How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll)

If you have read earlier installments of this series, you know that I am no fan of the caucus system. Too many people are excluded from participating because of the requirement that citizens show up in person at exactly 6:30 pm on a cold winter night, staying for an hour or more. People must express their preferences in public, creating an opportunity for intimidation by overbearing neighbors or family members. Determining the winner by state delegates can distort the results and put candidates with pockets of deep support at a disadvantage.

This post is about caucus math and how voters' second choices can affect the way raw voter numbers are translated into delegate counts.

If you make it to the end of this long diary, I hope to have convinced you that 1) caucus math can lead to strange outcomes, and 2) neither you nor I can be sure which candidate will benefit most from the way the math works.

First, let's review the basics about the caucus system for those who have not read part 1, part 2, part 3, or part 4 of this series.

The Democrat who wins the Iowa caucuses will be the person who gets a plurality of the 2,500 state delegates up for grabs.

Each county in Iowa assigns a certain number of state delegates, based on votes cast in that county for the most recent Democratic nominees for president and governor. The ten largest counties on the Democratic side will award more than half of the state delegates.

The voters who show up at their precinct caucuses in January 2008 will be electing delegates to their county conventions. The state delegate totals announced that night will be estimates, based on how many delegates each candidate wins in the 99 Iowa counties.

In most cases, a candidate needs 15 percent of the voters in the room in order to win any county delegates out of a precinct. Precincts that assign only 2 delegates have a viability threshold of 25 percent, and some precincts in small counties simply award a single delegate to the candidate who gets a majority of the people in the room.

At a typical precinct caucus, the voters divide into preference groups, going into corners of the room assigned to the various candidates. Heads are counted and the numbers are announced, so people learn which candidates are viable.

Then there is an opportunity for people to try to persuade their neighbors to switch to another candidate before the second division into preference groups. The final calculation of how many delegates each candidate wins from the precinct takes place after the second division into preference groups.

Precincts have a set number of county delegates to assign, and that number doesn't change, whether there are 20 people or 500 people in the room on caucus night.

Now, let's talk in more detail about the formula that converts raw votes into delegates.

I have told this story before, but I will tell it again because it permanently altered my thinking about the caucus system. The first time I was able to vote was in the 1988 Iowa caucuses. My brother and I flew home from the east coast (I was a college freshman, he was in grad school) to caucus for Paul Simon.

When voters divided into preference groups, Simon had a plurality in my precinct. Michael Dukakis was second, and Bruce Babbitt was third. No other candidate was viable. My precinct assigns 6 Polk County delegates. It looked as though Simon would end up with 3 delegates, Dukakis 2, and Babbitt 1.

Then the Dukakis and Babbitt people got together and realized that if enough Dukakis supporters switched to Babbitt, it would affect the caucus math. (The Dukakis supporters knew that Babbitt was not a threat to finish ahead of their candidate in Iowa, but Simon was.) When people were given the chance to make their second choice, Babbitt gained enough supporters to get a second delegate from my precinct.

Since caucus math is a zero-sum game, Simon, Dukakis and Babbitt all ended up with 2 delegates from my precinct, even though no one defected from our Simon group.

How mad was this idealistic 18-year-old, who had been excited to participate in the caucuses for the first time? Screwy caucus math erased the numerical advantage that Simon had in my precinct.

To see for yourself how a scenario like this can develop, I encourage you to read this post by Drew Miller. Drew was one of the founders of the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland. He now works for the Iowa Democratic Party, so has had to stop blogging, unfortunately. But in his post on caucus math from earlier this year, he included a link to a "caucus calculator" he created in Excel format.

To use the calculator, you enter the number of county delegates awarded by your precinct. For most precincts, this number is between 4 and 9.

You then enter hypothetical raw vote percentages for up to six candidates. The calculator tells you how many delegates each candidate would get from the precinct under that scenario.

Prepare to waste a lot of time if you are enough of a political junkie to download this calculator. I entered 6 delegates, which is the number awarded by my precinct, and spent too much time playing around.

With three viable candidates, if candidate 1 has 42 percent of the voters, candidate 2 has 35 percent, and candidate 3 has 23 percent, then 3 delegates would be assigned to the top candidate, 2 to the second-place candidate, and 1 to the third-place candidate.

But look! If the supporters of the second and third-placed candidates pull a stunt like what happened in 1988 in my precinct, we might end up with the raw votes looking like this: 42 percent for candidate 1, 30 percent for candidate 2, and 28 percent for candidate 3. Drew Miller's calculator now tells me that each of the three viable candidates will get 2 delegates from the precinct.

