I am going to state right here at the outset that this is a painful thing to write. Painful, but necessary. I am going to talk about media coverage of the Iowa caucuses and our ridiculous political system.
You may remember in vague outlines that there were some pretty significant problems in determining who won the Republican contest in the Iowa caucuses in 2012. In reality, there were three separate winners, and also no winner at all.
How could that be?
Well, an initial and preliminary count of the votes indicated that Mitt Romney had won the caucuses by eight votes. And that is how the media reported it. Yes, Rick Santorum had come out of nowhere to finish a shockingly strong second place, but he hadn’t won anything. Romney, who had suffered the indignity of lagging behind in the polls (at one time or another) to everyone in the race except Santorum, had managed to right his ship and avoid a bad stumble out of the gate. This was hugely helpful to him as the contest moved to Romney’s home turf in New Hampshire. Remember, not only had he served as governor in neighboring Massachusetts, but he owned a home in New Hampshire.
Two weeks later, however, and after Romney romped to victory in the Granite State, the Iowa Republican Party had to make two embarrassing announcements. The first was that they had finalized counting the votes and that it turned out that Rick Santorum didn’t have an eight vote deficit but instead a 34-vote lead. The second announcement was that it was impossible to actually declare a winner.
Matt Strawn, chairman of Iowa’s Republican Party, announced Thursday morning that an actual winner could not be determined in the caucuses because results from eight of 1,774 precincts could not be located for certification. But of the votes that could be reviewed by the party, the officials said, Mr. Santorum finished narrowly ahead of Mr. Romney.
“Just as I did in the early morning hours on Jan. 4, I congratulate Senator Santorum and Governor Romney on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history,” Mr. Strawn said in a statement. “Our goal throughout the certification process was to most accurately reflect and report how Iowans voted the evening of Jan. 3. We understand the importance to the candidates involved, but as Iowans, we understand the responsibility we have as temporary caretakers of the Iowa caucuses.”
The certified results found that Mr. Santorum received 29,839 votes, and Mr. Romney received 29,805 votes.
So, because they couldn’t locate the results of eight separate caucuses, it was impossible to say who had received more votes on election day, but they certified Santorum as the winner. Romney went through the formality of conceding the state, but no one cared anymore because the way it had been reported initially had allayed concerns about Romney and he was heading into South Carolina as the perceived winner of the first two contents.
But there was an even dirtier secret about the caucuses that no one was yet discussing.
[The decision not to declare a winner], first reported by The Des Moines Register, has no practical effect — the Iowa contest is considered a “beauty contest” that does not officially allocate delegates to the winner, but provides Iowa’s Republican Party a sense of the voters’ thinking.
Yes, indeed, you would have never known it in all the hype leading up to Iowa, but their caucuses have “practically no effect” on who will get the delegates from the Hawkeye state at the Republican National Convention. In 2012, Iowa had 28 delegates at the convention, and according to the New York Times, Ron Paul got 22 of them, Romney got five, and Rick Santorum got zero. One vote is listed as undetermined but probably went for Romney.
Ron Paul achieved this by focusing on the real contest, which actually takes place later in the year at county and state party conventions. This is why it is entirely accurate to call the caucuses a “Beauty Contest” but horribly misleading to suggest that the voters who turn out to provide “Iowa’s Republican Party a sense of the voters’ thinking” have any efficacy whatsoever over who will represent them at the convention.
The actual effect they have is a bit different.
[Senior Advisor to the Santorum campaign, John] Brabender said the media narrative in the days after the contest focused on Romney’s victory and perceived inevitability, instead of the storyline that Santorum had come out of nowhere to emerge as a viable grassroots challenger to the establishment candidate.
Brabender estimated that it cost the Santorum campaign “a couple million” dollars in donations, and a huge amount of earned media attention at a critical juncture in the race.
He also said it had an impact on the results in other contests, like in Michigan, Romney’s home state, where the eventual GOP nominee only narrowly defeated Santorum.
