01.04.08 5:00 AM CST
• Politics
• Jamie Malanowski
All over the country, people are talking about the results of last night’s Iowa caucuses—which is too bad, because maybe people should be talking about what a perverse system this extraordinarily influential process actually is. As frequent Playboy contributor Jeff Greenfield says at Slate.com:
``Iowa's vaunted precinct caucuses—especially those of the Democratic Party—violate some of the most elemental values of a vibrant and open political process. As far as a mechanism for selecting a president is concerned, you might end up with Iowa's model if you set out to design a system that discouraged participation and violated basic democratic values.’’
How so? ``A caucus suppresses turnout.,’’ says Greenfield. ``If you can't show up at 7 p.m., you don't participate; there's no absentee ballot and no early voting. . . . Beyond that, the Democratic Party's caucus method requires not 10 to 15 minutes at a polling place, but two or three hours in a school lunchroom or library. This is why turnout—measured by eligible voters—ran under 6 percent in 2000 (the last time both parties held contests).’’
Greenfield also criticizes the caucuses for eliminating the principle of the secret ballot, and one-person-one-vote. It’s a persuasive case that some changes need to be made before we suffer another another one of these undemocratic rodeos in 2012.
RSS 2.0
Comments on this entry:
All that would be necessary to change the system is for the candidates to decide not to take part in it. The Iowas caucuses are important only because the news media say that they are, and they say that because they need something to fill up the column inches and air time. There's no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire (or, as the blog points out, a small fraction of the the people in Iowa) should have such a huge influence on determining the nominees on behalf of the other 48 states. If enough of the candidates chose to sit out these contests and wait for Super Tuesday, the nomination process would be more nearly representative and less susceptible to anomalies.