On NPR I just heard an interview with a citizen who worried that it was not worthwhile to caucus for Bill Richardson since he was unlikely to win anyway. While this consideration may be valid in a regular election, I think it is totally invalid in the Iowan caucuses.
The argument is below the fold.
First, in the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I am interested in this topic for two reasons:
- I'm a Richardson supporter.
- I'm fascinated by strategic voting.
Now for the strategy:
General elections in America are structured in a way (plurality winner) that encourages voters to chose the candidate who has the best chance of beating those candidates who the voter dislikes.
In other words, in general elections, we try to choose the winner. However, the situation is reversed with the early primaries. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the voters are choosing the losers.
Iowa and NH don't have enough votes to make much impact in the final vote count. Furthermore, the major candidates already have national attention--Obama, Clinton, and Edwards will continue to slug it out regardless of the outcome in Iowa and NH. The role of these early primaries is to cull the field--to determine which candidates just can't cut it in a national election.
In this situation, if you support one of minor candidates, vote for that candidate! Don't expect some Iowa effect to catapult one of the leading candidates to automatic victory (see previous results for the Iowa caucuses). The only bad thing that could happen is that this minor candidate is a near-clone of a major candidate, and will split the vote with that candidate in future elections.
Finally, remember that at the caucus, if your preferred candidate has little support, you can still switch your vote.