Oh, Iowa...

Today, I envy the Iowans. And not just because Washington's primary is well on the other side of Super Tuesday, where the odds of it affecting anything are pretty damn slim. No, I just want to take part in those crazy Iowa caucuses. They may be time-consuming, arcane, and somewhat disenfranchising to many Iowans, but I think they sound like a hell of a lot of fun. The whole idea of building persuasion and consensus-building into the candidate selection process is just charming, even if it doesn't scale up enough for everyone to do it.
Tags:

Posted on Jan. 3rd, 2008 at 02:27 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments


[info]darthparadox

Washington actually has a caucus, too - and for the Democrats, it's the only thing that matters. The primary is just a straw poll.

The Washington caucus is on February 9th at 1 PM, and is the first level in some sort of three-tier system - the delegates elected for each candidate's group at the precinct level go to a legislative-district-wide caucus in March, eventually culminating in the selection of delegates to the national convention.

I started looking into it because I thought the caucus sounded like a lot of fun, too...

(Also, it's way too early to tell for sure, but given how close the frontrunners are in some polls, Super Tuesday may not decide the race...)
Posted on Jan. 3rd, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]reskusic

Yeah, you know, I foolishly assumed that the Democratic party would allow the more inclusive selection process (the primary) be the primary factor in selecting delegates. This angers me somewhat, the idea of having a primary vote but doing nothing with the results.
Posted on Jan. 4th, 2008 12:26 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]darthparadox

It looks like the primary was mandated by state law, not by any party process. And the law doesn't force the party to do anything with the results, so they continue running the caucuses the way they always have.

I don't like the way caucuses exclude people unlucky enough to not be able to attend for that specific hour or two, but I like the way it encourages discussion and debate. I'm kind of torn on the whole concept.
Posted on Jan. 4th, 2008 12:45 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]reskusic

The thing about this that angers me is that the state law requiring a primary came via initiative. Effectively, 200000 voters expressed the opinion that the caucuses were excluding voters, and that a primary would correct this. Sure, the whole thing is not binding on the parties, but it ill suits the Democratic party to ignore the public will in this way.
Posted on Jan. 4th, 2008 01:14 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]darthparadox

That, I hadn't realized. Hm.

I've been considering joining the local district party. I'll ask around and see if there's a reason the Democrats are completely ignoring the primary. It might just be inertia...
Posted on Jan. 4th, 2008 02:06 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]nightsinger

:D We have a caucus, too -- 9th Feb 08. But, no, our primary doesn't matter.
Posted on Jan. 3rd, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]cheerybeggar

You know, half the reason I wish I could participate in the Iowa caucuses is the free cookies and drinks and stuff. Seriously, the candidates woo people with cookies, and it actually influences people. This is our democracy in action.

OK, only like 30% of my motivation is the cookies.
Posted on Jan. 4th, 2008 06:22 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply