Why the Iowa caucuses matter and everything you need to know about them
On Monday, at 7 p.m. local time, Iowa voters will begin the process of picking the country’s next president at a series of nearly 1,700 gatherings in meeting halls, high school gymnasiums and community centers between the Missouri and the Mississippi rivers.
The Iowa caucuses will go a long way toward shaping the presidential race, even though the results have little bearing on the delegates that Iowa will send to the national nominating conventions.
If it sounds arcane and confusing, that’s because it is. We’re here to help.
What is a caucus?
A caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals. Participation is open to anyone over age 18, or who will be old enough to vote in the Nov. 8 presidential election. There is no cost to attend and an individual can show up Monday night and register with the party of his or her choosing. However, participants must be there at the designated time—unlike, say, a primary where polling places are open from morning to night—and wait for the chance to vote for their presidential favorite. That puts a premium on committed supporters willing to turn out on a chilly evening and stick around.
How does it work?
Republicans and Democrats caucus differently.
After some organizational business and speeches, Republicans write down their pick for president and turn in their secret ballot.
Democrats break into groups according to their preference, plain for all to see. If a candidate fails to achieve the “viability” threshold of at least 15%, he or she is eliminated and supporters fall in behind another Democratic candidate. Or they can go home, though that is considered bad caucus form.
Why do the parties do things differently?
Because they can. Caucuses are party meetings, independent of any government or election agency. So the parties set their own rules. Democrats were deeply divided over the Vietnam War, so they fashioned the viability rule as a way of forging consensus and avoiding a split of the party into multiple small factions.
Why does Iowa go first?
Because for a long time, nobody much cared. The caucuses have been taking place, in some form, since the early 1800s. The presidential preference vote was an add-on, a bit of fun for insiders who were gathered to attend to party business. In 1972, the national media picked up the results of the informal balloting and that helped George S. McGovern, a surprising favorite, push past better-known rivals to win the party’s nomination. Four years later, underdog Jimmy Carter used a strong Iowa showing to win the White House, and Iowa has occupied a prime spot on the political calendar ever since.
Has anyone challenged Iowa’s primacy?
Politicos in other states constantly gripe about Iowa’s outsized role, but the national parties set rules that keep it first, and no presidential candidate hoping to win the state ever wants to be seen as anything less than whole-hog for Iowa. So while there is perennial talk of Iowa losing its first-in-the-nation caucus slot, nothing has ever come of it. Under the national rules, New Hampshire holds the first presidential primary eight days later.
Winning the nomination is all about winning national convention delegates. So how do the caucuses affect that process?
They don’t, really. The caucuses elect delegates to county conventions, the first step in a long, complicated process that eventually yields Iowa’s delegates to the national convention many months from now. But by then no one is paying attention outside Iowa.
So why is the whole political world obsessed with the results in Iowa on Monday night?
Because after months of polls, debates, rumors, speculation and other chattering, Iowa will provide the first test of actual voter sentiment. Also, it takes a lot of work to ensure supporters show up and caucus. So the popularity contest is seen as a test of both a candidate’s appeal as well as his or her ability to build a campaign that has the organizational mettle to win the nomination.
So whoever gets the most votes wins?
Not necessarily. Expectations play an enormous role in judging the caucuses. A candidate seen as performing better than expected can be judged a winner, while a candidate who performs worse than anticipated may be deemed a loser. Perhaps the best example came in 1984, when former Vice President Walter F. Mondale won nearly half the vote, but the “winner” was Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who got an unexpected 16.5% support. That launched him into a months-long struggle with Mondale for the nomination, who ultimately prevailed. But Hart’s performance turned him into the Democrats’ 1988 national front-runner until his candidacy flamed out in scandal.
What are the expectations this time?
On the Republican side, if anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz finishes in first or second place, it will be a shocker. Among Democrats, the race is so close that a first-place finish by either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would not be a big surprise. If Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, an asterisk in polls, somehow slipped into one of the top-two slots, that would also be a stunner. Beyond that, if any candidate on either side blows out the rest of the field, that would constitute a major surprise and a huge victory. A Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll released Saturday night showed Donald Trump up slightly over Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders effectively tied. Those results went a long way toward setting expectations, and any significant deviation could determine whether a candidate is deemed a winner or loser.
