Download a recent issue

This bimonthly publication focuses on current and past political events and trends, and offers a unique look at what those things mean for the future. Contact us for subscription information.

"If you read just three people analyzing American politics today, do yourself a favor and make certain that Rhodes Cook is one of them. Rhodes is one of the three wisest Americans now analyzing this country's politics. As somebody who writes on politics, I want my reader to have one of two reactions: 1) Gee, I never knew that or 2) Gee, I never thought of it that way! Every time I read Rhodes Cook I have both reactions--with some envy--Gee, I never knew that and Gee, I never thought of it that way." 

~ Mark Shields, Analyst on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, panelist on "Inside Washington," Syndicated Columnist, Creators Syndicate.

« It's Caucus Time Again | Main | On the Democratic Side »
Monday
Jan302012

The Iowa Reversal

Up and down and all around the 2012 Republican presidential campaign has gone. It has probably been the craziest nominating race in the last generation. 

And from this vantage point, the weirdest event of all thus far was the changing outcome in Iowa – from an 8-vote caucus night “victory” for Mitt Romney Jan. 3 to a 34-vote advantage for Rick Santorum more than two weeks later when the vote was finalized. The state party actually threw up its hands at the end and said no winner could be definitively declared since the results from all precincts could not be retrieved. It expressed congratulations to both candidates.

In a half century of observing presidential nominating campaigns, I have never seen anything like this. Not just the unusual closeness of the vote, but the inability of the folks counting the votes to determine a true winner. The nebulous result was an embarrassment to the Iowa caucuses in general and the Republican Party of Iowa in particular.   

Besides that, several other points stand out. First, the Iowa situation was not fair to Santorum. Rather than coming into New Hampshire off an apparent victory, he entered the state basically becalmed. It was Romney who possessed the momentum, getting extensive credit for scoring an ever so narrow victory in hostile terrain. 

It is arguable that the initial interpretation of the Iowa result pushed Romney up and Santorum down by several percentage points in the Granite State. It probably cost the latter a chance at third, or even a momentum-producing second place heading off to South Carolina. And it helped Romney swell his winning percentage in New Hampshire to an imposing 39%, which aided him in crafting an image as the GOP’s inevitable nominee.  

A second point: the changing Iowa outcome exposed the murky world of caucus vote-counting. In primary states, the elections are virtually always administered by the states themselves, which have long experience in conducting them. In caucus states, the balloting is nearly always overseen by the parties, which have comparatively little experience in putting on a statewide election.

Altogether, eight of 1,774 precincts failed to submit their official caucus vote to the Iowa GOP. But believe it or not, that is a much higher rate of completeness than ever exists in many caucus states, where a final tally with less than 90% of all voting sites can often be the norm.

This is important to note because in the weeks ahead, a wave of caucus states will be in the spotlight. Nevada votes Feb. 4. Maine starts its process the same day and continues for a week. Colorado and Minnesota caucus on Feb. 7, and Washington on March 3. Seven more states are scheduled to hold caucuses in the following two weeks. Hopefully, the contests will not be too close in any of these states, or the possibility of another Iowa-style imbroglio could well result.    

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (7)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (1)

I think your analysis of how the Iowa vote (mis)count helped Romney and hurt Santorum is right on. However, the larger point is that, in contests such as these, it makes absolutely no sense to even bother declaring a "winner" when the vote is so close.

This was not an election for office; it was not even a winner-take-all delegate contest. (For that matter, Iowa is not a winner-take-ANYTHING contest; delegates are actually decided later on in county and state conventions, adding to the absurdity of the caucuses.) In a contest where delegates are awarded proportionally, the outcome is by definition a tie if two candidates are close enough to receive the same number of delegates, which seems to be the case here, setting aside the aforementioned technicality.

The only responsible way to frame the result--by the party officials, the media, the candidates, or anyone else--would have been to call it a virtual tie between Romney and Santorum. Any demand for the absolute declaration of the "winner" indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of awarding delegates -- which, if better understood, might actually expose the absurdities of the nominating process.

February 1, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNick

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>