The Horrors of Iowa

Here's a good piece by Jeff Greenfield that explains a bit about why the Iowa Caucuses are such a terrible way to pick a presidential nominee. Basically, there were never intended to be a good way to pick a presidential nominee:

George McGovern in 1972, and Jimmy Carter more successfully in 1976, made the Iowa caucuses a pre-New Hampshire test of political strength. And then they became in effect a "pre-primary primary," which bring to the state tens of millions of dollars and massive media overkill. In the process, the original purpose of the caucuses—to conduct party business and to talk over local concerns—became completely overwhelmed by the presidential frenzy for which they're so ill-suited. As Drake University professor Dennis Goldford notes, "The presidential preference just began as something piggybacking on an ordinary set of party functions, and it's been blown way out of proportion."

Ah, America.

Comments

Like Greenfield, you'd rather be cute than correct.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:36 PM

Petey, I've never read a real defense of the importance of the Iowa caucus. Why do you think it's a good way to pick a nominee? (I'm inferring from yoru comment that you think it is)

Posted by too many steves | January 2, 2008 2:40 PM

The whole primary system is screwed. We have certain states voting before the others. But given the way campaigns are run, whoever gets the early momentum wins out, especially when the other candidates can't keep up with fundraising as the party establishment focuses on the lead horse. They call it frontloading. The states that come at the end of the primary season call it bull.
There's been talk of creating regional primaries to get more states involved earlier, but it still devalues the votes of the later states (as those voters will end up with no choice at all). We need a single unified, one-day primary across the whole nation. Every state, and every voter, should have a say. Not Iowa. Not New Hampshire. Not just California or Michigan or Florida or South Carolina or Alaska or Wyoming. All states, all voters, one primary.

Posted by PaulW | January 2, 2008 2:41 PM

"Petey, I've never read a real defense of the importance of the Iowa caucus. Why do you think it's a good way to pick a nominee? (I'm inferring from yoru comment that you think it is)"

The caucus rules serve my interests in manifold ways.

- They advantage activist Dems over non-activist Dems.
- They advantage high-information Dems over low-information Dems.
- They advantage progressive Dems over conservative Dems.
- They eliminate the ability of a niche candidate to win with a low percentage in a crowded field.
- They produce a winner who has some rural strength, which is incredibly important for the Dem nominee and the Party as a whole.
- They advantage consensus candidates over niche candidates due to the second choice factor.
- They disadvantage negative ad campaigns over governing messages.

I could go on. The caucus rules are really a fucking brilliant piece of engineering.

I want a strong Democratic Party and a progressive Democratic Party, and so I see the caucus rules as my best friend.

I wouldn't want to see the whole nomination race run like Iowa, but for the first contest, it's pretty close to optimal.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:52 PM

OK, I get it. I thought you meant there was some principled case for the Iowa caucus, rather than that they serve your interest. My question for you is, seeing as how Greenfield and Yglesias are journalists, why should they share your lack of principles?

(OK, I'm sorry, I had a nice sincere question in my first comment and now I've gone all rhetorical.)

Posted by too many steves | January 2, 2008 2:55 PM

For logistical reasons, it makes a lot of sense not to hold a national primary. At the same time, holding sequential primaries/caucuses does amplify the voice of the voters in the early states. Perhaps the thing to do is to continue to hold sequential events but to establish a national date for announcing the results of all events. It would be odd not to know who had won in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. until after the last primary was held, but it might avoid the snowball politics associated with the current system.

Posted by henry evans | January 2, 2008 2:56 PM

How the hell would you keep information like that secret?

Posted by too many steves | January 2, 2008 2:57 PM

We need a single unified, one-day primary across the whole nation.

This strikes me as an enormously bad idea, and substantially worse even than the way we do things now. Getting a full-blown presidential campaign up and running is a huge endeavor. The virtue of the present system is that a candidate can effectively start running on a shoestring budget to get a realistic view of his or her prospects, and at the same time raise funds toward a potential larger effort. That is not possible under a one-day nationwide primary system. Under that system, there would in all likelihood be just one candidate -- a candidate selected and backed by the party elite -- and no voter would have any real choice.

