to discuss civic issues. Town meetings were widely held out as the ideal at the founding – everyone (then defined of course as male landed gentry; Iowa has corrected that) could come and have a say and be heard. Citizens had the opportunity to convince one another, to seek consensus as a community of interest. That remains a fundamental attraction of the caucuses. Delegate selection is inside baseball for a party. There is no reason the standards need be the same as in a general election. There are many civic activities where anonymity is not possible – voicing your opinion at a city council meeting is a good example. The caucus is a civic activity, not just a general election. (By the way, the most anti-democratic aspect of the delegate selection process has nothing to do with the primary/caucus distinction; it is the use of Superdelegates. Just over 50% of Iowa’s national convention delegates will be chosen in a manner that is related to tonights caucuses; the rest are “at large” district or state convention choices and party Superdelegates – and that would be true even if Iowa used a primary.)

Which brings me to the virtues of a caucus system, some more highminded, some merely tactical, but all of which have to be part of the balance.

I am always somewhat surprised that progressives are so anti-caucus. To me, a caucus captures many of the things progressives tend to support. As a delegate-selection device, they are more grassroots-oriented, more transparent, encourage discourse and engagement, they better for party building, and best of all they are the closest thing we have to Instant Runoff Voting.

* Grassroots and Transparency. As I explained earlier, even when a state uses a primary, it remains representative rather than direct democracy: at the end of the day, that state has say 30 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Those hundreds of thousands of voters in the primary get converted to national delegates somehow. Like the Electoral College, most people probably cannot name their delegates. Those decisions are likely made the old fashioned non-progressive way: top down in the party structure or candidate campaign. In that sense, it is important that “messy” not be confused with “secretive,” a charge I have heard leveled against the caucus process. Tonight, it will be the grassroots Obama, Clinton and Edwards supporters themselves who will decide, bottom up, who amongst them goes on as their representatives (a process that will be repeated at district and then state convention to determine the national delegates). It will be public; at the end of the night, the entire caucus will ratify the slate of delegates. This is the polar opposite of the “smoke filled rooms” that good government progressives allegedly abhor. Added bonus: the party platform bubbles up from the grassroots through these meetings tonight as well – with more people in attendance than would ever be possible were it not linked to presidential preference.

* Instant Runoff Voting. The caucuses provide an excellent example of IRV, a cause of many progressives. If I go to a primary and vote for Dodd, and he falls below that state’s viability threshold (and remember, known or not, most states have either a formal threshold or a de facto threshold as they apply the math of delegate apportionment), I have no say in who gets the delegates. In Iowa, I know right away, and I can express another choice that keeps my voice relevant in delegate selection. This is what progressives argue for.

* Engagement and discourse. The unfortunate man-bites-dog story of the Iowa Democratic woman who believed Obama was a Muslim was tossed around yesterday. In a primary election, she goes to the polls, silent in her error, and votes against Obama. At her caucus, she can ask an Obama supporter, who can disabuse her of her error. An Obama supporter may make a speech that preempts the entire issue. It is the last best chance to hear the arguments – not from paid media, or other screens, but from your neighbors, people who will be impacted in ways similar to you by the choices. It encourages not just passive, McDonalds drive-thru convenience – it encourages active, intellectual participation.

* Testing a campaign’s organization. From a strictly strategic standpoint, there is no better trial run for a campaign’s organization. Caucuses are harder for a campaign to organize than a primary election – turnout is much harder, polling is much harder. If you want a shakedown cruise for your eventual nominee, a caucus is your best bet.

* Long term party building. I know many here proudly have loose party affiliation, but those partisan Democrats, caucuses are a great device, great infrastructure for the “50 state strategy” that Dean is implementing. In every neighborhood in Iowa tonight, Democrats will essentially have a “Meet Up” – they will get to know each other, they will share their views, elect among themselves for party committees and positions, work together to find common ground to write platform planks, and share in each others’ energy. These connections, this network, becomes the ground-level foundation for the party that is built on top of it. Driving up to a voting booth and privately sticking a scan card in does not provide any of this – it is an isolating rather than a communal activity; politics should be the opposite. Politics should be about communities, participating in them, building them, energizing them.

Whew. I know I wont convince many. But there are a lot of flaws in primaries that go unnoticed while the spotlight magnifies the problems of the caucus. Unfortunately, that spotlight misses a lot of the positives. The caucuses are a great example of engaged grassroots participation in a Democratic community – something we should all want to encourage even if we disagree on whether those positives outweigh the problems.

