THIS IS THE LAST HALF OF THE ARTICLE WHICH SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE CAUCUSES.
THE SAD PART IS, THESE SMALL NON-REPRESENTATIVE GROUPS FROM 2 STATES WILL BE USED BY THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA TO CONTINUE THE BRAINWASHING OF OUR CITIZENS.

Who Elected Iowa?

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The caucuses draw a small, unrepresentative sample of a small, unrepresentative state. While nearly 30 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2004 New Hampshire primary, just 6 percent went to the Iowa caucuses, according to data compiled by George Mason University professor Michael McDonald. The 2000 turnout figures were even more skewed, 44 percent in New Hampshire compared with 7 percent in Iowa.

This year's outreach may boost those numbers, but most Iowans view the caucuses as an obscure art practiced by an elect few. "Usually I don't go, because I'm afraid I'm going to get there and feel like a dummy," one man on Ahn's list confides.

"That's what I need to find out more about -- I don't know how to go to caucus," says Sherilyn Orr, 64, who eagerly accepts a refrigerator magnet printed with the caucus date.

Candidates spend enormous sums -- it could be as high as $20 million -- to win this handful of votes. John Norris, the organizing guru who helped propel John Kerry to his 2004 victory here and is advising Obama, estimates that the top candidates will spend around $400 per caucus vote.

All for a result whose significance resides largely in the fact that it is deemed significant. Political reporters, myself included, get misty over the notion of neighbors gathering on a cold winter night to hash out differences over who is the best candidate. But the caucus process also serves to disenfranchise -- those who would rather not state preferences publicly or those who can't make it at the assigned hour. In the course of our afternoon together, Ahn knocks on the door of one woman who says she can't make it because she's just lost her husband; a few other people say they're scheduled to work that night.

The bizarre rules of the Democratic contest further distort the results. (Republicans employ a more straightforward method: The candidate with the most votes wins.) Why should a candidate who fails to meet the 15 percent threshold of viability walk away empty-handed? Why should the final outcome depend on how those losing campaigns decide where to throw their backing when, in caucus-speak, nonviable preference groups realign for a second round? No wonder the caucus process makes ordinary people's heads hurt.

Why should some votes -- in precincts that had a good turnout in the last election, in rural areas -- get more weight than others? Why aren't the raw numbers -- how many voters supported which candidates -- made available?

And perhaps the most important question: Given all this, why do we in the media invest the caucuses with such make-or-break significance?

marcusr@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... newsletter