If you ain't first, you're last!
I realized this week that the media covers the Caucuses nonstop, but they don't necessarily do a good job of explaining what the process entails. There are a few things to bear in mind before getting wild with predictions.
Most importantly, what I will outline are Democrat specific in Iowa. The Republican caucus process, as I understand it, is closer to what you think of as regular voting - they get together and cast a ballot.
For starters (and this goes for both parties), the caucuses are at a specific place and time, such as 7pm on a Monday (check your local listings). The location of the caucus is not the same as where you would go to normally vote in a general election (which makes things even more confusing) and because of logistics, the Democratic caucus may not even be held where you have been going for years.
If you haven't surmised yet, this means that if for example, you are working, out of town. cannot make it on time, cannot stay for the entirety of the meeting, do not know where the Caucus is held, etc., then you will not be participating in the caucus.
This seems to be a detriment to those who supporters might be people who work second shift, work two jobs, go to night school, don't travel in bad weather, have children and other responsibilities, etc.
In any case, you have to be onsite on time, in line by 7pm to be counted.
Also worth mentioning, it's a public vote in front of your neighbors. You don't want to tell your gung-ho Warren neighbor that you are a Bernie supporter. Well, they're going to find out.
This being the 21st Century, the Iowa Democratic Party (which has so much success with absentee balloting in general elections) suggested a 'virtual' caucus. Maybe, this would have been done online or via phone. There would have been six of these caucuses and they would have been treated like the other caucuses going on (as far as I know).
In any case, the idea of a virtual caucus got nixed in August by the Democratic National Committee. It does sound like the IDP may have some leverage to do something for college students and possibly, one-off out of towners, but really, the idea of a "virtual caucus" is dead in the water.
So, that's sort of odd right? You can probably make a case that only the most dedicated are making the important decisions, or whatever; but I haven't even gotten to the weirdest part yet.
That is because of a thing called "viability".
At a Democratic caucus, one of the first thing to happen will be a vote, but it will not be the final result. It will be to test viability.
None of this is secret Masonic/secret society stuff, but it is maybe something people don't know.
But the media will talk about polling in Iowa, and so, it is helpful to know what all the process entails.
Here's where we get into Math (not the Andrew Yang kind)
In most situations, to be viable, a candidate has to have at least 15% of the votes in the room.
For our purposes, we will stick to 15%, but in smaller precincts, that number could go up, maybe even 25%. it is possible that you may need a quarter of the room (in a small precinct) to be viable.
If you are ahead of me, you may be doing the math in your head.
No matter what, no more than six candidates will be viable. That's just simple multiplication. Six times fifteen equals ninety. Seven times fifteen is 105. You can't have 105%.
When you put it that way, if you have looked at polls, then you know despite the large number of candidates, if you stop at 6, then you have The Big Four, and we will say Klobuchar and Steyer. Bingo. Done.
Of course, there's some fluidity at 5 and 6, but the first four seem to be pretty solid. If Gabbard, Yang, or Booker get in (and polls indicate that any of them could be in the top 6), then Klobuchar or Steyer is out.
That said, if this was just a race for the Top Six, then maybe someone like Bullock or Inslee would have stayed in the race.
You also have to think about the part about having 15% (at least, remember).
There are only five candidates who have achieved 15% in any Iowa poll (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigeig, Harris), and one of them (Harris) hasn't polled that high since July 4. (Note: As I write this, reports are Harris will drop out).
In polling, Klobuchar has capped at 8, Gabbard has maxed at 7, and Booker (many, many moons ago) also at 7 percent. Not to say, they couldn't reach 15% of any given precinct, it just will be a challenge.
Heck, to mention it, Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate that can say she has been consistently above the 15% threshold. (There are November polls showing Sanders as low as 13% (Monmouth) and Biden dropping to 12% (Iowa State)).
I won't discount that any of the four or all of the four can't make it, but you never know.
Anyway, thanks for reading at least as far to here. We're almost done.
I have got a few more scenarios, so I hope you can stay with me.
