Topic: Iowa Caucus 2016
Article: The Boston Globe; In Iowa precinct, coin tosses decide between Sanders and Clinton
Background:
As many of you know, the 2016 Iowa Caucus took place this Monday, February 1st. As predicted, the Democrats took the caucus approach, whereas the Republicans stuck to the primary style. As we learned in class, there is a huge difference between a caucus and a primary. A caucus is a form of voting that takes place in a big room (usually a high school gym) with tables representing each candidate in each corners of the room. The voters flock to the table of the candidate they want to vote for and are then are counted, this year apps were used to make it easier. If their candidate does not receive 15% of the votes, they either have to leave their candidate and go to a new one or become undecided. Once a candidate receives at least a majority of the votes, they have won the caucus. On the other hand, a primary is a form of voting in which the voters come in, take a ballot, secretly mark their candidate the wish to vote for on the ballot and place it in a bin to be counted later. Whichever candidate has the most ballots with their name checked off on in the bin at the end of the night wins the primary. A state decides on their voting styles and their approaches of their primaries on their own. Iowa has a caucus for the Democrats and a primary for the Republicans. Throughout the state of Iowa there were 1,681 caucus locations.
Article: NY Times: In Iowa, Voters on the Edges May Set Tone for Primaries
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/iowa-caucus-2016-election.html?_r=0
Summary:
This article breaks down the results of the Iowa caucuses. For the Republicans, the results were pretty straight forward. Ted Cruz received the most votes (27.6%) and therefore won. The other two Republican candidates that were close were Donald Trump (24.3%) and Marco Rubio (23.1%). Although, for the Democratic side, it was fairly interesting. Hillary Clinton received 49.9% of the votes and 23 delegates, Bernie Sanders received 49.6% of the votes and 21 delegates, and Mark O’Malley received 0.6% of the votes and 0 delegates. Across the state of Iowa, coin tosses were conducted at the caucuses to award delegates to either Bernie or Hillary because of how close the race was. This seems like a very problematic way to chose the next party nominee of the US and because of that, it has been the talk of the Iowa caucus. Although, this has been a rule for the Iowa caucus for quite some time, even Obama was awarded delegates in 2008 in a coin tosses. Even though it doesn’t seem like a correct and mature way to decide which candidate gets delegates, it doesn’t seem like the coin tosses had a huge effect on the results. It doesn’t because many sources do not know the official results of the coin tosses or exactly how many took place. Some sources say there were six and Hillary won all six, others say that there were seven and Bernie won five and Hillary won two , and others say there were two and Hillary won both. Since there is no confirmed number, it gives a little hope that America does not really on the flip of a coin to determine who the next party nominee will be.
Article: Coin tosses used to determine county delegates in Clinton-Sanders race
Article: Iowa caucus coin flip count unknown
Connection to Federal Government:
The Iowa caucus is a direct correlation to the US government, especially the executive branch. The Iowa caucus is so important because it pretty much sets the stage for the other states. As Sen. George McGovern said, “Iowa is terribly important. It’s the first test in the nation, where we get any test at all.” This means that the results of Iowa gives the candidates a general idea if their policies are attracting voters and if they are well liked. If the do not do so good in Iowa, many candidates take a different approach on their campaigning to gain supporters for the upcoming primaries in other states. Also, if a candidate does terrible in Iowa, they simple just drop out of the race so that they do not waste their time and money, an example of this in 2016 is Mark O’Malley. Since Iowa, and the other primaires show the results from real, everyday voters, primaries also relate to the parties in the US because the outcome of the primaries are how the presidential nominees are chosen. This is very important because one of the party nominees will become the next President of the Unites States.
