For all the Democrat talk about "disenfranchisement" when it comes to if a state attempts to impose a photo ID requirement for voting, I'm curious why none of them have taken on this manifestly unjust and disenfranchising voting system.

Because the caucuses, held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have baby sitters, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, and many others who work in retail, at gas stations and in other jobs that require evening duty.

As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people. In 2004, when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses.

And the Democrat caucus rules make dismiss such trivial concepts as "one person, one vote" in favor of a weighted voting system that allows some caucus-goers much more influence on the process than others.

While the Republican caucuses are fairly simple — voters can leave shortly after they declare their preferences — Democratic caucuses can require more time and multiple candidate preferences from participants. They do not conform to the one-person, one-vote rule, because votes are weighted according to a precinct’s past level of participation. Ties can be settled by coin toss or picking names out of a hat.

And the concerns of voters who are excluded from the process are blithely dismissed by the head of the Democrats in the state.

Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the party had no responsibility to ensure that voters can caucus. “The campaigns are in charge of generating the turnout,” Mr. Brennan said, and the voters who truly care will find their way to their local caucuses.

As for Ms. Tope, the emergency room worker, “there’s always the next cycle,” Mr. Brennan said.

In other words, the Democrats will be using a system that disenfranchises the working-class, minorities, and active duty military personnel to determine the winner of their delegates -- and they just don't care. One really has to wonder how such a system survives scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act and other laws designed to protect the voting rights of all Americans.

And as for my own Republican Party (even though it has procedures and rules in place that are less burdensome and undemocratic) I urge it to explicitly reject the caucus system in future years and move to a primary election system for the selection of delegates in Iowa.

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.