Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

The U.S. election: making sense of Iowa

It’s a vote so important that Republican front-runner Donald Trump told his supporters: “[Even] if you caught your husband cheating the night before, you’ve got to go to the caucus.”

The Iowa caucuses, held on February 1st, mark the start of voting for the next President of the United States. Iowa, a mid-western state with a population smaller than New York and Los Angeles, has held the important role of first-in-the-nation state on the long road to the White House since 1972.

Caucuses, a political tradition important in Iowa even before its admission to the Union in 1846, are simple political party organised meetings. Next week there will be such gatherings across the state in over a thousand precincts. The outcomes of those discussions in libraries, community centres, and high schools will help determine who is elected the most powerful person in the world. 

The caucuses are open to all voters who are eligible to vote at the general election, and those who are not members of the party can register on the day of the event. Although held concurrently in the same locations and treated with the same high-level enthusiasm by candidates and the media, the rules for the Republican and Democrat contests differ.

At the Republican caucus, a secret vote is taken by straw poll. Those votes are aggregated to announce a winner. That’s the person who will receive the focus of media attention afterwards.

As the straw-poll vote is taking place among Republicans, Democrats down the hallway undergo a more active voting procedure. To vote for a candidate, Democrat caucus-goers have to congregate in different parts of the room to highlight their support for a particular candidate. There’s no secrecy, voters tie their mast to a campaign in front of family, friends, and neighbours.

Then, the number of people is counted and anyone caucusing for a candidate with less than 15% of support in the room is told their candidate is “unviable” and a second vote is held. Cue for attempts to cajole other attendees to support your candidate. This takes the form of spirited debate, but it has been known for voters to bring cookies as a means to entice people to their side.  The process continues until there are no candidates with fewer than 15% of the vote remaining. The final percentage tallies from across the meetings in the state are communicated with the central party office.

For both parties, the voting system demands high-energy and organised support. Campaigns have to identify those Iowans prepared to attend a political debate on a winter Monday evening and advocate for them.  In return, voters expect personal campaigning from Presidential applicants. Such an undertaking combined with Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status means that candidates arrive in Iowa early and visit often. After Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination last year, her first campaign activity was to go on a road trip through Eastern Iowa, in a van nicknamed “Scooby” after the Mystery Machine van in the television show.

Compulsory tour stops on the campaign trail include the Iowa State Fair, important for a state whose economy is heavily dependent on agriculture. Photo-ops with corn dogs a must, and candidates are expected to stand on the stump and explain why they should be the voters’ choice. Trump garnered attention by arriving at the State Fair by helicopter.

Iowa’s position as the first-in-the-nation is certainly a boon for the state. Its primacy focuses candidates’ attention on the needs of people in this mostly rural state through many low-key events and plenty of direct personal interactions with voters. However, the reason for the sequencing is less coordinated than might be expected; more due to practicalities than planning.

After the disastrous Democratic Convention in 1968 – an event plagued with disruptions, protests and the handing of the nomination to a candidate who had stood in no primaries – the Democratic Party undertook reforms to give voters influence in choosing the party’s nominee.

In Iowa, a State Convention was organised to select delegates to attend the 1972 National Convention. The available date for the conference centre was May 20th. To elect people to attend the State Convention, previous conventions and caucuses had to be organized. Richard Bender, who worked on the logistics for the Democratic Party said he required thirty days between precinct caucuses, the district conventions, and the state convention to have the necessary administration sorted.

The reason for the 30 day buffer period? The Iowa Democratic Party was using an antiquated mimeograph machine to make copies of all the materials, and the office’s mimeograph machine was slow. The result was that Iowa was the first state to vote between presidential contenders, handing it massive attention from candidates and the press.

Cliff Larsen, the Democratic chairman at the time reflected “We knew we were going to be first or one of the first when we thought about it. As I always say, we had a slow mimeograph machine, but we weren’t stupid. We knew we were going to be early in the process, but when the national press showed up, we were totally amazed.”

The press coverage of Iowans gathering together to discuss who they think should be president is immense. The key for campaigns is about setting expectations so that whatever the result is, it looks like a success.

In the Democratic race, this comes down to the fight between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. With the backdrop of her disappointing third place finish in 2008, and a result that helped propel Obama to greater name recognition and an eventual win, the Clinton camp is keen to re-assert authority. Sanders hopes to build on advances in support in recent polling. Moreover, he will hope to demonstrate that #FeelTheBern (a campaign slogan tying in his anti-establishment credentials) is not a sentiment just held by those in the more liberal Northeast.

On the Republican side, the caucuses will provide a testing ground to see whether Trump’s dominance in polls comes through in practice and is supported by the necessary grassroots organisation. For Senator Ted Cruz, the outcome of the caucus will show whether he has been successful in his attempts to position himself as the anti-establishment candidate instead of Trump.

However, given its prominence in the electoral cycle, the results of the Iowa caucus are certainly not conclusive on the overall race to the White House.  Few non-incumbent candidates have gone on from winning the caucus to winning the Presidency; Obama in 2008, George W.Bush in 2000 and Jimmy Carter coming second behind “uncommitted” in 1976. Indeed, Bill Clinton came forth in 1992 with just 3% of the vote, before going on to win.

That Iowa rarely chooses the eventual winner led Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire, the state whose primary vote comes next on the electoral calendar to declare: “[Iowans] pick corn… New Hampshire picks presidents.”

For most, it will be how the results stack up to expected outcomes which will be important for the campaigns, rather than who wins the caucus.

 

 

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles