On to Nevada!

The media continues to love to call the Iowa Caucus a disaster.  This isn't a post to necessarily defend or to rip on the caucus, but with Nevada coming up, I thought it deserved a few words.

First, of all, the media likes to focus on the negatives, which is unfair to some of the positive news.  Time and time, I have heard stories from caucusgoers that had great caucuses.  There were good conversations, excitement around their candidates, and people got checked in quickly.

In central Iowa, anyway, the Democratic Party, as well as all of the major campaigns gave caucus training.  The Caucus is confusing (from beginning to end- from 'where do I need to go?' to 'why are we flipping a coin to determine a winner').  There was a lot of communication, a lot of online resources, and plenty of chances to attend a training.  Heck, even some local businesses got into the act- from Kid's Caucuses at the local coffee shop (where Bernie also won),, the Iowa History Museum's Iowa Celebrity Caucus (Vote Ashton Kutcher! VoteT-Boz from TLC! Vote Jason Momoa!) or the Beer Caucus (Vote Peanut Butter Porter!)

Don't blame me, I voted for Cloris Leachman

Also, there has been a lot of news about Caucus numbers being down.  That may be true, but I know of exceptions.  I know of a town of around 7000 by Ames that had a jump in participation.

I won't say the Caucuses don't scare some people off, so I think Nevada is smart in adding the element of early voting.  There are reasons why people might not make that Monday night- work, childcare, etc.

I do like the idea of getting together and caucusing though.  Some dynamic stuff happens.  For example, I saw Yang and Buttigieg voters discussing commonalities. I saw Warren voters and Sanders voters saying "We got to vote Blue, no matter who".  It's one thing to go into a voting booth.  It's quite another to be able to vote and discuss it with a neighbor.

The IDP's app is blamed for the breakdown in the process, but in theory, precinct leaders should have been able to call in results.  Nevada is smart in trying to keep the numbers secret.  In Iowa, the numbers went viral.Once those were out. then 4Chan Trolls, Trump supporters and News Media jammed the lines.(Famously, CNN interviewed a Precinct Leader who appeared more interested in being famous and interviewed by the National Media than getting his results in).

Nevada is trying to get their hands around that by proactively stating they may not have results right away.  This is probably a good idea,  I blame our local media for appearing not to hide their open contempt on Caucus night of not having anything to report, as opposed to being prepared for the unexpected.

The media, of course, is not the only one with agendas at hand.  

Tulsi Gabbard used the Iowa Caucus debacle to promote her vision of Voting changes she would like to see (in an email to her mailing list titled What we can do about Iowa)

Tulsi is comparing a Party event in the Caucus to a General Election administered by the state.

Before I go further, I will state 1) I don't expect an average American to understand the intricacies of the caucus compared to the primary process  and 2) I agree with Tulsi on all or nearly all of this.

Indeed, I only bring this up since the caucuses kind of do some of this stuff.

In Iowa, you do have to name a party affiliation, and that's not ideal.  I suppose the only advantage is that you only get deluged by mail and phone calls from one party, instead of all of them.

That said, the Caucus is pretty flexible.  You can change parties "night of" and then switch right back.

The same goes for same-day registration for the Caucus.

Also, there was a paper trail.  Yes, the Caucus may have been a mess, but at the end, one of the improvements was that there were paper ballots.

Ranked Choice Voting is an interesting addition to Tulsi's list.

We have heard complaints about the Ranked Voting process in Nevada.  The Iowa caucus is essentially a version of Ranked Choice Voting.  In 2008, supporters of Biden, Dodd and Richardson may have made the difference for Obama, and in 2020, supporters of Steyer, Yang, and Biden (again) may have done the same for Mayor Pete.

There are advantages and disadvantages of Ranked Choice Voting, depending on your point of view.  I like it in the Primaries because it finds a stronger candidate, and in the general election, because it will help third parties.

That said, in a situation with many candidates and divisive candidates,you may get two different outcomes.  If you haven't noticed, that is what is currently going on.

Which is why Bernie Sanders is all for whoever has a plurality should win.  Sanders is adored by many (We Want Bernie!) and loathed by others (We Want Anyone But Bernie!).  

Is it better to have someone like that or someone everyone agrees "isn't that bad".  Well, that is the question isn't it?

Anyway, we will see if Ranked Choice Voting is a movement that picks up momentum, and we will await the winner of the Nevada Caucus.