Christopher Hitchens, whose belligerence is barely tolerable even though he's almost always right, covers the Iowa caucus scam ably in Slate:
It's only when you read an honest reporter like [the Washington Post's] Dan Balz that you appreciate the depth and extent of the fraud that is being practiced on us all. "In a primary," as he put it, "voters quietly fill out their ballots and leave. In the caucuses, they are required to come and stay for several hours, and there are no secret ballots. In the presence of friends, neighbors and occasionally strangers, Iowa Democrats vote with their feet, by raising their hands and moving to different parts of the room to signify their support for one candidate or another. ... [F]or Democrats, it is not a one-person, one-vote system. ... Inducements are allowed; bribes are not." One has to love that last sentence.
I was in Des Moines and Ames in the early fall, and I must say that, as small and landlocked and white and rural as Iowa is, I would be happy to give an opening bid in our electoral process to its warm and generous and serious people. But this is not what the caucus racket actually does. What it does is give the whip hand to the moneyed political professionals, to the full-time party hacks and manipulators, to the shady pollsters and the cynical media boosters, and to the supporters of fringe and crackpot candidates.
This year, for me, is all about persuasion and how things get made. What's clear with the Iowa caucuses is that the process is about the quiet coercion of peer pressure. And the primary beneficiaries of this broken system are the traditional media outlets which both uses the process as a source of content and as a source of advertising revenue. Secret balloting is part of any real election process for an important reason, and we've empowered a system that forsakes that goal.
Worse, as much as people like to talk about the Internet revolutionizing politics, the measure they're still using is the ability of the web to improve the efficiency with which candidates can funnel money from supporters to traditional media advertising purchases. This is progress?
(Thanks to Clay for the pointer to the Hitchens piece.)
I found this via Planet Intertwingley where it's aggregated.
Democracy is not just about casting votes secretly. It's about freedom of speech and having the courage to say what you believe. I think the Iowa caucuses are an example of that. Watching them on CSPAN, they seem like a vibrant expression of political preference.
I don't know that I'm quite ready to condemn the caucuses, being from a state with a primary and all. I don't think I understand the concept well enough to have an opinion.
That said, the reason I believe that ONLY paper ballots should count is because any computer-assisted voting method is trackable: "Why did you vote for candidate X? We know you did, so don't deny it." Secret ballots give each voter the ability to vote his or her conscience and to deny it publicly later. That breaks the power of peer pressure.
I do think that the traditional media like the caucuses and their timing. They are perfect fodder for their push-down approach to news. Personally, I wish that rather than billions of repetitive and annoying commercials, the candidates could spend more of their energies coming where people are (including the Web) and conversing with *us*.
there are certainly parts to the process that are broken, and the media in general is definitely not helpful, or pursuing noble aims in their coverage.
like what Bud is saying, there are many examples of non-anonymous voting that are part of our democratic process, let alone any democracy in history. voting records for those in Congress are public, and we hail that as good accountability, or want more open data. peer pressure is not always a Bad Thing.
there are even parts of the process that seem to reflect the complexity of decisions more than a one-shot ballot. in the caucus, you have the chance to make a second choice if your first choice is clearly not going to get the votes. I may have liked Kucinich the best, but if I knew he had no chance, would prefer Richardson to Clinton.
I participated in a caucus last night, and didn't feel any more peer pressure than I normally would have talking to friends leading up to an election. it's not like anybody's saying they'll not play with me at recess if I don't join their group. a neighbor did come over and ask why I was supporting the person I was, but we had a reasonable conversation, and I remained in my group and he went back to his.
I usually enjoy reading Hitchens because he is simultaneously lowbrow belligerent and highbrow literary - even if he became a apologist for imperialism. But he usually has a point and I guess I hadn’t realized how nutty the Dem-side of the caucus process is. I’m reading it and saying they all meet together and then stand around and what-you-can’t-be-serious-really?
I don't like the lack of a secret ballot, but the real-world implementation of instant runoff voting that the caucuses provide is inspiring.
What's worse than Iowa is New Hampshire. The idiots there let independents vote. Sorry, but if you want a voice in who leads my political party, a minimum requirement should be membership in that party.
I'm a Minnesotan and we also have the caucus. I've never felt coercion at the meetings, only an exciting exchange of ideas. And what's that crap about the media using it as a source if content? I've never seen that, do you have some examples? Democracy as a participatory social activity with it's cross-pollination via discourse by ordinary people only strengths the publics control of the process and allow us to determine its course. Nothing about Obama's big win in Iowa supports your assertions about party-boss control, or the existence of cynical, shady or manipulative characters -- I find your assertion laughable having attended numerous caucuses. True, there are some seasoned veterans that understand how the process works more than others and I have learned from them, and I've also seen newbies come in with new ideas and perspectives that have contributed more than the veterans. Caucusing is power to the people.