Because caucus math is a zero-sum game, the gain for candidate 3 comes out of candidate 1's hide, even if no one leaves candidate 1's group of supporters.

Now, let's talk about second choices. Most voters will never need to express a second choice, because their first choice will be viable in their precinct. So it's a little misleading to look at statewide poll results and say, "Candidate X leads among second choices." I don't really care who the second choices of Edwards supporters in my precinct are, because I know Edwards will be viable. I am more interested in the second choices of the Richardson and Biden supporters in my neighborhood.

Similarly, I don't care about the second choices of college students who support Obama, because I assume that he will be viable in every precinct on or near a college campus. I am very interested, however, in knowing the second choices of the Obama supporters who live in precincts dominated by voters over 50.  

Have I convinced you yet that neither you nor I nor any pollster will be able to calculate in advance who will benefit most from second choices? If not, read on.

You might assume that when it goes to second choices, caucus-goers can only choose among the candidates who were viable on the first division into preference groups. However, that is not the case. If one candidate is just a bit short of viability in the first count, it may be possible to bring over enough people to reach the threshold at the second count. That happened in my precinct in 2004. Dean was just one or two people short of the 15 percent threshold at the first count, but he did end up with a delegate in the end.

Let's say that Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Richardson are the only viable candidates in my precinct at the first count. Maybe the delegates would be split 2 for Edwards, 2 for Clinton, 1 each for Obama and Richardson. But what if the Obama and Richardson supporters have people to spare? They might get together and realize that if they transfer some of their supporters to Biden, they can bring him up to the 15 percent threshold in my precinct without falling below 15 percent themselves.

If they did that, Biden would automatically get a delegate, and Obama and Richardson would still get one each. But now either Edwards or Clinton would lose a delegate to keep the total number of delegates awarded by my precinct at 6.

If you think this kind of mischief won't happen on caucus night, think again. The best-organized campaigns (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) are going to make sure their precinct captains understand caucus math. They will have training sessions and conference calls shortly before the caucus.

They will give their precinct captains cards showing exactly how many individual supporters they need to get 1, 2, 3 or more delegates from their precinct. Once the precinct chair announces how many people have signed in, I will be able to check my card to see how many Edwards supporters I need to get to 15 percent, and how many additional people I need to be guaranteed of each additional delegate for Edwards.

What do the Clinton and Obama campaigns in Iowa have in common? They are more worried about beating each other than beating Edwards. They have decided (wrongly, in my view) that Edwards is not a threat to win the nomination, even if he wins Iowa. They would like to win Iowa outright, and they would also like their main rival to come in third or worse.

Now, no campaign is likely to admit to this publicly. But I would not be surprised if Clinton and Obama precinct captains are told privately that it's ok to mess around with the caucus math to deprive the main rival of a delegate, even if that means Edwards or Richardson getting an extra delegate.

By the same token, Obama precinct captains may be told that if Obama is not viable and can't persuade enough people to get to the 15 percent threshold on second preferences, it's better to send supporters to Edwards than to Clinton.

These tricks won't affect the delegate counts in every precinct. And those who try them had better be very sure that they know what they are doing. In the comments below the post by Drew Miller I linked to above, Bleeding Heartland user corncam wrote, "At my 2004 caucus, the Kerry people shifted some votes to Edwards, thinking that it would cost Dean a delegate, but they miscounted, and the new Edwards delegate came from Kerry, not Dean."  

Bottom line: in a close race, second choices and caucus math could determine the outcome in Iowa. But don't imagine that anyone can tell you ahead of time just how these factors will play out.

Thanks to those who made it all the way through this diary. Take the poll and comment, if you like. I'm especially interested in hearing stories from those of you who have attended an Iowa caucus before.


Poll
Who will benefit most from second choices and Iowa caucus math?
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
I don't know, because desmoinesdem has thoroughly confused me
I don't care, because the Iowa caucuses are a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of two travesties of a mockery of a sham

Votes: 59
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

It's better to send supporters to

Question for you, desmoinesdem.

How likely are individual supporters to follow the lead of the precinct captain? What if they plain old don't like the recommendation (emotion over logic)?


by dblhelix on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:28:40 PM EST

some will, some won't (none / 0)

I knew quite a few Kucinich supporters in 2004. As you may know, a few hours before the caucuses, Kucinich publicly called on his supporters to go to Edwards if Kucinich was not viable in their precinct.

