As an Iowa Democrat and veteran Caucus participant, I'd say to Christopher the following: the only reason Huckabee is leading on the Republican side, if he is, is that more Republican likely Caucus participants are for him. Same if Romney, McCain, or anyone else is leading. The Caucuses exclude no voter. Everyone is encouraged in a hundred different ways to participate. It's not archane at all -- It's the only meaningful example we still have to the direct democracy ideal of the New England town meetings of yore. It's true that only a low percentage actually do choose to participate -- their choice -- but, it's also true that an even far smaller percentage participate in any given Gallup Poll, which is probably something you can basically defend. I've certainly never been bribed, even in a small way, by any candidate, and have never heard of any Caucus participant being brinbed as you describe. The closest I've heard of to that is at the Ames Republican Straw Poll, which is not the Caucuses. And, it IS true that anyone who cares to can go to an event nearby at one or several points during the long lead-up and personally meet, hear, and question any of the candidates. I've met my favorite, John Edwards, on five separate occasions, and also met Obama and Richardson and Biden's lovely wife. And, I could have gone to more events than I did. There's nothing cynical or sinister about any of it, although some of the candidates do seem more genuine and more promising in terms of knowledge, preparation, and judgment than some of the others. And, ask yourself this, Chris: Would starting the process in Chicago or Los Angeles, with their uncharacteristic degree of diversity, be more representative than starting out in a place that's more demographically-suited to individually meeting candidates, even though a bit below average in terms of minority percentages, just as New York or LA would be unrepresentative of the whole country in that regard by over-representing some groups? How about South Carolina or Nevada in that regard? Don't their ethnic percentages, after all, re-balance the deficiencies you see in that regard in Iowa and NH? If there's one actual key deficiency in the Iowa Caucus system, I'd say it's that the small rural precincts are kept roughtly on a par with the much larger urban precincts in terms of delegate strength, meaning that a rural participant may have considerably more actual power than an urban Caucus participant. And, as for the second choice rule for those supporting candidates who turn out to be "non-viable" (garnering less than 15% support in that precinct), well, everyone knows the rules!

The 15% rule is a Democratic Party construction. The Republicans, amazingly, are less exclusive.

Dr. Hufferd (a former professor of mine!) is correct. I too will caucus on Thursday night - and have done so in the past - as a Democrat. I have never been bribed, but have shaken hands and talked with Sen(s). Dodd, Obama, and Biden.

I have met Gov. Richardson a few times and listened to Sen. Clinton, too. I take my vote seriously, as do most Iowans. If some choose not to participate, then that is their choice.

The caucus meetings are a wonderful venue to get out and talk politics with our friends and neighbors - what is more Democratic than that?

I do not think Iowa is representative of the majority of American voters. Its an opinion but one that I believe is true. We need to stop worshiping the rural, small town voter as if their concerns trump all others. Lets stop this madness and begin elections where they count, in California, New York, Ohio, Texas and Illinois or Florida. The rest of the nation can go later as they represent too small a percentage of the overall population and their industries are not exactly taking us into the next century are they?

It's true that only a low percentage actually do choose to participate -- their choice -- but it's also true

How very nice that you are able to make it to the caucus by 7:00 but please explain how a shift worker is represented. Justify a process that implicitly says "if you want to participate but in order to feed your family you must work from 4:00 to 12:00 in order to get paid, well just go do without the money you need to make ends meet or give up your right to participate in the process. Such a compassionate and inclusive soul you are "I get to participate who cares about those who have a real life that require a flexible system that would allow them to participate, apparently they don't matter. Are there ways around this inequity, yes but the dems especially aren't really interested in that kind of inclusiveness and it would just be too hard to hold a morning and an evening caucus to give those who are not able to be there at 7:00 to participate what should be their right to be counted.

Lets stop this madness and begin elections where they count, in California, New York, Ohio, Texas and Illinois or Florida.

If it is indeed madness, the only way to stop it is to have one nationwide Super Tuesday.

Its the timing. And likewise, its not the fault of the people of Iowa - its the fault of the media, who in the absense of a talent for straightforward reporting, feel the need to throw around terms like "momentum" and "viability" that have a real effect on the exposure and fundraising abilities of the candidates going forward. Hitchens is right about the media, but spends too much time ranting on the selection process, which is indeed flawed, but isn't the real problem.

What so many people outside of Iowa (and NH) resent about how delegates are chosen is that the fact that our favorite candidates may no longer even be running by the time our state holds its primary. How Iowa chooses to distribute its delegates is largely immaterial, but how can we possibly justify giving this much importance to 40 delegates in Iowa, and largely ignoring 400+ in California (The difference is less extreme for the GOP, but large nonetheless)? Why should Iowans have so many opportunities to meet and shake hands with the candidates while those of us in Illinois are looked at as little more than fundraising opportunities?

True "Democracy" means one person - one vote. Anything that elevates the power of one man's vote over another is undemocratic.

spruce:

If it is indeed madness, the only way to stop it is to have one nationwide Super Tuesday.

Where's the problem with that?

It gets the same results so your "poppycock" conclusion is rather moot, thanks for agreeing with me in a roundabout way.

The problem with one big primary is that we'll be picking candidates who look good on tee vee. The reason why Iowa matters and should matter is, it obliges the candidates to get out and meet actual people. it also slows the process down enough for second thoughts and changed minds to be a factor. Rudy Giuliani, for instance, was a big deal about two weeks ago --now not so much. Hitch would like to take credit for that, and I'd be happy to give it to him if he deserved it, but Iowa is the reason.

If it's just one big primary, then the MONEY PRIMARY that happens in the year running up to it will be the REAL primary. Then, much more than now, it will be easy for big money to buy bigger influence. Right now, a few thousand bucks can buy millions of dollars' worth of advantage. The "system" you geniuses are advocating will accelerate that effect, and in the name of "democracy" you will have removed the people from the process, pretty much completely.

Barack Obama's eleven largest winning percentages were all from Caucus states. Barack's 14 caucus wins all have a larger winning percentage than his North Carolina win. Both Nebraska and Washington state reveal a 30% shift TOWARDS HILLARY CLINTON in their own primarys that were held after their caucuses. Some like to say that Barack worked harder in all of the caucus states. But it also looks like Barack Obama cheated as the odds of having his 11th largest winning percentages all coming from the caucus states and none from primaries, if both were fair and accurate, would be in the millions. http://www.hillary-wins.com