The Undemocratic Democrats
An op ed in today's New York Times by some people with intimate knowledge of the caucus process in Iowa charges that the Democratic party caucus rules are arcane, obscure and fundamentally undemocratic. The rules that apply only to the way the Democrats conduct their events do not report actual vote tallies, only delegate results.
An early order of business in each Democratic precinct caucus in Iowa is a count of the candidate preferences of the attendees. For all practical purposes, this is just what the polls try to measure. But Iowa Democrats keep the data hidden. The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection.
Instead, the Democratic Party releases the percentage of “delegate equivalents” won by each candidate. The percentage broadcast on the networks and reported in the newspapers is the candidate’s share of the 2,500 delegates the party apportions across Iowa’s 99 counties, based on Democratic voter turnout in each of the 1,784 precincts in the two most recent general elections. So, the turnout for a candidate in a precinct caucus could be huge, yet the candidate’s share of the delegate pie could be quite small — if that precinct had low voter turnout in 2004 and 2006.
Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. (That’s because to be in the running for a delegate a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the people at a precinct caucus.) He or she may have done two or three times as well as expected among Iowa’s Democratic voters and get no recognition for it.
The Republicans follow completely different rules and are transparent with the actual counts of attendee preferences. Frankly, the caucuses are a kind of an odd throwback to an earlier day to begin with. The Democrat's rules smack more than a bit of the old smoke-filled room day of politics. Secrets kept from the voters and from the media are a real problem in the political process. A secret system like this could also easily be manipulated by insiders, couldn't it?
Makes you wonder why the rules are written as they are, doesn't it?
By feeblemind, Tuesday, 18 December , 2007 @ 8:42 am
You close your post with an interesting question Gaius. I have a question for you and the readers of BCB as well. With the selection process as crazy as it is and the need for money being what it is, could the dems and repubs field better candidates by going back to the smoke filled room selection process?
By Sam L., Tuesday, 18 December , 2007 @ 9:23 am
I really don’t see why the NYT is complaining. Sounds like their “business as usual” to me. And, isn’t this the way the Dem Caucus has been run previously? Without NYT complaint? Why now?
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 December , 2007 @ 9:36 am
Probably afraid Hillary will finish third - or worse.