Are caucuses a bad system?

Earlier this week I defended the genuine participatory democracy of the Iowa caucus system against the New York Times’ attacks on it for being insufficiently inclusive. But today (noon Thursday, hours before the caucuses met in Iowa), Paul of Powerline offered a strong critique of the Iowa caucus system, not from the whiny liberal perspective that they are not “equal” enough, but from the point of view that many of the people who are free on a weekday night and show up at the caucuses are oddballs and ideologues and not at all representative of the state. He says Iowa should adopt the primary system. If that happened, of course, there’d be a battle to the death between Iowa and New Hampshire to be the first primary state in the country. I shudder to think of it. (And I’m not being ironic.)

- end of initial entry -

Laura W. writes:

Paul of Powerline’s criticism of the Iowa caucuses is truly petty:

“I find it offensive to think that 75,000 Iowans (or whatever the number is), a disproportionate number of whom have nothing to do for several hours on a week night, get to play a major role in the nomination process.”

How does he know these 75,000 have “nothing to do for several hours on a weeknight?” Those who attend take the trouble to put off important things for those few hours. Is that such a big deal? How many Iowans are so pressed for time they can’t do the same given that the caucuses are publicized well in advance? Probably the real reason many don’t attend is the same as why many Americans don’t vote: they don’t care enough.

Also, the caucuses arguably represent more than the opinions of those present. Caucus voters likely have discussed the candidates at length with family, friends and neighbors. Their decisions are influenced by these discussions. There is no such thing as “one man, one vote” even in ordinary primaries. Many voters really represent the opinions of those who have influenced them.

I’ve voted at an Iowa caucus before and it’s a healthy tradition. It’s a small but symbolic recognition that face-to-face community, rather than the abstract togetherness of the voting booth, is still important. Most of the people who show up are either idealists or party workers, but it’s open to all. Even the harried waiter in the Times’s sob story could have waylaid somebody who was going and tried to convince him to vote for his candidate. For a nation that barely votes, America places the most utopian expectations on the voting process.

Ken Hechtman writes from Canada:

This is a debate that’s been going on in the left for a long time, not specifically about Iowa but about that kind of process in general. People who believe in the process call it “direct democracy” or “participatory democracy.” That last was a buzzword back in the early days of SDS almost 50 years ago, which gives you an idea of how long we’ve been arguing this one out. People who are skeptical call it “ultrademocracy” and their skepticism is the same as Paul Mirengoff’s. They see it as a way for the few-but-ultracommitted (read “fanatics”) to win through zitzflaisch [LA says: this appears to be the Yiddish spelling of the word; the German spelling is sitzfleisch and it means the patience to sit for hours] and committee tactics what they can never win at the ballot box. Myself, I’m about 80-20 against it. I’ve seen it do more harm than good. I’ve seen small groups of Leninists and anarchists use it to get their way simply because nobody with a job and a family can outlast them at the meetings. In most situations “democracy” should mean counting opinions, not weighing them. There shouldn’t be a high standard of commitment required to get your opinion counted. But in a presidential nomination, it’s not such a bad thing. A nomination isn’t the same thing as a general election. People participate in nominations, not as members of the public, but as members of the party. And within the party, commitment should matter. The people who are able and willing to sit in meetings are the same ones able and willing to knock on doors, put up signs, collect signatures and all the rest of it in the general election campaign. They deserve more of a say in who they get to work for than the guy who mails in his ballot.

LA replies:

Interesting reasoning, particularly on the point that party nomination processes do not need to be as democratic as general elections. As one who dreams of the days when nominees were chosen in smoke-filled rooms, how could I disagree?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 04, 2008 12:11 AM | Send