The  Democratic Party Caucus in Iowa

 

After Iowa Democratic voters gather at approved caucus sites, there is a call to order and general business is taken care of. Then the selection process commences. For Democrats there are 3 numbers that matter: the first round of votes, the final vote total after realignment, and the resulting allotment of state delegate equivalents. The 3rd figure represents the number of delegates each candidate will have at the party’s state convention, and in turn, how many delegates at the Democratic National Convention. All 3 numbers are important, and could in fact produce differing claims as to who actually “won” the caucuses. In all, the Democratic party allots 41 pledged delegates to the state of Iowa on the basis of the results of the caucuses, with another 6-8 unpledged delegates selected by the national party. Iowa’s delegate total is roughly 1% of the delegate total sent to the Democratic National Convention (July 13-16, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

 

So, how are those 3 key numbers decided? People at the caucus (voters as well as representatives from the candidates) are given an opportunity to speak on behalf of any favored candidate, and discuss and debate the merits of particular candidates, participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a preference group), physically moving into different parts of the room to show which candidate they support. An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for about 30 minutes participants try to convince those in other groups to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups, especially from the undecided group. In turn, undecided participants might visit other preference groups to ask its members about their candidate.

 

Next comes the first count, also known as the “first expression of preference”. Everyone gets counted, and caucus organizers take note of any groups that have less than 15% of the total. Groups that exceed the 15% threshold are considered “viable”, and members of that group must stay with their candidate group for the remainder of the caucus. Members of any candidate group that fails to meet the viability threshold are given time (roughly another 30 minutes) to explore the option of joining a viable group (thus, a group supporting a different candidate), or trying to persuade undecideds and/or participants from other nonviable groups to join together to cross the 15% threshold and become a viable preference group. This process is known as “realignment.”  Only one round of realignment is allowed. Members of groups that are declared viable may not realign.

 

What does realignment mean? It means that for voters whose preferred candidate was not viable in the first round (>15%), she/he could support another candidate they like, joining that group and pushing up the total tally for that candidate. Alternatively, they could eschew other candidates and focus upon persuading others from non-viable candidates to join their group. However, this strategy means that they run the risk of falling short of the 15% threshold and subsequently not having their votes contribute to the allocation of delegates. Naturally, voters may remain undecided or choose to sit out the realignment.

 

When the dust settles, another count is taken again, known as the “final expression of preference”. Every candidate who clears the 15% viability threshold the second time around is awarded at least one delegate, with proportionately more going to candidates with more votes. Using a mathematical formula, the state party calculates how many “state delegate equivalents” each candidate has won at each caucus location and adds them up.

 

QUICK SUMARY of the DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS PROCESS

 

1st  RESULT	The first result is the “first expression of preference”, or simply a tally of the initial strength and commitment of caucus-goers to specific candidates. This count is taken after the initial round of speeches and discussions, but before the “realignment” that occurs for attendees whose initial candidates are unable to achieve the 15% threshold.
2nd RESULT	The second result is the “final expression of preference, or simply the count of where everyone stands after the realignment process. Any candidate who has failed to garner at least 15% of caucus-goers is eliminated from gaining delegates.
3rd  RESULT	The third result reflects the allotment of State Delegate Equivalents. This is the ratio of state-to-county convention delegates determined by the final expression of preference at each of Iowa’s caucus sites. Importantly, this is the number used to determine the overall “winner” in terms of results.

 

What is New in 2020?

 

One significant change is that in addition to the 1,680 precinct caucuses, the Democratic party has approved 96 ‘satellite’ caucus sites across and outside of Iowa, which could substantially bolster participation (71 throughout Iowa; 25 in other states, and 3 overseas). This includes college campuses, nursing homes, service centers for non-English speakers or the disabled, and area factories, in order to broaden access. For out-of-state satellite caucuses, any person may participate if they are a resident of Iowa, are registered as a Democratic voter in Iowa, and have preregistered with the Iowa Democratic Party to attend their out-of-state satellite caucus. According to Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price, “these will be the most accessible, transparent caucuses we’ve ever had. This will increase participation, and I’m excited about the possibility for the process.” Perhaps the greatest novelty is that Joshua Kucera — a freelance journalist originally from Des Moines who now works in the country of Georgia — will host an “Iowa” caucus in Tbilisi, capital of the country of Georgia. Other “Iowa” caucuses will be conducted at a university in Paris and at a home in Glasgow.

 

Another innovation will be the reporting of the first round tallies, that is, the results of the first expression of preference. In previous years, first round totals in the Democratic caucuses were not published, so this is the first time that candidates and media will have an idea of the starting and ending points. In theory, some candidates could poll substantially worse in the first round than their final total, and thus the winner after  realignment might not be the candidate who polled highest in the first expression of preference. Candidates could hype their first round totals as the “real” results.

 

Where things Stand

 

As Nate Silver of 538.com reminds us, it’s important to keep in mind that the Iowa caucuses are harder to poll than primaries, since they introduce a number of complications. Caucuses require a long time commitment, which can make turnout harder to predict, and they are NOT a secret ballot, so voters can literally try to persuade their neighbors to change sides. Just this week a CNN/Des Moines Register poll found that only about 40% of likely Democratic caucus-goers have already decided on a candidate, which according to J. Ann Selzer, the top pollster in Iowa. The candidates are running out of time to make their last-minute pitch to voters. Thus, as we head into the final weekend before the caucuses, the race remains volatile, and there is no guarantee that any single candidate will easily carry all or most of Iowa's 41 pledged delegates on caucus night.

 

In line with what nearly all pundits are saying, the recent polling of likely caucus-goers shows that it will be a very competitive and unpredictable contest. Below are the latest polling number polls, which clearly indicate that the race is still up for grabs.

 

Candidate	Morningside Poll, conducted Jan. 17-23.	Monmouth University Poll conducted January 23-27.  (2nd choice)	Iowa State University Poll, conducted January 23-27. (2nd choice)
Joe Biden	19%	23%   (16%)	15%   (15%)
Pete Buttigieg	18%	16%   (13%)	17%   (12%)
Bernie Sanders	15%	21%   (11%)	24%   (13%)
Elizabeth Warren	15%	15%   (19%)	19%   (16%)
Amy Klobuchar	12%	10%   (12%)	11%   (13%)
Tom Steyer	6%	4%   ( 6%)	4%   ( 7%)
Andrew Yang	4%	3%   ( 4%)	5%   ( 7%)
Michael Bloomberg	1%	n/a	1%   ( 1%)