My observations of the political landscape surrounding Iowa and the presidential caucuses has led me to believe the voters in Iowa are better at their role than the candidates are at theirs. This has prompted me to offer my views of the process from a perspective that has little to do with the results of the voting's outcome.
The challenge of our electoral process is even more complex if you look closely at our current presidential campaign. It is not enough to try to wade through political polls taken by various television networks, newspapers and colleges, but we must try to decipher the complexity of a well informed voting population in Iowa and factor in the method they use to tabulate the choices of their voters.
How many of us would-be-all-American loyal voters actually understand what is happening in Iowa as they kick-off the political season? They establish the front runners in both the Democratic and Republican parties with a voting process referred to as "caucusing." This occurs after a prolonged period of gleaning national attention from every conceivable media outlet that exists in our country and possibly from foreign outlets as well. Interviews with the people on the Iowa streets seldom provide much insight into what they actually think because they know the less they share of their views the greater the suspense mounts and the more coverage the state receives.
Being first in the nation has a lot of benefits financially and in valuable news coverage making the state the center of the political world for a period of time. We will never know what residual benefits the state can expect after the news media and candidates and their staffs move on, but I'm sure the economic benefit is enormous over the short period of campaigning and the agricultural, or farming, segment of the state gets some well deserved attention. No doubt the cities' Chambers of Commerce know well how much to expect from this event every four years. Whether it is important over the complete campaign cycle to win in Iowa depends on one's political polling numbers as much as other factors. A "good showing" apparently provides motivation for fundraising. It can also give hope to a campaign that might otherwise be in serious danger of disappearing from the political landscape. And, as we have seen in the current campaign, a strong showing in a previous Iowa caucus can provide a running start to the candidate's campaign four years later -- think Mike Huckabee. A little success can go a long way.
It appears the Iowans work hard at developing an uncertainty about the eventual outcome of the caucuses. A large turn out at an event may turn into success for a specific candidate at the caucus. However, you can't be sure of anything based on voter response to interviews during the campaigning. It could be assumed that most residents of Iowa are pretty independent of their party's "sweetheart," regardless of party affiliation, because they seem to be primarily "undecided." If pushed for an answer they might acknowledge to be "leaning" toward someone. That trait seems to be tied to both Republicans and Democrats and affects both city dwellers and rural residents as if it is a part of Iowa politics. It certainly provides for extra media coverage from the best interviewers the networks have to offer. And, there seems to be a contest between Fox and CNN working diligently to try to report the most meaningful news coverage from the very limited news available.
When the caucusing actually starts on Monday, this article will be in the process of publication. That makes the caucus outcome a surprise to all of us and we don't get to vote.
What we see from Iowa is not actually a popular vote, but a system more akin to our national "all or none" Electoral College. If you desire to learn more about the system you can Google -- "Iowa caucus procedures" -- for a detailed account of the process and a bit of Iowa caucus history.
It is interesting because when a winner is declared for a political party, doubt still exists about how the outcome could have changed "IF" certain things had been different. The news media and their political analysts -- network contributors -- keep talking about voter turnout and what higher or lower voter turnout is likely to mean to candidate A or candidate B. How can anyone be totally wrong when the target is so large and so many factors are at play. And, by March 1 when Arkansans go to the polls along with numerous other states, what difference will Iowa's choice make to any one voter in those states' elections? Who in the March 1 primaries can grasp the caucus concept, or its results, when they are accustomed to a popular vote outcome?
As I understand the caucus concept, an area, like our precinct, has a certain number of potential voters who can cast ballots -- Republican or Democrat -- which in turn determines the breakdown of the actual votes given to the precinct by the party. Theoretically, strictly as an example, there might be 1,000 potential voters in the precinct (caucus), but only 100 actual votes will be available to be divided among all participating candidates for future state convention purposes. This is significant because you get a much different situation when you have only three Democratic candidates to choose from or divide the 100 votes. The Republicans have a choice from 13 or more (depending on who you include in the potential field). When the votes are tabulated, any contender receiving less than 15 percent of the "popular vote" does not get any of the 100 votes and his or her supporters go back into "caucus" and chose from those who had 15 percent or more. Or, they can combine their votes with another candidate with less than the minimum to reach the minimum threshold. It is more difficult to qualify in a large candidate field than a small one. Actual rules for the Republican Party and Democratic Party differ in many details and are a function of national rules.
This is an interesting process and lends itself to a much different kind of outcome than a straight popular vote count as we experience in Arkansas. However, as we know from our own national election, popular vote count gets lost in the Electoral College vote count.
You have to give the Iowan's credit for their ingenuity in bringing a degree of suspense to the process. I personally would like to know more about the in depth results of the caucus voting, since the Iowa (and Illinois) farmers have always held a special place in my heart. The romance of the endless corn fields in the summer and the stark cold reality of a single corn stalk on a snow covered winter field best illustrate to me the high points and low points of agriculture. It seems appropriate they would lead off the political season in February and it will not end until the corn is harvested in November.
•••
Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Editorial on 02/03/2016