Note to Deliberative Democrats (and Iowans)
The Iowa caucuses undermine a principle that both the Clintonites and the Deaniacs hold dear: democracy. In a primary, you can vote all day; voting takes a couple of minutes; your vote is secret; and if you can’t make it to the polls, you can vote absentee. To participate in the Iowa caucuses, by contrast, you must arrive exactly at 6:30 p.m., and there are no absentee ballots. (If you work the night shift, tough luck.) Once there, you must stay for several hours before publicly declaring which candidate you support. Not surprisingly, while more than 70 percent of registered Democrats participated in the New Hampshire primary in 2000 and 2004, a mere 10 to 20 percent participated in the Iowa caucuses.
Please explain to Ackerman and Fishkin how this is not only not a superior form of democracy, but is not democracy. The mind boggles.
Ahem! More people voting is not more democratic. The Greeks, inventors of democracy, didn’t let just anybody vote, now did they? You obviously need to be more motivated than average to participate in a caucus. And people who actually speak on behalf of candidates, sharing their reasons, and listening to others do likewise, are more likely to be well-informed than people who just shamble into the junior high gym and pull a lever. Beinart simply provides democracy-lovers reason to think all states should have caucuses just like the great state of Iowa.
August 31st, 2006 20:31
Oh, I don’t know about that. I think caucuses are actually a better method of democracy, but I think the logistical objections (night shift workers excluded, many parents with young children excluded, etc) are compelling problems that deserve a solution. Of course, I also think we should get days off for voting, so there ya go.
September 1st, 2006 14:23
Actually, Beinhart got it wrong. 96% of Registered Democrats participated in the 2004 primary in New Hampshire.
September 1st, 2006 15:57
At the risk of showing failure to better appreciate what may be Will’s subtle sense of humor, I’ll say I’m not sure how much the Iowa caucuses resemble “Deliberation Day.” Whether they are more democratic than what we already have depends on what is most important about democracy.
I’d be interested in studies and experiments about these things. Do deliberative caucuses lead to better outcomes (in controlled conditions)? Do caucuses with public voting improve rational choice or muddle it with social pressures and group think?
Getting back to the Greeks, we might want to take the ideas about measures favoring more informed and motivated voters to their logical conclusion and limit voting to those who have completed training as philosopher kings.
September 2nd, 2006 20:06
Really why should voting be hidden behind curtains, as if there was something shameful about it? That curtain just protects the most shameful prejudices and hatreds. More transparency is always preferable.
September 7th, 2006 15:36
Sanpete asks: ” Do deliberative caucuses lead to better outcomes (in controlled conditions)?”
YES!
I’ve lived in Iowa, Illinois, Ohio and Indiana. The quality of the elected officials in Iowa is clearly much higher. This is not entirely due to caucuses, but they play an important role. Caucus goers are better informed than the average voter. Half-wit ideas are shot down faster.
September 9th, 2006 11:21
Maybe it’s the corn. I’d guess that caucuses are a better idea for local affairs, on a scale where people know each other and their situation and all have a direct stake. I don’t think I’d want to “deliberate” much with a crowd about partisan politics in general.