• hey, at least the GOP doesn't have a 15 percent threshold

    at their precinct caucuses. That’s one of my major beefs with the Iowa caucuses on the Democratic side (see here and here).

    • It's Useful

      The 15% threshold, while making things different than a statewide primary, forces candidates to build meaningful support all over the state.  It’s like the electoral college for Iowa!  Oh wait people hate that too.

      • I disagree

        Meaningful support all over the state? I don’t think so. The candidate with the most voters supporting him or her should win the caucuses.

        If my views are out of step with those of the Democrats in my neighborhood, my vote doesn’t get to count for the candidate of my choosing. That sucks.

        As for weeding out fringe candidates, Gephardt was not viable in my precinct in 1988, the year he won the Iowa caucuses. Hardly a fringe candidate.

        And yes, I do hate the electoral college. If a couple of dozen states follow  Maryland’s lead, we might finally get to elect the president by nationwide popular vote.

        • But

          If Iowa functioned just like a primary then New Hampshire would always be trying to move in front of us.  We either get to be first or we get a primary – you can’t have it both ways.

          • why can't we do what Iowa GOP does?

            They have their caucuses before NH primary, but they don’t have a 15 percent viability threshold. Unless I am misunderstanding the system, the GOP reports the raw vote totals for the candidates from each precinct and adds them up to get the state results.

            For whatever reason, NH does not seem to be bothered by the way the Republicans do the caucus. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the system (I have never attended a GOP precinct caucus).

          • or our threshold could be 2 percent, or 5 percent

            There’s no reason it has to be set at 15 percent in each precinct.

Comments