Exposing the Iowa Caucus Con - Democratic Underground

Herman Munster

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-26-07 09:23 PM
Original message

Exposing the Iowa Caucus Con

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071226_exposing_the_iowa_caucus_con/

What if one of the candidate’s supporters was a city council member or some sort of commissioner? Couldn’t a commissioner, trying to switch a vote, mention to a caucus-goer: “You know that garage conversion permit you’re having trouble with? Don’t worry about it.” When I outlined this scenario to a prominent Democrat, she said it would be illegal. But, she added, it wouldn’t be illegal for the commissioner to remind the caucus-goer that he had taken care of the garage matter. People tell me about promises of lawn care, pet sitting, cookies and other goodies, big and small, being made during the vote-switching process.

The final tally from each caucus is based on a somewhat complex mathematical formula. Suppose that in a caucus of 100, Sen. Barack Obama got 49 votes, former Sen. John Edwards 32 and Sen. Hillary Clinton 19. The delegates would be distributed in this manner: Obama 5, Edwards 3, Clinton 1.

But as I pointed out earlier, the news you receive about the Democratic caucuses are not statewide totals, but just numbers of delegates sent to county conventions. It has no relation to actual support. In my mythical match, Obama’s five votes probably mean his organization did a better job in bringing people to the caucus.

I discussed my doubts with a sharp young journalist, Chase Martyn, managing editor of the Iowa Independent, one of the web sites established around the country by the Center for Independent Media to promote independent online journalism. The Independent has citizen journalists—also known as part-timers—filing reports on the caucuses around the state, and Martyn does his own reporting. So it is a plugged-in operation.

I told him I didn’t think much of the caucus system. He likes it. “It forces candidates to compete in a state where it doesn’t take a lot of money to win,” he said. Face-to-face meetings between Iowans and candidates, as reported by the national media, help the nation “pick a good nominee and president.”

But the caucuses aren’t democratic, I said. “Nobody would say they are democratic,’” Martyn replied. “The sense I get (from Iowans) is that “‘this is the game, these are the rules of the game and don’t argue about the rules in the middle of the game.”

But if political journalists explained the rules, the rest of America would know that the caucuses don’t mean much. They are a fraud, like the Wizard of Oz.

Such an explanation is tough. I have spent a career describing complex budget formulas, health care plans and water projects. This is one of the hardest processes I have ever had to explain. It took a long time, and now that I am done, I have no idea whether my editors or readers will know or care what I am talking about.

But the media should try to shed light on the process instead of helping Iowa keep this promotional device alive. Unmask the wizard, journalists, and set America free from the shackles of the Iowa caucuses.