Hamel: The caucuses: Do they support or misrepresent the people?

Columnist+Peyton+Hamel+believes+the+caucuses%2C+while+they+evoke+the+spirit+of+democracy%2C+inhibit+and+disadvantage+the+majority+of+voters.%C2%A0

Columnist Peyton Hamel believes the caucuses, while they evoke the spirit of democracy, inhibit and disadvantage the majority of voters. 

Peyton Hamel

Democracy, truly, is a beautiful thing. The 2020 Democratic caucuses are now spreading like wildfire across the country with precincts, watch parties and caucus jeering. The Iowa caucuses are a sight to be seen, not because not many things actually happen in Iowa (besides county fairs), but because of how headstrong and passionate Iowans really are. The Ames community rallied their democracy spirits at 7 p.m. at the Great Hall in the Memorial Union with wide eyes, waving signs and votes ready.

My first real sense of the Ames precinct caucus was the Bernie Sanders crowd raising their fists and signs, booming a strong, “Bernie!” This is the heart of America, those supporting who they believe will serve the country the best for the next four years. There were also various digs at Trump, but what else can we expect at a Democratic caucus? This is why America is a nation derived on the foundation of democracy: the spirit of belief is overpowering. So much seriousness and empowerment at the same time. It was so stimulating.

As the caucus commenced, the tone of the room plunged into tension so cold you could cut it with a knife, yet there was still so much contagious spirit. You would hear about the common themes of the speaker: affordable healthcare, reducing the power of big corporations and increased pay. The crowd roared again; my bones were vibrating.

The second realignment of the caucus was the most invigorating experience. It exploded with cheering, jeering and gerrymandering. Yang supporters loved this one: “DOWN WITH POVERTY! UP WITH HUMANITY!” Warren supporters roared with “DOWN WITH TRUMP!” Yang supporters at this specific precinct stood strong, even though they were not viable and did not get enough supporters (15 percent or more), until the very, very end. Many Yang supporters reverted to Sander’s cockpit of people or completely abstained their vote.

Let’s think about this: our duty as citizens is to vote and serve our country. We caucus because we believe in our country; we get to decide who is best for our country and who will provide for us the best. So many of Iowa State students and, in general, residents within the United States are unable to or cannot access a ballot. We have the duty to vote not only for ourselves but our communities. The worst thing we can do is not vote. The second worst thing is abstaining a vote because your primary candidate was inviable. While I love the spirit of the caucus, it is very possible that caucuses extremely disservice the American people.

Here is another caucus concept I am not so fond of: if a group of undecided caucusgoers make up a 15% of the total population at the precinct, then their votes become inviable. These people lose their votes because they could not decide. The purpose of a caucus is to make a decision, yet these people are stripped of their votes alongside the candidates who are stripped of possible supporters. I love the spirit of the caucus, but this specific rule change bothered me after I saw the faces of undecideds begin to panic and lose their glimmer.

The caucuses do their best job, at least I hope to believe so, to allow the people to support their favorite delegates. However, no political system is perfect.