Why I Will Caucus In Iowa (And Why You Should, Too)

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 16:14


This article in the Des Moines Register today by David Yespen really ticks me off:

Maybe we should call these the Illinois caucuses.

Officials and campaigners in both parties are worried that zealous out-of-state staffers and non-Iowa supporters of candidates may try to vote in the caucuses, thereby skewing the results.

On the Republican side, GOP officials are watching precincts in Council Bluffs and Davenport to make certain people aren't driving across the state line to participate. They are particularly concerned about Ron Paul's over-caffeinated backers.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama's campaign is telling Iowa college students they can caucus for him even if they aren't from Iowa. Five of the six Democratic presidential campaigns have said they don't want their out-of-town staffers caucusing in Iowa, even though some of these staffers have already registered to vote here.

The elitism of this article, against students, against Ron Paul supporters, against people from Illinois, is infuriating. Mike Connery destroys Yespen and some Democratic candidates for the way this attitude works to disenfranchise youth voters. I, however, want to go a step further. In fact, I am so irritated by this, that if I can figure out a way to get there, I have decided to participate in the caucuses myself.

Even though I haven't been in the state since 1985, I believe I have every right to participate in the Iowa caucus. First, it would be consistent with the principle of democratic self-determination for the following three reasons:

  1. The Presidency is a national office, and I am just as much of an American as anyone who lives in Iowa.
  2. The Democratic Party is a national organization, and I am just as much of a Democrat as anyone who lives in Iowa.
  3. In accordance with the principle of "one man, one vote," after participating in the Iowa caucuses, I will not participate in the presidential nomination contest of any other state in the country.

Second, my participation in the Iowa caucuses are in keeping with the principle of retail politics often used to justify Iowa's privileged position on the calendar.

  1. I have seen every candidate speak in person. I have even talked with four of the seven candidates.
  2. I have paid more attention to this campaign than about 98-99% of everyone else who will participate in the caucus.

Third, in keeping with the principles of democratic protest, this act of civil disobedience will be successful for the following reasons:

  1. The vast majority of the country does not believe that Iowa should have such a privileged position in determining who is the President of everyone in the country. (Source, PDF)
  2. What are the local authorities going to do? Arrest me for trying to vote? I'm sure that will look good, especially if several hundred people try to do this en masse.
  3. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Iowa really do much to try and stop this, anyway.

With all of this in mind, the only argument that I can think of not to do this is that I don't live in Iowa. Compared to everything else presented here, that strikes me as thin and anti-democratic. People who live in certain areas of the country should not have more rights than people who live in other areas of the country. Even though Yespen seems in favor of it when it comes to choosing the next President, fighting segregation was one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement in this country, after all.

So, I'm going to caucus in Iowa, if I can figure out a way to get there. I think other people should join in, too. The more people who come, the stronger our protest will be. Are you with me!?

Chris Bowers :: Why I Will Caucus In Iowa (And Why You Should, Too)

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why I Will Caucus In Iowa (And Why You Should, Too) | 51 comments
Uh Huh (0.00 / 0)
You protesting against having to register to vote where you actually live is the moral equivalent of fighting segregation.  Just keep telling yourself that.

And do you have polls that show the vast majority of America is upset about Iowa?  Last polling I saw said that more people consider us unlucky to have to deal with having all the candidates around during the holidays.

Here you go (4.00 / 2)
Rasmussen PDF:

As pundits assess the various campaign strategies aimed at Iowa and New Hampshire, few American voters are committed to these states first in the nation status. Just 21% believe that Iowa should always have the first Presidential caucus and just 22% believe New Hampshire should always have the first Presidential Primary. Men are more comfortable than women with allowing these states to retain their special status, but solid pluralities are opposed.

The segregation thing is merely keeping with the hyperbolic tone of the piece, which is meant as satire. Of course I'm not going to do this,  because I can't make it to Iowa, would have nowhere to stay, and I would rather watch the caucuses on TV, but at the same time the case for doing so seems pretty air tight to me. 

[ Parent ]
Ah (0.00 / 0)
"solid plurality" is not the same as "vast majority".  And Rasmussen specifically asked about Iowa and New Hampshire forever, whereas it isn't clear what you're addressing with Iowa's "privileged place."

