Your Idiot's Guide To The Democratic Caucuses
Here it is: Your Official Election Central Idiot's Guide to the Iowa Democratic Caucuses.
Tonight is the big night when Iowa Democrats will gather in precinct caucuses, normally held in school gymnasiums and other public places, to voice their support for different presidential candidates. So what exactly will they be doing in there?
A Democratic Party caucus is not a conventional primary. Instead, it has its own peculiar processes, with their virtues and deficiencies. For example, it has a form of instant runoff that allows people to initially support minor candidates and then go for a front-runner. On the other hand, the system is undemocratic in that it's only open to people who can show up at 6:30 p.m. and then stay for two hours. And on top of that, there is no such thing as a secret ballot — a participant's vote is made in the full view of his friends, family and neighbors.
But what on earth actually happens, and how does a candidate win?
Our guide to the whole process is after the jump.
Here's what's going to happen tonight. Starting at 6:30 P.M. Central Time, every registered Democrat in Iowa who wants to participate in the caucuses will show up at his or her local precinct. There are 1,781 precincts across the state. Each precinct will have anywhere from a handful of caucusers all the way up to several hundred.
Independent voters (or even Republicans) who want to caucus merely show up at their local precinct, then re-register as Democrats at the door. The act of doing this effectively turns them into Dem voters for the evening — even if they remain independents (or Republicans) in their hearts.
A record number of independents is expected to turn out tonight, a development that could benefit Barack Obama, who's leading among them in polls.
At each precinct, these caucusers will then divide up into groups, depending on which candidate they are supporting. It's important to understand that the caucusers aren't technically voting for a candidate by caucusing for him or her. Rather, at the end of the process, candidates get awarded a number of delegates to county party conventions, based on how many Iowans caucus for them. Those delegates will later go on to elect state convention delegates, who at their convention will finally pick the federal delegates.
But never mind all that stuff about conventions. What you need to know is that at the end of the day, the winner will be the candidate with the most projected state delegates from all the precincts statewide. Here's how we get to that point.
In each precinct, once the first round of caucusing is done, each candidate will get assigned a number of delegates roughly proportional to the percentage of caucusers who supported him or her. Now here's the rub: All candidates that don't get more than 15% of caucusers are deemed non-viable. Though getting 15% is the threshold in most precincts, there are many smaller precincts with less delegates and therefore much higher thresholds — but there's no need to worry about that for now.
Once some candidates are declared non-viable, supporters of viable candidates will court those people to caucus for their own viable candidates, and after the floating votes have reallocated another count is taken.
This is why you heard the candidates appealing to Iowans to make them the "second choice" of voters — because people supporting lesser candidates at first can still support one of the majors.
Here's how it ends: Eventually, the proceedings stop, and the state Democratic party then tallies up the total percentage of the state delegates each leading candidate is projected to have. This number is the percentage of support for each candidate we'll be hearing about later tonight — and whoever has the largest percentage of state delegate support will be crowned the winner.
Simple, huh?
(This guide is separate from the procedures used at Republican caucuses. Instead, they use an archaic procedure in which participants mark down their votes in a secret ballot, and those votes are then counted from the boxes and given to the state party headquarters.)
Late Update: To clarify a point, state and county delegates are apportioned based on the total number of Democratic votes that the area produced in the last general elections for president and governor. Thus, apportionment is intended so that delegate strength will approximate the overall distribution of Democratic voters throughout the state.
Comments (24)
LJ wrote on January 3, 2008 2:57 PM:Thanks for the overview. Very helpful.
mencken wrote on January 3, 2008 3:08 PM:thanks for doing this; definitely helpful.
I may have missed this, but does each precinct get the same number of delegates, or are the delegates allocated to precincts based on precinct population?
Jeffro Bodean wrote on January 3, 2008 3:09 PM:Eric,
Your overview seems to indicate we Iowans who want to caucus are required to show up no later than 6:30.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's not how I understand our system, and certainly does not match my recollection of the 2004 caucus. It's my understanding that the whole event starts at 6:30, and that the first 30 minutes are devoted to old business/new business issues.
And then, at 7 p.m., the main event begins. In fact I thought I saw a pamphlet recently indicating that caucus goers are prohibited from starting the presidential selection process before 7 p.m.
I guess this is a long way of saying: Are you sure that those of us who show up after 6:30 will be prohibited from the main event? Much obliged.
demwinger wrote on January 3, 2008 3:10 PM:i wonder when we will know the results
LJ wrote on January 3, 2008 3:10 PM:# of delegates based on population.
http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org/faqs.php
Jeffro Bodean wrote on January 3, 2008 3:12 PM:One other point: Maybe some caucus sites go on for 2 hours or longer, but that definitely was not the case in 2004 at my caucus site in suburban Des Moines. I recall that the "main event" was over by 8 p.m. at the latest, and many participants left the meeting at that point.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 3:13 PM:Jeffro:
7pm is drop dead time. Lots more info in the FAQ that Eric linked to:
http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org/faqs.php
Big River Bandido wrote on January 3, 2008 3:13 PM:mencken — Delegates are apportioned to precincts based on that precinct's share of the statewide Democratic vote in the last two elections. Again, complicated procedure.
Jeffro Bodean wrote on January 3, 2008 3:14 PM:Thank you anonymous.
