Coda: My random thoughts in the aftermath....

I had a couple of Blog posts in mind, but this was not the particular post I had in mind two weeks ago.

Of course, it has become s a necessary one.  To put it mildly, the Iowa Caucus did not go well.

Unfortunately, I have branded everything around being Iowa Caucus Guy, which feels as short-sighted as branding myself Exxon Valdez guy.  I never tried to imply I was more than a guy with an opinion.  I am not.  I am not a Power Player.  Iowa is small, though and  I am close to a more than a few by a couple of degrees of separation in all directions- left, right, and otherwise.

In any case, this may come off as a defense of the Caucus, and maybe it is.  I guess, my main thought is that while it may be flawed, let's hope what comes next takes into account some of the positive things about the Iowa Caucus.

Most importantly, there was a lot of good intentions and volunteers who have gotten painted by the broader brush.  I know it was a mantra of the Iowa Democrats that the eyes of the world were watching, and things had to go smoothly, and in the conversations, I have had that was the case.

Some of the issues that came up with these voting results are actually proof of a good thing, not a bad one.  There is a paper trail, so results can be counted and re-counted.

Which brings me to one thing that should be kept in mind- the Caucuses are run by volunteers.

Now, I am not bringing that up as an excuse, although it is good to have a process in place to prevent human fallibility- accidental or malicious.

I don't believe in any large conspiracy.  Results were largely as I predicted that they would be. If you thought the results were going to go otherwise, you weren't paying close enough attention.

The point I am making, though is that the very event is run by people who have opinions.  It might be a better idea to have Republicans run it, right?

I bring this up as a point to point out it's not a point.  In my precinct, there were two very organized campaigns (Warren, Buttigieg) and well represented by many others (Yang, Biden, Klobuchar, Sanders).  There were too many eyes to get away with much.

Nor do I suspect foulplay in 2016, but consider the impression.

You are a Bernie supporter.  You go to your Caucus location. A Hillary volunteer signs you in.  Hillary signs are hung up everywhere around the room.  A count is taken and for ease of addition, they tell the Hillary supporters to stay here in the big room, and the Sanders supporters can go and stand in the hallway.

What's your feeling?

Now, on the other hand, of course, Bernie is an outsider, so what other outcome would you expect.

Another thing that is problematic (and of course I wrote about it before all this) was the split of delegates.

The Dems do delegates according to percentage as opposed to a winner-take-all system.

You can complain all you want, but there is not a perfect answer.

It is not an issue, until you have a close result like you did with Buttigieg and Sanders.  For example, Bernie won in New Hampshire, but received the same amount of delegates as Mayor Pete.

That was the way it was set up before, though.  Is it more fair to give all 24 delegates to Bernie as opposed to the current 9-9  split.  Would you award extra delegates to the winner?  Why, that seems it even more like trickery.

Famously, of course, Iowa decides precinct ties with a coin toss, and because of Math, that's a possibility.  Nevada does the only slightly better- pick a card

How about a game of HORSE?

Lastly, I actually think I am a fan of ranked voting, and even if we scrap the Caucus, would love to see it worked in somehow.

In the example of the Caucus, I think it helps the Party find a stronger candidate.  For example, in 2008, I think the Caucus proved that Obama was more electable than Hillary, and I think that was because of ranked voting.

I saw with my eyes that in many cases, Elizabeth Warren was not a first or second preference for many Iowa Democrats, and it causes concern for me about her electability in the general election.

There are at least three states that are supposed to do some form of ranked voting in their primary.

I think that it is an appealing option to voters.  One of the things I like about the Caucus is that even if my candidate doesn't have a prayer, I still get to weigh in.

I would encourage Independent and Third Party Voters to advocate for it as much as possible.  The Two Party Duopoly won't even let Libertarians and Greens on the main stage, but if we can get used to it in Two-Party primaries, then maybe it can take off.

Can you picture how many people went to the polls in 2016 and were considering say, Gary Johnson, but made a vote based on who they were most afraid of getting in.  "I don't want Trump, so I am voting for Hillary".  "I don't want Hillary, so I am voting for Trump"

How many people say "I would vote for a Third Party, but I am throwing my vote away."

Andrew Yang took it as one of his causes and actually had some success with it.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another advocate, which means Libertarians would have to admit that she has a good idea (which is probably more than they are willing or able to do).

More thoughts about the Caucus and its Future?  Sure, I got them.  Stay tuned......