I didn't understand the piece as satire before.  I agree that changes should be made to the nomination process.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
If I just rephrased it to say "only one-fifth of Americans think Iowa and New Hampshire should go first," it would be both accurate and have the same impact I was trying to make.
[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
And it would be totally misleading.  If your goal is to be dishonest, then you can go right ahead and do that (or just continue to leave it the way it is now.)  If your goal is, as I believe it to be, to be an honest political analyst, then you will update the text to something both technically true and not intended to deceive.
[ Parent ]
What strange number system are you using? (0.00 / 0)
Totally misleading how? If only 22% and 21% respectively think Iowa and NH should preserve their first in the nation status, that is one-fifth.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Come on (0.00 / 0)
It implies that the rest of America disagrees, which isn't true.  The pdf doesn't have a number, but it is clearly less than 50%.  It also doesn't say how many think Iowa should be first this year but not forever, which when combined with that 20% could be a plurality in favor of Iowa's current place.
[ Parent ]
I think it's a fine idea. (4.00 / 1)
If you want to caucus in Council Bluffs, you're welcome to sleep in my guest room in Omaha (2 miles over the river). 

I'll even go to the caucus with you, though I can't promise I'll engage in civil disobedience unless there's a lot more than 2 of us. 

Also, Jane Flemming has been all over the Hillary campaign trying to keep college kids from caucusing, even getting them to officially apologize.  facebook her name to find the group and read the message if you're interested. 

I don't agree with this (0.00 / 0)
As I have written, Yepsen owes Obama an apology. Students attending Iowa colleges have the right to caucus in Iowa, regardless of where they are from originally. Or, they can choose to vote in their home states. This has long been established under the law.

But people not living in Iowa, not attending schools in Iowa, don't get to caucus.

If you show up at a precinct caucus, you will be asked for your address. Students can give the address of their apartment or dormitory, but what are you going to say, Chris? I assume you don't have a valid address in Iowa.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

See my comment above (4.00 / 1)
I don't know exactly what I would do, because I am not really going to do this and because it is too late to organize a protest of this sort. The point I'm trying to make is that someone would be justified in doing this, because there is no good reason that Iowa should go first every stinkin' time.
[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (4.00 / 4)
Haven't you ever read a generic mythology piece about the caucuses on the editorial page of an East Coast newspaper by a DC pundit who just returned from a 36-hour weekend trip to Iowa? Iowans like to "kick the tires" and "look under the hood" of these candidates, and they've "been through this before" and "take their role as the first to decide very seriously." The Iowa caucuses present "the ultimate test of organization" and "make or break" candidates' dreams for higher office. Also, there's tractors and corn/an ethanol industry to prop up and apple pie and county fairs and AAA baseball and not a lot of minorities, so it's a really "American" state. You don't really mean to say that some other state could do a better job, do you?
[ Parent ]
I forgot about that (4.00 / 1)
My bad. I forgot that the only real Americans are mythologized midwesterners, the noble savages who help center our country when elites on the coast and southern reactionaries would destroy us all!

Great comment. lol. :)
[ Parent ]
There actually is a good reason (0.00 / 0)
As I have noted in the past, Iowa is one of the states which is most ideologically representative of the country as a whole, taking both Republicans and Democrats into account.  It's similar to states like Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. (This is all based on a quickie comparison of different blocs of voters within each party without consideration of the ratio between parties, which is why Montana came out #1.)

Among those states, Iowa is the one without huge expensive media markets, which probably makes it better for grassroots and populist campaigns.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I wish Illinois was politically representative of the nation as a whole (0.00 / 0)
Then Democrats would win the Presidency by at least 15% every time, and we'd have smashing majorities in Congress.
[ Parent ]
And how many minoroties ... (0.00 / 0)
go to the Iowa caucuses?  Do they caucus representative of their overall numbers?
[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
I lack the data to answer that question.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I don't know either (0.00 / 0)
but Iowa is fairly representative of the country in terms of socio-economic measures.

New Hampshire is just as disproportionately white as Iowa (actually, a bit more white than Iowa), but is also disproportionately wealthy--I think among the top three or four states in terms of average income.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Yeah ... because of all the Boston transplants ;-) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Students are paying rent to landlords, and therefore indirectly paying property taxes. And many of these kids likely have jobs, meaning they are paying Iowa state income taxes. Also, though he cleared it up later in the column, Yepsen seemingly intentionally conflated Obama's campus registration efforts with having staffers from out of state sign up to caucus. This was really just a sad effort on his part.
[ Parent ]
Crashing the Gates (0.00 / 0)
I've heard that somewhere before.  I just hope there is no ice storm!  Actually, Iowa should welcome this as a boost to thier ecomomy.  The line for car rentals in Des Moines is going to be mighty short come Jan. 4, they need to cash in before then.  Yepson is endangering the position of the Iowa Caucuses.  Of course Iowa students can vote, of course!  Students are residents.
wouldn't be a problem (0.00 / 0)
This wouldn't even be an issue - the student deal - if Iowa hadn't moved their primary up.  Dems would be courting the college vote because they students would be there for sure.  Now that Yespen has started spreading his anti-youth angst everyone has jumped on the bandwagon - oddly enough while bitching about students not participating as much as they should.

