You’ve read how the caucuses are undemocratic because they disenfranchise people who work at night–how they violate the principle of the secret ballot. But that’s just the Democratic caucuses. The Republican caucuses, which date only to 1980, are a breeze. You show up at 7 p.m., you vote almost like in a primary, you go home. If you’re on the night shift, it’s usually easy enough to take part while on break.

The Democratic caucuses, by contrast, feel like the SATs, where a fussbudget caucus chair, enjoying his or her moment in the sun, explains a mind-numbing series of rules and insists that you obey them if you want your effort to count. The instructions for the caucus chairs run to 72 pages. If you’re lucky, the chair won’t read any more than 10 of them aloud.

The procedures are so stultifying I’m reluctant to list them here, but to give you a flavor, consider that before moving to various corners of the room with other supporters of the same candidate for the preliminary vote, you must sit through the vote on the permanent caucus chair (self-nominations welcome), official letters from more than a half-dozen Iowa politicians (most chairs are merciful enough to allow these to be distributed), and a lengthy explanation of the delegate-selection process that requires an advanced degree in mathematics to fully understand.

By the time the caucus chair finishes explaining the ramifications of “viability” (the 15 percent necessary for a candidate to receive any share of delegates to the county convention that will select delegates to the state party conventions that will in turn choose the individuals who go to the Democratic Convention in Denver), you’re ready to shoot yourself.

Yes, there are brisk caucuses with smart folks running them that restore your faith in this odd tradition. But many of the caucus chairs are well-meaning lawyers and civic activists who have spent a lifetime debating “process.” These are the kinds of people who actually enjoy sitting around discussing arcane party rules, and seem oblivious to the pain they might inflict on others. For these Democrats, any level of stupefaction is OK if it’s in the name of “fairness” and “community” and “participation.” That’s big-D Democratic participation. They figure it’s their party and they’ll bore if they want to.

But where does that leave independents? They are often first-time caucusgoers who aren’t much interested in attending a meeting that is not just a place to vote for president but a community-building activity for Democrats. It’s like going to a party where you don’t really belong.

So consider the independent voter who has told the Obama campaign he will caucus–the very voter on whom Obama is pinning his hopes of victory. He shows up at his precinct only to find that the bright young volunteer who convinced him to come forgot to mention the part about the whole thing taking an hour and a half and having to sit around and listen to a lot of jive from Democratic Party functionaries. He knew a caucus was different than a primary, but this different?

So a certain number are going to figure that they might as well go home and watch the Orange Bowl or visit their girlfriend or do their laundry or whatever.

One of the reasons Richard Gephardt faded so badly in 2004 was that some of his union backers left the caucuses before registering their support. If Obama doesn’t match Gephardt’s polling numbers, you can blame the same phenomenon. Call them “let’s blow this pop stand” independents. They like Obama fine but not enough to ruin their whole evening.

To defend against that, Obama precinct captains will be on the lookout for Clinton-supporting caucus chairs who are trying to bore all of the independents out of the room with party-building mumbo-jumbo. It’s not clear the Obama troops can do anything about it, but it could make for some more time-wasting arguments at certain caucus sites.

The Iowa caucuses still have value. They force the candidates to meet real voters, who then make well-informed choices. And the suspense makes them a lot of fun to cover. But let’s not pretend they’re a rational way to pick our presidents.