Posted by alkali | January 2, 2008 2:58 PM

"I thought you meant there was some principled case for the Iowa caucus, rather than that they serve your interest."

I'm defining my interest quite broadly: a strong and progressive Democratic Party.

"My question for you is, seeing as how Greenfield and Yglesias are journalists, why should they share your lack of principles?"

Yglesias should share my interest here. He's an activist blogger, not a journalist.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:58 PM

Petey, one could imagine a process that began with TV stations and airports that would also carry significant structural advantages for activist Dems over all other comers. But it doesn't really serve to answer the criticism.

Posted by southpaw | January 2, 2008 3:01 PM

As I've been saying on the other thread, the claim that the Iowa caucus is good for progressives is just flat-out false as a historical matter. And even if it did, that wouldn't trump the principled and strategic interest in a democratic political system.

Let me and a few of my buddies pick the Dem nominee and I guarantee we'll come up with a strong progressive; I bet we could even pick someone with a good shot in the general election. but I would never suggest that if I had any interest in strengthening the relationship between the Democratic party and the people they're supposed to represent.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 3:05 PM

Here's a more wonkish piece on the horrors of caucuses:
http://www.tcf.org/publications/electionreform/caucusbrief.pdf

Which includes these Dem turnouts for 2004:

Iowa (January 19): 5.7 percent
North Dakota (February 3): 2.3 percent
Washington (February 7): 2.5 percent
Michigan (February 7): 2.3 percent
Maine (February 8): 1.8 percent
Nevada (February 14): 0.6 percent
Idaho (February 24): 0.5 percent
Minnesota (March 2): 1.5 percent
Kansas (March 13): 0.1 percent
Wyoming (March 20): 0.2 percent

Posted by MikeKC | January 2, 2008 3:10 PM

"Let me and a few of my buddies pick the Dem nominee and I guarantee we'll come up with a strong progressive"

If I thought that would work, I'd be all for it.

However, oligarchies tend to stop working effectively over time, even if they start with good people.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 3:12 PM

For logistical reasons, it makes a lot of sense not to hold a national primary.

A national popular-vote primary would, on the other hand, be a rare and innovative use of the democratic process where all votes are equal.

I think the attraction with Iowa is also bound to the media's love of bullshit small-ball diner-counter politics, albeit as a politics that they don't participate in. The discontinuity is fascinating, because it's not Iowa small-ball politics that makes the results significant, but the centralised media's amplification of them.

The virtue of the present system is that a candidate can effectively start running on a shoestring budget to get a realistic view of his or her prospects, and at the same time raise funds toward a potential larger effort. That is not possible under a one-day nationwide primary system.

In which case, your issue is with the amount of money it takes to fund a presidential election campaign, and your appropriate course of action is to campaign for measures to address that. The 'popular democracy is too expensive, so let's try something else' argument is profoundly misdirected.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 2, 2008 3:12 PM

If I thought that would work, I'd be all for it.

And you would be wrong. Political institutions need to be genuinely accountable to their constituencies, and not just produce the right outcomes.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 3:14 PM

If the state parties were barred from announcing their results until every state held its process, then the national media's fascination with Iowa would probably evaporate. My guess is we'd be more likely to end up going to the conventions without a candidate with enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

Posted by henry evans | January 2, 2008 3:16 PM

"I would never suggest that ... I had any interest in strengthening the relationship between the Democratic party and the people they're supposed to represent."

The purpose of the nomination contest is to serve the Party.

If I thought the old pre-'72 party boss system would produce better nominees, I'd be in favor of that. But I think the current open primary system better serves the Party, so that's what I prefer.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 3:18 PM

"If the state parties were barred from announcing their results until every state held its process, then the national media's fascination with Iowa would probably evaporate."

If aliens from the planet Xenu landed on the White House lawn, then Tom Cruise's religious beliefs would probably rise in everyone's estimation.

