Oh, Iowa, you had a nice run, but it’s time for you to fade into the pale background of the presidential nominating process. Seriously, will no one rid me of this turbulent process?

On Saturday night, the Des Moines Register announced that, due to a glitch involving Pete Buttigieg, it would not be releasing the results of its feverishly anticipated final poll prior to Monday’s caucuses. Register editor Carol Hunter explained the reasons why.



While this appears to be isolated to one surveyor, that could not be confirmed with certainty. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the partners made the difficult decision not to move forward with releasing the poll. The poll was the last one scheduled by the polling partners before the first-in-the-nation Iowa presidential caucuses, which are Monday. J. Ann Selzer, whose company conducts the Iowa Poll, said, “There were concerns about what could be an isolated incident. Because of the stellar reputation of the poll, and the wish to always be thought of that way, the heart-wrenching decision was made not to release the poll. The decision was made with the highest integrity in mind.”



And good for all concerned. This is the correct decision, both ethically and politically. (I do sympathize with the authors of hundreds of pre-written Sunday news stories that got crisped by the announcement.) But what the hell is the sense in a system where one poll from a good mid-sized newspaper wields so much influence over the presidential nominating process that it throws into a panic a system that already is complicated—and undemocratic—in the extreme? To wit, from Politico:



Sanders and his team have made clear their intention to tout the results of the first round of caucus voting Monday, even though the Iowa Democratic Party stresses that the only number that matters is the final delegate count. Aides with two top-tier campaigns told POLITICO they worry the Sanders campaign or other pro-Sanders forces — which will be receiving unofficial precinct results from allies in real time — will disseminate that information through social media or publicly claim victory after the first vote, an act that could distort the eventual results in a variety of ways.

Sanders’s campaign will seek to take advantage of loopholes in the Iowa caucus process. Tom Brenner Getty Images

A claim of victory after the first vote could encourage supporters of weaker candidates to leave the caucuses early without realigning with another candidate. Or it could create an artificial bandwagon effect by encouraging some caucus-goers to jump to Sanders’ side under the belief that he will be the victor. Either scenario stands to hurt the campaigns that are more reliant than Sanders on the realignment round that happens after the first preference vote is cast. During realignment, supporters of candidates who failed to hit a 15 percent threshold in the first vote are freed up to switch to another candidate.



It is a longstanding rule of the shebeen that taking advantage of a loophole in the rules is not in any way “cheating.” Of course the Sanders campaign is planning to do this. I’d be amazed if every campaign doesn’t have a similar plan. The idea of releasing results halfway through a complicated process is fundamentally stupid. It’s a system that is begging to be gamed even more than caucuses are generally. The earlier you can declare, plausibly, “I win!” the better for your campaign. And this is an open invitation for that sort of thing. You’ve had a nice run, Iowa, but it’s time to become South Dakota again, at least for a while.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io