I've posted this elsewhere, but I think the chief case to be made against the Iowa Caucuses is one that foregrounds accessibility. Many people who cannot participate within the rigid time constraints of the caucuses are disenfranchised. This is not democratic. I also find the lack of anonymity in voting concerning, particularly in a climate where voter intimidation is rampant. Dems aren't usually guilty of that -- they aren't the ones sending menacing men to stare down people at polling places. However, we can't ignore the role of socialization in how people choose to vote publicly. Not everyone wants to be aggressive, and not every marriage is safe enough for both partners to vote their consciences publicly. I wonder how many friendships and marriages have led to conciliatory caucus votes that did not represent one's private choice.
The simplest case FOR the caucuses is a less savory one. Iowa takes a hit for being less diverse than other states, but this might actually be the strategic reason for it to be first. There are a lot of candidates who might do better in a place like Nevada, if it were first, but who would then fizzle nationally when the South and other red bastions come into play. Winning over Iowa voters -- overcoming their latent prejudices, persuading a less diverse group of voters -- could still be seen as a good test of national viability. But that's not a pro-Iowa case, and so most defenders of the caucuses won't make it.
I've posted this elsewhere, but I think the chief case to be made against the Iowa Caucuses is one that foregrounds accessibility. Many people who cannot participate within the rigid time constraints of the caucuses are disenfranchised. This is not democratic. I also find the lack of anonymity in voting concerning, particularly in a climate where voter intimidation is rampant. Dems aren't usually guilty of that -- they aren't the ones sending menacing men to stare down people at polling places. However, we can't ignore the role of socialization in how people choose to vote publicly. Not everyone wants to be aggressive, and not every marriage is safe enough for both partners to vote their consciences publicly. I wonder how many friendships and marriages have led to conciliatory caucus votes that did not represent one's private choice.
The simplest case FOR the caucuses is a less savory one. Iowa takes a hit for being less diverse than other states, but this might actually be the strategic reason for it to be first. There are a lot of candidates who might do better in a place like Nevada, if it were first, but who would then fizzle nationally when the South and other red bastions come into play. Winning over Iowa voters -- overcoming their latent prejudices, persuading a less diverse group of voters -- could still be seen as a good test of national viability. But that's not a pro-Iowa case, and so most defenders of the caucuses won't make it.