Brabender argued that Santorum matched Romney on Election Day in the Wolverine State, but that those who voted early in Michigan – propelled Romney to victory. That might have been different, Brabender said, if early-voters had the full view of Santorum’s strength in the days after the Iowa caucuses.
“I hope nobody else has to go through that because it was totally unfair,” Brabender said.
So, the caucuses have a lot of influence over the nomination, but wholly through how they affect voting in other states.
Thus, you can justifiably say that Santorum won Iowa because he had the most votes in the certified count, or that Romney won because he benefited the most from the result, or that Ron Paul won because he actually got almost all the delegates, or that no one won because the party refused to declare a winner.
Which leads me to why I had to just laugh out loud at this article in The Hill about how the Iowa Republican Party has really cleaned up their act and invested a lot of money and signed a contract with Microsoft and perfected a mobile application that will allow them to properly, promptly, and accurately count the votes and declare the winner in 2016.
Republicans in Iowa are working overtime to prevent a repeat of the botched 2012 caucuses when scores of unaccounted ballots caused Mitt Romney to be wrongly declared the winner over Rick Santorum.
State party officials say they’ve moved aggressively to address the problems that plagued the ballot count in January 2012, and believe the new technologies they’ve adopted, as well as having more workers on staff and enhanced training programs, will pave the way for a smooth and accurate reckoning at the Feb. 1. caucuses.
“We’re extremely confident that we’ve addressed all of the issues,” said Iowa Republican Party spokesman Charlie Szold.
It’s impossible to conclude that all of this activity will do anything more than further mislead people about what the Iowa Caucuses actually are and what they really mean about the nomination. What should matter in an individual state is who won the delegates. Four years ago, Ron Paul won the delegates. It was actually a bigger story than I’m portraying here, but the Paulista takeover of the Iowa Republican Party caused a multiyear civil war that wasn’t cleaned up until Gov. Terry Branstad engaged in an all-out purge last year.
As we head into a new election cycle, the prospect of the media getting it right this time around looks quite dim. Consider the following from The Hill article:
The state party will be using a new technological platform for the first time, and there is always an element of chaos in caucuses, which are largely carried out by volunteer activists.
The stakes will be higher than ever, as the huge and fractured field of GOP candidates will seek every conceivable advantage to stand out from the pack.
The number of votes separating second place from sixth place could be slim, and the order of how the candidates finish could be the difference between a campaign that carries on, and one that calls it quits.
“At least last time we still knew coming out of it that there were two front-runners,” said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University. “This time, there could be several campaigns dependent on their candidate edging out one or two others. They absolutely have to get this right.”
A few observations about this.
First, the last time they messed it up but at least people knew that there were two front-runners, right? But neither of those front-runners were Ron Paul. It wasn’t possible to know initially who would actually get the delegates, and that’s my point. That’s the story. That’s what all the reporting about these caucuses consistently misses. That’s what’s so misleading.
Which is why, second, it’s bullshit that a tiny difference in how many votes you get (leading a candidate, for example, to come in sixth instead of second place) can determine whether or not they can continue to vie for the nomination.
Which is why, third, it’s deeply troubling that it is seen as critically important that they get the precise vote count of this Beauty Contest correct.
The whole thing is a fraud. Acting like an accurate count matters is a fraud, too.
Except, it does matter.
But it only matters because everyone, including the candidates and the media, agree to go along with the fraud.
In the end, there were 2,286 delegates at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Rick Santorum earned nine of them. Ron Paul earned 190, of which 22 came from his victory in Iowa. Ron Paul did win Iowa, and that earned him 0.9% of the delegates at the convention. Rick Santorum won Iowa and got no delegates out of it at all. With 28 total delegates, Iowa barely accounted for one percent of the delegates in Tampa, or half of what you would expect simply by virtue of being one of fifty states.
