Hillary Clinton's speculation that the non-secret nature of voting-by-caucus was disproportionately bothersome to women seemed plausible to me, but Kate Sheppard points out that most 2004 caucus-goers were women so it's not clear that there's any empirical support for that view. Secret ballots are still preferable to what they do in Iowa, though, even if there isn't a distinct gender skew to the process.
« Fiscal Discipline | Main | Responsibility Knocks »
Women and Caucusing
03 Jan 2008 09:53 am
Comments (20)
Whatever the merits of the argument, it is somewhat surprising that Clinton would be out making it on the morning of the caucus. It looks like she is anticipating a loss and is already lining up her excuses.
I'm thinking that the social event nature of caucusing might be enough of an appeal for some women to correct for some of the more male-friendly aspects of it - like public speaking.
I don't get Sheppard's out of hand dismissal -- yes, more women caucus (is that figure just for Dems?), but that doesn't mean Clinton's claim about uncomfortability with the format is untrue. It's possible that factor exists, but that it's outweighed by other things.
I don't understand why women or men would be afraid to stand up for their candidate and let people know you support someone and why.
I am a woman and i have no problem. I do have a bumpersticker on my car now for my candidate, Obama.
I never feel bothered to tell people who I support.
Maybe I am in the minority but, if you support someone then, do so with pride.
vwcat: I don't understand why women or men would be afraid to stand up for their candidate and let people know you support someone and why.
That's grand that you feel confident in your convictions, but look at the fact that 1/3 of Iowans haven't even decided yet who they support. Given the reality that most people don't know that much about the candidates, it's not surprising that many wouldn't feel comfortable standing up and talking about it in front of a group.
It's a lot easier to go pull a lever for the person who you just have a good feeling about.
The caucus model depends on the social dynamics in the room. Whom can work with whom, who is offended by whom, kind of like a jury room's deliberations are complicated by dynamics within the jury. It is further complicated because you caucus with neighbors and strangers from your area thus some of what happens in the caucus room tonight happens because of the existing relationships between caucus-goers and some happens inspite of those relationships.
What seems true to me is that hillary supporters quietly support hillary inspite of the Hillary bashers and hillary haters and thier inability to believe that anyone could trust or believe in her: they've quietly believed in her for a long time. Obama's supporters are passionate and will alienate some in tonight's 99 square dances with thier sense of destiny. And if the young do show up they're brashness will likely offend too. Edwards crowd too will bring edwards angry rhetoric with them and will offend some people.
Biden's people and Richardson's people and Dodd's people essentially embrace thier steady hand and experience and thier supporters could go to Hillary's whose message and appeal is more akin to that.
The independents have to walk into the room with the most democratic people in thier community and this seems a fairly radical thing to do socially as the self indentification as an independent is a fairly non-social and stubborn label and many will not part with it. Republican spoilers are even less likely to caucus because these are essentially anti-social behaviors in a very social setting.
historic models for turnout then will essentially hold in most districts, and the where the young show up in surprising numbers those districts still will only apportion the number of delagates they had in the last election cycle: thus it matters how many showed up in those districts last time, not this time.
the forces that drive more repubs to turn out at dem's caucus and more independents to caucus with dems will almost certainly compel a higher number of dems to turn out and thus the ratios may hold.
there may be no real surprises tonight.
The caucus model depends on the social dynamics in the room. Whom can work with whom, who is offended by whom, kind of like a jury room's deliberations are complicated by dynamics within the jury. It is further complicated because you caucus with neighbors and strangers from your area thus some of what happens in the caucus room tonight happens because of the existing relationships between caucus-goers and some happens inspite of those relationships.
What seems true to me is that hillary supporters quietly support hillary inspite of the Hillary bashers and hillary haters and thier inability to believe that anyone could trust or believe in her: they've quietly believed in her for a long time. Obama's supporters are passionate and will alienate some in tonight's 99 square dances with thier sense of destiny. And if the young do show up they're brashness will likely offend too. Edwards crowd too will bring edwards angry rhetoric with them and will offend some people.
Biden's people and Richardson's people and Dodd's people essentially embrace thier steady hand and experience and thier supporters could go to Hillary's whose message and appeal is more akin to that.
