To those inclined to see a conspiracy behind every rock, please be prepared for Iowa...

[brooklynite]

...There will be NO vote counts announced for the Iowa Caucus, because they're not tallied. Each precinct is allocated delegate equivalents, which in turn are allocated to candidates based on the support at the precinct. The delegate equivalents are what are tallied and from which a "winning" Statewide percentage is calculated.

Additionally, there is a 15% viability threshold for a candidate to be eligible for delegate equivalents. In the case of Martin O'Malley, he is likely to fail the viability test in most precincts and his first round voters will be reallocated. As a result he is likely to have a reported tally far below the actual percentage of voters supporting him.

[Gothmog]

1. Raw votes are meaningless in a caucus state

The only real measure of success in a caucus state is the number of delegates awarded

[Funtatlaguy]

2. This is so screwed up

Jeff Greenfield talked about this on morning scum today.
He said, and I agree, that a caucus is undemocratic.
One person, one vote is not observed.
Neither is a secret ballot.
In fact, in the Iowa Dem caucus, you must stand and raise your hand.
Plus, you can't vote during the day only at night. What if u work nights or can't get a sitter?
Seriously?
When will we dump Iowa and go to a real primary state to start things off or, better yet, a rotating regional national primary system.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Don't worry. People will soon forget about Iowa once the more populous, ethnically diverse states

start voting.

[cyberswede]

7. Thank Jimmy Carter

How Jimmy Carter Revolutionized the Iowa Caucuses

...
But in 1972, state reforms modernized the process and moved the date from May 20 to January 24, making it the first contest in the election. That’s when a campaign worker named Gary Hart convinced Democrat George McGovern to take the state seriously.

But where McGovern took Iowa seriously, it was Jimmy Carter who revolutionized the role that the Hawkeye State would play in presidential politics. Carter turned the Iowa caucus into a major event in 1976 and thereby demonstrated how an upstart campaign could turn a victory in this small state into a stepping-stone for gaining national prominence. When people talk about Carter’s legacy by focusing on his failed presidency or his transformative post-presidency, they forget one of his most lasting actions—his 1976 campaign, which all started in small, rural Iowa.

more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/jimmy-carter-iowa-caucuses/426729/

You should educate yourself about the caucuses.

Some good rebuttals to Greenfield's opinion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511064432#post9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511064432#post15
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511064432#post20

[NurseJackie]

4. The caucus process is so strange. I'm sure that ...

I'm sure that for those involved with it, and who're accustomed to it, it probably seems like a logical and natural process. But it seems to be one that discourages participation (or one that makes it difficult for everyone to participate).

It's also strange that by it's very nature...namely that the concept of the "secret ballot" (yeah, I know it's not an actual ballot) is nonexistent. The caucus-goers may be subject to peer pressure in how they caucus, or they simply may not show up at all because they want to keep private their candidate preference.

Did I get the fundamentals correct? Or am I mistaken about how caucuses work?

It seems so antiquated. Perhaps it worked well enough back-in-the-day when communication was slow and voting technology wasn't what it is today. I get the impression that it remains in place for no other reason than "that's-the-way-we've-always-done-it".

[brooklynite]

5. Allow me to play Devil's advocate...

Primary Elections are relatively new; before 1968, most States nominated candidates through decisions by the "Party Bosses" in "smoke-filled rooms". If you start from the presumption that Party's are responsible for the selection of the candidates they put forward, the Caucus process is fairly progressive in that it opens the discussion and selection of candidates to grassroots party activists, not just the leadership.

[NurseJackie]

6. In that light, it's definitely a positive thing ...

... thanks for your comments!