Each precinct will send a certain number of delegates. How many delegate a precinct will get is not determined by population, but by how many registered Democrats vote in that area. So, in theory, you might live in a town of 40,000 in Western Iowa but have less delegates than a town of 30,000 in Eastern Iowa.
You do have to declare yourself a Democrat to participate in the caucus, though you can change back immediately. With an incumbent on the other side, you could see some crossover (Republicans participating in the Democratic process), though I doubt you see all of that much impact.
Anyway, viability explains where candidacies end. Bill Richardson polled as much as 12%, but only got 2% of delegates. Martin O'Malley reached as high as 8% in pre-caucus polls, but in the Caucus process, was unable to get even one percent of delegates.
There are a lot of factors here that may show up in the outcome. For example, polls show Tulsi Gabbard does specifically well in the Western part of the State. Pockets of support could be a boon for the candidate, since each location gets a certain amount of delegates. Counties that border Minnesota may do better for Klobuchar.
A second vote will be taken.
The second vote will be everyone in the room voting for one of the "viable" candidates. In previous caucuses, you could change your vote from the first round to the second round. Now, for the 2020 caucus, if you voted for a "viable" candidate in round one, then you are locked in to voting for that candidate.
Why would you vote for a different candidate the second time? Well, you probably wouldn't.
Still, there may be some scenarios where someone could have done that in the past. In the 2020 race, I see a lot of crossover between Sanders and Gabbard voters. Hypothetically, maybe you support Sanders most, but vote for Gabbard in the first count to try to get her "viable".
In any case, there has been no disincentive to voting for a less popular candidate before this.
As we get into some of the wonky math of the caucus, in that past, you also may havefound yourself in a large group, and it was beneficial to leave that group to "sock it" to your opponent. Hypothetically, if you are a Warren supporter and the room is strong for the Warren crowd, but you want to shift some Biden/Buttigieg votes away from one to the other, then you might change your vote to help a rival's rival. Heck, maybe you liked your candidate, but have gotten into the excitement of the room, and want to join Sanders momentum.
Now, it may sound like I am overexplaining or thinking of weirdest possible outcomes, but you have never been to a caucus before. The scenarios I mentioned are certainly on people's minds. In any case, those type of 'shady' moves should be dampened in 2020.
Let's throw together a scenario: A room of 50- Pete has 12, Sanders has 9, Biden and Warren have 8, Klobuchar has 5, Yang has 3, Steyer and Gabbard have 2, and Castro has 1. Then, it becomes a four person election.
Now, if Biden only had 7 votes, then he would be at 14% and not move to the second round- but we will say he has 8 of our hypothetical 50.
Next, those who didn't select a 'viable' candidate get to revote. It is quite possible, your second count is Bernie 16, Warren 14, Pete 12 and Biden 8.
It is a considerably different result than the first vote, which is why Iowa pollsters talk about likability. Also, you don't have to vote for any candidate, you can always cast a ballot for Uncommitted. We had like 80 candidates, so I don't think anyone will do that, but if NOTA gets votes, it is treated like a candidate with rules around viability.
You think things would be pretty straightforward from there, but they are not. For one thing, at the second vote, you are electing delegates. The number of delegates depends on the size of how many voting Dems in your precinct (remember?), but the math isn't straightforward.
You would probably think say a 65/35% split might equal '2 delegates to 1 delegate', but that may not necessarily be the case.
I don't really want to get that deep in the weeds here; but, what I will say, is at a high level, there is a qualifying amount to get one delegate. Also, if you get enough votes in that second count, then you are guaranteed that delegate. From there, equations and rounding will figure out the rest.
This is where things could get even more distorted. For example, in 2016, at my caucus, Hillary did win the room that I was in, but just barely; yet, the delegate count would imply that she had won a significant advantage over Bernie. While over at a friend's caucus, he reported Bernie trailing by quite a bit, yet, he only got one less delegate than Hillary.
Is either more correct than the other? Well, it's an agreed upon system, and there are some quirks.
