The American people every four years pick a new President of the United States.

The

people come to the general election and select their candidate from several names on secret

ballots but how are those names chosen? The Constitution gives no instructions on how a person

is chosen to be a nominee for President. The first nominees for president were chosen by

congressmen who were members of the same party and done in secret. This process had many

congressmen picking their own nominees who had little or no support from the actual people.

Later party bosses would end up picking or even paying people to support their chosen nominee.

This system was viewed as very corrupt, dirty and “not a process many people wished to

participate in. (Brunelle 2016)”

In modern times the political parties control the nomination process. Depending on the

state and party the nomination process could be very different. Many states like New Hampshire

and parties, like the Republicans in Utah prefer primaries. This system looks very close to the

general election. In a primary the voters choose their nominee on a secret ballot, which is

counted, and delegates are distributed accordingly. However some states like Iowa and parties

like the Democrats in Utah prefer what is known as a Caucus. In a caucus the party members

meet with party officials in a local precinct to discuss the parties nominees and issues important

to the members. The members are asked which candidate they support. Delegates are then chosen
to move on to the county caucus to represent the precinct. This process is continued until the state

delegates are chosen to represent their state at the party’s national convention. (Roos 2012)

Iowa holds what is perhaps the most well known caucus. It may seem strange why a

relatively small, non diverse, state like Iowa becomes the center of American politics with a huge

impact on who becomes the next President of the United States. Iowa becomes the center of

American politics for the simple reason, it is first. (Brunelle 2016) Iowa is the first state to hold a

caucus and it’s a week before the primaries in New Hampshire. Potential candidates flock to

Iowa all in an attempt to prove they are viable choice to be the party’s nominee. Success in Iowa

can propel a candidate to the forefront of the race, stumble and you can find yourself dropping

out of the race.
PART III

As the delegates from Precinct W1-P2, we have chosen to support Marco Rubio at the

Cerro Gordo County convention. Although Rubio received the least amount of first place votes,

we feel that he is still the preferred candidate over all the other candidates. We calculated the

voting results using five different methods, and Rubio came out on top for three out of those five

methods.

The main reason for choosing Marco Rubio is because of the Condorcet Criterion

fairness method. This method states that if there is a choice that is preferred in every one-to-one

comparison with the other choices, that choice should be the winner. When doing a one-to-one

comparison, Rubio comes out ahead and is preferred over every other candidate.

Similarly, when using Copeland’s Method, Rubio again is the winner. In this method, we

again pair candidates, using all preferences to determine which of the two is more preferred. The

more preferred is then awarded one point; half a point is awarded for a tie. Rubio is the clear

winner here with 3 points to Cruz’s 2 and Bush’s 1 point.

Finally, using the Borda Count, Rubio again is the winner. In this method of voting,

points are assigned to candidates based on their ranking. One point is awarded for last choice, two

points for second-to-last choice, and so on. Although Rubio received the least amount of first

choice votes, he was the second choice in every case where he wasn’t the first choice. This gave
him a very high Borda Count, and he blew away the other choices. His count was 306, compared

to the next highest count, which was 272.

In conclusion, we feel that this clearly shows that Rubio is the preferred choice, at least

when compared to the other current choices. He is the clear winner using the Condorcet Criterion,

Copeland’s Method, and the Borda Count. He doesn’t win with the Plurality Method or Instant

Runoff Voting, but as we know from Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, there’s no way to satisfy

every fairness criteria or voting method. Nevertheless, we feel that Rubio satisfies the most, and

therefore he is our chosen candidate.