I’ll post more later and tonight after the caucus – in the meantime, if anyone else would like to step up and help defend, I could use the help! 🙂

Lance @ 16: no, Iowa’s fight predates the ethanol pledge. Iowa fights because of the direct benefit of the caucus. To most of the country, for 3 1/2 years, this is fly-over country. People don’t know Iowa from Idaho from Ohio. But for a brief window every 4 years, we exist. (Hey, don’t we deserve that small bone?)

I make it sound like a purely existensial, “this is the only way we get our turn” thing but it is much more concrete than that: current estimated economic impact of this years caucuses in Iowa is $50-60 million.

Kevin @ 18: You are correct. The 15% viability will apply almost everywhere, but in those precincts with fewer than 6 district convention delegates to send, viability will be higher because using 15% would result in more viable candidates than there are delegates to give them.

Doubtful/Swan (never thought I’d type those together. . .) – if I can find time after getting back to my day job and if I can muster some energy, I’ll try to respond re what amounts to a single state versus national primary issue.

…if anyone else would like to step up and help defend, I could use the help! 🙂 -Z

To be honest, I think the opposing sides are getting pretty even in numbers.

I am always somewhat surprised that progressives are so anti-caucus. -Z

I consider myself a fairly aggressive progressive, so I’ll field this one.

I don’t know if most progressives would readily advocate a system that is closed to so many people. My goal is to get more people to vote in primaries and in general elections. The increased level of engagement in the Iowa caucuses for a handful of Iowans only serves to make so much of the rest of the United States feel like they are less important and have no impact.

The only evidence I need of this is the wildly chaotic build-up to this primary cycle. With all of the leap frogging to try to be first or early, it’s clearly evident that people are seeking a change.

I think one of the core values of being a progressive to to make sure that every voice is heard, and the current system, while good for a few, is not good for the many.

In a primary election, she goes to the polls, silent in her error, and votes against Obama. At her caucus, she can ask an Obama supporter, who can disabuse her of her error. -Z

I find it hard to believe that a Clinton supporter going to the caucuses with the notion that Obama is a Muslim will be convinced by an Obama supporter that he is not. I find it doubly hard to believe that once the unlikely convincing has taken place that said Clinton supporter will jump to Obama’s camp.

Let’s be honest, the only people jumping camp are the supporters of candidates who didn’t make the cut-off, so really, all it does is provide momentum to top tiers while snuffing out second tier candidates and perpetuates the media driven separation that many of us find distasteful in the first place.

But there are a lot of flaws in primaries that go unnoticed while the spotlight magnifies the problems of the caucus. -Z

Well, my overall problem with the method and order of the primary is my overall problem with all elections in general. It’s the root of our nature as human beings, but something we should overcome, as Oregon has, in order to make a fair and just system.

We must overcome our need for instant gratification. If there was no ‘first state’ and voting took place over a period of two or more weeks, we’d not exclude anyone who wanted to participate. Military, parents, evening shift, people who are out of town, even just shy people, everyone. If the ballots are secret, people could vote without fear.

It’s not 1876 anymore. Hell, it’s not even 1976 anymore. The world is different, but our methods stay the same, and I believe clearly aren’t working.

The first step to getting people engaged isn’t a town hall meeting in their precinct. It’s getting them to think they count.

Why do they keep the vote tally secret? I know it’s still a representative delegate system, and ultimately that’s what matters, but why? Is it because they are afraid of the backlash when the rest of America figures out how few there are making the decisions for so many? Or is it because it’s simply not that accurate?

Zeitgeist said:
“Lance @ 16: no, Iowa’s fight predates the ethanol pledge. Iowa fights because of the direct benefit of the caucus. To most of the country, for 3 1/2 years, this is fly-over country. People don’t know Iowa from Idaho from Ohio. But for a brief window every 4 years, we exist. (Hey, don’t we deserve that small bone?)”

Actually, NO!

The President of the United States. The Leader of the Free World. The Dark Manipulator of the World’s Economy 😉

And you think for some reason we should let Iowa distort the process by telling us what precentage of the precinct delegates have been assigned to the top two or three Candidates for each party. We don’t get real numbers of voters out of this process, we get data that is essentially TRASH. None of which means anything at the convention because you haven’t chosen National Convention Delegates.

All of which exists solely to filter candidates through your wingnut and moonbat activists.

And what I hate most about this Zeitgeist is that you’ve got me agreeing with DAVID BRODER!

Gah! Shows just how evil the process is right there.