Article: Why is the Iowa caucus so important?
http://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm
Analysis:
Overall, the Iowa caucus is very important to the US presidential race. It gives the voters an understanding of who has a chance in the race, how the average American voter is reacting to the candidates, and it helps cement the winning candidate’s chance on becoming the party’s nominee. Although, Iowa is not the only one that matters. Even though Iowa sets the state for the candidates, it does not guarantee that the winning runner of Iowa is going to become the party nominee. It doesn’t because voters in different states have different views. For example, some states are blue or red states and therefore they may vote for different candidates because they are much more focused on the democratic (if blue) or republican (if red) candidates and therefore examine their policies much closer than the voters in Iowa did. Iowa is important to the US presidential running, but Iowa does not guarantee that their winners are definitely going to become the overall party nominees.
Questions:
- Do you think that a coin toss is a reasonable way to award delegates to the democratic candidates? Why or why not?
- Since the results were so close on the both sides, do you think that New Hampshire (the next state to vote) will have different results? Why or why not?
- Which style of voting do you think is better? Caucuses or primaries? Why?
pogo2currentevents 
A coin toss doesn’t seem like the most mature way to award delegates but it does seem pretty fair. It’s funny to think that a candidate could hypothetically speaking(if two candidates kept tying) win a state primary/caucus based off a coin toss. Hearing the word coin toss makes me think of a child making a silly bet .However, a coin toss is the most fair. Each candidate has a 50% chance of winning, and it’s all up to gravity to decide the winner (which again,is pretty funny). As the guardian article had stated this type of technique has been used all throughout history dating all the way back to the Romans. One example of a succesfull coin toss would be, “Portland, in Oregon, was given its name in a process that involved a coin toss. Asa Lovejoy and Francis Pettygrove each wanted to name the new town after their respective hometowns of Boston, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine. Pettygrove won the toss, and so the town was named Portland”. That seems like a very fair technique to decide a winner, therefore I think awarding delegates would by coin toss is totally fair. However, I am able to see the immature side of a coin toss so I understand why it could be seen as controversial.
As for New Hampshire, I think the Clinton and Sanders are going to have yet another very close race. I’m not very involved in the news and the campaigns by the numbers but I have seen the Snapchat stream from the Democratic debate in NH and both Bernie and Hillary look like they have 50/50 in terms of supporters.I’m not sure if I could say the same about the Republican party as there is so many of them.
I personally, like primaries much better because its much simpler. You go in, get a ballot, vote, and leave. That seems both effective and less time consuming. Caucuses can last up to 4 hours and I, personally would not vote if it took me 4 hours.
LikeLike
A coin toss doesn’t seem like a fair way of seeing which candidate receives the delegates. When it comes to the coin toss to award delegates it comes down to luck and relying on luck in a candidate’s presidential campaign is ridiculous. I personally think a tie is a tie but in situations like having to have a candidate win in order receive a state’s delegates and move on it seems to be the only viable option. On the democratic side I think that Hillary and Bernie will be fairly close in New Hampshire when it comes to the votes but there has been speculation that Bernie may win New Hampshire because of it being right next to his state of Vermont. I would not be surprised if the caucuses end in more coin tosses though because of Hillary and Bernie being in a virtual tie. The caucus style of voting is very inclusive and although it takes very long for the voting processes itself many people enjoy the excitement that comes along with it. The primary style of voting is very simple and is also more practical for people to vote and leave. I would like to be involved in the caucusing at least once because it isn’t a yearly thing that happens and I think the time spent on it is worth while because you are setting up a candidate with delegates who may eventually become the president.
LikeLike
I do not think a coin toss is the most appropriate way to award delegates, however if it is effective way to end the tie then I understand using the method. I do think a coin toss is fair since each candidate has about a 50% chance of either winning, therefore I think it is fairly reasonable. I believe that New Hampshire will also have pretty similar votes. I know recently in the news there have been predictions that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will have a close race again. Both candidates have an equal amount of support, and either have a pretty good chance of winning New Hampshire. However, for the Republican party I am unsure because there are so many candidates and is unforeseeable. I prefer primaries because they seem simpler and straight to the point, whereas caucuses can be very time consuming.
