Iowa: What a crappy way to pick a winner

Momentum against the Iowa first-in-the-nation caucus is sure to explode after Thursday, as many people get their first real close-up look at its undemocratic nature.

First, a look at how the caucuses work:

As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people. In 2004, when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses [...]

While the Republican caucuses are fairly simple — voters can leave shortly after they declare their preferences — Democratic caucuses can require more time and multiple candidate preferences from participants. They do not conform to the one-person, one-vote rule, because votes are weighted according to a precinct’s past level of participation. Ties can be settled by coin toss or picking names out of a hat.

So what does this mean, in practical terms?

Jason Huffman has lived in Iowa his whole life. Lately he has been watching presidential debates on the Internet, discussing what he sees with friends and relatives. But when fellow Iowans choose among presidential candidates on Thursday night, he will not be able to vote, because he is serving with the National Guard in western Afghanistan.

"Shouldn’t we at least have as much influence in this as any other citizen?" Captain Huffman wrote in an e-mail interview.

Nope, Cpt. Huffman is out of luck. As are these folks:

"It disenfranchises certain voters or makes them make choices between putting food on the table and caucusing," said Tom Lindsey, a high school teacher in Iowa City. Mr. Lindsey plans to attend this year, but his neighbors include a cook who cannot slip away from his restaurant job on Thursday night and a mother who must care for her autistic child [...]

But many Iowans have been dutifully watching presidential candidates all summer and fall only to find themselves unable to participate on caucus night. Take Sally Kreamer, a single mother in Johnston, outside Des Moines, who says she cannot escape the pull of her children’s dinner and homework. "I would love to participate," Ms. Kreamer said.

Or Carrie Tope, who works at a hospital emergency room in Ames and cannot find anyone to take her shift. She particularly wants to vote this year, she said, because things are so close.

Even some campaign volunteers "have bosses who say, ‘We really need you at work that night,’" said Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, state director for John Edwards. "Unfortunately, they just aren’t going to be able to participate," she said.

And the Iowa Democratic Party response to what is a hideous way to conduct an election?

Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the party had no responsibility to ensure that voters can caucus. "The campaigns are in charge of generating the turnout," Mr. Brennan said, and the voters who truly care will find their way to their local caucuses.

As for Ms. Tope, the emergency room worker, "there’s always the next cycle," Mr. Brennan said.

What an elitist asshole. Yet this ridiculous process he defends will disenfranchises thousands of Iowans as it disenfranchises millions of voters around the country who would like a chance to vote for their favorite primary candidate but will never get the chance.

There's an entire nation out there -- 48 states plus D.C. -- who have tired of this ridiculous calendar and undemocratic way of choosing our nominee. Iowa and New Hampshire will fight like hell to retain their lofty status -- it's worth prestige points and a crapload of money for those states. But no matter what those states may think, they don't have a god-given right to hold our nomination process hostage to their whims (and parochial concerns like ethanol). They should enjoy these next two weeks, because this is likely their swan song.