The real story is here is that Iowa doesn’t have enough delegates to matter. The caucuses don’t elect the few delegates that they do have. The winner on election night is subject to change if the count is close but, since it’s a Beauty Contest, all that matters is who has a lead when people go to bed that night.
It’s a battle of perceptions, in other words, and the prize is making a favorable impression that will help you win bigger states with more delegates where the elections actually bind delegates to the candidates.
Remember all of this whenever you read about the Iowa Caucuses. Remember why it’s so important that they get the count right this time.
And this is nothing new. In 1979 Doonesbury ran a series of strips in which there was a secret Iowa non-binding straw poll to elect non-voting delegates to the state convention, and the press had decided that Carter had to win 60% or otherwise it would be a moral victory for Kennedy (who ran a primary challenge to Carter in 1980). It was an exaggeration for effect, and it was during the time when Iowa’s caucus hadn’t quite yet pushed out New Hampshire as the first primary test, but it spelled out the whole set of problems with the system.
As well as taking a few digs along the way – Carter’s response in the strip was to try to give Iowa a new dam project. In the end Carter won the poll by just over 60% but the press decided that it was still a moral victory for Carter because he tried to win and Kennedy didn’t.
To finish up the digression, it’s interesting (looking back at those strips) that the mainstream political press were generally New Deal Democrats, as they pushed for Kennedy to run, not just to create an interesting horse race, but because they were sick of Carter. Unfortunately, when Reagan got in he wined and dined the press in Hollywood style, and that combined with the 1980s take over of the major news divisions by committed Republicans caused the rightward shift in the composition of the political press. Today it is difficult to find any prominent press personality who is not married to or in a relationship with a Republican.
Booman,
First off, 22 delegates is 1% of 2286, really about .9% not .001.
Secondly, what does it say about 2008 and Barack Obama who more or less used the Iowa win as the catapult. Is what you write about the R Iowa caucuses also try of the D’s? If it is, why didn’t the Clinton team go after this angle?
Lastly, I really think this is where Rubio makes or breaks it. Even though he will have time to win well after the Iowa caucus, Romney needed to double up in Iowa and New Hampshire to build the narrative of inevitable, which Rubio has no access too. If he pulls off a surprise (added and abetted by the R establishment), I can se him jumping the line past Trump and Cruz. Otherwise, I just don’t see how Rubio finds an edge afterwards.
“microsoft” and “perfected an application” are mutually exclusive statements.
A more honest statement would be
“signed a contract with Microsoft and produced a kludgey mobile application that sort of works sometimes”
It’s still pretty stunning how many people still buy into the Microsoft-as-technical leader idea rather than the more accurate Microsoft-as-ruthless-monopoly-marketer. Except for the Office products, which are now generally of decent quality (no doubt because the rest of the company uses them extensively, and thus forced them to beat them into shape, at least in the laptop-plugged-into-the-docking-station-with-35″-monitor-never-actually-travel use case scenario), everything they produce is both derivative and of weak quality. Those Microsoft stores are hilarious. I think they would have done better if they’d poked fun at themselves, maybe included as part of the logo an Apple crossed out and Microsoft written in in crayon.
If you don’t think that relying on Microsoft for your company software is a bad idea, ask Ford about the car sales lost, and high warranty costs, due to letting Microsoft do their dashboard software.
Because Microsoft is the leader.
Who else is there?
Apple makes mediocre middle range computers that do not compare to higher end offerings from ASUS, HP, and the like. They aren’t network friendly, and their OS is pretty bad and has the worst security out there. They are toys, not computers. Also their hardware is low end, non upgradable, and often a generation behind or deliberately crippled. Low quality stuff with a shinny dressing to sell to those who don’t know better.
Linux… ermmm… Yeah sure it’s great and all on the enterprise side of things but it’s not really workable as an end user OS outside of developers and IT professionals. It’s also way to fragmented.
