Tag: caucus
How The Caucuses Really Work — And Why They Matter So Much

How The Caucuses Really Work — And Why They Matter So Much

The Iowa caucus, where voters will gather in rooms to cast ballots publicly, remains important not only because it’s the first primary contest, but because candidates can win a majority of delegates there, even if they don’t have a majority of the votes.

That caucus anomaly is particularly important for Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is polling just behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the final hours before the polling places open. In the first caucus round for the Democrats, every candidate must have 15 percent of the votes or their votes are redistributed to the other candidates in a second round.  Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is unlikely to make that cut off, so his handful of supporters eventually will have to choose between Sanders or Clinton.

In Iowa, geography favors Clinton: More than a quarter of Sanders’ voters are expected to come from only three counties. The rest are spread out across the state’s 96 other counties. So even if Sanders were to build a substantial lead, he may only win a limited number of delegates.

Caucuses are the remnants of an archaic political process that have managed to survive into the present day. In fact, the caucus predates the republic by several decades. Working with a select group in Boston before the Revolution, Samuel Adams had devised a process to bring political candidates before the public. In 1763, John Adams wrote about a “Caucus Club,” filled with notable town figures who would then be presented to the public for a vote. One central purpose of this process was to ensure solidarity so voters could get behind a single candidate.

After the colonies achieved independence from Britain, the practice continued — but was limited to closed door meetings attended only by Congressmen and party leaders. Caucuses weren’t a deliberate attempt to subvert democracy, however; they were instead a practical necessity of the time. Slow modes of transportation and communication prevented an electorate beyond those in the state capital from taking part in the nomination process.

John Quincy Adams criticized the practice while serving as Secretary of State. He wrote in 1819 that caucusing was “a practice which places the President in a state of undue subserviency to the members of the legislature.” Since presidential candidates were chosen by the members of the House and Senate, potential nominees had to maintain a sometimes uneasy peace with the legislature. Otherwise, they could be excluded from the ballot. The process was an obvious violation of separation of powers, as the legislature could select candidates that represented their own interests.

Since those early days, caucusing has been expanded to include the full electorate, but the delegate voting system has not gone away. In Iowa, caucus-goers will head to their local precincts, where they will vote for county delegates who will in turn vote for state delegates. The state delegates will vote for the national convention delegates, who will then vote to choose the party’s presidential candidate. While the process is not confusing, it is lengthy and complex. In a recent ThinkProgress post, the author described it “as if Rube Goldberg designed a method of polling voters.”

Even this modified caucus system is subject to manipulation, with Iowa’s delegates allocated on “a county-by-county analysis of Democratic performance in the last governor and presidential elections.” That opaque process can give certain counties a much louder voice in the caucus results than others, regardless of voter turnout in tonight’s election — and potentially give undue weight to a smaller pool of voters.

Iowans take part in this system of disproportional voting strength by default, while their residence in the first primary state gives them undue national influence — but only if they’re among the minority that shows up. Each vote from Iowa is calculated to have the same impact as five Super Tuesday voters put together — a fact that explains why ethanol subsidies are a far bigger issue than they should be, and why early voting states get more federal funding if they voted for the winning candidate in the elections. With no major urban centers in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada, the first four voting states, this system is among the reasons why cities chronically remain short of education, infrastructure and housing funding.

Yet this is the reality Sanders will have to grapple with if he wants to become fully competitive by Super Tuesday. The momentum he has coming out of these first primaries will determine his future. Clinton is hoping that she can stop him in South Carolina, where black voters are a majority and support her by a margin of 4-to-1 against Sanders. But should Sanders win tonight, he just might be propelled all the way to the convention. It won’t be long before we know.

Scott Walker Keeps Lead As Jeb Bush Struggles In Latest Iowa Polling

Scott Walker Keeps Lead As Jeb Bush Struggles In Latest Iowa Polling

By John McCormick, Bloomberg News (TNS)

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker continues to lead prospective and declared 2016 Republican candidates in Iowa, while former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has lost ground, a Quinnipiac University poll shows.

The survey shows a four-way scramble for second place between Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. All four have formally declared their candidacies, with Huckabee, who is campaigning in Iowa the next two days, doing so on Tuesday.

Walker attracted support from 21 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, down from 25 percent in a Quinnipiac survey taken about two months ago. He’s followed by Paul and Rubio at 13 percent, Cruz at 12 percent, and Huckabee at 11 percent.

Retired surgeon Ben Carson, who also declared his candidacy this week, attracted support from seven percent of those polled, and Bush drew just five percent. No one else was above three percent in the state that starts the nomination voting in about nine months.

Bush’s standing in the poll dropped five points from the ten percent he recorded in February while Rubio’s has risen nine points and Cruz’s has moved up seven points.

There’s more negative news in the poll for Bush: A quarter of likely Iowa voters list him when asked if there’s a candidate they would definitely not support. That’s followed by one-in-five who say that of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and one-in-ten who say that of Paul.

The poll has positive signs for Bush’s fellow Floridian, Rubio, who clearly has room to grow in Iowa. By 69 percent to nine percent, likely caucus participants view him favorably vs. unfavorably, the best in the Republican field. His policy views are “about right,” according to 65 percent of poll participants, also the highest scored by a candidate or prospective candidate.

Walker gets a 59 percent favorability rating, with 62 percent saying his positions are “about right” on issues. Nearly seven-in-ten say he’s honest and trustworthy while he scores 72 percent for both strong leadership qualities and for being viewed as someone who cares about their needs and problems.

“Walker scores very highly on a variety of matrixes — honesty, leadership, caring about the needs of average folks, and his favorability among caucus-goers,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the poll, said in a statement.

For Bush, 39 percent view him favorably while 45 percent view him unfavorably. Only 36 percent say he’s about right on the issues while 45 percent say he’s not conservative enough.

Walker is doing best among men, a group where he’s supported by 24 percent while the polling is closer among women. Walker, Rubio, and Cruz are all within a couple points among female Republicans likely to attend the caucuses.

The survey of 667 likely Iowa Republican caucus participants was taken April 25 to May fourth. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points on the full sample.

Photo: Jeb Bush via Wikipedia