This article is very interesting and informative. At first I though,"What is a caucus?" But as the article was further developed I understood what it meant politically. "On the Republican side, if anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz finishes in first or second place, it will be a shocker" (Barabak). Furthermore, I'm excited to see how the election will turn out these next upcoming months. I don't necessarily have a candidate who I would like to win because I don't typically pay much attention to politics.
ReplyDeleteMarie Ong, Period 6
Cameron Stone -- P6
ReplyDeleteThis article was very insightful to how the Presidential election process works. Initially, I did not know what a caucus was, nor exactly how the election process works. I now know that these caucuses "will go a long way toward shaping the presidential race". I hope that someday I will be able to attend one and vote for my presidential candidate. I am now more interested in the political system and will make sure to stay more up to date with my information.
This was a very informative article about how a part of the presidential election process takes place. It has bothered me for a while that Iowa is always first. It should alternate for each election. The only good thing that ever came out of Iowa was Slipknot so why should they be able to hold this much power. The caucus is not the only thing that needs reform in the process of electing a president. We need to rid of the electoral collage and give people a reason to vote since their vote will actually mean something without the electoral collage.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I have a better understanding for how the presidential elections work. I had no idea what a caucus was even though I have kept up with most of the recent debates. "A candidate seen as performing better than expected can be judged a winner, while a candidate who performs worse than anticipated may be deemed a loser" (Barabak). I fount this article interesting and I now have a better idea on what a caucus is.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we bother with all of this? I believe that the President of the United States should be chosen purely by what the people want. No electoral college or political parties, just candidates running and the people voting. This is supposed to be "By the people, For the people" what has happened to that? Why does one state get a higher importance over the others? I'm sure the people of Iowa are sick of politicians by now, while no other state seems to get any attention. The people need to speak up and try to change how this country is run, before the greedy politicians dig us into a hole of debt and problems that we can never hope to get out of.
ReplyDeleteThis article helped explain how the elections work. I had no idea what a caucus was until I read this article, "A caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals"(Barabak). I also feel this is the right way to elect someone. " If a candidate fails to achieve the “viability” threshold of at least 15%, he or she is eliminated and supporters fall in behind another"(Barabak). This also proves if someone is capable of being elected because if they can not achieve a certain part then they are not fit.
ReplyDeleteFrom this article I was expecting to learn about caucuses and how gummy bears are related to caucuses. However after reading this article I learned that "a caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals" (Barabak). I was still a little confused about what a caucus is and if it was just the same as voting. I believe having the individual caucuses in each state shows whether a president has a chance in the long run or if the job is not fit for them. Also, t is very interesting that Iowa goes first as some may think it is an advantage when it really is a disadvantage because they don't know that much about the candidates ant they may learn more later, after they have voted.
ReplyDeleteEmily Bobrowsky- Period 1
When I was reading this article I was assuming that it would be the same boring article of the electoral voting system, but it actually was quite informative. The article outlined common questions the reader might have when reading. When I read the title I wondered to myself, like most others, what is a caucus? As I read on, I learned in detail what it was. The article also gave further information of the candidates and why Iowa of all states. This was a good article to read for future reference, but I still don't agree that two of the four most likely to win candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very informative and helpful. I pay pretty close attention to politics but when I heard all about the Iowa caucus this week, I had no idea what a caucus even was. Luckily, now I know that it is "a caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals" (Barabak). I didn't even know that Iowa holds a higher position than the other states when it comes to caucuses, but now I do (even though I still find it kind of unnecessary and unjust). I think paying attention to politics is really important, especially for teens and young adults, because it'll help us understand more about the current state of our country and what candidates we prefer.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very helpful. I had heard about the caucuses and was very confused about the story behind them. Now I understand what they are. Writing this after the caucuses, the results were relatively close to as predicted and I feel much more informed and interested now.
ReplyDeleteThis article was full of knowledge that one might want to know. I personally don't agree with some of this because I believe the president should be chosen based off what the people want. Do those "politically like-minded individuals" have the same mind set as all of us? No. I don't know why we keep on pursuing with actions like these.
ReplyDeleteCarissa Piercy
Per.4
This article is helpful and informative. It clearly explains what a caucus is. For the past few days, I have been hearing about the Iowa caucus and I did not know what it was. This article explained that "a caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals" (Barabak). I think this article is important because it helps readers keep up with current events. It also gives them the information they need to understand the article without having to do further research.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Lasecke
period 2
This article carries a lot of helpful information. Before reading this article I didn't know what a caucas was, but after reading it I learned that "a caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals" (Barabak). Lately I have been more interested in politics and these presidential debates that are going on. This article helped me understand a lot of things I wasn't aware of and is very informative yet simple for someone to understand.