Posted by southpaw | January 2, 2008 3:18 PM

Merry Iowa Eve, y'all! The Missus and I are planning to camp out in front of the TV tomorrow night with take-out and our three man-cubs. Should we watch CNN's coverage?

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 2, 2008 3:20 PM

Well stated.

Posted by henry evans | January 2, 2008 3:20 PM

"And you would be wrong. Political institutions need to be genuinely accountable to their constituencies, and not just produce the right outcomes."

Parties seemed to function pretty well for 170 years before the open primary era.

Again, I think the open primary system is preferable. But it's elections that need to be accountable to citizens. Party processes need to be accountable to parties.

Open primaries best serve the Democratic Party, so I support the open primary system. But if I really thought vesting you and your pals with the power to select nominees would be better for the Democratic Party, why shouldn't I be for that?

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 3:23 PM

I'm only sick of Iowa and New Hampshire because I'm tired of listening to these jerks demand to look the candidates in the eyes before they'll make their decisions. Apart from that, I think the caucusing approach is better than the standard approach because it measures more, and more accurately. But come on; better and worse have nothing to do with it. The winners will change the rules to favor themselves if they can. Reading the comments above, I guess some Dems think the rules have already been changed to favor them, so they're happy.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 2, 2008 3:25 PM

Look, unless you want people like Hillary and Mitt to be the only folks who can ever win the nomination, the process has got to start with a series of relatively small states, with the votes spaced out over at least a few weeks. There really is no alternative to that. The only question is, should Iowa and New Hampshire keep their spots or should the political parties have a gigantic fight every time they have to pick new places to start the nominating process?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 2, 2008 3:26 PM

I'm sure the Iowa caucus has no small part in pushing our horrible corn subsidy policy (see "The Omnivore's Dilemma" for The Horrors of (Too Much) Corn).

Posted by ben | January 2, 2008 3:27 PM

pseudonymous in nc writes:

In which case, your issue is with the amount of money it takes to fund a presidential election campaign, and your appropriate course of action is to campaign for measures to address that.

"Measures to address that": ah, the pleasures of ambiguity. Look, I've supported various public campaign finance arrangements in the past, but none of the ones I'm familiar with seem like that they would work in the context of a single nationwide presidential primary. (In particular, schemes to provide funds for candidates who raise a certain number of limited-dollar contributions from individuals wouldn't seem to work on a national level in a primary, where the candidate may not have a substantial national profile before the primary.)

To be clear, I'm not a fan of the Iowa/NH system we've got going at present, but I'm just pointing out why this proposed alternative wouldn't work. It seems a little aggressive to say to someone who points out a flaw in a proposal for change, "Well, it's your problem to fix that then, isn't it?"

Posted by alkali | January 2, 2008 3:50 PM

Petey, if "the purpose of the nomination contest is to serve the Party," then the parties ought to pay for primary elections. Last I checked, they were publicly held elections, administered by the county clerks, paid for by the taxpayers, and used to select candidates for public office. The party can piss up a rope.

Posted by too many steves | January 2, 2008 4:15 PM

Petey-

I'd buy your argument in a parlimentary system. But I disagree that the citizenry have no interest in how primary nominations are conducted in a two party government system like we have in the US. The limited number of choices (2), prevent us from relying on the parties to come up with a good process to produce competitive candidates. We can already see the problem with the way elites and gatekeepers shape our political choices. Why would I ever make the situation worse by allowing party bosses to select nominees again? I believe in our political system a legitimate democratic nomination process is important.

Posted by mpowell | January 2, 2008 4:19 PM

"Let me and a few of my buddies pick the Dem nominee and I guarantee we'll come up with a strong progressive"

-If I thought that would work, I'd be all for it.

I have to second lemuel here, partisans want the system that advances their own interests and to hell with what the rabble think.

Petey fantasizes that a rigged election will bring about a progressive utopia, but we've seen all this before - in the machine politics of our own country and the orchestrated victories of autocrats across the world. Give me a real democracy any day.

Posted by Jinchi | January 2, 2008 4:37 PM

MBunge, that is not true.

