Even when raucous, keep the caucus

[brooklynite]

The Hill

Bob Lehrman, the chief speechwriter for former vice president Al Gore, teaches speechwriting at American University in Washington. He has authored four novels and thousands of speeches, and given speechwriting workshops around the world. He wrote “The Political Speechwriter’s Companion,” recently released in a second edition, this time with collaborator and co-teacher, Eric Schnure. Follow him on Twitter @RobertLehrman1.

It took years before I became perceptive enough to see something more important, something I hope others watch Monday night.

They’ll see a tradition that others mock. New Hampshirites say, “Iowa picks corn. We pick presidents,” pointing out that finishing first in Iowa doesn’t mean a clear road to the White House. It doesn’t; in the past six elections, Iowa Democrats have picked presidents just 50 percent of the time.

But Iowans caucus to pick nominees. In those six elections, Iowa Democrats picked their party’s nominee each time. A win Monday night is a big deal. Even fourth place keeps a Democratic candidate alive.

Critics are right about other problems. They argue that the caucuses are not “inclusive,” ignore independents, sacrifice substance for organizing, and turn out far too few voters.

All true. But except for turnout, an Iowa primary would be flawed in the same way. Primaries turn out more people — 29 percent of eligible voters nationally to Iowa’s 16 percent in 2016. But turnout, pathetically low for both caucuses and primaries, reflect the abysmal way the United States conducts elections more than flaws in the caucus system. There are many ways to fix that — and other countries have. Still, in one OECD 35-country study of turnout, the U.S finished 31st. Our system cries out for reform.

Even if reform comes, though, Iowa should keep the caucus — especially in this era when so many Republicans and Democrats hate each other.

[pnwmom]

1. "Except for turnout" -- bullshit. It matters that primaries get twice as many participants

in Iowa. And primaries are much more inclusive than caucuses because they make it much easier to vote.

In my state, when we had caucuses, there were several times more participants in the "beauty contest" primary. The caucus I went to was dominated by young white men who had arrived to push their candidate. Even my husband, who is not particularly political, was shocked to see the make-up of the group at our caucus. And the result was that Bernie won the caucuses, and got ALL the electoral votes -- while a much higher number of voters chose Hillary in the primary.

Caucuses are all about two things: peer pressure, and party bigshots retaining more power.

[DownriverDem]

2. Don't keep

I've done both and I prefer primary elections. More folks participate in a primary election. The more to decide, the better.

[PatSeg]

4. I agree

There are far too many who might not be able to participate in a caucus due to work, child care, age, or health issues. Primaries are far more inclusive and more representative of the electorate.

[brush]

3. Ditch the exclusionary caucus as our first contest.

Iowa's nearly all-white event disproportunately influences polling and fundraising for the following primaries and thus has way too much impact on which candidates continue on—and the delegate count is small as well for all tye hype it gets.

The same can be said for New Hampshire.

I'm certainly not the first to say this. Let Iowa continue on with it's antiquated caucus and New Hampshire with it's primary, just don't let them be first as they don't reflect the demographic of the Democratic Party.