I happen to really like issues associated with voting. The mechanisms and procedures, as well as how or why people vote.

Still awake? Good.

Since it's that time of year, I thought I'd put up something about the caucuses that are going on in Iowa tomorrow. First, note that the Iowa caucuses have a decent history of picking the people who will ultimately be the representatives for the two parties. It's not a lock, though, and in years where the field was relatively uncertain, Iowa doesn't always do as well. But look to the top people out of Iowa to be pretty much be the two to four people we'll be hearing about the most for the next year.

The next point is how the caucus is actually conducted. For the Repubs, it's pretty simple: you show up, listen to some electioneering from friend and neighbors, and then put your choice down on a piece of paper and dump it into box. For the Dems, however, things are a bit more convoluted. Indeed, I'd lump this in with a "too clever by half" sort of designation.

Caucusing for the Democrats functions, essentially, like a Borda Count. But not exactly. So, say you're a proud D in Ames, Iowa and looking to caucus. You get out of work and head to your local station with some thoughts in mind about your choice of candidate. Appealingly, all you'll be required to do is stand in some part of some room somewhere to indicate your choice. Like Clinton? Over there by the chalkboard. Prefer Obama? Stand by in the back left corner. Whatever. Then, while you're standing there, you get treated to the best rendition of a used car salesman your friends can drum up. They plead, beg, wheedle, cajole, criticize, and harangue you in order to get you to move to their group and support THEIR choice. Thirty minutes of that and time is called, and the numbers are counted.

Which is where the Borda count analogy starts to show up. If one candidate doesn't get 15% of the total vote, they are eliminated for "non-viability". When those non-viable candidates are weeded out, everyone goes through the choice process again. Now, however, there are fewer candidates for the same amount of people. In a Borda count, you would write down your preferences by indicating a vote for each option with (generally) non-repeating integers where your top choice gets the largest value. With five people A-E, it might be:

B: 4
C: 3
A: 2
E: 1
D: 0

and something similar for everyone else. In totaling up scores, you simply add the values for all the candidates to see who wins. (Ties are possible in the basic framework, but this can be avoided with some effort.) Consider some of the problems, too. Say that 10 people vote, and of those 5 vote for B with 4 points, and the other 5 vote for B with 1 points, while everyone voted for C with 3 points. B, preferred as top choice by more people than C, loses out in terms of points (25 to 30 points). B could even be counted as winner; the point being that the count process can result in some outcomes that people might not appreciate.

More interestingly, Borda counts are, like most other voting schemes, subject to manipulation and strategy. Perhaps you really want B to win, but know B would lose to A when compared against only each other. What you want, then, is to help make that comparison not happen. Well, why not choose someone B would do well against, and make that person your insincere top choice? Put C on top, B second, and A all the way down at the bottom, and you do your level best to keep support from A, while making it possible that B wins entirely because B can beat C in comparison. Think of this in connection with Iowa. So, you like Clinton, but think she'll never beat Obama in a one-on-one fight. Well, when you go caucus, why not stand with the Edwards supporters? After all, he's an airhead lightweight that would get clobbered by Clinton's political machine. But if Edwards gets second or first in Iowa, it may make Obama go running home to cry until he's second on the ticket [Editorial Aside:] I'll take on all betters willing to say that the 2008 Democratic Ticket DOESN'T have Obama in one of the two slots. Seriously. Before we even get through Iowa, I'm willing to say that the man has assured himself a seat in the White House in 2009. Not only is he such a driving force in the Dem party that I think he's got a shot at top billing, there's just no way that Clinton, if she does make it, can choose ANYONE else. The headline alone, A Woman For Prez and the First Black Man in the WH, would be enough to guarantee Obama a spot. But add to this the list of halfwits and knuckleheads the Repubs are putting up this year, and I really don't see it being an R in 2009. End Aside. Or, maybe you're looking to really bring someone else down a peg. Or you just want to muddy the waters a bit, and keep someone in the race you wouldn't care much about if it weren't ultimately going to help someone you do like. So you go stand in the corner for Richardson, hoping to keep him viable and his campaign alive.

So while you're suffering through all the talk about what's going on tomorrow, just wonder how many people are actually voting with the intent of pushing candidates this way or that. And from this the winners ride political "momentum" (which I think is just a measure of how much the media favors one person over another and thus how much coverage they get) to other states and possibly to the nomination. Of course, this assumes people can think through the implications or do some of the math on their own.