1 good thing about the Iowa caucuses, and 3 that are really troubling

• Every four years, the Iowa caucuses find new ways to become a problematic part of the presidential nomination process.
• Democrats have abandoned the Iowa-first tradition, at least for 2024, but Republicans went full speed ahead with the caucuses on Jan. 15, 2024.
• Earlier this month, Republican candidate Nikki Haley dissed Iowa, telling a New Hampshire audience that their state primary that occurs after the Iowa caucuses would correct the mistakes made in Iowa.
• “You know that you correct it.” That’s the sort of thing a candidate trying to do well in Iowa says after the caucuses – not before.

Iowa’s upside for long-shot candidates

• Fans of the Iowa caucuses also note that lesser-known candidates can compete without having huge campaign war chests or political experience.
• But how is being inexperienced in government or being unpopular with party donors considered a good things for selecting presidents?

• Ramaswamy could only pull in 7% of Iowa caucus voters despite his boasts of visiting each of Iowa’s 99 counties, a feat officially known as a “full Grassley,” named for Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.
• They didn’t last all that long after Iowa.

Modern-day media realities

• In the 2024 presidential campaign, Republican campaigns spent more than US$100 million on 2024 Iowa caucuses advertising, which amounts to about $600 for every Republican caucus participant.
• In the 2020 presidential campaign, the total amount of ad spending was $44 million – and that included spending from Democratic and Republican candidates.

• The media’s outsized role involves more than just receiving inflated campaign spending.
• The fact that reporters focus on horse-race dynamics and downplay issues has long been a problem that diminishes interest and voter turnout, as media scholar S. Robert Lichter and I demonstrated in our 2010 book “The Nightly News Nightmare.” Those who defend Iowa and New Hampshire say they are more accessible to lesser-known and inexperienced candidates, but national polling and fundraising, as well as media coverage, are increasingly used as criteria determining who can effectively participate in these small-state processes and who can’t.

Long-standing flaws

• The largest Republican caucus turnout was 180,000 voters in 2016, and the best year for Democratic turnout was 240,000 voters in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton.
• If Iowa switched to a primary, which would allow a daylong window for voting, evidence demonstrates there would be a lot more participation.
• With limited exceptions, Iowa caucuses require a voter to appear in person during the evening in the middle of winter.

Aside from the convenience factor, the major problem with the Iowa caucuses is that the state does not remotely look like America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the vast majority – 88% – of Iowans are white. For the U.S. as a whole, that figure is about 75%. What that means is that caucus results may not be reflective of the nation as a whole but merely a snapshot of a certain small-town, folksy part of America.

Vote-counting delays

• Despite decades of experience in running caucuses, Iowa has demonstrated that it frequently cannot count.
• The New York Times described the 2020 Iowa caucuses as an “epic meltdown,” as results were not finalized for days.
• One wants to ensure accuracy, and delays of days for election results are normal in closely fought contests.

A possible alternative?

• Well, scholars suggest a range of alternatives, including a one-day, nationwide primary, a small-state-first system that groups states of similar population sizes, or perhaps a series of five or so multistate regional primary contests, with the order of the regional groups determined by lottery.
• None of these alternatives seems likely to happen, though, and that means the various problems with the Iowa caucus process will continue, regardless of which party is conducting one.

Stephen J. Farnsworth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.