The Iowa Caucus: Excessive Influence

I believe I set a new personal record this morning for the most time spent reading the New York Times.

As a follow up to my last rant about Iowa, the Times today had a piece which put in even clearer perspective why the Iowa caucuses are carrying too much weight in terms of their influence in determining our next leader.

Because the caucuses, held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have baby sitters, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, and many others who work in retail, at gas stations and in other jobs that require evening duty.

As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people. In 2004, when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses.

So while the media enjoys aiming the spotlight at Iowa, and making suggestions that Iowa can "make or break" some Democrats, it becomes even more infuriating when examining just how few Iowans will actually participate.

While the Republican caucuses are fairly simple — voters can leave shortly after they declare their preferences — Democratic caucuses can require more time and multiple candidate preferences from participants. They do not conform to the one-person, one-vote rule, because votes are weighted according to a precinct’s past level of participation. Ties can be settled by coin toss or picking names out of a hat.

There we have it. If one recent poll is correct, that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are virtually tied, the outcome could well depend on a game of chance. And this outcome, with someone being declared a winner, could have a major impact in New Hampshire.

Just don't expect any of the candidates to complain about the obvious flaws in this process. Howard Dead tried that already.

“Say I’m a guy who’s got to work for a living, and I’ve got kids,” Mr. Dean said on the tape, from an interview that had taken place in 2000. “Do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?”

Mr. Dean’s opponents accused him of insulting the caucus process. He finished third.