Can You Trust the Iowa Count?
Posted Monday, Jan. 24, 2000, at 7:19 PM ETAn earlier kausfiles item ("Paul Simon: You May Already Have Won,") noted that the Democratic caucus count in Iowa in 1988 was essentially a scam engineered by the television networks and their joint vote-counting organization (then known as the News Election Service). What was the problem? It's complicated, but basically the networks tried to supplant the Democratic Party's time-consuming official delegate count with their own, unofficial count of a preliminary vote. (Specifically, they tried to count noses before the votes for some candidates were reallocated when they failed to reach a 15 percent "viability" threshhold.) Then the networks screwed up the counting of this preliminary vote.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponSo are this evening's Iowa caucuses going to be any better? I called the network's current vote-counting cooperative, now known as the Voter News Service, to ask exactly what would be counted. Would the networks be trumpeting the results of entrance polls? Would they try to go into the caucuses and count the supporters of each candidate? Before or after the "viability" business? It wasn't encouraging when VNS spokesperson Lee C Shapiro told me this was "proprietary information." The VNS couldn't discuss it publicly! I'd have to go the individual networks and ask them what the VNS was doing. Why the Kremlinesque secrecy? Aren't these the basic mechanics of democracy we're talking about?
But the answer to my initial question (obtained from Slate's affiliate, MSNBC, and an informative column by David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register) appears to be that no, the 1988 Potemkin count won't be repeated. The focus this year will be on the official Democratic results, as measured in "delegate equivalents." Whatever info the shadowy VNS provides (entrance polls, or actual caucus counts in select precincts) will apparently be directed at allowing an early estimate of those official results. And the VNS (at least according to MSNBC) won't make the attempt to count "pre-viability" votes that turned into such a joke in 1988. Indeed, because the Democratic race is a competitive two-person contest, the "viability" question is largely moot anyway--there are unlikely to be many instances where either Bradley or Gore fails to muster a "viable" number of supporters.
[Nothing on Toobin?--ed. The night is young.]
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Highlights from The Fray:
Why are the actual numbers of voters not more prominently reported? I do not consider it very significant that Mr. Gore garnered a thousand or so votes in Iowa. Why does MSNBC think it is a big deal when it's not?
--William Shuman
(To reply, click here.)
This has been a point of much confusion. Don Imus apparently wondered at length on his radio show why the vote totals (for example, those on MSNBC) were so low--with Bradley getting "698" and Gore getting "1,269." The answer is that those numbers are not vote totals. They are the number of delegates each candidate is projected to have at Iowa's state convention, which will in turn choose Iowa's delegates to the Democratic convention. The percentage figures you see bandied about in the press aren't vote percentages either--they're percentages of these same state convention delegates.
Why weren't actual vote counts given? Because the state party doesn't tally them--all it cares about are the delegates. (If it counted votes, that would make Iowa a "primary," and New Hampshire would be pissed.) Why shouldn't the press go in and count the actual votes at the caucuses? Because this is a Herculean task that the press royally screwed up when it was previously attempted. (See this "Kausfiles" item.)
But if the press isn't going to count votes, it should make clear that the totals it is reporting aren't vote totals--a task at which it failed miserably this year. MSNBC is the only site I've seen that even makes an attempt (in a murky footnote).
--Mickey Kaus
(To reply, click here.)
(1/27)