ReplyDeleteper 4
This article was really helpful for me. With all the things happening lately with the debates and things, I never was sure what a caucus was. Now I know that, "a caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals" (Barabak). This was an informative article with some interesting things I didn't know. Brandon Marshall period 4
ReplyDeleteThis article was very helpful. This article has helped me understand a lot about politics. I have not been that into politics but lately I hav been pulled into it. I think that know I have a better understanding of all of the things that are going on in the world and what is going on in politics
ReplyDeleteI agree Richard I feel like this was a very interesting article. I'm not always up to date on politics but I understand a little bit more about it now. I had heard of a caucus before but had no idea how important it was until now. If I could find more articles like this I would be a lot more up date.
DeleteThis article is very informative about how caucus works in Iowa. It seemed unique and different from other primaries. It would be difficult though to do that here in California because we have so many people.
ReplyDeleteThis article was informative and very helpful. Personally, by the time the election comes around, I will be 18 by then so I will get to vote for these candidates. Before reading this article, I didn't know that "a caucus is a precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals" (Barabak). It will be nice to see how this election will turn out. I've never really payed attention to politics until now. We just need to rid of the electoral college and let the people vote since their vote will actually mean something instead of the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteI learned a lot from this article. I've always known of the caucuses but I never truly knew the meaning of caucus. It is defined as "a precinct-level meeting of political like-minded individuals" (Barabak). Now I can watch the debates and actually know what its about and means.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this article,titled "Why the Iowa caucuses matter and everything you need to know about them," I was not aware of what a caucus was and that it even existed. The Los Angeles Times defines a caucus as a "precinct-level meeting of politically like-minded individuals. Participation is open to anyone over age 18, or who will be old enough to vote in the Nov. 8 presidential election,"(Los Angeles Time Li. 8). It helps to understand the definition of a caucus before the Presidential election, because now i can watch the debate and keep up on what is going on. I am very surprised that conflict has not occurred over who goes first.
ReplyDeleteI had previously known what a caucus was but not with this level of detail. Throughout the article, it explains how a caucus is a place where people go to vote for politicians of the Republican or Democratic parties (different caucuses). "Caucuses are party meetings, independent of any government or election agency. So the parties set their own rules" (Los Angeles Times). The fact that the government and political parties have to be different and work apart is a shame. My belief is that all parties should come together to become more productive in their thoughts and actions, in order to form a better nation. This would work to promote unification both politically and nationally, and would help strengthen our country in the process.
ReplyDeleteJonPaul Lambert Period 1
I have always known what caucuses are but this really showed me the meaning of caucus. What it describes it as is a Barbarack way of politics. Now that I know he meaning politcs are goin to make more sense to me and help me know what they are really trying to do.
ReplyDeleteI had no clue that a caucus went into this much depth. I hadn't even heard of it in the first place. "Caucuses are party meetings, independent of any government or election agency. So the parties set their own rules" (Los Angeles Times). These parties should unite into one and share their ideas, rather than be split up. Working together would bring this country together how it should be. It will be fun to follow this election and see the process.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea what a caucus was not a clue until now. Now I know that it really means a almost barbaric and crazy way to do things and now that I know about this I guess that this will make more sense to me in politics. From now on I'll know what they mean when they say caucus.
ReplyDeleteJosh Leifker per.1
DeleteThere is a major problem in our voting system that causes the mindset of not thinking that your vote counts. "So whoever gets the most votes wins?
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily"(Los Angeles Times). People do not believe that their vote matters because the system has shown that majority =/= who wins. When a candidate wins by 53% but still loses, that is disheartening.
The issues with caucuses are that they are very old and outdated systems of voting. The informal nature of the group voting lends itself against some candidates. Recently a 'scandal' on Hillary Clinton occurred when her supporters did not allow a recount in a very close election. Bernie Sanders supporters did however. When caucuses are the main road to deciding a presidential candidate, we lose many opportunities to choose based on who gets more votes. When a "premium on committed supporters willing to turn out on a chilly evening and stick around" (Barabak) is introduced, this hurts our less likely to vote citizens, not allowing the caucuses to truly enrapture our vote.
ReplyDeleteLasse Nordahl
Period 6