LikeLike
A coin toss is not a reasonable way for the democrats to award delegates. The delegates are supposed to represent the people which is what they should do, not vote based on gravity. I believe that New Hampshire will have a similar predicament as Iowa but might have different results, but only time will tell because right now it is anybodies game. With polls showing Bernie and Hilary so close I do not believe even experienced political analysts know what will happen. As for the republican side: Jeb Bush is expected to start making gains and hopefully Trump gets less vote. Also Marco Rubio is at the moment a wild card that I do not know what to expect from. I believe primaries are a more direct form of voting than caucuses however I am pretty neutral because both work perfectly fine.
LikeLike
Based on the situation, the only way to easily decide who won Iowa would be to have a coin toss. New Hampshire seems to be unpredictable because Bernie and Trump have both been polling well there and based on the article from the New York Times, “The embrace of Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, visible nationally in huge rallies, has stirred Iowa’s latent Midwest populism, with voters angry about the hollowing out of the middle class, Wall Street greed and the corrupting influence of money in politics”. Bernie and Trump are strong candidates who both promise to bring new blood and reform to Washington, but on opposite sides of the spectrum. They both have the support to win New Hampshire, but it depends if there are similar ideas about the middle class and Wall Street in New Hampshire as there were in Iowa. The caucuses can also affect how a person can win or place because only a part of the population will come out and vote as a group. In primaries, more people have the ability to vote because they do not need to spend countless hours arguing about who they want to see in the main election for President. Primaries are more inclusive and allow things to move at a faster pace, although they may not be as exciting as caucuses, they are more efficient and effective.
LikeLike
I do think that the coin toss is a reasonable way to assign delegates to the sides of the Presidential parties because it’s an easy/fair tie breaker. If the votes between two candidates from the same party are IDENTICAL, then I believe that the coin toss is perfect because that way, everyone can see that the remaining delegate was chosen fair and square. Lastly, according to the articles, this was not the first time the coin toss has been used because it’s been a tradition. Therefore, I think people shouldn’t be upset that it was used. I don’t think that New Hampshire will have different votes because at this point, I think that everyone is pretty much convinced by who they want to vote for. However, I do believe that New Hampshire will have a different turnout only because they don’t want to seem unorganized like Iowa. For example, some of the caucus people in Iowa didn’t sign in and then some people randomly disappeared when it came time to count the votes again. So, New Hampshire’s voting system might be a little more productive which would produce more accurate votes. Primaries are definitely better because it’s really straightforward and there is no way any confusion could happen. At least when votes are casted, that’s it. People aren’t eligible to change their minds and the number of people voting doesn’t matter as much. For example, it’s not as important when a very few number of people are registered as caucus goers and their presence is important assigning delegates. In primaries, a direct vote is recorded for a specific presidential candidate. Much easier.
LikeLike
To me, the coin toss is the most immature way of deciding who won the delegates of a certain state. I don’t really think that it’s appropriate for a coin toss to decide who won the delegates of a state, because coin tosses are used during a football game to see which team kicks and which team receives. And I think that the level of importance between the two is too big for the same thing to decide both outcomes. I really don’t think that the coin toss should be done anymore, because it isn’t decided by who’s better, but it is decided by whoever chooses the “lucky” side. I think that NH will be totally different in the sense that Bernie will completely take NH. I remember hearing a lot about Bernie supporters in NH, and partially due to the fact that he grew up in the neighboring Vermont. I think that this race won’t be as close as the Iowa race was, and I truly do believe that Bernie has a chance to win the vote in NH, but also he could win the whole election. The only problem that Bernie could have is the super delegates which Hillary seems to have a lot more of than Bernie. I honestly think that primaries are better due to the fact that there are so many different versions of a primary. I think that the concept of the closed primary and open primary is really good, because we get to see which candidate is better according to the people of a party, and then we can see which candidate is better according to every registered voter. Primaries give a better sense of what the people want, and isn’t that what a democracy is all about?