So really, UNIX? AIX, UX, and Solaris combine all the problems of linux with proprietary hardware and insane support fees.
Microsofts actual product stack (Exchange, MsSQL, Active Directory, Hyper-V, Azure) are either hands down the best out there or tied for close, with companies like VMWare and Amazon. On the desktop they are stuck with dealing with Dell and HP, both of which have higher end workstation lines that in terms of hardware, build quality, reliability, tech specs, slaughter anything that carries OSX or Chrome OS. Linux is odd because those same products are used as top end Linux workstations via the same vendors. They’re on top for a reason.
/me does support for OSX, Linux, and Windows for a day job. Also does systems/server administration for Unix, Linux, and Windows Server. In the past did IT security. I have my gripes with all the major tech companies but Microsofts enterprise stuff is amazing, and the best desktop/laptops are all Windows based and pretty damn amazing. Just don’t buy junk at best buy.
Seriously? In the real world a huge number of people buy Apple laptops. Those who are stuck with Windows products are forced into that decision by their IT departments.
Windows is the laptop OS that most people are stuck with an no one likes. Windows 8 was an unmitigated disaster. The cheapest hardware runs on Windows and, most importantly, MS Office works best with Windows. Apple users who must use Office frequently typically use a VMware emulator because the Mac versions of Office suck, although I’ve heard good things about the new version released this year.
As a laptop OS, Windows has more failings than I can count. Let’s start with backup and restore. Apple makes this seamless. You get a new laptop, restore the copy of the old one, and everything is as you left it. In Windows you restore your data and spend 4-8 hours redoing all of your settings. Then let’s look at uptime. The Mac OS is ready almost instantly from boot and continues basically forever. Windows OS takes a long time to load – especially with all of the IT-installed security measures that Windows requires – and the OS often crawls because Windows has never learned to do background tasks properly. Because Windows has a lot of shit running in the background you’re often waiting for long periods before you can actually do what you want.
Then there is the funny boundary between laptop vendors and Microsoft. Lenovos have a cool feature in which if you set the laptop to hibernate then close the lid it will go into sleep mode – not hibernating until the sleep mode is awoken – during which it will generate huge temps in your laptop back and suck down the battery. The “fix” is to configure the Lenovo to default to hibernate on lid close – but then the sleep option goes away. Typical MSFT bullcrap.
I know very few people in Silicon Valley who use Windows by choice.
That’s the Republican Caucus. Does the Democratic Caucus work the same way?
No. See the links in my comment below. However, doubtful that more a handful of people have full command of the entire process.
(I get the intent of each of the components in the process, but it’s only quasi-democratic.)
The Caucuses are identical in how they are conducted at the precinct level. At the end of the caucus the chair called the Democratic Party at my Precinct, and then call AP.
The only difference is in the reporting of the results.
The Iowa Caucuses in a Nutshell.
The GOP, which many of us have long known, gather for the “first in the nation” formal straw poll. Perhaps the attendees know that and that gives them the freedom to vote for whatever crazy-ass candidate they like most since the party operatives will be the real decision makers and at a later date. Or maybe the caucus attendees are dumb-ass hicks without a clue as to how it works.
Let’s not shed any tears for Santorum — he rally was the “none of the above” straw poll ballot line.
While who is working the “refs” best ultimately counts for more, it’s not cost effective for a GOP candidate to focus on that.
The DEM caucuses do count, but the “refs” have to be worked though each of the three caucus levels. In 2008, Edwards nabbed 14 delegates in the first round and Clinton ended up with 15 even though she trailed Edwards in the vote percentage. After the third round, Clinton had 14 and Edwards (who by then had dropped out) had 3.
For the 2016 DEM national conventionIowa gets 54 delegates, but only 30 of those will be “pledged” through the series of caucuses. Clinton may already have the 6 PLEOs (and might have secret deals for the 8 ULEOs). Maybe it’s time to junk the Superdelegates and let the caucus night delegate count stand through the convention first round of voting.
