Comments on: Iowa Caucuses Analysis - Updated after NH http://mike.brisgeek.com/2008/01/04/iowa-caucuses-analysis/ ...or .NET and other stuff that wouldn't fit into Mike's day job. Mon, 21 May 2012 02:17:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: MikeFitz http://mike.brisgeek.com/2008/01/04/iowa-caucuses-analysis/#comment-24410 MikeFitz Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:52:22 +0000 http://mike.brisgeek.com/2008/01/04/iowa-caucuses-analysis/#comment-24410 G'day Dune, Yes, the caucus process is fascinating. It has nothing to do with the actual election; it is the process by which the parties choose their candidate for President. In Iowa, the caucus meeting points are restaurants, town halls, gas stations even private residences. On the Republican side, it's fairly simple; they just tally votes. Huckabee got the most Republican votes. (BTW: Is it possible to elect a worse president than George W Bush? Oh yes, you could put a Creationist in the White House.) On the Democrat side, it's way more complex. At each Caucus point, there is a first round count. The top three candidates might get 20-25% each. Then, in a second round, people who supported candidates who don't achieve the "viability" limit (say 10-15%) are invited to distribute their preferences to the other candidates. It's at this second round where the "haranguing" occurs. Now each Democrat Caucus point will have been allocated a small number of "delegates", say 2 to 4. Whoever wins the greatest percentage of votes after the second round gets ALL the delegates. So at one 2-delegate Caucus point, Barack Obama might only have 40% of the votes (and say Clinton and Edwards 30% each); Barack would get both delegates while Clinton and Edwards get none. Clear as mud? Anyhow, what I learned from the Washington Post discussion was that there was a huge turnout of (especially young) Democrat voters. Perhaps we are seeing the emergence of similar voter sentiments to those which caused our "Ruddslide"? G’day Dune, Yes, the caucus process is fascinating. It has nothing to do with the actual election; it is the process by which the parties choose their candidate for President.

In Iowa, the caucus meeting points are restaurants, town halls, gas stations even private residences.

On the Republican side, it’s fairly simple; they just tally votes. Huckabee got the most Republican votes. (BTW: Is it possible to elect a worse president than George W Bush? Oh yes, you could put a Creationist in the White House.)

On the Democrat side, it’s way more complex. At each Caucus point, there is a first round count. The top three candidates might get 20-25% each. Then, in a second round, people who supported candidates who don’t achieve the “viability” limit (say 10-15%) are invited to distribute their preferences to the other candidates. It’s at this second round where the “haranguing” occurs.

Now each Democrat Caucus point will have been allocated a small number of “delegates”, say 2 to 4. Whoever wins the greatest percentage of votes after the second round gets ALL the delegates. So at one 2-delegate Caucus point, Barack Obama might only have 40% of the votes (and say Clinton and Edwards 30% each); Barack would get both delegates while Clinton and Edwards get none. Clear as mud?

Anyhow, what I learned from the Washington Post discussion was that there was a huge turnout of (especially young) Democrat voters. Perhaps we are seeing the emergence of similar voter sentiments to those which caused our “Ruddslide”?

]]> By: Dune http://mike.brisgeek.com/2008/01/04/iowa-caucuses-analysis/#comment-24404 Dune Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:02:02 +0000 http://mike.brisgeek.com/2008/01/04/iowa-caucuses-analysis/#comment-24404 The whole caucus thing both fascinates and bewilders me. It seems such an archaic, undignified way of voting - my understanding is that you all get in groups for you preferred candidate (round 1), then you spend the next half hour haranguing everyone else to join your crowd (cos it's so cool? This has high-school leanings) and then on to round 2, and so on and so forth. Is that about right? On the one hand, it's a very involved way of voting and it allows the individual person to directly convince others (which appeals to me) but, on the other hand, it seems so long and complicated and while I would love to harangue other people, I would have to be harangued myself. :P :) The whole caucus thing both fascinates and bewilders me. It seems such an archaic, undignified way of voting - my understanding is that you all get in groups for you preferred candidate (round 1), then you spend the next half hour haranguing everyone else to join your crowd (cos it’s so cool? This has high-school leanings) and then on to round 2, and so on and so forth. Is that about right?

On the one hand, it’s a very involved way of voting and it allows the individual person to directly convince others (which appeals to me) but, on the other hand, it seems so long and complicated and while I would love to harangue other people, I would have to be harangued myself. :P :)

]]>