LikeLike
At first, a coin toss seems totally ridiculous and out of place. Although it does work. It is very fair in that it gives a 50/50 shot for both candidates. In an article that Charlene posted above (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/how-hillary-clinton-won-some-iowa-caucuses-with-a-coin-toss), the coin toss is something that the Romans even used; just another tradition America takes part in. In New Hampshire, I think the results will almost be the same at Iowa. It will be a close call between Trump and Bernie. I think that the primaries are a better voting style. They are shorter and private. The caucus style seems really long, 4 hours, and complicated. It’s like physically voting for a person by going to a table and some people might want their vote to be private.
LikeLike
Personally I do not believe that a coin toss is the most reasonable way to award delegates to the democratic candidates, even though it was fair it doesn’t seem official. I don’t think so because its not very effective or a mature way to choose something that is important to Americas future. Even though they have done them in the past I don’t think its a good way to choose delegates for a candidate. I don’t agree with it only because it seems like something unofficial. I think that they were close enough to decide who would win because Hilary had 49.9%, 23 Delegates and Bernie had 49.6, 21 Delegates you can tell the difference by .3% but there is still someone in the lead I think they could have decided by the statistics, because their %’s weren’t exactly the same. Since the results were so close on both sides I think the New Hampshire being the next state to vote, we will have similar results. I think this because if it was close in Iowa I think it will be the same thing. Many News stations say the same especially with Bernie and Hilary. I think that Primaries are a better style of voting because they are more organized because you aren’t going to corners to choose, you are casting a voting ballot and I think thats more effective.
LikeLike
The coin toss is not the most mature way to decide delegates however, caucuses in general are immature and the coin toss is just the cherry on the sundae. But also to be more factual coin tosses were used to determine county convention delegates, which make up only a fraction of the state delegates awarded to candidates. The coin tosses did not affect the overall result in the state. So although, immature, it is also fairly insignificant. Personally I believe Sanders will beat Hillary in New Hampshire, Rubio will beat Cruz, and Trump will fall further down. But I am only basing this on current polls and predictions. I think primaries are a better method of voting because it is fast and simple. Caucuses are an outdated method that made more sense in the days without easy methods of travel and high performance technology we have today. Also caucuses disenfranchise many groups of people, for example people with an inflexible and consuming work load, those with kids, and if those with kids go and vote, then it is their babysitters who cant. Overall primaries are a more accessible and realistic approach to voting.
LikeLike
I think that a coin toss is an immature but still reasonable way to award delegates to the democratic candidates. According to what the Guardian article stated, coin tosses have been in use to break ties since the Romans in many historically important instances. Coin tosses are fair and effective since each candidate had a 50% chance of winning or losing. I think that the results in New Hampshire will be similar to the Iowa caucus results. The New York Times states, “‘If Trump wins Iowa, it’s hard to see how he would not run the table,’ said Douglas E. Gross, who was the Iowa finance chairman for George W. Bush’s re-election bid. On the Democratic side, a victory by Hillary Clinton over a surging Mr. Sanders would banish doubts and set her more firmly on the road to the nomination”. I feel like the results will be similar since Iowa is first and influences how the other states will vote. I think that the results in New Hampshire will be close on both sides as well. I definitely feel that primaries are the better style of voting. Primaries are more convenient and simpler than caucuses, which are longer and more complicated. Primaries allow voters to just get their vote in and leave instead of staying at a caucus for hours.
LikeLike
I don’t think that the coin toss is a logical way to award delegates to the democratic candidates but I do think it seems fair. I can’t really think of any way that could break a tie unless someone was to choose who were to win the election. The good thing about a coin toss is that it can not be rigged or messed around with. I think when candidates results are this close, it is fair to do a coin toss but it just does not seem professional.Since the results were so close on both sides I think New Hampshire will be nearly a tie for Hilary and Bernie again. I think Bernie will win by a little bit more because he has the advantage of Vermont being near New Hampshire which makes people want to vote for him. I think in New Hampshire the republican results will be closer to a tie too because New Hampshire has become more conservative. I think primaries are a more organized way to vote rather than caucuses. I think primaries motivate more people to get out and vote and it is overall a more organized approach to voting. Caucuses can be very time consuming which makes primaries more efficient. That is why I think primaries are better than caucuses.