Many of them did so, but I also knew Kucinich supporters who went to Dean, because the Iraq war was the most important issue for them. I even knew one who went to Kerry, because she had submitted questionnaires about animal rights to all the major campaigns, and the Kerry campaign was the only one that responded to her.

Which is to say that some people have their own reasons for the second choices they make.

But in a large group of any given candidate's supporters, I think it would be easy for a savvy precinct captain to convince a bunch to switch to a different candidate for tactical reasons.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

Second question.

Is outside contact permitted once you begin the process? For example, can you call the Edwards IA operation w/ a report on the initial caucus?


by dblhelix on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:32:06 PM EST

I don't think so (2.00 / 1)

I am not 100 percent sure, but I think you can't do that. I know that I didn't call my field organizer until after I came out of the 2004 caucuses, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't hearing from other precinct captains until they were out of theirs.

That's why they give precinct captains cards to help them with the math. For every number of caucus-goers between 50 and 300, I had a card showing me how many people I would need for Kerry to get 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 delegates.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, you can't... (none / 0)

precinct caucuses are declared closed, and while some lenient caucus chairs might let someone in, no one is supposed to communicate with the outside until it is over (or they leave)...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

How would things change if the caucus was held on a Saturday afternoon rather than a weeknight?


by Obama08 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:50:36 PM EST

I really don't know (none / 0)

I think having the caucuses less than a week after New Year's will depress turnout.

Some argue that it will be easier to get people out on a Saturday than on a Monday night. But people treasure their family time and have lots of kids' activities scheduled for Saturday afternoons as well.

There may be more shift workers who work Saturday afternoons than Monday nights, given how busy retail stores are on Saturdays. Those people would be excluded from participating.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am currently (2.00 / 1)

doing a study of second place choices in Iowa over the last 20 years.  It is increadibly important - and poorly understood.  If the numbers from the last 3 polls held, being the second choice of Richardson and Edwards supporters would be critical.

This was a VERY helpful comment, and well worth recommending.


by fladem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:22:18 PM EST

I look forward to reading your study (none / 0)

Good luck with that--it gets very complicated very quickly.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

question (none / 0)

Thanks for the inside. I have no concept about the turnout of a precinct. Can you demonstrate to us the concept using your precinct as an example. How many people are supposed to show up? and How many caucus goers do you need to line up for one delegate in your precinct?


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:22:20 PM EST

that is so variable (none / 0)

I heard of rural precincts that only had a dozen or so people show up in 2004.

My precinct had about 175 voters.

Some of the heavily Democratic precincts in my county had more than 300 voters.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm assuming you mean caucus goers... (none / 0)

when you say voters.  a total of 175 voters in a precinct would make it a pretty small precinct.  but 175 caucus goers would make it a relatively large precinct.  while i've never heard of 300 voters in a precinct caucus when i worked iowa caucuses, i don't doubt that this was possible...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm assuming you mean caucus goers... (none / 0)

Yes, you're right. My precinct has around 1,600 residents, and probably 1,000 registered voters. About 175 eligible voters signed in on caucus night 2004.

The inner-ring suburb where I live used to be heavily Republican (now is roughly evenly divided). When my older brother caucused for the first time in 1976 for Mo Udall, only about 25 people in our precinct were there, and the caucus was held in someone's living room.

I think there were precincts in Iowa City (University of Iowa) that had around 500 caucus-goers in 2004. Wild.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the place of one of dean's last appearances in... (none / 0)

2004 -- with joan jett and janeane garofalo.  they packed the auditorium (and jett and garofalo came and performed in the overflow room).  but i had no idea they turned out 500 in one precinct.  damn...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:02:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Small turnout (none / 0)

The Sherman Township precinct in Story county had 5 attendees in 2004.


by TheWinch on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

precincts? (none / 0)

BTW,

How many precincts in total?


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:23:02 PM EST

I think it's around 1,900 statewide (none / 0)

but I will check later and get you the right number.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it's around 1,900 statewide (none / 0)

In your diary, you mentioned there are
2,500 state delegates , the average delegates per precinct ranges from 4 to 9. These numbers do not measure up. But anyway, thanks for the explanation.

So if 175 caucus goers show up in your precinct, Obama will need 26 votes(15%) to be viable, am I correct? Do you believe Richardson, Biden are viable in your precinct? Do precinct capitains for 3 major candidates in your precinct already start to work the other precinct capitains for those 'minor' candidates? Since Kucinich does not even have any operations in Iowa, does his campaign actually have precinct capitains?