To most of the country, for 3 1/2 years, this is fly-over country. People don’t know Iowa from Idaho from Ohio. But for a brief window every 4 years, we exist. (Hey, don’t we deserve that small bone?) -Zeitgeist

What about the other states that are fly over, like Idaho or Ohio. This has got to be one of the most idiotic ways to pick a future presidential candidate. People in Iowa do not come close to representing America. It’s a fly over state for a reason, yet their opinions for something this important are unfairly weighted. It’s no disrespect to you, just to your entire state for putting the cash it arrives from this fiasco about the best interests of the nation.

How fricken republican is that ??

There has got to be a better way man.

Am I seriously the only one who finds this process anything but nostalgic ?? Even Zeitgeist defends almost ever criticism with pointing out that’s just how it’s done elsewhere.

The point here is that what is going to be publicized is not the actual delegates Iowa ‘elects’, but what percentages come from the caucus. Huh ??

I get that you are defending a time honored tradition, but please quit acting like it’s a good one. This is faulty from start to finish. If you didn’t live their you would be wondering WTF as well.

Anyways, enough ranting, I do appreciate the knowledge Zeitgeist. It’s no small feat explaining a very complicated system to heathens like myself in terms we can understand.

OK, here’s a question for ya, zeitgeist: What is the actual percentage of people in the country who sell corn, and why is it that they get to have such a huge influence on our energy policy? Would they have that influence if the #1 corn producing state wasn’t so determined to be first?

This system is totally whack, and everyone knows it. All you have to do to realize that is ask yourself if it would still be OK if you lived in another state and got to have ZERO influence on the nominee process. Be honest, and the answer is clear: Democracy depends on as many people as possible being involved in the political process. I agree with doubtful in #17: it has an impact on disengaging hundreds of thousands of voters who don’t feel they have any impact on the primaries. It’s only a hop from there to stop voting in the general.

This fuckery by a few states keeps millions of us from being able to pick the actual candidate we would support. THEY get to pick from some actual choices, but we get to pick “Republican or Democrat”.

Zeitgeist– First, I would really like to thank you for a very interesting, detailed, and informative description of the way the Iowa Caucuses work. I have to say that, after reading this, I have a much better understanding of the system, and I can see much of the justification for it.

As an analogy, I see your system as basically choosing a boxer by committee– two teams are choosing their favorite boxer to go to the fight. This helps to explain the openness and transparency (i.e. the absence of secret ballots), as it would be natural to want to convince others in the committee as to why your particular boxer would be more likely to beat the other team’s boxer….

And, in a perfect and linear world, where that choice translated directly into the final match, I would whole-heartedly support it. However, we don’t!

Because of the myriad of other factors involved– not least the media’s role in playing up or down candidates based on the outcome of Iowa, and the demonstrative effect which that has been seen to have (Dean) on primaries down the line, but also our modern-day problems with enough of the electorate being able to participate– I cannot support a system like this. A subset category of a subset of the population of a rural state is, in conjunction with New Hampshire (a place I also disagree with), essentially declaring the next candidate for President?

Please don’t take it the wrong way, but I am from Vermont, which has something like 600,000 people in it– a fraction of a percent of the U.S. population. These micro-cultures should NOT have a disproportionate effect on the determination of such an important matter as which person becomes our favored candidate for President (or who becomes the actual President, for that matter– but my problems with the electoral college can wait until a different discussion).

RacerX, also @30 (sorry, trying to catch up on a lot of questions):

This fuckery by a few states keeps millions of us from being able to pick the actual candidate we would support. THEY get to pick from some actual choices, but we get to pick “Republican or Democrat”.

Let me pick up where i just left off about alternative outcomes. I would argue, although I understand the disingenuousness of it, that it is not Iowa, but the media that causes this effect.

But my bigger issue is that I do not necessarily buy the assumption that you would have more choices in a different system, unless your state happened to be first. Presumably we can agree that the “first-state screening” phenomenon is not due to anything about Iowa — it would happen with any first state.

So the real argument is would you and all not living in the first state or states have more choice under a national primary? Sounds reasonable, but in reality I doubt you would. Long before Iowa “screened” anyone today, numerous candidates (mainly Republican) dropped out. Why? They couldn’t raise any money. Iowa is not necessarily where the money comes from – money is a national phenomenon. And it would take a lot more to compete in a national primary — nearly as much as the general election. People like Dodd probably dont even attempt a national primary. The fact that the process starts in one or two affordable states allows people like Dodd, Biden, the Thompson Twins (Tommy and Fred) to take a shot and see if they can catch lightning in a bottle (like Carter did, like Dean appeared to have done, like Huckabee might have done). That phenomenon has no chance in a national primary.