LikeLike
A coin toss seems like an unreasonable way to award delegates to the democratic candidates. It seems unprofessional and not something that would be expected out of a political setting. Even the New York Times made it seem like it was ridiculous, “Heads or tails? No, seriously, heads or tails? A coin toss — that’s what it came down to in one Davenport, Iowa, precinct as a tiebreaker between Democrats Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who battled each other in one of the closest races in state history.” Although it’s unprofessional I think they do it because they have no other way to award delegates. If they had some other way they would do it instead of just doing a coin toss, so I don’t think it’s so bad. It seems like coin tosses are used a lot though, an article by the guardian said, “Portland, in Oregon, was given its name in a process that involved a coin toss. Asa Lovejoy and Francis Pettygrove each wanted to name the new town after their respective hometowns of Boston, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine. Pettygrove won the toss, and so the town was named Portland.” So now it really doesn’t seem too bad. I think that it’s hard to tell how another state will do depending on how this recent one just did. Also the people in each state are different so it’s hard to tell unless its by what party the people side by. I think that primaries are more effective because that’s how votes normally work. Caucuses are good too but they require 15% of votes which sometimes can’t be attained. Majority of votes seems more effective so I think that primaries is a better style of voting.
LikeLike
I think when it comes down to such close numbers in a caucus that flipping a coin seems like a reasonable way to determine the number of delegates given for a few reasons. One being that this is a truly unbiased way to determine the delegate when there is a tie. According to NPR in a segment titled “Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton” stated “It’s been reported that there were as many as six sites where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent. What’s more, that gave her just slightly more than her margin of victory over Sanders — four delegates.” After reading that I was very skeptical of the way in which the tosses are regulated and handled yet after watching video of all 6 tosses it is clear that Hillary did in fact won every toss fair and square. Also once you get down to it Clinton would’ve had to have won 47 coin toss in a row never mind 6 to have picked up the four delegates needed. Also though Bernie did not win, he is definitely a candidate who has owned the underdog card throughout the race and can use this loss to show how competitive he is with such a big wig like Hillary to his utmost advantage. It is also clear that the Iowa winner does not always win the nomination as the Clinton’s are more than familiar with when Bill lost not only the Iowa but the New Hampshire primaries as well, still not only getting the nominations but winning the presidency.
I think New Hampshire will be different because we are on Bernie’s turf, well basically. I think that we will still see a very strong competition between the two especially after a debate that not only that candidates but experts can’t pick a winner in.
I think that caucus are a better form of voting because you go in with your original ideas and beliefs but once you begin to discuss and hear different perspectives coming from real people just like you instead of an advertisement you may see things in a new light. I believe caucus allows those caucusing to make a far more informed vote than that of primaries which do not provide any discussion or debate limiting voters to what they are exposed to through media. Caucus’s also are far more engaging and may seem to be more resigning and stimulating, attracting voters who want to make the best decision rather than a quick one.
LikeLike
I do not believe that a coin toss is a reasonable way to award delegates because the number of delegates a candidate has is very important and becomes crucial. A situation like this where it is the next president that can potentially be chosen should not be based on luck. This is a serious matter that takes a lot of thinking. If something as important like this is being left to chance, what else is left to chance? Also, it is unfortunate that some things are more thought out and seriously considered than deciding who should legitimately be considered for president.
I believe that New Hampshire will have a very similar situation, especially on the democratic side. From what it appears, throughout the country democrats are stuck between Bernie or Hillary. I will even go as far as to say that the democratic nominee will be determined by the super delegates in the august convention. This will be a Obama and Hillary situation again. On the republican side, I believe that the closeness of the results will be the same, but with different candidates in different spots. To me it is possible that Trump will win New Hampshire, but not by a lot.
I believe primaries are better. With a primary, there is a legit number of votes for each candidates and it’s very precise. With a caucus, it just seems very messy. Also, it seems with the primaries you need to go in there knowing who you want to vote for because you will not be intimidated by the amount of people a certain candidate has or be allowed to coin toss. But it caucuses seem to be the way it has been done for a long time, therefore something must be right with it.
