The Iowa Caucuses are Undemocratic and Are Not Representative of the Country
Iowa, the first state to hold primary elections in the nation, conducts undemocratic caucuses. The turnout this year was a meagre 15 percent of those registered to vote. Only 110,000 Iowans voted in the caucuses in 2024. The importance of the Iowa caucuses is blown way out of proportion by the media. By the time of the first caucus in Iowa, the field of Republican candidates has been reduced from eight to three. After New Hampshire, there will probably only be two Republican candidates left in the race. Why should these two states have so much political power? Iowa and New Hampshire represent less than two percent of the population of the United States.
Iowa was brutally cold this year. Wind chill temperatures were at 40 degrees below zero thus reducing the turnout from 187,000 in 2016 by forty percent. Primary elections often have poor turnouts, but caucuses attract even fewer voters for several reasons. At some caucuses, voters are required to disclose who they are voting for. The Democratic caucus in Iowa traditionally did not have a secret ballot. This year the Republican caucus had a secret ballot. Trump voters have bullied other voters and dissuaded them from coming to caucuses if they opposed Trump. Many voters may have avoided the caucuses this year for fear of intimidation.
At a primary election, a voter's preference is always private. To participate in a caucus, you must arrive at the designated location at a specific time and stay for more than an hour. There is no voting by mail at a caucus.
Iowa has a population of more than three million. The votes cast by a mere four percent of the state's population is insignificant. One neighborhood in New York city or Los Angeles has more voters than the total number that participated in the Iowa caucuses this year.
We Should Rotate the Order of Primary States
Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have an outsized effect on who is elected president of the United States? We should have regional primaries that rotate every four years. We could have a New England primary first one year, a Pacific Northwest primary first the next year and so on. Iowa and New Hampshire voters are no more important than voters in the rest of the country. Now, California voters do not get to have a say on who is nominated for president until many candidates have dropped out of the race. Most the candidates have dropped out by the time California has a primary election.
Caucuses Should be Prohibited
Because caucuses only represent a small fraction of the electorate, they should be eliminated and replaced by primary elections. Fifteen percent of the voting-age population should not be allowed to decide who is elected president of the United States.
The Democratic and Republican parties can decide that every state should have a primary election rather than a caucus. The parties now control the primary election process. The parties can also decide on a fairer system of regional primaries that are rotated every four years.
If the political parties will not reform the process, Congress should pass legislation reforming the primary election system. The U.S. Constitution provides that states decide the "time, places and manner of holding election for Senators and Representatives...." However, the Constitution also provides that "Congress may at any time by law make or alter" regulations of the states for holding elections. Article I, Section 4. Therefore, Congress clearly has the authority to outlaw caucuses as a method for holding elections. Congress also has the authority to set up a system of regional primaries with a rotating plan giving each region a chance to participate in the process of electing the President of the United States.
By Joel D. Joseph
