Why is the secret ballot the gold standard? Why shouldn't our political preferences be publically challenged and communally weighed? The Presidency, after all, is a public position.

Chris needs to freshen up on his democratic theory. I recommend starting with Habermas's Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.

As we sit and decry the voters who remain uninformed, it seems to me that a system that allows neighbors to debate in an atmosphere where sniping and abuse isn't tolerated is not a bad model at all. At least it allows some non-political junkies to get some information before its too late. Who better to learn from than your neighbors? At least they have concerns not dissimilar to yours, or at least you can know them well enough to know how their agenda might differ. I'm willing to stand up in public for what I believe.

The really sad part of all this is the way other states, in the name of empowering their voters, have done the opposite. If Super Tuesday were late enough for the Iowa and New Hampshire results to be digested, then the early results could be more helpful than powerful. The surprises could remind voters that all candidates are still in contention, despite contentions to the opposite, and give people time to think. By crowding in so close behind the first contests that there is no time to consider what the results mean, I suspect the other states will learn that they have given more power to Iowa and New Hampshire by causing those who want to be on the winning team to jump without thinking.

I still think it's a good idea to crowd the bulk of states together on one Super Tuesday. I just think it would be better to take the message sent by the first ones and have the time to decide if it has merit.

I agree. Can we stop for a second and consider how utterly cool it is that people take time out of their lives to stand in a room together and focus exclusively on politics, issues, and the future of our country? I live in Iowa City and teach at the University and am so excited to see my students engaged in a topic other than the under-21 drinking ordinance. This is EXCITING. This is a GOOD THING for people to participate in. This is what we think of when we think of democracy in action. Neighbors helping each other out so that they can be a part of a national decision. Debate, discussion, thoughtful consideration. And yes, there may be cookies -- and I will eat the cookies! -- but I won't base my vote on them.

anenlightenedguy:

Why is the secret ballot the gold standard? Why shouldn't our political preferences be publically challenged and communally weighed? The Presidency, after all, is a public position.

Chris needs to freshen up on his democratic theory. I recommend starting with Habermas's Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.

You can actually have both a secret ballot and communal discussion. I don't think it's the community debate portion of the evening that rankles people; it's more the heavy weight Iowa is given and the near corruption (can't bribe, ya know, but you can offer incentives).

There are some reasons why we should, or have, prefer a secret ballot to the system in Iowa, beyond the two pragmatic concerns offered by Hitchens, et al.

For instance, There are concerns about how democratic or equal such discussions turn out to be (for instance, see Lynn Sander's article [PDF] "Against Deliberation," which takes head on the theory of deliberative demoracy (http://faculty.virginia.edu/l­sanders/SB617_01.pdf); not the same as the Iowa caucuses, but similar enough). The main concern is more/less that some individuals with certain social markers can unduly influence the process, while others aren't taken serious because of who they are or what they espouse. This is of course a pretty standard worry with representative government--that those with some form of power (money, or the right genitals, or the right skin color, or the right accent or lack thereof) will be granted undue influence over the proceedings.

In a similar way, one can point to the unrepresentative sample and use it as a cudgel against Iowa. Basically, it can be argued that discussion is in fact a good thing, despite those caveats, but that the Iowa caucuses fail to meet the conditions necessary for those good effects to manifest themselves.

There is/was the concern of retribution for ones vote, of course. The physical kind may be out of vogue, but politics is a touchy enough subject that it can mean getting or not getting a job sometimes (see, the recent attorney generals' scandal and the Federalist society, for instance).

I think I had another consideration to bring up, but it has escaped my neurons attention for the time being. So, I'll conclude with: yes it is great that the caucuses get people talking about politics (even if it's a a far, far, far, far cry from the majority of citizens [I think it was 3 percent last election cycle]), but I do think there are reasons to be suspicious of the caucus system. The nation would likely be better off rotating the first primaries.

/Why is the secret ballot the gold standard? Why shouldn't our political preferences be publically challenged and communally weighed? The Presidency, after all, is a public position/ Because I don't want to get fired because I didn't vote for the right guy. Because I don't want to lose business or government contracts because I don't support the right party. Because I don't want to have my phones tapped, or be mysteriously audited simply because I voted for the opposition party. Because the President may be a public position, but he doesn't have to operate publicly. Because we don't live in a perfect world.

spaces and formatting seemingly didn't work. Sorry

You are right on. Only a secret ballot is free (relatively at least) of the powers of intimidation by a union, a boss, a pushy neighbor etc.

In Iowa it is especially important as neighbors risk being shunned by their Evangelical freaky neighbors if they don't vote for a Baptist minister and vote instead for a Catholic (Brownback already driven out by their whisper campaign conducted by Huckabee right before the Iowa Caucus) and heaven forbid they vote for a Mormon or a Pagan for that matter.

How do they get away with it using their churches for politics?

Sorry, I meant Brownback was subject to Huckabee's ministerial minions whisper campaign the night before "the Iowa Straw Poll" not caucuses.

Mia Culpa

It's an absolutely fundamental and necessary part of a democracy to have a secret ballot: if you don't have a secret ballot, it is not a democratic process.

The only way to ensure that everyone votes purely on the candidates merits is to keep each vote anonymous. If people are in the least worried that their vote will somehow be detrimental to them (such as social shunning, risk of losing their job or outright harassment) they will not go out and vote. This means that it would advantageous for parties to actively seek out people who don't agree with them and in different ways use social and economic threats and incentives to change their mind.

This is not theoretical. There are plenty of people that don't go an caucus for fear that they'll meet their neighbor or co-worker or something, which will make caucusing extremely uncomfortable. These people stay home, and the chosen candidate will be less representative of what the people want. No one in their right mind would call this a real democracy.

No, of course it isn't theoretical. I've been fired for not agreeing with the boss on politics (though that certainly wasn't the stated reason). You make a very, very good point.

I think the Republican system in Iowa, (where, after the discussion, the ballot is secret) is an improvement. The problem, of course, is that some could still be stifled and be afraid to engage in discourse. I would never, never countenance a "go stand in your corner" system for the general election...

I am sure distressed by the screaming attempts to stifle discussion during the early days of this war (that kind of talk hurts the troops how?). Banana republic, indeed.

A nice quote summing up (albeit in a perhaps less negative way) some of the fears expressed thus far.

<link>

She is thinking of voting for Mr. Edwards, but first she wants to look around the caucus room, and check under which candidates’ signs her neighbors are standing. “I want to put my energy into the direction things are moving in,” Ms. Sharp said.

Obviously, that can happen during a regular old primary as well. But, it's certainly a more plausible scenario in so open an environment as the caucus.