We await the results from Iowa yet should we even be involved in the caucus process if we are a democracy? by Gary Wood
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Ω Many of us today are anticipating the first results in Iowa’s caucuses. Millions of dollars, hours, and efforts have been expended vying for the voice of the people from this great mid-western region. Two parties meet in the living rooms, gymnasiums and meeting halls in precincts across all 99 counties in Iowa. Most candidates from both parties nervously eat breakfast, submit to morning show interviews, and wonder if their lack of sleep will pay off in placing high enough to continue their campaigns. The State of Iowa has been inundated with media and political machines while the people relish in the spotlight, and so it has been since 1972.
As all this begins to finally unfold in real votes we once again hear the debate raging, to caucus or not to caucus, what is the answer? To be a coffee shop owner or proud Iowan the answer is simple, of course there should be a caucus held in Iowa and it should be the first contest of any and all Presidential campaigns now and into the future. The answer also is simple for those heading up Iowa’s Democratic and Republican State Party. Caucus goers and the U.S. deserve the opportunity to make their voices heard loud and clear, even if it is a small percentage of actual Iowan citizens and even if it is at the control of party politics disguised as some form of democracy.
Within the Iowa Democratic Caucus some will enjoy an opportunity to vote twice, reminding me of Hobbits who enjoy both first breakfast and second breakfast. The party has decided there needs to be a 15% viability test for any candidate so if the first vote is for a candidate who fails to reach viability those casting their votes can change to a candidate considered viable. Any country considering democracy may well view this process as confusing, at best.
It is important to note this process is not an actual vote, what is really happening within a caucus is a selection of delegates for County, State and National conventions. Many outside of Iowa are guided in their belief Iowans are somehow voting for their choice for an office, in the case of today’s caucus the office being focused on is the President of the United States. Although Iowans (and other States using the caucus system) are selecting delegates they believe will carry their vote to the convention for nomination many delegates are not bound by the vote, especially beyond the first nominating call at a convention.
Some pundits of the system decry the openness of one’s vote as it is not secret but there for all to see and subject to peer pressures. A key challenge also comes into play when the ideas of those unable to attend the actual, in-person, meeting are not given a voice in the outcome. Often those against the caucus system point to military members serving overseas or citizens of the county that are sick or perhaps working which by no fault of their own are then left out of the political process. Still others point to the ability of party politics to really shape the outcome, as pointed out above regarding the viability rule established by the Iowa Democratic Party.
There is no doubt it is not a purely democratic method for electing officials. If the United States is to be considered a pure democracy the caucus system, and all the attention being placed on it today in Iowa, should be shut down across the country. Citizens everywhere clinging to the hope of democracy in the United States should be demanding a change rather than being glued to their TV or computer monitor to track results of tonight’s exercise. (OK, most citizens aren’t clinging to their TVs tonight for the results, many are watching the bowl game, but for dramatic effect lets just say most are.)
Now, there is the real rub on the debate, are we a pure democracy or aren’t we? Don’t we hear our leaders’ everyday stand and declare the need to spread democracy around the world? Are we not the country who is responsible for being the beacon of light, shining brightly for democratic rule in every corner of the globe? We are not!
We were founded as an unprecedented, enlightened experiment known as a Federalist Republic. Elections were not to be solely democratic and the caucus system actually held a place in the way our founders envisioned citizens selecting their representatives. There were aspects of democracy built in yet pure democracy was seen as a poor form of lasting government, lessons taught by history that our founders learned well. Thomas Jefferson’s words remind us clearly why the founders debated and compromised regarding the election process to be used. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
While you are waiting for the results take time (the media will be there to blast the results when you are done) to study Articles One and Two of the U.S. Constitution. Learn of the different manners elections were to take place, some by direct democracy and others by forms of caucusing. Also pay attention to how the 12th altered some of the process and how the 17th Amendment began to really lead us astray of the founders compromises, checks, and balances for within this amendment one learns of the root cause to challenges we now face from a two-party plutocratic oligarchy we see in full swing today.
The answer to the question of whether to caucus or not is yes we should and should not. I implore you to educate yourself on why for as Jefferson also reminded us, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education."
As you study remember the words of Voltaire, "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gary Wood only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gary Wood is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-01-03 11:04:32
Fortunately the United States is not a democracy and certainly not a "pure" democracy; which is nothing more than mob rule where the minority has no rights or representation.
Our Constitution guarantees to the states a Republican form of government; absolutely NOT a democracy.
However, none of that has anything to do with how a political party selects its candidates. The nomination process is not a function of government; it is a party function subject to the laws of each individual state. The federal government should have no more involvement with the nomination process than they have with selection of Elk's Lodge officers.
The purpose of a political party is to provide an organized framework for leveraging personal values of their members in government. The caucus system gives individuals at the local level the most direct influence over their candidates and over the evolution of the rules of the party.
State Parties will continue to abandon the primary system in favor of the caucus as more people begin to understand the problems inherent in the primary system; starting with the fact that primaries are prone to be nothing more than a horse race between candidates who are pre-chosen by the party leaders. There is not much resembling democracy in that process. Secondly, primaries are expensive whereas the caucus system is nearly free by comparison. Thirdly, people who are very active politically want to be assured that the delegates they choose will represent their views at the next level. The caucus system is a shield against outside influences swaying elections.
