Is This Really Democracy in Action?

John Fund gives us non-Iowans a primer in the caucus process and shows just how undemocratic the whole thing really is:

The trouble with the Iowa caucuses isn't that there's anything wrong with Iowans. It's the bizarre rules of the process. Caucuses are touted as authentic neighborhood meetings where voters gather in their precincts and make democracy come alive. In truth, they are anything but.

Caucuses occur only at a fixed time at night, so that many people working odd hours can't participate. They can easily exceed two hours. There are no absentee ballots, which means the process disfranchises the sick, shut-ins and people who are out of town on the day of the caucus. The Democratic caucuses require participants to stand in a corner with other supporters of their candidate. That eliminates the secret ballot.

There are reasons for all this. The caucuses are run by the state parties, and unlike primary or general elections aren't regulated by the government. They were designed as an insiders' game to attract party activists, donors and political junkies and give them a disproportionate influence in the process. In other words, they are designed not to be overly democratic. Primaries aren't perfect. but at least they make it fairly easy for everyone to vote, since polls are open all day and it takes only a few minutes to cast a ballot.

Little wonder that voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses is extremely low--in recent years about 6% of registered voters. Many potential voters will proclaim their civic virtue to pollsters and others and say they will show up at the caucus--and then find something else to do Thursday night.

I think it would be fascinating to attend one of these things and just see how it really works.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the last year the Iowa and New Hampshire are given the privilege of playing such a pivotal role in our presidential elections. With many states moving up their primary elections, and other trying to figure out how to be a player in presidential election years, I think there are a lot of influential people in politics who will try and get the whole process changed. For one thing, we shouldn't have candidates campaigning during Christmas. There's no reason why the whole thing couldn't be moved back several weeks.

One midwestern governor and supporter of Hillary Clinton is already pushing for a change, much to the chagrin of the Clinton campaign:

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa (CNN) – Just days before the Iowa caucuses, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter criticized the state’s privileged role in the presidential nominating process, forcing her campaign to declare that she did not agree with the assessment.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland was quoted in Sunday’s edition of The Columbus Dispatch as saying that it “makes no sense” to grant Iowa the right to hold the first contest of the 2008 race for the White House.

"I'd like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end,'" Strickland told the newspaper.

Competing campaigns seized on the article and emailed it around to reporters to highlight Strickland’s comments late Sunday night. The Clinton campaign moved quickly, and issued a statement shortly after midnight distancing the New York senator from the governor’s remarks.

It could be that Gov. Strickland is trying to downplay Iowa's importance since it now looks like his chosen candidate might finish as low as third in Iowa.