Iowa Caucuses in Jeopardy?
by Dawn M. Mueller
www.dailykos.com
Daily Kos has two threads up [Monday] and [Sunday] night about Tom Vilsack and the Iowa caucuses. The upshot is that Vilsack, if DNC chair, would try to prevent the presidential primary process and calendar from being altered in a way that would shift focus away from Iowa. The general feeling on the blogs and in states outside of Iowa is that the Iowa caucuses are doing Democrats nationwide some damage, and that it might be time to move to regional primaries or a nationwide primary, or at least review the entire calendar strategy. Iowa is not representative of the U.S. population in many ways, especially as Hispanics are a growing segment of the U.S. population, yet Iowa seems intent upon continuing to make Iowa an unfriendly place for minorities. Iowa is essentially asked to choose a president for a nation it demographically does not represent, and Democrats and others across the nation believe it is time for a change.
That Tom Vilsack, as Iowa governor, signed the “English-only” law is not sitting well across the nation with many minorities. There is opposition to his seeking the position of DNC chair as a result of these concerns and that Vilsack would be someone who is likely to preserve the status quo of the Democratic Party, rather than to seek to make much-needed changes.
The question is whether or not Iowans will be amenable to changing the primary calendar, and possibly the process, for the good of the Democratic Party nationwide, and whether Iowa Democrats will consider moving from a caucus system to a primary system, in order to encourage greater participation by the voters, and to allow Iowans to focus more time on recruiting new members to the Democratic cause and preparing for the general election, rather than siphoning off so much money, time and energy in trying to get people to the Iowa caucuses. The way that the Iowa caucuses are run is seen as antiquated, cumbersome and intimidating to persons who don't wish to be coerced into deciding for whom they should vote.
Blog For Iowa 
I feel it is incorrect to blame Iowa for the fact that the rest of the nation followed along like sheep in the primaries. By the Iowa-blamers' logic, New York, California, and most every other state had no choice but to vote as Iowa did! Fellow Iowans, this is not our fault. We picked a candidate that the majority of Iowans apparently wanted and thought could win. Other states were perfectly free to vote for the candidate they wanted. Why didn't they?
If there is blame to be placed for this herd mentality, I would place it on the media circus and soap opera culture created in part by the 24-hour cable news networks and the front-loaded primary and caucus schedule, engineered by DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, and designed for the specifically expressed purpose of selecting a candidate early. All of the candidates knew that whoever won the Iowa caucuses would go on to win the nomination. But it was not Iowa's fault that the entire nation also chose Kerry, nor is it our fault that a Kerry presidency did not occur (our new red state status notwithstanding). We are being set up.
Personally, I love our caucus system. It is true democracy because we actively participate. Neighborhood caucuses facilitate the ability to connect with other like-minded folks in our neighborhoods and communities and thus is a building block for activism. Plus, as other states are finding, caucuses are less expensive than primaries. I My .02.
LikeLike
I agree. Everyone wants someone to blame, and we're it. Funny how the DNC went out of its way to avoid neutrality during the primaries, breaking its own rules and regs to do so.
I'm no Kerry fan, but I thought he really did a great job starting with the first debate. But I feel Kerry and the Dems really let down the whole country by conceding before the votes were counted, and now they're blaming Iowa because Kerry “didn't win.”
LikeLike
I guess I will ask the nasty question. Is this about changing the party structure from bottom to top or protecting turf? I for one dont care for the caucus method because I think it has the opposite effect keeping people from participating. Most people are not gung ho enough to show up for caucus, especially the off year ones (where I hope progressive will be able to take advantage of that in 06 and get some real changes going) to include doing away with the current system. Flame away. :o)
mark
carlisle
proudtobeaburdenonsociety
LikeLike
The IOWA Caucuses do need to be changed in part…The main thing I would change is to NOT allow those who are NOT Democrats to be part of that evening's process….As it stands, any republican, independent, green, or whomever can come to caucus, sign a form & declare they are a Democrat!!….This allows them to vote for whomever they choose that evening…Then the next day, or next month they can reverse their declaration at the county auditor's office………The results of the January 20, 2004 caucus which allowed this, saw many come in specifically to vote for Kerry & others, so as to keep GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN from winning IOWA…As far as 1st in the nation, we do need to maintain that status….It is not only good for our economy, but it allows us to meet others from all around this wonderful country and to connect to other smart, educated citizens….
LikeLike
“The results of the January 20, 2004 caucus which allowed this, saw many come in specifically to vote for Kerry & others, so as to keep GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN from winning IOWA..”
This did not happen at my caucus. What evidence do you have that it happened on a significant scale?
LikeLike
The Iowa caucuses are un-democratic. The timeslot for participation is narrow: not all Democrats can get childcare or time off from work to participate in the event.
Furthermore, the Iowa caucuses and conventions are poorly organized and rife with unaccountability. Rules should be uniform across the state — and enforced — not this sort of change-the-rules-as-we-go in order to protect the establishment's turf.
I saw too many irregularities to inspire any confidence whatsoever in the caucuses.
I was a Dean precinct captain. The Linn County Democratic Party, the Iowa Democratic Party, and The Gazette all published an incorrect address for my precinct caucus. We Deans were given the wrong address to give out to caucus-goers. Right there, I lost people in my precinct, with all the confusion.
Then, at the precinct caucus, I was not permitted by the precinct chair to give a schpeel on behalf of Dean, as I had understood I ought to have been able to under the caucus rules.
I was not particularly pleased to see a Kucinich caucus-goer practically molested by a couple of Edwards supporters, who tried to bully her into realigning with them. The whole “arm-twisting” aspect of the caucus is a horrible example to set for the world as a way of promoting open and free democracy.
The platform processes at both the Linn County and 2nd District conventions were thoroughly botched. Delegates did not get the platform in a timely manner prior to the conventions, in order to give adequate and careful consideration of the planks. At the 2nd District convention, the platform was provided so late that it was not possible to fully review the platform and fill out the necessary form, while still attending to other convention business.
It was unacceptable that the Deans were not given a proper caucus room at the 2nd District convention, and that no time was built into the schedule for caucus meetings.
I was a state Dean delegate, but I was not allowed to participate in the state convention, as my credentials never showed up.
With so many irregularities (and outright manipulative power grabs), it is no wonder that the world outside of Iowa finds the Iowa caucuses to be a very poor example of organization and government. I'm not even going to try to enumerate all of the irregularities and flaws I saw, because there is enough material for a book.
IMHO, the Iowa first-in-the-nation caucus needs to be axed. I am quite willing to see it go, and to help it along its way. There is no reason why Iowa should have a monopoly on this prime real-estate in the primary season.
Iowa is a lily-white state. Democrats should not have a lily-white state determine the party's nominee. African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Native American candidates do not have traction in the state, because of everyone's unconscious prediliction towards picking a candidate most like themselves.
Iowans could very well sink Barack Obama, should he ever run for president, if Iowa were to still have a caucus and still have first dibs. IMHO, right there is a reason for it to go.
If Iowans want to caucus on other party business, that's fine. But the nominee should be selected by a primary, not a caucus. And the other states need to have the opportunity to host the candidates, too. Their state parties shouldn't be hurt at the expense of the Iowa Democratic Party.
LikeLike