Comments on: Rural Counties: Fewer Caucus Goers Per Delegate

By: desmoinesdem

desmoinesdem — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:37:35 +0000

why such low turnout in Clinton? It's there near the bottom with all those small rural counties, but it's actually a strong area for Democrats and nearby many other counties with higher turnouts. What was going on? Were the caucus locations inconvenient or poorly publicized?

By: Mark Langgin

Mark Langgin — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:25:35 +0000

By the way Where did you get the data for your table? Is there a citation?

Also, what is your citation for this paragraph?

Another factor that skews caucus representation toward rural counties is the state's shifting population. Joining the college counties in the top ten list of hardest counties to elect delegates are high-growth areas in central Iowa -- Dallas, Madison, Polk and Warren counties, four of the six fastest growing counties in the state from July 2000 to July 2003 (the Census estimates closest to caucus dates). Dallas County grew 13.2% in those three years. But a voter who moved to Dallas County three years before the caucuses won't count in the county's presidential vote totals used to calculate delegates, because they voted somewhere else. A voter who moved in after the gubernatorial election wouldn't count at all toward the delegate count.

By: Mark Langgin

Mark Langgin — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:09:17 +0000

Good post John, your post is very informative. There's a great post from Iowa Progress from last February that goes into pretty deep detail on the subject as well.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:09:26 +0000

rural caucus goers Re-reading your post, I find this to quibble about:

"small counties weigh in disproportionately."

I think the post shows that rural caucus goers weigh in disproportionately, but it does not show rural counties are disproportionately powerful (except for population drift, as I already conceded).

See the difference?

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:05:34 +0000

Rural impact Thanks for this careful explanation. If I read you correctly, the rural voter's increased impact is only because fewer of our neighbors travel the several miles to the caucus. Those of us who do arrive carry the "burden" of many stay at home Democrats.

The rural precinct still is represented at the state convention in proportion to its actual election day performance for Democrats (except for population drift, as you explain). Urban precincts are not being cheated when they get high turnouts on caucus night. They are just being "hyperactive".

By: teach

teach — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:58:26 +0000

Best explanation yet of the disproportionate influence of the rural caucus-goer. That chart says it all. Thanks, John – I'll be directing others to this.

By: desmoinesdem

desmoinesdem — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

why such low turnout in Clinton? It’s there near the bottom with all those small rural counties, but it’s actually a strong area for Democrats and nearby many other counties with higher turnouts. What was going on? Were the caucus locations inconvenient or poorly publicized?

By: teach

teach — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Best explanation yet of the disproportionate influence of the rural caucus-goer. That chart says it all. Thanks, John – I’ll be directing others to this.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Rural impact Thanks for this careful explanation. If I read you correctly, the rural voter’s increased impact is only because fewer of our neighbors travel the several miles to the caucus. Those of us who do arrive carry the “burden” of many stay at home Democrats.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

rural caucus goers Re-reading your post, I find this to quibble about:

“small counties weigh in disproportionately.”

I think the post shows that rural caucus goers weigh in disproportionately, but it does not show rural counties are disproportionately powerful (except for population drift, as I already conceded).

See the difference?