Caucus States Dwindle as Turnout Stays Low Iowa may become the last holdout.
More than 300,000 Minnesotans turned out to caucus for Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in 2016. The turnout was large enough to create hour long lines in some precincts and shortages of paper ballots in others.1
But all those caucus-goers still represented only 8 percent of the registered voters in the state — a turnout rate that would be considered anemic in any primary election. That is one big reason why Minnesota, along with most other states, is switching from caucuses to primaries this year to choose its national party convention delegates.
In 2016, 14 states held Democratic caucuses. This year, only four states will — Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has adopted new rules that encourage state parties to find ways of motivating more people to participate in the nominating process. Whatever the virtues of caucuses, they tend to limit participation.
With so few caucus states left, some political observers wonder whether the format will die out altogether. “Good riddance, they ought to,” says Republican consultant Whit Ayres. “Caucuses reduce the number of people [participating] and make it even less likely that the ultimate winner will actually reflect the views of most people in the party.”
Caucuses involve more work, or at least more time, on the part of participants than simply showing up at a polling precinct to vote in a primary. Rather than being able to vote anytime during a 12- or 14-hour window, caucus participants must gather at a particular time — say, at 7 p.m. on a Tuesday. The event might drag on for hours. There are also fewer locations available for caucuses than for normal voting. “If we're all for participation, these are clearly low-participation events,” says Christopher Larimer, a political scientist at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.
Iowa's caucuses first achieved national prominence when a then-obscure former Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter, used them as a springboard to the White House in 1976. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Iowa victory was key to his ability to upset early Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in 2008. Ever since Carter, the caucuses have kicked off the presidential nominating season and lured candidates into practically taking up residence in the state in the runup to the event, which is scheduled for Feb. 3 this year.
Yet even in Iowa, participation is limited. Since 1988, less than 25 percent of registered voters have caucused. Their numbers ticked up in 2008 and may increase again this year, but likely will not exceed a third of voters.2
At Republican caucuses in Iowa, campaign surrogates make speeches in favor of their favored candidates. Participants are handed a piece of paper and write down their choice, more or less like voting.
Things are more complicated on the Democratic side. There are still speeches, but those attending are asked to express their preference by standing under a sign with the name of the candidate they favor. That makes voting a public act, with everyone able to see whom their neighbors prefer. If any candidate's support falls short of 15 percent of those gathered in a schoolroom, gymnasium or other venue, backers of that contender are asked to switch, or realign. “Once you have to realign, sometimes people leave,” Larimer says. “It's a long process on the Democratic side.”
Some observers believe the participatory nature of caucuses, with their speeches and debate, leads to a more informed process than secret ballots cast individually. In addition, fans of caucuses note they are run by the parties, rather than the states, and are used as party-building exercises.
“You find the people willing to come out for a couple of hours and do some work,” says Art Sanders, a political scientist at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. “Presidential preference is not the only thing they do at the caucuses. They also put people into positions in the party.”
But critics say that caucuses dampen turnout and sometimes reward more-ideological candidates whose supporters are deeply engaged.
“I have never been a fan of caucuses,” says Democratic consultant Matthew Hennessy. “They're great to witness in person, and you do get a sense of civic engagement when you're there, like having a town meeting to decide who the president's going to be. But as a system, they're very exclusionary.”
And they are not always accurate. In the past, Iowa precinct chairs have reported not the raw numbers of supporters for each candidate, but the number of delegates awarded to each, according to a formula. In 2016, Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders were essentially tied on the Democratic side, leading Sanders to call for a recount of the vote totals. But that was not possible, because state party officials had only counted delegates and had not kept track of raw vote totals.3
There have been other problems with caucus tallies. In 2012, results from more than 100 Iowa GOP caucuses were counted incorrectly. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was declared the winner on caucus night, by a grand total of eight votes. A recount found former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania had won, by 34 votes, leading the state party chair to step down.4
All forms of vote-counting have flaws, but caucuses lack the standards common among state-run elections, such as voting machine printouts or checks to make sure precinct, county and state totals match. In 2012, vote counting in the Nevada GOP caucuses stretched over days, leading to accusations of fraud, while Romney was declared the winner in Maine before all counties had completed their caucuses.
For 2020, the DNC is requiring that the few state parties holding caucuses figure out ways of holding a proper recount. In Iowa, Democrats will release both the raw vote totals and delegate counts, making it possible that two candidates will each be able to claim victory. The national party encouraged state parties to devise methods for absentee participation, but in August it blocked plans in both Iowa and Nevada for online voting due to security concerns.5
The mere fact that Iowa holds caucuses is what allows it to vote ahead of New Hampshire, where state law requires that its primary be the first in the nation. The caucus system may survive in Iowa, but it is clearly dwindling around the country. “Iowa might be able to keep the tradition,” says University of San Diego political scientist Casey B.K. Dominguez, “but everywhere else, they're probably doomed.”
— Alan Greenblatt
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2020013120#