While I admit that campaign costs make it restrict nomination to a small representative sample of the overall population, Iowa does not provide that. While the common solution is to pick another state, one with more black people, or one that is more urban. But each of these states just provide a different deviation from the norm, distorting our national policy.

Instead, why don't we actually create a representative sample? Just pick 100,000 random people nationwide, give their address to the candidates if they consent, and allow them to be the "Battleground state", prior to a national primary.

The number of voters is too high for direct bribery to be feasible, and more importantly, the geographical dispersion prevents implicit spending based bribery.

Instead of focusing on narrow special interests, candidates would have to calibrate their views to the national preference. This not only is better from a democratic point of view, but it maximizes electability.

Posted by David Shor | January 2, 2008 5:04 PM

"Measures to address that": ah, the pleasures of ambiguity.

I'm not being ambiguous at all. It's those who shrug and accept that the financing of presidential campaigns is the constant in this equation, rather than the variable, who are quibbling.

It seems a little aggressive to say to someone who points out a flaw in a proposal for change, "Well, it's your problem to fix that then, isn't it?"

Not particularly, when proposals that continue to privilege a minority of voters and the press pack covering them are little more than debates about the choice of lipstick to apply to the pig.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 2, 2008 5:07 PM

pseudonymous in nc harrumphs:

...proposals that continue to privilege a minority of voters and the press pack covering them are little more than debates about the choice of lipstick to apply to the pig.

I'm not proposing anything. I don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire and don't particularly like the current system. But a national one-day primary won't work for the reasons I outlined and you have offered no reasons to think it could.

(Next up: my proposal to cut airfares by introducing triple-decker jetliners. Gravity? It's all well and good for you to sit there with your fancy physics degree complaining about gravity, but I'm trying to cut airfares for the average working man here, pal.)

Posted by alkali | January 2, 2008 5:23 PM

I'm not being ambiguous at all. It's those who shrug and accept that the financing of presidential campaigns is the constant in this equation, rather than the variable, who are quibbling.

Subtext being, if only we had the boldness to imagine a world in which the powerful have no power?

Posted by Senescent | January 2, 2008 5:48 PM

Greenfield is just being silly if he thinks your mortgage holder is going to be at your precinct caucus. 'Nuff said about that.

I'm all for a serious discussion of alternatives to the current process though. Just keep in mind that none of them are optimal either.

Posted by David W. | January 2, 2008 6:46 PM

In California, the Democrats nominate candidates for statewide offices with one primary, direct vote. They don't have Mariposa County vote first, then other counties over the next few months.

California's population is about thirty million, an eleventh of the national population. You need money for TV in California and can't do retail politics.

Given this, my question is whether Democratic candidates for statewide offices, including the two Senate seats, in California are more or less progressive than the national average? Are they more or less beholden to corporate interests? If there isn't much difference, than this "retail politics" effect might be overstated.

Posted by Ed | January 2, 2008 8:08 PM

Subtext being, if only we had the boldness to imagine a world in which the powerful have no power?

Well, if you define 'world' as 'United States of America', I suppose so.

If the primaries are a try-out for the general, then you might as well run them under the same conditions as the general and accept that you need a shitload of money to run for president as things stand, and that the combination of television ads and press reporting on diner politics, as opposed to diner politics themselves, are what matter.

If they're a chance to do something different, then you do something different, and wouldn't actual unfucked-with popular-vote democracy be a wild innovation in national politics?

I don't see why the DNC and state parties couldn't impose their own restrictions on raising and spending money in the primary campaign. The rules of a private organisation aren't subject to the same First Amendment challenge. The DNC has stripped delegates from states for holding early primaries: it can presumably strip delegates from candidates if they spend above a 'campaign cap'. Instead, it endorses a massive wealth transfer from individuals to local network affiliates.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 2, 2008 8:32 PM

The other thing to remember is that if you're a progressive, the current system is wrong politically as well as in principle. If you want to build a political aprty that represents working people, you have to run it in a way that gives them a genuine voice. If the party designs its internal decision-making in a way that gives the vast majority of thsoe it claims to represent no actual representation, they are not going to be loyal and engaged. If the Democratic Party is going to get ordinary working people to turn out on election day, it needs to give them a real vocie in choosing its nominee. And sorry, but 4.5 percent of Iowans are taking the process very, very seriously does not gie actual Democratic voters a voice, even if it creates a nice fascimile for the media.

