First in the Nation, Last in Efficiency’

First in the Nation, Last in Efficiency’

BETH PALMER writes:
Iowans will tell you they deserve to be first in the nation because over time, they have learned their role. They have learned to ask presidential candidates on the campaign trail the tough questions and come out to caucus, Iowans will say. And they will tell you a primary-election voting process, as we have in Illinois, could not work in Iowa because it's been tried before and failed miserably.

But as a witness to the January 3 Democratic caucus, I wonder: have we been blinded by the endearing notion of “neighbors working together,” thereby allowing an inaccurate and inefficient, albeit quite exciting system, to influence the entire nation’'s subsequent voting?

“"Is there anyone I did not count?’" shouted a woman with a Hillary Clinton haircut to a group of Obama supporters. No one raised their hand, but why did she have to ask?

“"Louder!”" pleaded one of the hundreds of elderly Iowans who strained to hear their fellow elderly precinct chairman, who was explaining the caucus process in his strongest voice. Why not use a microphone or a megaphone?

“"Does anyone have a calculator?”" asked another precinct chair after the head count ended and he needed to determine the number needed for viability in that precinct.

“"Don'’t blame me, blame the Algonquin Indians who invented this process!”" another precinct chair said in rebuttal to the roaring reaction of caucus-goers who had just learned they would have to realign or regroup for a second time.

The caucus was both admirable and alarming. It raised my hope in humanity, and it raised questions of accuracy.

Should we let Iowans continue with their endearing tradition because it’'s easier, or change the system for next year?

Beth Palmer is an undergraduate journalism student from Chicago.