Has Yepsen ever received .. (0.00 / 0)
this much attention? ... Everywhere I turn  .. he seems to be on Tv ... I think it is all going to his head
[ Parent ]
Go for it! (0.00 / 0)
Why not? Anything that draws attention to incredibly undemocratic nature of our primary system is fine by me!
patently ridiculous (0.00 / 0)
this is the sort of solipsism that only Chris Bowers could write.

1. You don't live in Iowa so what address will you give when you register? It is indeed a federal offense to use a false address to register and I hope authorities do prosecute you if you provide a false address.

2. The caucus is really about choosing delegates to the county convention and proposing platform issues. The presidential preference primary is actually only one part of the caucus. Are you going to run for delegate as well? Are you going to discuss platform planks? How do you expect people in Iowa feeling about you parachuting in to try to tell them what to propose for the platform?

2. Iowa has disproportionate influence only because of the ridiculous way the media covers the race. Blogs have done nothing to change that, focusing obsessively (adn I'm as guilt  y of this as anyone) on Iowa and NH. If you want to affect change, use your platform to write about national issues and about the national campaign.

3. I'm very concerned about out of state voters participating in my home state of Nevada. As a precinct chair, I will not allow anyone to register unless they can provide a valid address in the precinct. Thats the law and its a sound principle.

Chris, after 3 years, you still think American democracy is all about you. Its not.

Yes it is (4.00 / 1)
"Chris, after 3 years, you still think American democracy is all about you. Its not."

Yes, it is. If you have been reading me for three years, that should be clear by now. Maybe you aren't reading hard enough.
[ Parent ]
Clearly this person thinks.... (4.00 / 1)

........excuse me, knows, that democracy is all about her.

Funny how a gerrymandered hangover of a regional voting system cobbled together in the 18th Century is so appropriate for today.

That is....

If you are in charge of running the thing.

The Iron Law of Institutions A Tiny Revolution is always going on about?

Could very well be.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
You're both wrong! (0.00 / 0)
American Democracy is clearly about *me*.  Speaking of which, I think it's high time for some mass protests about the failure of congress to pass any "More Free Waffles for MidAtlantic" bill.  That's what this site is all about, right?
[ Parent ]
If you're a pluralist (0.00 / 0)
then form a free waffle interest group, start lobbying, and if you get enough support for your cause, you can influence Congress and get your way
[ Parent ]
WAFFLEPAC (0.00 / 0)
WAFFLEPAC: Fighting Against Big Scone since 2007
[ Parent ]
no, its not about just you (0.00 / 0)
I meant its not about you personally. I still think back fondly on how, after writing about 10 posts about your campaign for state committee, you then wrote you could not care less about the California governor's race.

Thats what I mean its not about you.

If you disagree with Yepsen, thats fine, so do I. But i this case, you say "I'm going to vote in Iowa" as if thats a great act of self-empowerment. As if whether or not you vote is all that matters. What matters is whether its a democratic process, not whether or not you personally get heard.


[ Parent ]
issue vs ad hominem attack (0.00 / 0)
By the way  if you want to discuss the issue, there are some fundamental questions in my post.

But I know what you really want to do is threaten your readers. Its far and way my favorite thing about reading you.

[ Parent ]
Created Equal (0.00 / 0)
I remember reading somewhere that all men and women are created equal.
[ Parent ]
Funny how worked up people like you get over snark. (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
Is this satire? (0.00 / 0)
Really, is it?

Because it's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this (usually very smart) site.

Just to take it at face value, whichever candidate can afford to bus the most supporters in from Illinois or New York or California wins the "Iowa" caucuses?

I agree that we ought to just have 50 primaries or caucuses on the same day and choose our nominee that way. But you still have to vote where you live. You do live somewhere (and "blogosphere" doesn't count).

I just read it again (0.00 / 0)
OK. It is satire.

Funny funny.

[ Parent ]
To turn this question around (4.00 / 1)
Can anyone tell me why every state does not caucus on the same day?

I respect that Iowa's voters take their jobs seriously.

But why should 1 state be the trip wire for the rest of the country?

Or at the very least have 5, or 10 states on the same day?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

It's Actually OK (0.00 / 0)
I actually like the primary system that we have. It forces candidates to campaign in depth, face to face, with the same people over a log period of time. If we had a national primary, it would just boil down to who can make the best TV ads, and who can afford to get them on TV the most often at the right times.