LikeLike
To be completely honest I think that the way that we handle our presidential election is a complete joke and I say this with the coin toss for delegates in mind.. Having had said this I do not think that a coin toss is a reasonable way to award delegates to the democratic candidates. I believe that the delegates should be awarded based on the percentage of votes they receive and because in this presidential election Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were only about .4% different, They should have had the same amount of delegates.. I think that It would have only been fair because they are not apart of the winner take all system like the republicans.
It is always so hard to predict what the outcome for the next states are because as you mentioned, things can always change because different states have different people with different opinions who will be looking for different things out of the candidates. The reason for why I don’t have a prediction on what will happen is because as data shows before, Trump was ahead of the other republicans and he came in second in the election in Iowa which surprised many voters. Although i’m not saying this is a bad or a good thing, it shows how different voter turnouts can be from what data predicts based on ratings from debates, social media, etc.
I personally believe that primaries are better than caucuses because it gets the job done faster and is more efficiently. In the caucuses people may be all over the place which can confuse the voting counts where are writing in paper who you want to win is much quicker, easier to handle. Although I won’t say this is the best way for us to pick the next president of the United States I think it is the most effective out of the two.
LikeLike
I think that a coin toss is a completely unreasonable way to award delegates to the democratic candidates. Delegates should be chosen carefully by various methods, such as voting. The main problem with awarding delegates to the Democratic Delegates with a coin toss is that literary anyone has a chance of winning. For example, a person with absolutely no knowledge of politics has the same chance of getting awarded as a person who is very knowledgable and good for the job. The coin toss is one of the many things in the presidential election process that make absolutely no sense. I do not think that New Hampshire will have different results since the realists were so close in the previous election. I think this because different places have different ideologies and support different candidates. Therefore, I do not think I can predict the results of New Hampshire’s election. The style of voting that I think is better is the primaries simply because they make much more sense than caucuses. In there primaries, there is one legit number that comes out and that’s it.
LikeLike
Before reading this, I had no idea that we used a coin toss to determine who would win in a close caucus. This honestly makes it seem like a joke and does not represent the votes of what people actually want. The coin toss is completely unreasonable and should not be used to determine an important issue such as this. I think that a coin toss should not be used to determine what the potentional candidate of a political party will be. I think that New Hampshire as a state is very different than Iowa, therefore there will be very different views and I think that the Republican results will be very different in NH. Not only this, but in NH, there is no caucausing, but rather it is just primary elctions where people write the names of the candidates and vote. I think that NH will give more accurate results since there would be no “coin toss” for the delegates. In the democratic party, I think that it will be way more difficult to predict who can win, since Sanders and Clinton are close in most New England states. They only have a big difference in the souther states where Clinton has a higher chance of winning. I think primary election is way better than caucasing. It is more accurate and to be honest, being in a big room moving around makes the election seem like a joke. Thinking of the way caucasing is done reminds me of the “four corners” exercises that you have to do in school when you agree or disagree with something. That is NOT the right way to elect our next president. Primary elections are so much more mature.
LikeLike
I think that a coin toss is a completely unreasonable approach to award delegates to the democratic candidates. Delegates should be selected carefully by a more common method, voting. The main problem with awarding delegates to the Democratic Delegates with a coin toss is that literary anyone has a chance of winning. I think that New Hampshire will have different results simply because of the fact that issues that New Hampshire residents face are different from those of Iowa residents. Primaries are better because they are a more direct, statewide process of selecting candidates and delegates. Similar to the general election process, primary voters cast secret ballots for the candidates of their choosing. The results are used to determine the arrangement of delegates at the national convention of each party. Then also, registered Independents can participate in either party’s primary. But in a closed primary, voters may vote only for candidates of the party with which they are registered. Overall, it is more convenient for the general population, whereas the caucuses if you don’t receive a certain amount of votes your voice doesn’t matter.
LikeLike