The DNC has decided against Iowa’s virtual caucus plan. The Iowa plan was in response to the DNC’s requirement after 2016 that 2020 caucuses allow some sort of absentee voting. So this virtual voting was Iowa’s plan. The DNC said it was too easy to hack. And so, back to the drawing board, with a new plan to be delivered by mid-September. On the one hand, caucuses are long, not everyone can attend, and it’s a good idea to find a workaround. But, if you allow absentee voting, is it really that different from a primary?

Well, enter New Hampshire, which by law sets its primary at least a week prior to any other primary. If Iowa cannot come up with a way to please the DNC’s goal of increasing participation in caucuses without making their system a primary, then the calendar (which starts in only 5 months) may shift. Because if you cannot vote virtually, and you have to show up in person AND there has to be absentee voting, it certainly looks like a heavy lift to hold a caucus.

We know that the new Iowa plan favored activists over less-engaged voters. That is, the value of an in-person vote was greater than that of a virtual vote. And while I sadly cannot find the poll in question, I’d read that more of Warren and Sanders’ caucus-goers were in-person, compared to Biden’s.

I once attended an Iowa caucus – there’s a lot of moving around the room so that you stand with your compadres by candidate. There are multiple rounds of voting, unless it’s a year where an incumbent president is running for re-election. It is a difficult process for those on crutches and in wheelchairs just because of the logistics, although caucus sites are handicapped-accessible in the vast  majority of cases. Caucuses are a problem for those who work nights, as they are not in-and-out, but rather a 2 – 3 hour undertaking in contested years. They’re tiring. You can’t bring your kids, so if you don’t have a babysitter, you can’t attend. While they are democracy in action, they are also a high hurdle for many people, and that’s why attendance is dwarfed by primary participation.

So what are the options? If Iowa can’t come up with an acceptable caucus plan, either New Hampshire will move up to the week before, and there will be a gap from Iowa to South Carolina’s dates. Or New Hampshire will stay the same, and Iowa might be held on the same date as South Carolina. And remember, South Carolina’s primary is on a Saturday, which for Iowa may well lead to more participation than the Tuesday night it’s normally held on. Finally, Iowa could just swap dates with New Hampshire. It can’t go to court because primary and caucus rules are internal to the DNC and RNC. In certain ways, this is why we cannot have nice things.

It does change the calculus if Iowa is no longer first in the nation in 2020 because normally there are 3 tickets out of Iowa, and a change in New Hampshire. Normally, there is a bump in New Hampshire for any candidate from that state or adjoining state which historically would lead to favored nation status (as it were) for both Warren and Sanders. We know is that polling is a bleeding edge indicator instead of leading edge, and thus the outcomes change people’s perceptions going forward. The latest polls indicate Warren over Sanders in Iowa, but Sanders over Warren in New Hampshire.  Thus, a shift in order could make a difference in South Carolina and Nevada.