There was a very interesting (and correct) comment posted in response to my last entry. The response noted that the “people” of Iowa were not involved because only a fraction of them caucus. That’s probably true, though I don’t know the precise numbers. I will say, though, that I am experiencing a high level of engagement in the process — in grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc., certainly higher than I’ve ever experienced with the political process in any place I’ve ever lived.
But the response to my last post makes a nice point — there’s something about the caucus structure that skews the results in a certain direction — though the direction is not predictable.
Caucuses take a long time, sometimes up to three hours. The Democratic one historically are longer, but for procedural reasons that I have not yet discovered. They begin at a set time — typically 6 pm. As opposed to voting in a primary (with the possibility of absentee voting), a host of people can’t attend such an event because they have to work during the hours of the caucus — emergency room doctors, nurses, policemen, gas station clerks. I’ve spoken to a number of people who are primary care givers for elderly people who cannot leave their homes for any extended period of time. So beyond those who choose not to spend three hours of their lives in this process, there are those who simply can’t. Of those who are able to caucus, and choose to spend their time this way, one could surmise that they’re among the more informed — or at least care the most. So I agree with the response to my last post that it is certainly not all of Iowa that is engaged, but there are a lot of people here who are willing to give a great deal of their time to be involved — and some of giving extraordinary amounts of time, energy and emotional commitment to making this choice. Those who are involved are really involved — and there are a lot more of those folks than I would have ever expected.
There’s something else about the caucus that makes it unique. Voting is public at the caucus — and caucus-goers try to encourage people to join them in supporting their candidates. Sometimes caucuses are in homes — one caucus in the district I am organizing is in a house and has eight caucus-goers. This is smaller than a jury. Precinct captains, in such a world, seem analogous to jury foremen — or at least very engaged jurors. A precinct captain, or ordinary rank-in-file caucus goer, who can articulate his or her candidate’s strengths can have extraordinary influence in these small gatherings, just like knowledgeable and articulate jurors. Some voters tell me that they’d back my candidate but don’t think he can win — and then they tell me why he’s go great. I tell them to go to the caucus and tell the story they just told me (but leave off the can’t win part). I tell them that this is Iowa, a place where voters have the opportunity as voters not just to vote, but to persuade. This is an extraordinary feature of the caucus, it seems to me. The system is skewed toward the most-involved because of the time commitment and then gives an opportunity for informed voters to make their best case. I am obviously not sure who that benefits — on the Republican side, I imagine it benefits John McCain and Ron Paul and disfavors Fred Thompson. I like to think on the Democratic side it disfavors the front runners.
But because the voting is public (which it’d have to be if the persuasion opportunities are going to extent at the event), there is something about the structure that favors front-runners. I spoke to a caucus-goer yesterday who told me that his union was putting a lot of pressure on him to caucus. He assured them he’d go but said you won’t like what I do when I get there. His union endorsed Clinton — he’s undecided, but has decided he is not for Clinton. I hope, whether or not caucus-goers like Mrs. Clinton, they will show his independent resolve, but I am not sure they will, or can.
Posted by Wes Oliver on December 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Comments
Great posts, Wes. Please keep it up.
Posted by: Alan Childress | Dec 20, 2007 11:32:23 AM
The Republican caucus does not take nearly as long as the Democratic one, in part because voting is not public. You write your vote down on a strip of paper, bang, you’re done. If you really want to, you can stick around to help elect the delegates who go on to the county caucus (and then state, I think). So I think many of your observations about influencing voters is truer in the Democratic caucus (where your vote is public).
Of course, in a house with eight people, you’re going to get influenced whether it’s Democratic or Republican. At the other extreme, you’ve got the “superdistricts,” where they’re combining a number of districts to try to attract better speakers–Coralville, I think, is hoping for at least one of the candidates come caucus night.
Enjoy the process–as an Iowa voter, I do.
Posted by: jack | Dec 19, 2007 5:44:41 PM