Blue in IA wrote on January 3, 2008 3:16 PM:One thing you might want to add to your useful overview is something on the strategic element. Before the second alignment, it's not just about supporters of nonviable candidates picking second choices, it's also in large part about gaming the delegate numbers. This is what people are talking about with regard to "overflow" supports.
To oversimplify, imagine a precinct with 3 viable candidates, 100 attendees, and 5 delegates to award. Roughly speaking, there will be one delegate awarded for each 20 supporters. If candidate A has 45 supporters and candidate B only has 18, the two groups will often work out a deal whereby candidate A sends two supporters over to candidate B so that A will get 2 delegates and B will get 1, especially if they're both interested in limiting the number of delegates awarded to candidate C.
LJ wrote on January 3, 2008 3:17 PM:mencken — Delegates are apportioned to precincts based on that precinct's share of the statewide Democratic vote in the last two elections. Again, complicated procedure.
Oops. My bad.
M wrote on January 3, 2008 3:24 PM:The advertising of 6:30 is very shrewd, particularly of Obama. These way, notorious unpunctual types (read: college students) won't be locked out if they are 10 minutes "late." IMHO.
kjoe wrote on January 3, 2008 3:25 PM:It is simple in a Clintonesque way. If you win, it is a process which validates your inevitability. If you lose, it is so convoluted in its structure that it is meaningless.
kjoe wrote on January 3, 2008 3:27 PM:I predict fistfights. Over who can participate.
Big River Bandido wrote on January 3, 2008 3:36 PM:Eric — as a native Iowan who attended two caucuses myself before moving out of state, I say you describe the process pretty well by the book. There is one very important, dynamic element of these caucuses, though, that you overlook: that is, the reshuffling that happens between the first and second ballots.
The deals and directives the blogs are buzzing about today (e.g. Biden, Richardson) depend for their implementation in large part upon the local leadership of each candidate's supporters across the state's thousand precincts, at that moment of reshuffling. The reshuffling process can mean a reshuffled order of finishers in that precinct, or it could give enough delegates to one previously marginal candidate to put them way over the top in the delegate count, or it can be used to bury a candidate who generates antipathy among the supporters of rival candidates. Thus, a candidate precinct leader who knows when and where to apply pressure can affect the outcome far more than any individual attendee, because the leader understands where the process allows the most room for grassroots, retail politicking. In this sense, an Iowa Democratic Party precinct caucus is rather like a mini version of the old-time national party conventions, where delegates were herded by the party bosses.
For this reason the effect of "independent voters" and Republican crossovers in the Iowa caucuses is probably overstated. Republican crossovers are well-known in their neighborhoods (my mom was one) and, while they are welcomed to the caucus, they are generally kept in check by the rules and the chair. Local Democratic activists simply won't tolerate letting a known Republican stampede their caucus. In general, both Republican crossovers and independents are insufficiently organized and versed in the rules to affect the results at the precinct level...much less the state level.
Lucy wrote on January 3, 2008 4:58 PM:Fist fights? I've been to the past four caucuses, and I assure you that's not the Iowa style. Right now, I'm baking brownies to lure over supporters of non-viable candidates during the realignment. It's going to be more a pot luck dinner than a brawl.
RonK, Seattle wrote on January 3, 2008 6:35 PM:Note also that Iowa D's go through more rounds of this (County, State, and Congressional District(?) levels) with delegates caucusing and second-choicing to elect delegates to the next level ... a process which can magnify (or potentially attenuate) trends evident in first-level results.
Needless to say, this drug-out process later in the calendar is not as breathlessly attended as the precinct results.
NickGB wrote on January 3, 2008 6:53 PM:Michael Schiffer put up a very interesting account of his Iowa Caucus experience/knowledge at the Washington Note: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002657.php.
thanks, Big River Bandido.
your first-hand anecdotes have been some of the most useful stuff I've read on how the caucuses really work.
just curious: what's your take on the fairness/usefulness/small "d" democraticness of the caucus process?
mencken wrote on January 3, 2008 8:11 PM:I'm also wondering if the rumors swirling around backroom deals being cut b/t obama and the tier-2 candidates are accurate.
with the apparent wheeling and dealing at the heart of the caucus, the rumors sound plausible.
I think it's also interesting that there aren't similar rumors about clinton. making me think that the obama rumors are likely true.
I'd kinda like them to be true. both b/c I don't like clinton and b/c it shows obama's a skilled dealmaker and negotiator. I'd happily expect as much from a community organizer. looks like obama dusted off his copy of "rules for radicals."
Daniel DiRito wrote on January 3, 2008 11:01 PM:To see a tongue-in-cheek review of the Iowa primary in pictures...link here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/01/presidential_politics_picture_prognostications.php
Daniel DiRito wrote on January 3, 2008 11:02 PM:To see a tongue-in-cheek review of the Iowa primary in pictures...link here:
joan wrote on January 3, 2008 11:21 PM:A year and a half of politicking with millions of dollars wasted. A lesser amount of time making the same speeches would have given Iowans their 15 minutes of fame and the results would have been the same.
ehii wrote on January 4, 2008 2:09 AM:Forgive me if this is explained elsewhere, but why caucus? Why not primaries everywhere? the caucus process seems like a remnant of new england town meetings, and we've grown a bit since then.
Also, with this damnable herd mentality of the rest of the country watching what Iowa and NH do, why don't we have all the caucuses/primaries on the same day (like the actual election) so that the opinions of Iowans don't disproportionately determine the opinions of so many others?
