Part I: The Iowa Caucuses

Yvette Alba, Julie McDermott, Makenna Casady

History- Iowa is the first state in the nation to hold its process for selecting delegates. This

started in 1972 when the Democratic Party changed its scheduling to put Iowa first in the nation

to hold its caucus. The Republican Party followed their example in 1976 and from then on Iowa

has held their place as first. Efforts to change this system to show less favoritism to an individual

state have not been met with success as of yet.

Difference between a Primary Election and the Iowa Caucus- Whether a state holds a primary or

a caucus depends on a state-by-state basis. Most states today hold primaries. While primaries and

Caucuses may be different, they both achieve the same thing: to select a delegate from each party

to represent that party and be seen in their national convention. In a caucus, gatherings are held

by a political party and registered voters attend to show their open support for their preferred

candidates. In a primary, voters statewide cast ballots for their preferred candidates and their

preferences are kept secret.

Importance- Because Iowa is the first state to show its preference for candidates, other states see

this as an indicator of future success. Candidates who perform poorly in Iowa will often drop out

of the race. Since Iowa is watched so closely by the media to determine who is likely to win,

candidates spend an inordinate amount of time and resources to winning over the state. The cycle

continues as the media follows candidates into Iowa, and so forth. It has been argued that

because Iowa is a relatively low-diversity state, not representative of the nation in its populace,

its importance in the presidential election process is problematic.

Part III: Which Delegate Won?

 Yvette Alba, Julie McDermott, Makenna Casady

The data table provided for the Mason City Republican caucus showed the preference

schedule of four candidates for Precinct W1-P2 at the Highland Golf Course. From 100 voters,

candidates were judged by four separate voting methods. By the Plurality Method, Trump won

with the majority of first-preference votes or 39 votes. If we use the Instant Runoff Voting

Method however, Cruz becomes the winner with 61% of the total with elimination. Different still

are the results of a Borda Count, with Rubio leading with 306 points, and again Rubio is the

winner by Copelands Method, gaining 3 points. If we look at some of the fairness criteria,

Rubio qualifies as a Condorcet Candidate as he wins in every one-to-one comparison with the

other candidates. Even though according to another fairness criterion, the Majority Criterion,

Cruz is the winner with 61% of the vote, we as a group have decided that Rubio should be

declared the winner. He won in two of the four voting methods and also qualifies as a Condorcet

Candidate, so by that majority we feel it is most fair if he wins. We acknowledge that there is not

necessarily a right answer because there is no voting method that can satisfy every fairness

criterion, as was pointed out above.