What about the Iowa Caucuses makes you believe these are "high information" voters? They often have nonsensical positions and ranked choices. They're committed voters, but that is not at all the same thing.

This [0] was my favorite "high information voter" story so far.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mayor-pete-buttigieg-gay-iowa-c...

That's the obvious and vivid example, but more broadly and tellingly are people's stated preferences and the outcomes of realignments, where people are oscillating between progressive and moderate candidates. I see no evidence that Iowa voters are "high-information"; I think most of them see participatory politics as a sport, just like voters in every other state.

That is not what happened.

The OP wasn't being metaphorical in any sense, they were literally describing how caucuses work. If your first choice doesn't meet a qualifying threshold in your precinct, then you can switch your vote in the second round, and supporters of other candidates can literally try to convince you before that round. It all happens in the open with people literally crossing to different parts of the room to caucus for different candidates. The app -- and its failure -- didn't change any part of this process.

But the Iowa caucuses also has a delegate apportionment system that privileges rural voters over those in large cities, similar to the electoral college. It strains meaning to describe something designed to produce an undemocratic outcome as being more democratic than republican.

That's a real issue -- and one that seems like it's going to have an actual effect this time around, giving Buttigieg slightly more delegates than Sanders even though Sanders actually has slightly more support. I think the Iowa Caucus worked as designed, despite the collapse of the app, but just like the Electoral College, that doesn't mean the actual design is good!