This being math, and there being possible ties or unresolved equations, it is indeed true, that a delegate choice at any given precinct may be won by coin toss- which is the agreed upon tiebreaker process. The media loves that. It is unlikely, but the math makes it possible as you translate votes to delegates. If you are one of the rare 'one delegate' precincts and there is a two-way tie, you have to do something to decide.
That's the process the Dems have set up- beautiful and crazy as it is; but there is one more significant change this year.
For the first time, the Democrats will be counting, collecting, and reporting the votes of everyone's first choice.
Will this be a game-changer? It could be.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Iowa Caucus. Do we know that for sure? Clinton did well in the big cities, Sanders in the rural. Who got the most actual physical votes? Entrance polls say Hillary, and yes, that is likely. Still, in a third of the polls in the month taken before the caucus, Bernie led. It is possible that Bernie did have more supporters.
If that was the case in 2016, would things have changed?
Does reporting actual results matter? Would Bill Richardson have made it a four person race in 2012 (Obama/Clinton/Edwards)? Would Martin O'Malley have been so eager to get out of the race if he could have shown that he was attracting 10-15% of the vote?
If Klobuchar could take 8 or 9% (as she has polled at times)? If Yang or Steyer could jump past Biden? Do these things matter to the American public? The answers remain "I don't know", and "we will see".
What it the eventual Caucus (process) winner really has less votes than someone else? Given the set-up, it is certainly possible. Then, how does the media report that? Would both candidates claim victory? Well, of course, they would!
Finally, I should mention that the delegate count on Caucus Night is binding. This is kind of a big deal. I am told things were kind of tense in 2016 at the Iowa Democrat Convention where Hillary and Bernie were fighting for every delegate, despite Hillary winning on Caucus Night.
Without this provision, you could even have something as outlandish as the 2008 Republican caucus- where Ron Paul finished third with 21% of the vote (to Santorum and Romney's near 24.6 and 24.5% totals) and left the State Convention with 79% of the State delegates, No matter what curves this race takes, that should not be one of them.
Now you know how the Caucus works. From here, the only thing left is the waiting.
Most importantly, what I will outline are Democrat specific in Iowa. The Republican caucus process, as I understand it, is closer to what you think of as regular voting - they get together and cast a ballot.
For starters (and this goes for both parties), the caucuses are at a specific place and time, such as 7pm on a Monday (check your local listings). The location of the caucus is not the same as where you would go to normally vote in a general election (which makes things even more confusing) and because of logistics, the Democratic caucus may not even be held where you have been going for years.
If you haven't surmised yet, this means that if for example, you are working, out of town. cannot make it on time, cannot stay for the entirety of the meeting, do not know where the Caucus is held, etc., then you will not be participating in the caucus.
This seems to be a detriment to those who supporters might be people who work second shift, work two jobs, go to night school, don't travel in bad weather, have children and other responsibilities, etc.
In any case, you have to be onsite on time, in line by 7pm to be counted.
Also worth mentioning, it's a public vote in front of your neighbors. You don't want to tell your gung-ho Warren neighbor that you are a Bernie supporter. Well, they're going to find out.
This being the 21st Century, the Iowa Democratic Party (which has so much success with absentee balloting in general elections) suggested a 'virtual' caucus. Maybe, this would have been done online or via phone. There would have been six of these caucuses and they would have been treated like the other caucuses going on (as far as I know).
In any case, the idea of a virtual caucus got nixed in August by the Democratic National Committee. It does sound like the IDP may have some leverage to do something for college students and possibly, one-off out of towners, but really, the idea of a "virtual caucus" is dead in the water.
So, that's sort of odd right? You can probably make a case that only the most dedicated are making the important decisions, or whatever; but I haven't even gotten to the weirdest part yet.
That is because of a thing called "viability".
At a Democratic caucus, one of the first thing to happen will be a vote, but it will not be the final result. It will be to test viability.
None of this is secret Masonic/secret society stuff, but it is maybe something people don't know.
