It’s still almost two years until the 2024 presidential primaries kick off, but Democrats in Iowa are already getting nervous and suggesting some “reforms” to their caucus process. That’s probably understandable when you consider what an unmitigated disaster the 2020 caucuses were. (It’s fair to argue that we still don’t know what the final margins were and we likely never will.) The DNC has already been looking at shuffling around the rotation and letting some other states go first, an idea that Iowans still hate vehemently. So to address the concerns of national Democrats, the Iowa Democratic Party is currently putting forward a proposal to make changes to the caucus process with the intent of making it less chaotic and fairer. But as you’ll see in a moment, the sweeping nature of the changes would turn the system more into a primary than a true caucus. (Associated Press)
In a last-ditch effort to salvage their leadoff presidential selection position, Iowa Democrats are proposing two key changes that they hope will increase participation and avoid the chaos that marred their 2020 caucuses.
One change would allow Iowa Democrats to submit presidential preference cards by mail or in person before caucus night. Critics have long argued that the caucuses, held in the dead of winter at the dawn of a presidential election year, have prevented older adults, disabled people and shift workers from being able to take part.
The second change would eliminate the often confusing and time-consuming process of realignment, where supporters of a candidate who does not reach a minimum threshold of support in a precinct are allowed to choose another candidate. The new plan eliminates a second choice.
This proposal was submitted to the Democratic National Committee’s rule and bylaws committee this month as Iowa seeks to retain its first in the nation status. But the changes detailed above would essentially turn Iowa’s caucus into an inefficiently structured primary. One of the main features of the caucus system is the in-person voting requirement. These changes would allow people to submit their preferences by mail or drop them off in advance at the caucus site. That’s pretty much the same as early voting and mail-in ballot voting.
READ RELATED: Baltimore: Parents say sending their 'terrified' kids to school is like sending them to 'fight club'
Also, the caucus system allows voters to cast their ballots additional times with different choices if their first choice is knocked out of contention. The proposed changes would eliminate that part of the process entirely. Once again, that makes it look increasingly like a standard primary election. What’s the point of calling it a caucus?
Long-time readers likely know that I’ve never been a fan of the caucus process and I feel that it should be done away with. Forcing people to go stand up in public – frequently in view of their friends, neighbors, and even their employers – to cast their votes removes the secrecy of the ballot. Allowing people to vote multiple times for different people also strikes me as rather undemocratic. Why not just do away with it and run a primary using the same infrastructure that they have in place for the general elections?
Even these changes might not save Iowa’s bacon, however. The DNC has been complaining about Iowa for other reasons over the past several years. For one thing, they claim that Iowa “doesn’t reflect the diversity of the Democratic Party.” That’s a nicer way of saying that Iowa is just too white to reflect the party. (More than 90% of Iowa Democrats are white.) They also haven’t exactly been on a hot streak in terms of picking the eventual winner. In 2020 they basically split the vote between Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, with Joe Biden being little more than an afterthought.
Iowa and New Hampshire have been going first for far too long and for reasons that don’t make any sense. Both the DNC and the RNC would do well to just set up a rotating schedule of states that wind up going first. Or maybe just do all the primaries on the same day and get it over with. That’s how we do the national general elections, so it’s obviously logistically possible.
Source:
