Editorial: If Iowa tells us anything, it’s that caucuses are outdated and they should be replaced with primaries

It feels nearly impossible to ignore the media frenzy surrounding the Iowa caucus — every news site is full of differing opinions on its validity. This year they introduced a newly developed smartphone app used to tabulate caucusing results but failed miserably in doing so, taking nearly three days to reach a verdict on the winner. The recent caucus mishap has demonstrated that regardless of its popularity and tradition, caucusing needs to go. 

Caucusing brings unnecessary voter pressure, herding bunches of people into a gym to stand in their candidate’s corner — some of which change places just to make sure another candidate doesn’t win. To keep the presidential primary process as accurate as possible, states that caucus need to make the switch to primaries before another election cycle takes a hit like this one did.

Sarah Bledsoe | The Harbinger Online

There are two ways of polling in the United States: caucuses and primaries. The difference is primaries include individually registered voters going to polling booths and voting. In caucuses, which some states choose to hold (including Iowa), voters gather together to discuss and vote on a top pick for their party. These caucuses are set at a neutral location in each of a state’s precincts and are held during both the presidential and midterm elections, but they’re most popular during the presidential election.   

The caucus is one of the first preliminary elections held, setting a precedent for other states’ elections. Voters want to see how well the candidates they support hold up in real elections. But since the first round of voting is done via caucus, we’re forced to rely on an outdated system ran by untrained ‘officials’ with far-too important jobs like running and tabulating the caucuses.  

The caucusing system has become one of the most talked about preliminary presidential polling processes. Yet the validity of the results always seem to end up unreliable — the New York Times recently released a series of articles after the 2020 caucuses detailing several inconsistencies in tallies that lead to vague results over the course of multiple primaries. So it was no surprise when the latest Iowa caucus was once again deeply flawed.  

But regardless of new — not necessarily improved — technology, the Iowa caucus has always gained more media discussion and presidential popularity than it should when it comes to presidential elections, due to the fact that it is the beginning and tone-setter of primary season.

For those outside of Iowa, the results of their caucuses are a way to gauge how well certain candidates are doing in polls, this year being an unusual exception. Though these observations are influential in the decision-making of those in other states, the lack of clarity — and accuracy — can be confusing for voters. Making the results inaccurate due to the social pressure of publicly choosing a candidate results in fabricated voting decision based on what others think. That won’t be there come election day.  

While the Iowa Democrats are usually consistent in predicting, their record has never been perfect. Neither Richard Gephardt in 1988 or Tom Harkin in 1992 secured their party’s nomination, despite coming out on top in Iowa. Iowa’s Republicans haven’t been nearly as accurate, such as the party nominees in 1980, 1988, 2008 and 2012, which leaves us with no explanation to why these caucuses are held at such a high esteem.

The best option is to get rid of it. The caucus system has countless issues of inaccuracy not including the recent Iowa caucus mishap, but the machine failure in Iowa was the final straw.

Unlike a typical primary, the only way caucus participants’ votes will be taken into account is if they show up to the designated location — picture a bunch of people shoved into an elementary school gym — in February. This creates a system that easily excludes the input of other eligible voters in the state of Iowa that most likely will be voting in the actual election. 

While every job includes some kind of training process, education or experience in the area, working a caucus is an exception. Most primary elections are overseen by professional state officials who abide by specific laws and have undergone intensive training. Caucuses are instead run by political parties with no governmental involvement — the potential for error skyrockets.

It’s also become apparent that technology and modern day elections do not mix well if they’re handled in such lackluster fashion. Conducting elections the correct way involve many steps such as voting, counting votes and most importantly, accurately reporting the data. Underdeveloped apps like the Iowan Democrats used make an already superfluous process even more messy — and turn what usually takes one night into a three-day disaster.

While states technically have the right to choose whether or not to hold caucuses, the recent  controversy of the Iowa caucus will definitely be a chance to fix the most publicized caucuses in the  nation. The disappointment of the 2020 Iowa caucus gives handfuls of reasons to end the outdated and flawed system in 2024.