Yes, Caucus, primary, or state convention, but don’t try to “fix” the results with “older and wiser heads”.
Everything about our political “journalism” is incompetent and/or fraudulent. People would be better informed if the “journalists” were all fired.
But it really is worse than this very good article documents.
In ’08 I was a precinct captain in West Des Moines. The caucus I was at would elect 9 delegates to the county convention.
We held the preliminary vote: It would be Obama 4, Clinton 2, Edwards 2 and Richardson 1. Biden was not viable.
The numbers were something like this (this is rough, don’t hold me to the math)
Obama 130
Edwards 80
Clinton 72
Richardson 35
Biden 18
So we did the math and realized there was a way to throw Richardson enough votes so that the count would be:
Obama 3
Clinton 2
Edwards 2
Richardson 2
So we made an agreement with the Clinton people. But then we had to explain to Edwards supporters why they needed to go to Richardson’s corner. There were a lot of new caucus participants, and they looked at us like we were crazy, but the people who had done this before agreed and we threw Richardson enough votes to keep Obama from a 4th delegate.
Now this should make everyone vomit. THERE IS NOT AN ACTUAL VOTE TALLY – no one reports the first round numbers, just the delegate count.
And yet for the Democrats Iowa will decide if there is a race that matters, and for the Republicans it will have an enormous influence on the race.
Could you explain the process a bit more. After the first round of voting, don’t those that were in support of a candidate that’s not viable in that caucus move to one of the viable candidates? (Sort of like ranked choice voting.)
(will ignore that in your example Richardson doesn’t meet the 15% threshold for viability) When you said that the Edwards’ corner made a deal with the Clinton corner, did that mean that both reassigned their “surplus” voters to Richardson? That’s seriously sleazy and yet one additional way the “refs” manipulate the outcome.
Here was the process:
Obama 3.65
Edwards 2.01
Clinton 1.85
Richardson 1.4
So what we realized is that we could safely throw votes to Richardson so that he would win the next delegate (he had to be above .65 to get the rounded delegate)
This was REALLY complicated, and I remember sitting in front of my laptop talking to the Clinton woman with he laptop to make sure we got the math right.
It was unquestionably the most interesting 2 hours I have ever spent in politics.
But it really shouldn’t be this was.
Day of the caucus I went to training – which was very detailed and very good. The message was clear, if we don’t win keep the margin as small as possible.
Thank you — confirms how I had worked it out. I’m sure it’s great fun for those that manipulate the delegate outcome by shoving some people into corners they didn’t choose, but it’s sleazy nonetheless. Once the appeals are made to those that chose an not-viable candidate and they have made their decision, that should be it. (Although it might be an even more democratic process if a ranked choice ballot were used. That would get rid of the group pressure dynamic.)
There is no paper ballot. It is a manual count of the groups in each corner. Literally the chair goes to each corner and counts, and then accounts the results.
I make no apologies for trying to help my candidate win.
But they REALLY should report the popular vote as well as the delegate totals.
Should have put “ballot” in quotes — a head count of the people in each “corner.”
I only interjected the notion of a personal ranked choice ballot that attendees could use to move to another “corner” if their first choice wasn’t viable because that would better reflect that they were standing for someone that they freely chose.
Should they release the popular vote totals from the first round? Or only the second round? Which IMHO is fraught with what could be labeled ballot stuffing. I get why everybody wants to help their candidate win, but I don’t get cheating.
If your 2008 caucus was a representative sample of all of them, sounds as if Edwards did somewhat better than reported and Clinton did somewhat worse.
I expect Santorum to do much better this year after the current christianjihads, Cruz, Carson et. al. get their 15 minutes.
The Iowa Caucuses Are a Fraud?
Of course they are.
The whole electoral process is…and has been for 50+ years…a fraud.
Why should the caucuses be any different?
AG