Confusion and Uncertainty in Iowa Caucus Results
The Iowa caucuses are a complicated dance of vote sorting, reapportionment and, this year, vote counting (Source)
The Iowa presidential caucuses usually indicate which candidates will see continued success in their primary race and which will flounder. Statistically, no candidate placing fourth or lower in Iowa has won their party’s nomination. This year, rather than indicate a front-runner for the rest of the primaries, the Iowa caucuses have only created confusion. Voters and observers had no clear results for days. Even when results were finally reported, uncertainty remained, as the Associated Press declined to declare a winner due to irregularities in the results and such a small margin between the front runners, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.
Caucusing, a form of primary voting held in Iowa as well as five other states, has faced increased scrutiny for years. In the past two election cycles, eight states have switched from caucusing to a more traditional vote. For those accustomed to voting by ballot, a process of voting involving standing in your preferred candidate’s section of a high school gym or a fire station seems quaint, if not comical. The system seems even more ridiculous when a coin toss breaks ties in a handful of precincts. Caucusing requires voters to show up at one time, usually late at night, for a process that can take upwards of an hour. Critics have noted that this arrangement is difficult for parents, those who work nights, and those who simply are not engaged enough, as well as prevents early and absentee voting. All of these factors add up to voter turnout that was only 15.7 percent of eligible voters in 2016. For comparison, that year, New Hampshire’s turnout was 52 percent.
These critiques came to a head as what was already viewed by some as a flawed system showed signs of systematic failure. In an attempt to increase transparency, the Iowa Democratic Party allowed precincts to report to Democratic National Committee (DNC) Iowa headquarters in three ways: a now infamous smartphone app, a phone call to headquarters, and paper records to ensure accuracy. Failures began early as caucus volunteers struggled to log into or even download the app, let alone submit results. Volunteers then tried the backup, phoning in the results. However, phone lines at the DNC headquarters were tied up for hours as hundreds of volunteers from over 1,600 precincts tried to report. Some volunteers then tried to email photographs of the caucus tallies, and by the next morning, over 700 emails waited in the Iowa Democratic Party’s inbox.
With no results to speak of, the candidates’ responses varied. Buttigieg claimed victory early in a speech. Sanders released internal numbers that showed him winning. Biden’s campaign team published a letter addressed to the DNC, demanding “full explanations” and “relevant information” on quality control issues. Warren did not mention delayed results and instead just said that the race was too close to call.
The New York Times reported that one out of every six precincts had inconsistencies in reported data. The results eventually produced have Buttigieg narrowly in the lead by a razor-thin margin and in a statistical tie with Sanders, followed by Warren to round out the top three. The publishing of the results has done little to quash uncertainty.
The fallout of the failed Iowa caucus has been swift. President Trump has reveled in the failures of the Democratic party, tweeting on Tuesday morning “The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster.” The consequences of the debacle are hard to predict, as there are so many primaries remaining, and with the New Hampshire primaries completed, Iowa has taken a backseat to the next primaries. Iowa losing its status as first to vote or switching from caucusing seems unlikely, and this disaster may not matter if a candidate wins the primary by a landslide or have a concrete effect on the general election.