The independents have to walk into the room with the most democratic people in thier community and this seems a fairly radical thing to do socially as the self indentification as an independent is a fairly non-social and stubborn label and many will not part with it. Republican spoilers are even less likely to caucus because these are essentially anti-social behaviors in a very social setting.
historic models for turnout then will essentially hold in most districts, and the where the young show up in surprising numbers those districts still will only apportion the number of delagates they had in the last election cycle: thus it matters how many showed up in those districts last time, not this time.
the forces that drive more repubs to turn out at dem's caucus and more independents to caucus with dems will almost certainly compel a higher number of dems to turn out and thus the ratios may hold.
there may be no real surprises tonight.
If I bought Sen. Clinton's argument that women aren't tough enough to vote in Iowa, I'd instantly reject the idea of one being tough enough to be president. Luckily for her I think she's full of it.
Having neighbors and family members haranguing you over which candidate you support doesn't seem like the ideal format to me, but, hey, I'm used to the anonymity of city dwelling.
You know, the Clinton campaign is not stupid. This is probably something that they have studied and polled on, or at least, summed up what women in Iowa are telling them about the prospects of caucusing for Sen. Clinton. And frankly, considering the depth of hostility to Hillary expressed in blogs and comment sections among Democrats, and the vile anti-Hillary bashing that goes on in some of the sub-basements of internet, it doesn't surprise me that some women would feel intimidated about making public their Hillary support.
You know, it is a generally good idea to take seriously observations about the effects of gender, or race, on situations that don't seem to have that component -- especially if one is male, or white. Not everybody sees the world the way that we do, my pale brothers.
tom in ma, I think you are probably right. Still it is odd that Clinton would go on television with the message that women are disproportionately afraid to stand up for their position in public in the face of hostility, while she is at the same time a woman running for a leadership position in which she would be required every day to stand up publicly for her position in the face of hostility.
it's not clear that there's any empirical support for that view
No empirical support for it? It seems like Kate literally shredded that point of view simply by looking at the numbers.
Most caucus attendees are probably married couples. So if some women have difficulty voting against their husbands, then the open nature of the caucus will be intimidating, regardless of the raw percentage figures. Walking away from your husband in front of your neighbors is much harder than marking a paper in private.
You know that a much larger percentage of American men than women say that they vote the same way as their spouse?
Yes, women clearly have reasons to be afraid of making their support public, that men don't have. What those reasons are you can't tell from that statistic, but it's obvious they exist.
Of course, the caucus model you all describe only applies to the Iowa Democrats. The Iowa Republicans listen to anyone who wants to speak on behalf of a candidate, then vote by written secret ballot.
The Democratic women I know in Iowa will have no problem walking away from their husbands to vote. These are smart, independent people. It's the husbands who vote Democratic who will be the tag-alongs with their wives.
I never had that problem because I was always in the other room with the Republicans.
If Hillary doesn't like the Iowa caucuses-- and I would bet there is something to her theory-- she shouldn't have campaigned there. Really, it's a phony event that gives disproportionate power to a small number of party elites. If Hillary Clinton had put her weight behind an effort to abolish them, that would have created a substantial possibility for change.
More likely, she thought the Iowa caucuses would serve her well, and has only started saying this now that it looks like she is going to lose.
Seems to me the non-secret ballot might not be so bad if Iowans tend to discuss the candidates among themselves before caucus night.
If someone were pressured into changing their vote, it'd be obvious if their vote didn't match their pre-caucus enthusiasms. And they'd likely be queried about the change.
If the vote were secret, nobody would know if a person changed their vote suspiciously.
Maybe it's Clinton's conscience bothering her - Senate votes aren't secret either. Is she implicitly fessing up to voting differently due to pressure?
Bloix wrote " So if some women have difficulty voting against their husbands, then the open nature of the caucus will be intimidating, regardless of the raw percentage figures. Walking away from your husband in front of your neighbors is much harder than marking a paper in private."
Probably more of a problem among Republicans, especially those who think women should submit to their husband, but they apparently vote by secret ballot in Iowa.
If a woman is married to a Repub the problem starts with the non-GOP registration, not the vote.
Adding: i have a hard time imagining a guy who is voting for Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, or Obama requiring his wife to vote the same.
Maybe an ex-Repub voting grudgingly for Biden, but that's it.
Comments closed January 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
That does make some sense, and not just for women. It would probably make more sense for all primaries (which could do so on the party's say, right?) to be done in some sort of IRV process with secret ballots, even if it were done in a meeting format.
Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 10:13 AM