In fact, anyone who has a primary or caucus on or before Feb 5th this year may well have more choice than they would have had in a national primary system. Obviously there is no way to prove which of us is making the correct assumption, but I do not think you can rule out the occurrence of what would really be a non-transparent “money primary” replacing Iowa as the screener before a national primary. Until you can reduce the role of money, your choices likely remain just as or even more limited under a scenario other than “small first state.”

I’d like to add my voice to the gallery of thanks to Zeitgeist for the article and follow-ups as well. Obviously from the comments Steve’s post generated yesterday about the caucuses, Zeitgeist knew many people disagreed, myself included, so thanks for treading in shark infested waters!

I certainly appreciate the effort and the information, as well and the consistently engaging discussion in the comments.

Might I also add to all of those in Iowa, I won’t begrudge you of a good time tonight; have fun at the caucus, and please, don’t screw it up for the rest of us! 🙂

ScottW @ 28

People in Iowa do not come close to representing America

And nor do the people of any other single state. Iowa is almost exactly on the “national” demographics in some areas and very far off in others. (And some ways Iowa differs may actually be desirable to making political choices: generally a higher level of civic participation and more high school graduates.)

Again, all this really goes to is whether to have a single state (or a very small number of states in close succession) lead off, or to have a national (or super-regional) primaries. I happen to think those wishing for a national primary would be disappointed if they got it: I believe there would be fewer choices, and the remaining choices would run even “safer” campaigns, money would be even more prominent, and instead of Iowa and New Hampshire forcing candidates to engage at a human scale, no one would – it would be all media.

I completely understand that other states would like the benefits of going first; that may be a matter of fairness (although the order should be determined well in advance for the sake of candidates and the massive logistics issues that Iowa and New Hampshire now have down to a science). But that is a very different argument from finding something wrong with Iowa per se — any single lead-off state will be wholly arbitrary.

Let me add, apropos to nothing in Scott’s post, that I also happen to be a fan of methodological diversity: I think it is beneficial to have Iowa and New Hampshire using different methods to select delegates. It puts the campaigns and candidates to differing tests, and provides a a cross-check between depth of support (important to a caucus) and breadth of support (important to an open primary).

Lance,

I agree there are more options that “Iowa first” and “national primary,” but many of the people i have been responding to have in the past expressed a preference for national same day primary. I do think, despite the various options, most have the same aspects people complaint about re Iowa/New Hampshire unless and until you get to (a) a very structured, multi-state per voting-day system, (b) a super-regional primary system or (c) national primary.

Some time ago on CBR I proposed a system that was more of less like this:

First Saturday in March – 4-5 states with 10% of delegates from diverse parts of country (New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Idaho, South Carolina for example)

First Saturday in April – approx 10 states with 20% of delegates (in each case, from a mix of regions and demographics)

First Saturday in May – states with 20% of delegates

First Saturday in June – states with remaining 50% of delegates

This does a number of things. First, it starts small, allowing affordable, human scale campaigns a chance to catch fire. Second, it is backweighted enough that the last set of states still matters — you cannot clinch without that last voting day. Third, it simultaneously avoids regionalist influence (like the “Super” primaries have created), and provides diversity along numerous lines that solves the lack of representativeness that people complaint about re Iowa and NH. It allows a reasonable time between voting days, yet does not drag on as long as the old January to July calendars used to.

Maybe you rotate them on a pre-announced basis every two cycles or something to avoid the “why does X always go Y in the order?” rants.

Thanks, Zeitgeist. You rock.

At the expense of American Exceptionalism, how do other Western-style Democracies select candidates and office holders? Also, if voters in other states really wanted to send a message about this they could overwhelmingly vote against the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire.

How can we get this fixed? Does anyone know? I am so glad I never knew about this before. This horrifies me.

American politics, my god how did we ever make it 200+ years.

I may not be from Iowa, but I am from the Midwest and I have lived on both coasts and now Houston, and I know there is not a larger misrepresentation of Americana then Iowa.

To me if Iowa has to be the one, maybe they could share it with a more populated state. I have always thought a state that has almost a north(country) and south(city) quality, like California, New York, Illinois, or even Florida would be far more representative. Iowas just misses Big City representation.

Either way I am starting to warm up to the town hall aura of the Iowa caucus. It’s seems very antiquated, yet somehow it’s growing on me.

Last note, will someone PLEASE put Katy Couric out of my misery. She is killing me with the vote business, and at 8:11 pm CST She has already called Obama and Huckabee ‘winners’.