But the media will talk about polling in Iowa, and so, it is helpful to know what all the process entails.
Here's where we get into Math (not the Andrew Yang kind)
In most situations, to be viable, a candidate has to have at least 15% of the votes in the room.
For our purposes, we will stick to 15%, but in smaller precincts, that number could go up, maybe even 25%. it is possible that you may need a quarter of the room (in a small precinct) to be viable.
If you are ahead of me, you may be doing the math in your head.
No matter what, no more than six candidates will be viable. That's just simple multiplication. Six times fifteen equals ninety. Seven times fifteen is 105. You can't have 105%.
When you put it that way, if you have looked at polls, then you know despite the large number of candidates, if you stop at 6, then you have The Big Four, and we will say Klobuchar and Steyer. Bingo. Done.
Of course, there's some fluidity at 5 and 6, but the first four seem to be pretty solid. If Gabbard, Yang, or Booker get in (and polls indicate that any of them could be in the top 6), then Klobuchar or Steyer is out.
That said, if this was just a race for the Top Six, then maybe someone like Bullock or Inslee would have stayed in the race.
You also have to think about the part about having 15% (at least, remember).
There are only five candidates who have achieved 15% in any Iowa poll (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigeig, Harris), and one of them (Harris) hasn't polled that high since July 4. (Note: As I write this, reports are Harris will drop out).
In polling, Klobuchar has capped at 8, Gabbard has maxed at 7, and Booker (many, many moons ago) also at 7 percent. Not to say, they couldn't reach 15% of any given precinct, it just will be a challenge.
Heck, to mention it, Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate that can say she has been consistently above the 15% threshold. (There are November polls showing Sanders as low as 13% (Monmouth) and Biden dropping to 12% (Iowa State)).
I won't discount that any of the four or all of the four can't make it, but you never know.
Anyway, thanks for reading at least as far to here. We're almost done.
I have got a few more scenarios, so I hope you can stay with me.
Each precinct will send a certain number of delegates. How many delegate a precinct will get is not determined by population, but by how many registered Democrats vote in that area. So, in theory, you might live in a town of 40,000 in Western Iowa but have less delegates than a town of 30,000 in Eastern Iowa.
You do have to declare yourself a Democrat to participate in the caucus, though you can change back immediately. With an incumbent on the other side, you could see some crossover (Republicans participating in the Democratic process), though I doubt you see all of that much impact.
Anyway, viability explains where candidacies end. Bill Richardson polled as much as 12%, but only got 2% of delegates. Martin O'Malley reached as high as 8% in pre-caucus polls, but in the Caucus process, was unable to get even one percent of delegates.
There are a lot of factors here that may show up in the outcome. For example, polls show Tulsi Gabbard does specifically well in the Western part of the State. Pockets of support could be a boon for the candidate, since each location gets a certain amount of delegates. Counties that border Minnesota may do better for Klobuchar.
A second vote will be taken.
The second vote will be everyone in the room voting for one of the "viable" candidates. In previous caucuses, you could change your vote from the first round to the second round. Now, for the 2020 caucus, if you voted for a "viable" candidate in round one, then you are locked in to voting for that candidate.
Why would you vote for a different candidate the second time? Well, you probably wouldn't.
Still, there may be some scenarios where someone could have done that in the past. In the 2020 race, I see a lot of crossover between Sanders and Gabbard voters. Hypothetically, maybe you support Sanders most, but vote for Gabbard in the first count to try to get her "viable".
In any case, there has been no disincentive to voting for a less popular candidate before this.
As we get into some of the wonky math of the caucus, in that past, you also may havefound yourself in a large group, and it was beneficial to leave that group to "sock it" to your opponent. Hypothetically, if you are a Warren supporter and the room is strong for the Warren crowd, but you want to shift some Biden/Buttigieg votes away from one to the other, then you might change your vote to help a rival's rival. Heck, maybe you liked your candidate, but have gotten into the excitement of the room, and want to join Sanders momentum.
