Does the Iowa Caucus Matter?

It’s not surprising that being first thrusts the Iowa Caucus onto a towering public stage with extraordinary public interest. But is all the attention warranted? Critics have argued that Iowa does not mimic the country’s demographics well. It's a small, mid-western state, which is primarily rural and predominantly white. Allowing Iowa to go first, they argue, skews results, preemptively damaging the chances of candidates who could do well at the national level.

And if you look at Iowa’s track record in making predictions about the presidential race, it does not improve the argument for Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status. Iowa has a reputation for picking losers when it comes to the presidential race (with a few exceptions, Jimmy Carter in 1977 and the current president in 2000 and 2004). In particular, the caucus has been a notoriously unreliable guide to the outcome of the Democratic primary process. New Hampshire is well acknowledged to be better when it comes to the picking winners.

In this primary season the timing of the primaries became a hotly contested issue, with bigger states wanting to hold their primaries before Iowa’s, such as Florida, New Mexico and South Carolina. Yet in a nod to tradition, Iowa remains first. The state will hold its elections on January 3.
So why Iowa?

In an interview, Christopher Hull took up this question with John Miller of the National Review. In his recently released book, Grassroots Rules, Hull compares the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on the primary nomination and the presidency. He argues that Iowa’s first state status is well deserved because of the unique format of its caucus to convention system. (For those who are not familiar with how it works: Iowa's caucus involves party sympathizers meeting in schools, homes and other locations to debate their choices, and arrive at a consensus to declare support for a candidate. After this is a statewide tally is used to determine the allocation of delegates to each candidate for the party's convention.)

Hull makes the point that the caucus encourages "retail politics" and real debate on the issues. It forces candidates to organize and build grassroots coalitions. In putting a high premium on the grassroots networks, Iowa seems to amplify the impact of the internet. Hull also finds that the caucus limits the impact of negative campaigning and the influence of advertising dollars. Perhaps the most startling conclusion in the book is that increased television spending in Iowa seems to harm candidate’s chances rather than improving them, keeping other factors constant (time spent canvassing in the state, press coverage, campaign contributions, internet spending, etc).

Even if Iowa does not pick winners, in Hull’s view, the state performs an important function by weeding out losers (Steve Forbes in 2000, for instance) and bringing the spotlight on candidates who canvass well, can get their message across, and are therefore electable. Of course, other states could mimic Iowa’s caucus, and according to Hull that would be good for democracy in America. But as long as that is not the case, it appears that Iowa has earned its right to be first.