Quite fascinating but un-democratic process.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

precinct caucuses assign county delegates (none / 0)

So the 6 delegates from my precinct are Polk County delegates.

The county delegate totals are used later to figure out the state delegate numbers.

Here's a list of the state delegate numbers from each county:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=129

You will see that Polk County, the largest in Iowa, assigns 357 state delegates.

There are many more than 357 Polk County delegates assigned at the precinct caucuses all over the country. The formula that is used to convert county delegates to state delegates is similar to the formula used to convert raw numbers of caucus-goers to county delegates.

Sorry for the confusion!


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If we had 175 people again (none / 0)

Then candidates would need at least 26 supporters to be viable in my precinct.

In my precinct, there are still lots of Democrats who have attended previous caucuses whose preferences I do not know. There are also Democrats who haven't attended before, whose preferences I don't know.

I can tell you that I have found more Richardson and Biden leaners in my precinct than Obama leaners so far. There are a lot of empty nesters in my neighborhood.

If Obama is banking on bringing a lot of first-time caucus-goers out, there's a good chance I haven't talked to them yet. When I start working the precinct I start from the list of Ds who showed up for either the 2000 or the 2004 caucus.

Kucinich did have some precinct captains in 2004, but he doesn't have any offices or field organizers this year and will not be a factor. He was viable in a surprising number of precincts in my county in 2004, though.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it's around 1,900 statewide (none / 0)

There are about 13485 county delegates elected tonight. In a month or so, they have county conventions which together, elect 2500 state delegates, which in another month I think, at the state convention elect 29 or so democratic national convention delegates and another 27 are added on (big wigs, and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember). By this time the number is small, but no one cares. Iowa's importance isn't at the convention, but only by being the first election with results not from pollsters. ;-)


by TheWinch on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1781 Precincts (none / 0)


by TheWinch on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

Thank you so much for the time and effort to write these diaries.  They are all incredibly informative.


by markjay on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:00:50 PM EST

thanks--you are very kind (2.00 / 1)

I have more in my head, but it's a struggle to find the time to write them.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

This is interesting.  Nice post.  

I would recommend linking the other parts before this, (1, 2, 3, and 4) in the diary so people can go back and see what they have missed.  

Also, I hope Romney wins the caucus.  I think he is in the best position to.  He would get KILLED in the GE.  All you have to do is make 10 different commercials showing his flip flopping ways.  Then the media will keep asking him what he thinks about the commercials highlighting his major social flip flops, and Romney will be stuck on defense defending his social record incapacitating his ability to go on the offense.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:04:29 PM EST

the links are in there (none / 0)

right before I go over the basics of the system, but next time I will put them higher up and make it more obvious that I am linking to them.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I always love your diaries (none / 0)

Don't you think the Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns will be more targeted about where/who they will give their support to deprive their rivals of delegates?  I'm thinking that Clinton's staff will tell their precinct captains in college areas to give votes to Edwards thereby depressing Obama's delegates while telling their captains in rural areas to swing votes to Obama to deprive Edwards of support there.

Obviously, that's simplistic, but I can envision scenarios where you might give one of your rivals delegates so the other one doesn't get too many.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:51:29 PM EST

you may be right (none / 0)

I don't know any precinct captains for Hillary yet. If and when I meet one you can be sure I'll be trying to figure out what he or she is planning...


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

very much appreciated


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:40:34 PM EST

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

aWith three viable candidates, if candidate 1 has 42 percent of the voters, candidate 2 has 35 percent, and candidate 3 has 23 percent, then 3 delegates would be assigned to the top candidate, 2 to the second-place candidate, and 1 to the third-place candidate.

But look! If the supporters of the second and third-placed candidates pull a stunt like what happened in 1988 in my precinct, we might end up with the raw votes looking like this: 42 percent for candidate 1, 30 percent for candidate 2, and 28 percent for candidate 3. Drew Miller's calculator now tells me that each of the three viable candidates will get 2 delegates from the precinct.


To be completely fair, this is not really a good example of the screwy math of the caucus system.  Here, the delegates are being allocated strictly according to the base rule that tries to allocate them proportionately, i.e., no candidate is low enough that the 15% threshold is coming into play.  

And it's not anywhere near as unfair as you imply.

