Math 1030 Section 416

Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt

Part 1

The Iowa Caucus as we know it today was started in 1972. In 1968 after the

Democratic National Convention was protested, the Democratic Party decided to make

changes to their presidential nominating progress by spreading out the schedule in each

state. Iowa had the most complex process of precinct caucuses, county conventions,

district conventions, and a state convention so they chose to start earlier than other

states. In 1972 they were the first state to hold their democratic caucus and four years

later, in 1976, also the first to hold the republican caucus. It has become a staple in

American politics ever since.

While the Iowa caucuses are not necessarily very accurate at predicting which

candidate will become their respective party's nominee (43% of Democratic winners and

50% of Republican winners end up becoming the party's nominee), they are important

in the United States' presidential race because they are very good for reliably indicating

which candidates will drop out due to a lack of support. If a candidate does poorly in the

Iowa caucuses then it is likely they will drop out of the race soon after.

A primary is an election in which voters cast secret ballots just as in other

elections, while a caucus is a local meeting run by party officials where people can

express a presidential candidate preference and choose delegates to higher party

Math 1030 Section 416
Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt

gatherings. Theres more discussion and debating involved in a caucus while in

primaries people generally just come in to cast a secret ballot.

Math 1030 Section 416
Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt
Math 1030 Section 416
Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt
Math 1030 Section 416
Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt
Math 1030 Section 416
Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt
Math 1030 Section 416
Prof. Naseem
Mackenzie Belair
Makael Watts
Uriel Flores
Jeffery Eberhard
Taylor Schwendiman
Keira Solt

Part 3

As a group we have decided that it would be the most fair for us to make Marco

Rubio our winner. The reason we decided that is because out of all the different voting

methods used, the only one Marco Rubio did not win and satisfy was when the election

used only the plurality method. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, does meet all other

expectations for the criteria given for the other methods, which seems the most fair to

elect him the winner. Rubio may not fulfill majority criterion, but he does satisfy

the Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion, Condorcet Criterion (Rubio would win in a two

candidate race to at least two other opponents), the Monotonicity Criterion (winner

should not change over preference change of the voter) and the Instant Runoff Voting

Criterion (as non-winning candidates were removed it did not affect the overall winner).

Even when irrelevant criteria such as the non-winning candidate were removed, it did

not affect the overall winner which was Rubio. Condorcet factors in when Rubio won in

each pair (one on one) and as a wide comparison in general that he was involved in;

making him again the preferred choice. Finally Monotonicity criteria in which voters are

not allowed to change vote, Rubio wins in each category except majority. Though the

candidate did not win the majority, it is only fair to say that Marco Rubio is the winner--

given he meets a majority of other fairness criteria. It seems as though he is the overall

winner from all other forms of the Voting theories we have studied in class and therefore

our winner.