The Iowa caucuses are often praised for exemplifying the ideal of deliberative democracy. From this perspective, voters come together publicly on equal footing to debate and choose their preferred presidential candidate. Critics contend, however, that the caucus process is not as democratic as supporters believe. In practice, they claim, caucuses mirror power asymmetries rooted in society-based differences based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. To assess these competing claims, we test whether there is a relationship between group identity and the degree of comfort Iowa voters feel expressing an opinion during the deliberative process. Using interviews, observations, and results from a survey taken by 1024 Iowan voters, we find data consistent with both perspectives. Men and women are generally comfortable voicing beliefs at the caucus, but men more so. Additionally, women are more likely than men to feel social pressure to vote a certain way, discuss their candidate choice with others, and express a sense of community through the process. We conclude that female participants are more open and sociable than men while attending a caucus, but less assertive in sharing their opinions. Based on this criterion, we determine that the Iowa caucuses, while generally approximating the ideal of deliberative democracy, are nonetheless less democratic than its proponents contend.

爱荷华州预备役因表述了协商民主的理想而经常受到赞扬。从这个角度看，选民们平等地公开集会，辩论并选择他们首选的总统候选人。但是批评家们认为，核心小组会议并不像支持者所认为的那样民主。他们声称，实际上，因果关系反映了基于性别，种族或性取向的基于社会的差异中的权力不对称。为了评估这些相互矛盾的主张，我们测试了团体身份与爱荷华州选民在审议过程中表达意见的舒适程度之间是否存在关系。通过使用1024名爱荷华州选民的访谈，观察和调查结果，我们发现与两种观点都一致的数据。男性和女性通常对核心小组的看法很满意，但是男人更是如此。此外，与男性相比，女性更有可能感受到社会压力以某种方式投票，与他人讨论他们的候选人选择，并在整个过程中表达一种社区感。我们得出的结论是，参加核心小组会议的女性参与者比男性参与者更开放，更善于交际，但在分享意见时却没有那么自信。基于此标准，我们确定，虽然衣阿华因果关系通常近似于审议民主的理想，但其拥护者却不那么民主。但是在分享他们的观点时不太自信。基于此标准，我们确定，虽然衣阿华因果关系通常近似于审议民主的理想，但其拥护者却不那么民主。但是在分享他们的观点时不太自信。基于此标准，我们确定，虽然衣阿华因果关系通常近似于审议民主的理想，但其拥护者却不那么民主。