- Pronouns
- He/Him
Sopo
Deputy Editor
Many of you have heard about the troubles surrounding the Democratic Caucus in Iowa this past Monday. Only last night did we finally have full results, with numerous reporting problems and inconsistencies leading the Iowa Democratic Party to conduct “quality control” to guarantee the accuracy of the results.
But what is a caucus? Most US states hold primaries to determine who will receive their delegates to the nominating convention. A primary looks a lot like a general election—on election day, voters go to the polls and cast their ballot. Meanwhile, caucuses require voters to meet at a specific location at a specific time, usually for a few hours. This year in Iowa, caucus-goers had the opportunity to choose their first preference (even if that was uncommitted) and then realign to another candidate if theirs did not meet the 15% viability threshold. However, before realignment, spokespeople and other caucus-goers had the opportunity to persuade other voters to their camp. At the end, a final count is made, with the results for the precinct reported to the state party: first preference, final preference, and state delegate equivalents (which we won’t get into here—but think Electoral College).
One of the issues with a caucus is that turnout is always low. Many people don’t have the time (or desire) to turn out for hours of potentially contentious debate and horse-trading. Many people don’t want their neighbor to know who they’re voting for. However, caucuses do give voters the opportunity to really push for their candidate, and, if necessary, swing to a second choice, something primary voters can’t do. Nonetheless, only a handful of states still use caucuses—we’ll see another soon in Nevada.
As a political hobbyist, I began to think about what a caucus would look like in Europeia. As a small, tight-knit community, could a caucus actually be a better system? Let’s look at the first minister elections to get an idea of what it could look like.
Unlike a regular 24-hour election, a caucus would take place over multiple days. All candidates would campaign as usual, with platforms, debates, and get-out-the-vote. Then, when polls open, voters would cast their ballot and any candidate (including re-open nominations) under a certain threshold would be eliminated. Candidates and their supporters would then have additional time to win over the voters of the eliminated tickets. In the last election, this means Maowi and Xecrio would have had an opportunity to fight for cookies’s voters, or perhaps even each other’s. Then, a second round of voting would be held to determine the winner, as normal.
In reality, as members of an online community, we can’t all gather in one place to hash out which candidate will win. But a system inspired by caucusing, amounting to a forced runoff between the top two candidates with additional campaign time, would incorporate aspects of ranked choice voting and give candidates additional opportunities to course-correct and make their pitch. We could also incorporate closed elections: with both the first and second polls’ results hidden until they close, the additional campaign period between the polls would still give candidates the opportunity to get out additional voters or make a last-minute pitch to the undecideds.
The caucus system in many US states leaves a lot to be desired, but a small community like ours, where so many citizens are politically invested, can more easily incorporate the best aspects into our own democracy. With the potential for robust debate, excitement, and intrigue, an electoral system incorporating some caucus-like elements could make for enhanced gameplay. Maybe we should be more like Iowa.
