The Chris Moeller Archives

Disenfranchising the uncommitted

One of the big lies politicians tell is that the caucus process represents grassroots democracy at its best. But our precinct caucuses in Iowa are neither grassroots, democractic, nor the best option we have.

So, you ask, what could be so undemocratic about “neighbors” getting together, discussing politics, and selecting candidates at a very local level? Let’s start with the fact that Iowa "neighbors" don’t get to select the candidates they'll get to choose from. The candidates are thrust upon them, and these candidates are, by and large-- and increasingly-- corporate-backed candidates deemed "electable" and vetted by the establishment class. Party leaders run the event. National party officials instruct the state officials who instruct the county officials on how the meetings are to be conducted. The caucuses-- and primaries also, for that matter-- are operated by the parties themselves so there is little incentive to appeal to and lure independents.

The argument that Iowa Caucus-goers are more educated than the average American voter because they have more face-time with the candidates doesn’t wash either. This argument requires one to believe that a candidates’ rhetoric, heard in small groups face-to-face, and in Iowans' "front parlors," is more than just rhetoric. Physical proximity to a lie or to political spin doesn’t make that statement more true, and in fact, could likely make one more susceptible to personal judgments and prejudices that disguise actual truth.

Votes at a caucus (for the Democrats at least) are cast in the open, which sounds like a good idea in principle, but the lack of a secret ballot means that voters are subject to pressure from peers, party leaders, perhaps union officials or influential business and religious leaders in their community. (Imagine the shame of a Republican casting a vote for a pro-choice candidate in the presence of his or her church minister.) And at a precinct caucus, you can’t stop by and cast your vote in a period of just a few minutes. The event requires an entire evening’s commitment. Incidentally or not, this requirement helps to suppress voter turnout. Additionally in Iowa, because the caucus is conducted during the month of January, the chance of weather interference is also high.

But voter suppression is exactly what our two oligarchic political parties are striving for. The fewer participants in the process, the better that outcomes can be controlled by the party machine. We saw this in Iowa in 2003/2004 with the orchestrated demolition of Howard Dean’s campaign in favor of that of John Kerry, a long-time Washington insider.

Are there doubters among you of my general thesis? Then I present to you a smoking gun as evidence. KCRG-Television in Cedar Rapids reports today that “uncommitted” and “no preference” votes will NOT be counted by the Iowa Republican Party this year, breaking with a long-standing tradition. The station reports a party official as saying, “Because it is a Republican caucus, only votes for a Republican candidate will be counted. Write-in votes for undecided or uncommitted are counted and sent to Des Moines, but the GOP does not send uncommitted delegates to the nominating convention.” Guess which of the two sets of numbers will be reported to the media.

Take that, 99%! “Uncommitted” or “no preference” slates in the GOP beat Alexander Haig in 1988 and Bob Dole in 1980. On the Democratic Party side, “uncommitted” slates actually won the caucus in 1972 and 1976, and finished second (with 12% of the vote) to Iowa candidate Tom Harkin in 1988. But in this new political climate becoming dominated by the Occupy Wall Street anti-oligarchy movement, the Iowa Republican Party certainly recognizes the threat that a large—- and potentially VERY large-— “uncommitted” block poses to their public claims that the caucus results represent the will of the people. That’s why they’re taking this preventative action. On caucus night, the national media will travel to Iowa and report the percentage results for each of the GOP candidates, but we won’t be told how many Republicans elected to express their dissatisfaction with the entire slate of candidates.

The Iowa Republican caucuses, despite the extraordinary time and energy commitment from the media, represent a miniscule percentage of Americans. First, consider that only 55 million of 313 million Americans are Republicans (about 1 in 6). Of those 55 million, only 608,000 live in Iowa (that's approximate 1 in 90 Republicans). And on Caucus Night 2008, despite a wide open field with no GOP incumbent on the ballot, only 120,000 of even those 608,000 registered Iowa Republicans bothered to participate (1 out of 5). Hear ye, hear ye, 0.00038% of the American people have spoken! And now, this cycle, Iowa Republicans have vowed to disenfranchise even a few of the 0.00038% by discounting their votes.

Meanwhile, the Iowa GOP, as well as the national and local media, have been issuing warnings about Occupy Iowa disrupting the “democratic process.” That's really rich.

posted by CM @ 5:49 PM