Now, it may sound like I am overexplaining or thinking of weirdest possible outcomes, but you have never been to a caucus before. The scenarios I mentioned are certainly on people's minds. In any case, those type of 'shady' moves should be dampened in 2020.
Let's throw together a scenario: A room of 50- Pete has 12, Sanders has 9, Biden and Warren have 8, Klobuchar has 5, Yang has 3, Steyer and Gabbard have 2, and Castro has 1. Then, it becomes a four person election.
Now, if Biden only had 7 votes, then he would be at 14% and not move to the second round- but we will say he has 8 of our hypothetical 50.
Next, those who didn't select a 'viable' candidate get to revote. It is quite possible, your second count is Bernie 16, Warren 14, Pete 12 and Biden 8.
It is a considerably different result than the first vote, which is why Iowa pollsters talk about likability. Also, you don't have to vote for any candidate, you can always cast a ballot for Uncommitted. We had like 80 candidates, so I don't think anyone will do that, but if NOTA gets votes, it is treated like a candidate with rules around viability.
You think things would be pretty straightforward from there, but they are not. For one thing, at the second vote, you are electing delegates. The number of delegates depends on the size of how many voting Dems in your precinct (remember?), but the math isn't straightforward.
You would probably think say a 65/35% split might equal '2 delegates to 1 delegate', but that may not necessarily be the case.
I don't really want to get that deep in the weeds here; but, what I will say, is at a high level, there is a qualifying amount to get one delegate. Also, if you get enough votes in that second count, then you are guaranteed that delegate. From there, equations and rounding will figure out the rest.
This is where things could get even more distorted. For example, in 2016, at my caucus, Hillary did win the room that I was in, but just barely; yet, the delegate count would imply that she had won a significant advantage over Bernie. While over at a friend's caucus, he reported Bernie trailing by quite a bit, yet, he only got one less delegate than Hillary.
Is either more correct than the other? Well, it's an agreed upon system, and there are some quirks.
This being math, and there being possible ties or unresolved equations, it is indeed true, that a delegate choice at any given precinct may be won by coin toss- which is the agreed upon tiebreaker process. The media loves that. It is unlikely, but the math makes it possible as you translate votes to delegates. If you are one of the rare 'one delegate' precincts and there is a two-way tie, you have to do something to decide.
That's the process the Dems have set up- beautiful and crazy as it is; but there is one more significant change this year.
For the first time, the Democrats will be counting, collecting, and reporting the votes of everyone's first choice.
Will this be a game-changer? It could be.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Iowa Caucus. Do we know that for sure? Clinton did well in the big cities, Sanders in the rural. Who got the most actual physical votes? Entrance polls say Hillary, and yes, that is likely. Still, in a third of the polls in the month taken before the caucus, Bernie led. It is possible that Bernie did have more supporters.
If that was the case in 2016, would things have changed?
Does reporting actual results matter? Would Bill Richardson have made it a four person race in 2012 (Obama/Clinton/Edwards)? Would Martin O'Malley have been so eager to get out of the race if he could have shown that he was attracting 10-15% of the vote?
If Klobuchar could take 8 or 9% (as she has polled at times)? If Yang or Steyer could jump past Biden? Do these things matter to the American public? The answers remain "I don't know", and "we will see".
What it the eventual Caucus (process) winner really has less votes than someone else? Given the set-up, it is certainly possible. Then, how does the media report that? Would both candidates claim victory? Well, of course, they would!
Finally, I should mention that the delegate count on Caucus Night is binding. This is kind of a big deal. I am told things were kind of tense in 2016 at the Iowa Democrat Convention where Hillary and Bernie were fighting for every delegate, despite Hillary winning on Caucus Night.
Without this provision, you could even have something as outlandish as the 2008 Republican caucus- where Ron Paul finished third with 21% of the vote (to Santorum and Romney's near 24.6 and 24.5% totals) and left the State Convention with 79% of the State delegates, No matter what curves this race takes, that should not be one of them.
Now you know how the Caucus works. From here, the only thing left is the waiting.
Comments
Post a Comment
Contact us