Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses once again are under attack. The Democrats’ inability to produce timely results after Monday night’s caucuses once again has many across the country — and here at home — asking, "Why Iowa?"
Occasionally you will hear critics suggest the caucuses have grown too big for their britches. A system that was designed for small neighborhood gatherings cannot contain the immense attention and participation that the caucuses now bring.
But by all accounts, the caucuses themselves ran well Monday night. That would suggest they are quite capable of handling big crowds and high interest.
What is becoming increasingly clear is the caucuses may not be well-equipped to handle reporting results when the race is close.
This week is not the first example. In fact, three of the past four competitive Iowa caucuses have now featured significant issues in reporting results in close races.
In 2012, Iowa Republicans announced the wrong winner on the night of the caucuses. Their initial count showed Mitt Romney with a narrow victory, but after a recount, they revealed that Rick Santorum had, in fact, won the caucuses.
The Democrats did not have a competitive caucus that year with incumbent President Barack Obama.
In 2016, Iowa Democrats were unable to produce official results until well into the next day as Hillary Clinton earned an historically narrow victory over Bernie Sanders, by a fraction of a percentage point.
The Republican caucuses went off without a hitch, although runner-up and eventual President Donald Trump tried to convince the state party to disavow the results. The state party declined to delegitimize Ted Cruz’s victory.
And that brings us to 2020 and that already infamous app, which was designed to help precinct officials report the Democratic caucus results and failed spectacularly.
The state party was not able to produce complete, official results until Thursday evening, 72 hours after the caucuses. And media outlets could not project a winner because as the results slowly trickled out, those results showed a remarkably close race between Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.
You have free articles remaining.
(When all the results were finally produced, Buttigieg held an edge over Sanders that was even closer than the 2016 Clinton-Sanders race. But questions about the validity of some precincts’ results prevented media outlets from declaring a clear winner.)
That’s three straight cycles of Iowa’s state parties struggling to produce timely and accurate results in races with razor-thin margins. That’s no longer an anomaly; it’s a pattern.
There appeared to be minimal problems with the caucuses themselves. Democrats from across the state have reported that, for the most part, their precincts were run well and efficiently. Unlike four years ago, there were no complaints of long lines, inadequate facilities, or poorly-run caucuses. By and large, Democrats reported pleasing caucus experiences.
It’s when it came time to report the results that the ground disappeared from under Democrats’ feet.
When the app failed, Democrats were unable to produce timely results. Backup systems took longer than expected, too, state party leaders said, leaving the world without official results for three days.
But perhaps it was unfair to expect rapid results in the first place. On the Democratic side, the complex caucus system and even more complex caucus math that is used to measure the campaigns’ performances, it may be unrealistic to expect a clear result the night of the caucuses.
It’s fair to wonder, especially given the events of these past few cycles, whether the system can handle that expectation.
The question then becomes whether the expectation is fair.
As the lead-off state in the nation, fair or not, the expectation is for fast results. People want to know who won, who outperformed their expectations, who has the momentum moving on to the other early-voting states. And the New Hampshire primary is only about a week after Iowa; there’s no time to wait days for results.
But if you want accurate results from closely contested caucuses, you may have to wait — whether you like it or not.
With Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status once again being debated, we're going to find out how many people like it, and how many do not.
IA Caucus for Pete 2
IA Caucus Osage
IA Caucus Precinct 2
IA Caucus tallying
IA Caucus FB Live
IA Caucus GOP
Forest City GOP Caucus
IA Caucus 1 for pete
IA Caucus FB Live 1
IA Caucus FB Live 2
IA Caucus for Warren
IA Caucus Twitter Vid
State Representative Terry Baxter
Forest City caucus, GOP
IA Caucus Ward 4 Precinct 2 results
IA Caucuses District 3
IA Caucus FB Live 1
IA Caucus FB Live 2
IA Caucus 24
IA Caucus Grace's FB Live
IA Caucus delegates
IA Caucus straw tiebreaker
IA Caucus tweet straws
@PeteButtigieg Precinct Captain Katie Koehler holds the straw she drew to break a tie. 2 Yang voters decided to leave instead of realign + breaking the tie themselves. Seems to be a consistent mindset among Yang voters to leave, according to attendees I've talked to #IACaucus pic.twitter.com/xXtaTFsLou— Lisa Grouette (@LisaGrouette) February 4, 2020
IA Caucuses 31
IA Caucus for Amy
IA Caucus NIACC
Erin Murphy covers Iowa politics and government for Lee Enterprises. His email address is email@example.com.