Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why the race for the presidency begins with the Iowa caucus

Why the race for the presidency begins with the Iowa caucus

"The Iowa caucuses have become a well-watched political tradition because the media devotes so much attention to the candidates' activities in Iowa and then how they perform on caucus night," writes Steffen W. Schmidt.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Schmidt is a professor of political science at Iowa State University.

The first and most visible test of candidate support in the 2020 presidential election is the Iowa presidential caucus, which takes place on Feb. 3.

While Iowa does not control who becomes the candidate of each party, Iowans' choices almost always end up matching the rest of the nation.

One of the architects of the modern Iowa caucuses, which began in 1972, wrote that the significance of the caucus was unanticipated.

"Never in our dreams did we realize we would be 'first in the nation,' nor did we ever expect anyone outside Iowa would pay much attention," retired Iowa State University engineering professor Richard Seagrave wrote.

Seagrave said that it wasn't political calculation that led to the choice to run the caucus early in the election year. It was the "immense amount of paperwork" needed to document caucus proceedings with only a slow mimeograph machine that led to the choice of such an early caucus date.

"Remember that we had no 'user-friendly' computers or high-speed copy machines in 1972," wrote Seagrave.

The significance of first-in-the-nation placement did not become clear until a barely known governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, came to Iowa in 1976 to test the waters for a presidential run.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

That year "Uncommitted" got 14,508 votes (37 percent). Carter came in with 10,764 votes (27 percent), but was declared the winner. He went on to get the nomination and win the presidency. The fact that a relative unknown – spending little money but lots of time and face-to-face campaigning – could win was surprising.

Before the modern system for choosing presidential candidates was invented, the mechanism since 1832 for nomination of presidential candidates has been a national political convention of each party. Voters in each state convention elect delegates to the national convention. A caucus is one way state party leaders pick whom to send, and whom those delegates should support.

Powerful political bosses, such as Huey Long from Louisiana, William "Boss" Tweed of New York, James Michael Curley of Boston and Tom Pendergast from Kansas City, had the real power in the 19th and early 20th centuries through their political organizations. Bosses offered services – housing, medical care, food, clothing – to people before government services became common.

A vestige of that political era lasted into the second half of the 20th century, when the actions of Chicago's longtime political boss, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, led to a profound change in the presidential candidate selection process.

The 1968 Democratic convention took place in his city in the middle of a year of violence related to race and the Vietnam War. Riots disrupted the convention. Daley used his police force to crush the protests, then bullied delegates to vote to nominate his favorite candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, even though Humphrey didn't win a single primary.

All of this was covered live on television. The violence and bias threatened to taint the Democratic Party. In response, the party created new rules for the presidential nominating process in an attempt to make it more systematic and transparent, as well as to encourage more participation by minority groups, young people and women roughly proportional to their numbers in states.

It was these reforms that launched Iowa's caucuses in 1972.

In 1976, the Iowa Republican Party followed the Democrats, and they began holding caucuses on the same early date.

That increased the visibility of the Iowa caucuses out of proportion to their actual numeric influence in the nominating convention, where in 2020 Iowa will send only 49 delegates out of the estimated total of 4,594 Democratic delegates.

On caucus night, registered Democrats and Republican voters gather at roughly 1,700 precinct meeting places. These have been schools, libraries, churches, fire stations and people's homes. In 2020, Democrats will also have satellite caucuses, some even held overseas.

There are speeches by supporters for each candidate who gather into groups for each candidate. The numbers in each group are counted.

For the Democrats, a candidate must have at least 15 percent of the all the participants in that precinct to be viable. Otherwise that candidate is declared "non-viable" and the supporters are asked to join another group or remain undecided.

Once the viable groups have been declared, a complex mathematical calculation determines how many delegates are allocated to each surviving candidate.

In Republican caucuses, attendees vote and the delegates are apportioned according to the statewide results.

The Iowa caucuses have become a well-watched political tradition because the media devotes so much attention to the candidates' activities in Iowa and then how they perform on caucus night.

Criticisms have emerged. Iowa's small and mostly white population has subjected the caucus to the charge that it is not representative of the nation as a whole.

A recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll attests to that concern:

A 57 percent majority agreed that holding the opening contests in Iowa and New Hampshire was a good system "because it forces candidates to talk directly to voters."

A 52 percent majority also agreed that holding the opening contests in Iowa and New Hampshire wasn't a good system "because the two states don't reflect the nation's diversity."

There is also a concern that caucuses are difficult events to participate in because voters must attend personally and at night. The turnout rate of eligible voters is low, hovering around 10 percent, while primaries normally have turnout of 35 percent or more.

In 2020, there is renewed debate about how Americans should select their candidates for president. Caucuses are now generally in disfavor, with many states moving to primaries.

One thing is clear. As American candidate selection evolved from the days of political bosses to today's caucuses and primaries, that process will continue to evolve.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less