The main point is that since Simon only has 42%, he hasn't fully earned that 3rd delegate.  That is, giving him 3 of the 6 delegates makes it seem as if 50% of the people voted for him when in fact only 42% did.  This misrepresents an 8% bloc of voters who actually wanted Dukakis or Babbitt.  The 2-2-2 split, on the other hand, represents things as if each candidate got 33.3% of the vote, which misrepresents an 8.6% bloc of Simon voters AND a 1.6% bloc of Dukakis voters (both of whose votes would be effectively given to Babbitt), for a total of 10.3% of voters getting screwed and so 2-2-2 is clearly a worse allocation.

However, after the switch, in which 5% of the voters move from Dukakis to Babbitt, the 3-2-1 split is not only giving Simon 8% more than he deserves but is also giving Dukakis 3.3% more than he deserves (since he's now only at 30%), or a total of 11.3% of voters getting screwed, whereas the 2-2-2 split is only screwing that 8.6% bloc of Simon voters by giving those votes to Dukakis and Babbit, so now 2-2-2 is in fact the better split.

It can be shown that the base rule (#delegates times percentage of vote; award whole numbers; rank fractions -- i.e., what you get without the 15%-threshold rule) always gives you the allocation that misrpresents the fewest voters.

Another way to look at things is that in both scenarios, Simon has at least 1/3 of the vote (2 delegates), Dukakis and Babbitt each have another 1/6 (1 delegate each), and then you have the remaining 1/3 of the voters fighting over the last two delegates.  Whoever's the low candidate in that fight loses.
In your initial scenario, in that last 33.3%, Simon has 8.6%, Dukakis has 18.3%, and Babbit has 6.3%.  Dukakis clearly gets one of the delegates and it's something of a tossup whether to give the last delegate to Simon or Babbit, but Simon is slightly ahead.  After 5% switch to Babbit, it's Babbit in 2nd place.

Another interesting property of the base rule is that while there will always be wonky cusp situations where changing one person's vote changes a delegate (the boundary always has to somewhere, after all), it is never possible to change two delegates without changing at least 1/6 of the votes (1/n in the general case of a precinct with n delegates).

The 15% threshold, on the other hand, screws all of this to high heaven, i.e., once you have multiple candidates hovering near the threshold, all bets are off and you can play all kinds of games to move large blocks of delegates in one direction or another.  Nearly all of the true nastiness you describe at precinct caucuses can be traced to the 15% rule.

Here in Washington state for 2008, we have (finally) abolished the 15% rule for precinct caucuses.  It'll be interesting to see how things go, even if we don't have the same kind of media frenzy as Iowa does.  

... though if the Feb 5 national primary proves inconclusive, WA's Feb. 9 caucuses may yet become ground zero, so who knows?


by wrog on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:03:26 AM EST

thanks for sharing that perspective (none / 0)

You make a good point that the 15 percent threshold is what really makes gaming the system possible.

If people were casting ballots in secret with instant runoff voting, we'd have a better idea of what the "real" second choices are. In the case I described in 1988, those Dukakis supporters would have switched to Jackson or any other candidate they saw as less of a threat than Simon. It just so happened that in my precinct it was Babbitt.

Nonetheless, I have a lot of other objections to the caucus system, particularly the barriers to participation.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:28:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the Iowa caucuses work, part 5 (w/poll) (none / 0)

The Democrat who wins the Iowa caucuses will be the person who gets a plurality of the 2,500 state delegates up for grabs.

Actually what really matters is how Iowa's national delegates (i.e., to the convention in Denver) are allocated.  I'm guessing it's not a winner-take-all allocation at the state convention (in fact, I'm pretty sure the DNC forbids that sort of thing)).

(here in Washington state, national delegates are allocated to congressional districts and the state-level delegates meet in congressional district caucuses to elect them via a proportionality rule like in the precinct caucuses...)


by wrog on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:19:46 AM EST

in iowa... (none / 0)

precinct caucuses lead to county caucuses, which elect delegates to the regional or district caucuses, and i think they end up in a state caucus (i can't remember).  it's a long process, and the focus is forever on organization.  what begins in january isn't over until sometime in april.  iirc...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:06:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

definitely not winner take all (none / 0)

and the process isn't over until June.

But what I meant was, the person who will be declared the winner on caucus night will be the person estimated to win a plurality of the state delegates.

When media reported that Kerry got 38 percent and Edwards 32 percent in Iowa in 2004, they were talking about percentages of state delegates.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:30:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary...crazy system you got there. (none / 0)


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 10:00:51 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.