As for asking, "Why Iowa?" I say, "Somebody has to go first. Why not Iowa?"

[ Parent ]
Tweaking (0.00 / 0)
There should be at least a rotation scheme set up though, so different states are at the top every year.  Having Iowa and NH go first every year is unfair to everyone else in the country.

With a rotation scheme, the candidates would still be forced to interact with citizens on a daily basis, but the impact states would be different every cycle.

[ Parent ]
I Could Go For That (0.00 / 0)
But that's a different issue than, "Should we have a split primary?" That's the issue of "What kind of a split primary should we have?"
[ Parent ]
if we have a national primary (0.00 / 0)
we might as well not even have primaries. The national media and the money primary would always determine the winner.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
All good points. You convinced me.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
Lawbreaking For Fun And Profit! (0.00 / 0)
So you're advocating either voter fraud (by lying to people in Iowa and saying that you reside there at least part-time) or just openly flouting the law in Iowa which says that caucussers must live in Iowa at least part-time.

Real cute.

the second one (0.00 / 0)
Its the second one.
[ Parent ]
Good Luck! (0.00 / 0)
Good luck with that. Let us all know how it turns out. Bring a camera and post some photos of the arrests. You can earn bonus points for a video of you saying, "Don't tase me, bro!"
[ Parent ]
Oh, Chris (0.00 / 0)
don't tease them.  I may snort with laughter, but that's really not a justification.  I mean, they clearly just don't get it.

Tim Wolfe
[ Parent ]
Regional tradition (0.00 / 0)
Yup, back in the 1850s both pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups were trying to organize Kansas.  The pro-slavery groups brought people in from across the border in Missouri and they voted Kansas in as a slave state and even wrote up the Lecompton Constitution to make it look nice and legal. 

Of course, it really flopped.  Congress refused to accept a pretty clear fraud.  The anti-slavery people got more vigorous and one, John Brown, organized a raid on a neighborung pro-slavery town and killed some people.  Bleeding Kansas was a bit of a reality.

Iowa is completely different from New Hampshire where the state tries to get as many people as possible to vote.  In New Hampshire this year, about 400,000 people will vote in the state's primaries, about equal to the 402,000 who voted in the House elections in the state (combined) in 2006.  OTOH, over 1 million Iowans voted for Congress in 2006 and only around 250,000 will vote in the caucuses (and we will not get an accurate count).

At some point, the power and cost of Iowa might justify the importation of thousands of paid organizers who also become voters.  Somewhere around 30,000 or 40,000 votes will definitely win the Republican caucus and 40,000 to 50,000 will probably win the Democratic caucus.  Both Obama and Hillary will each spens somewhere between $5 and $10 million and Romney will be over $5 I would guess.  Outside interests might even find it profitable to "pull a Bowers."

Huh? (0.00 / 0)
Why wouldn't we get an accurate count?
[ Parent ]
Count (0.00 / 0)
The Democratic Party in Iowa reports the percentage of delegates won (e.g. Kerry, 37.6%).  The Republicans in Iowa, OTOH, report the number of votes in the initial ballot (Bush 35,231; Forbes 26,198; Keyes 12,268).  Thus we have an accurate count of the number of participants on the Republican side but not on the Democratic side.

I greatly prefer the Republican method of actually reporting votes.  Of course, a straight out primary without the limitations on hours or viability thresholds would be much better.  New Hampshire, which has about 40% of Iowa's population will get around 400,000 voters on January 8 compared to the 250,000 or so caucus goers from Iowa.  My personal theory is that the reason that Iowa has a large impact on NH voting is that the indepemdents and weak partizans are very affected by the blaze of media coverage/ fawning that goes to the winners in  iowa.

[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
Iowa Democrats also report total attendance.  It's not straight votes per candidate but that's what makes it a caucus instead of a primary.
[ Parent ]
Um - No. (0.00 / 0)
This is ridiculous.

Also, thanks so much for proving those Republicans right about Dems being interested in breaking the law to win votes. Hillary appreciates it.

I don't understand (0.00 / 0)
the only argument that I can think of not to do this is that I don't live in Iowa. Compared to everything else presented here, that strikes me as thin and anti-democratic. People who live in certain areas of the country should not have more rights than people who live in other areas of the country.

I don't understand a few things in this post. What would we be protesting?  The system itself? And 'certain areas' have more rights how, exactly? You seem to be saying that the existence of separate states in our country is undemocratic.  And Iowa's privileged position should not be allowed to trump your privileged position?

I'm all ears, but I don't understand.

 

Why I Will Caucus In Iowa (And Why You Should, Too) | 51 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox