The Iowa caucuses first came to prominence in 1972, when a decision by the Iowa state Democratic party forced the caucuses to be held on January 24th, making them the earliest presidential nominating contest in the country that year.[1]
Winning the Iowa caucuses was the cornerstone of Jimmy Carter’s strategy in 1976. Although he placed second in the caucuses – to “uncommitted” – this was touted as a victory by Carter’s campaign and in the national media. It was in 1976 that the longstanding influence of the Iowa caucuses began.[2]
Winning the caucuses allowed Carter – and presidential candidates since then – to plausibly claim support and momentum at an early stage of the nominating process. Momentum, and the media attention that it brings, then influences the primary elections that follow. Today, there is no denying that the Iowa caucuses matter, but doubts persist as to wisdom of allowing them so much influence.
The roots of the caucus system go back to the 1840s when Iowa become a state. In 1913, Iowa passed a law mandating a direct primary for presidential candidates. The candidate preference primary was thus briefly introduced in Iowa. After a dismal and costly 1916 primary, the law was repealed in 1917; with that repeal, the requirement to poll for candidate preference was abolished as well.[3]
Historically, caucuses – as opposed to direct primaries – functioned primarily to select convention delegates. Caucuses traditionally refrained from expressing, or attempting to influence, candidate preferences. Furthermore, caucuses traditionally did not bind delegates to support any specific candidate, leaving delegates free to exercise their own judgment at the party conventions.
The distinction between delegate selection and candidate preference brings to light the origin of several defects in our current presidential nominating process:
- With delegate selection caucuses, it did not matter when the caucuses were held. There was no special advantage for some states to hold delegate selection caucuses earlier than others. Meanwhile, candidate preference primaries are the main reason why states now jockey for the earliest dates – because preferences expressed in the early states influence the later contests.
- With delegate selection caucuses, it did not matter what appeals the candidates made. It did not matter what promises they offered or what ads they ran to try to influence the primary electorate. Without an expression of candidate preference, such appeals would have no effect until the national conventions assembled to deliberate.
- With delegate selection caucuses, it did not matter how much money the candidates raised or spent. The primacy of delegate selection meant that candidates were not directly considered. Meanwhile, candidate preference primaries (and caucuses) have greatly increased the importance of fundraising and money in the presidential nominating process.
The bottom line: there is no necessary or direct link between delegate selection and the expression of candidate preference. There is no need for these two separate decisions to be intertwined, as they are in the presidential nominating procedures of most states.
Interestingly enough, the old distinction between caucuses and primaries is evident even in the recent history of the Iowa caucuses. Until 1976, the Republican party of Iowa made no effort to poll candidate preferences in the precinct caucuses, or to report them. Even today, the candidate preference straw poll is not binding on delegates to the Republican party’s state or national conventions.[4] It is unclear what the Democratic party’s practice was before 1972, but since that time candidate preference votes have been binding on convention delegates, under a complex set of rules.[5] These reforms have elevated the influence of the precinct caucuses and increased the amount of money candidates need to compete in Iowa. In effect, the Iowa caucuses of today are little different from the direct primaries held by other states.
Every presidential election cycle we are reminded of the many problems with our presidential selection process: the role of money, the emotionalism of candidates’ appeals, and the manipulation of primary dates by some states. If we are to solve any of these problems, we need to bear in mind the distinction between delegate selection and candidate preference. More importantly, we’d be better off downplaying the influence of candidate preference in the critical process that precedes the national conventions of both parties.
Thanks for reading.
- [1] Hugh Winebrenner and Dennis J. Goldford, The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event, 3rd ed. (Iowa City, IA, 2010), 30-32. ↩
- [2] Winebrenner and Goldford, Iowa Precinct Caucuses, 58-60. ↩
- [3] Winebrenner and Goldford, Iowa Precinct Caucuses, 25-27. ↩
- [4] Winebrenner and Goldford, Iowa Precinct Caucuses, 44, 73-75. ↩
- [5] Although the delegates are not “legally bound” by state law to support a specific candidate, many of them are “pledged” to a candidate. See David P. Redlawsk, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Todd Donovan, Why Iowa?: How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process (Chicago, 2011), 51. ↩