It's also a reality in the US today that African-Americans are not only by far the most reliable Democratic voters, they're more likely to oppose the war and support stuff like universal healthcare. And they're notably absent from Iowa and New Hampshire. Pissing on your most loyal supporters may look like smart progressive politics to Petey, but it sure doesn't to me.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 9:09 PM

"Just pick 100,000 random people nationwide," - David Shor

Yeah, when I hear ideas about tweaking our really bad elections that consistently select the best liars, all I can ever think is "why stop there?" Just for starters, I'd make these 100,000 random citizens my congress and let them select advisors, ministers and so forth, but not a chief excutive. Ah, utopia.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 2, 2008 9:35 PM

From the other thread :Mike c - and the alternative is? iowa and NH are small states used to retail politics. Where else can a relative unknown become known, raise money (in that virtuous/vicious cycle) and sharpen their message?

The alternative is two dozen other small states rotating into the mix every 4 years if you believe that we should keep a few small states 1st so an unknown with little money (Clinton, Carter, Pastor Huckleberry) has a shot at getting voters attention rather than be swallowed up by a large State like Florida or California dominated by organization and money.

Why not Hawaii, Montana, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Tennessee, New Mexico? New Jersey? Nevada?

Why not Mississippi or similar small state with a
hefty minority population once and a while? Or Arkansas?

Or make it a mix of small state, big state, small state in series so a new emerging candidate can point to success in Rhode Island and Oregon but losing Illinois simply because they haven't yet built a huge organization but have shown by small state victories they are viable, while Illinois, Cali, NY, Georgia, Florida at least can think that big state voters are finally in the mix and things are fairer.

I have a bigger problem with Iowa than New Hampshire. Iowa is dominated by activists running the caucuses and outside money where Candidates are expected to kowtow to Agribiz, KosKidz Lefty activists, Ethanol Lobby, Club for Growth, etc... - because everyone knows that with the Caucuses drawing only 100,000 of Iowa's 3 million (only 6% of registered voters, heavily partisan and elderly), that the vote will not be typical of a statewide straight vote, even in Iowa. Lobbies openly admit they pay Party lawyers and professional activists in those states to set up money and grassroots "support" for Candidates that will do their bidding. Right To Life groups have encouraged members to move to Iowa so they are in a state that "has a voice for the fetuses".

But New Hampshire should go, too. They have been favored so long that they openly say their vote is predicated on how much attention over a years span is given to them or their "All-Important" State by Candidates.

Both Iowa and NH having disenfranchized the other 48 states is bad, but it's made worse by the other states moving their primaries up. There is no time for a candidate to show voters that they can adapt, retool their campaigns. If they are not written off as "finished" based on the atypical vote of two mostly white states, they are pronounced "finished" by February now after Super Tuesday or even the S Carolina Primary before that. No more Reagans allowed to start badly then come on strong, or the Gephardts and Deans allowed recovery from a mistake so voters and party members can see them doing more than swearing their love of crop subsidies or some asshole in a New Hampshire cafe noting Biden spent far more time than the other 6 candidates he personally met in discussing his demand for more Federal money to support Candian tourism to his campsite, so Biden deserves his vote.

And how many regular Californians get to buttonhole 7 Presidential candidates about more Fed funds for traffic congestion, or Georgians about water issues? Zero, none! No voice at all in the South and the West.

*****************
My own preference is 5 early primaries in the same week. One from each region roughly balanced in region population - Midwest, the South, Atlantic/New England, Rockies&Texas, Pacific. That the primaries be refined to two small, two-midsized, 1 large state.
Announced by Commission 12 months in advance of the Primary date so activists cannot use decades -long strategy to beef up their going into the states to set up residency and their grassroots lobbying for companies or causes groups.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 2, 2008 10:09 PM