Jupiter Images
There was a fair amount of debate last week in journalistic circles near and far over whether reporters should be permitted by their bosses to participate in presidential caucuses. On the one hand, discouraging journalists from participating in caucuses can be construed as stripping them of their fundamental right to vote. On the other hand, caucuses are, in their very nature, partisan functions, and choosing which one to participate in would betray a reporter's political stripes, thus stripping away the veil of objectivity.
Both sides of this argument have considerable merit. But the fact that the argument even exists points to a more compelling question: Why do we still have caucuses in the first place? Is there any American practice that's more antiquated and undemocratic? While the excitement associated with this year's wide-open race has bolstered caucus participation in states like Iowa and Nevada, turnouts would doubtless have been higher had those states simply held primaries. What's more, caucuses afford each party the opportunity to hijack the candidate selection process from regular voters, most of whom couldn't tell you (a) how a caucus works, or (b) where they're supposed to participate in one.
Still, State Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz vehemently defends the practice. "The process by which we choose our nominees for president in this country is not a primary," he explains. "What we have is a series of contests held over a couple months. It's a little random, but we think it gives a good test to these candidates. We have always used caucuses in Washington because we believe they test the ability of candidates to organize on a grassroots level, whereas primaries tend to test political advertising."
Meanwhile, state Republicans have chosen to split the difference, plucking half their delegates from Feb. 9 caucuses and half from the Feb. 19 primary (for the Dems, the latter is merely a multimillion-dollar beauty contest). "Some people can't make it to caucuses because they're ill or in the military, so we draw delegates from both," says State Republican Chair Luke Esser. "The Democratic Party has never done that." (Democrats allow folks physically unable to attend a caucus to vote via surrogate affidavit form, a loophole also extended to people with religious prohibitions on Saturday activities.)
"We believe [caucuses are] more participatory than vote by mail," counters Pelz.
Maybe so, but on balance, the caucus remains more party-building apparatus than user-friendly tool of democracy, and should be relegated to history textbooks as soon as possible.
Reader Comments
A discussion yesterday at my wife's workplace revealed that NOBODY there fully understood the caucus process, and everyone was intimidated by it!
But, I also disagree with the primary system. As a tax payer, why should I pay for primaries to help the Democrat and Republicans figure out who to choose as their top candidate??? Where could that voting money be better spent?
Yes, caucuses are party building, because that's *exactly* the point. Parties are not institutions created under or enshrined in the Constitution. They are political parties that should be reasonably free to chose whatever method they like to pick candidates. The only way caucuses are disenfranchising, at least in Washington state, is in the sense that only a democrat can participate in a D caucus, and an R in an R caucus.
The notion of this being a party matter--one that Jim raises--is reflected in, for example, the Alaska Division of Elections website, in which they clearly state that the State of Alaska does not run caucuses.
If we really are worried about antidemocratic aspects of American politics, there's so many better places to look: the Senate, the Electoral College, the failed voting machines, the GOP election theft of Florida, party-driven gerrymandering (oh, Hi Mr. Delay!). Presidential party politics is about selecting a candidate, and about building a party, not about giving "everyone" a voice.
"undemocratic," what you really seem to mean is "inconvenient."
In fact the process is simple. You show up, and vote for your candidate. Then anyone can make a short speech defending their candidate. If that changes anyone's mind, the votes are recounted. The second tally determines the final delegate count.
It's political discourse with your neighbors. Seems pretty democratic to me. And really, if you can't spend 2 hours on a Saturday, maybe you don't care that much.
"I don't want the government messing with my Medicare!"
"This isn't censorship - it's only the controlling of ideas."
I arrived at the caucus location at 12:30 PM, signed in and milled around chatting with my neighbors about a variety of topics including the candidates.
Although the turnout was quite impressive, we also noted that many of our neighbors (elderly, disabled/sick, working, traveling, worshiping, etc.) were unable to participate.
At 1:30 PM our precinct was moved to the school library along with another precinct. We jammed into a small space in the library and were informed that by some unknown formula based on how many people voted for John Kerry in the last election from our precinct, we had 5 delegates to "distribute". Our initial sign in vote was revealed showing that of the 84 participants, 57 had chosen Obama, 21 chose Clinton and 6 were uncommitted. Another mystery formula, known only, I presume, to someone who wrote the computer program, determined that Obama had 3 delegates, Clinton 1 and Undecided 1. We heard from a spokesperson for each of the candidates (including undecided). We were then requested to divide into candidate groups and descend on those who didn't vote like us and convince them to change. This was impossible in the crowded corner of the library, so most of the participants talked to each other about the candidate that there group had agreed on. Another mathematical mystery was uncovered when told that it would take 4 from another group to get another vote for Clinton and 1 to get another vote for Obama. In either case the uncommitted would lose their delegate. NO ONE CHANGED THEIR ORIGINAL CHOICE.
A few of us entered a resolution to make the primary elections count.
The caucus adjourned at 2:30 PM.
So, despite the warmth of a Democratic "love-in", what was accomplished?
- Delegates were chosen based on a mysterious formula to attend another series of like meetings at a variety of levels and vote their choice.
-A significant number of citizens were left out of the process through no fault of their own.
- No meaningful discussion occurred among the participants.
- A sham primary election, paid for by the citizens, will be held for no reason. The Party leadership emphasized at the caucus that the Party had paid for these caucuses - no cost to the taxpayer - so contributions were needed from the participants to help fund them.
So, once again, I am dissapointed by the Democratic Party - local, state and national. But then again I not sure anyone listens to us down here.
Dem State Chair Dwight Pelz says the caucus is a great way to see how a candidate is at generating grassroots support. Well then isn't it about time we took the training wheels off the (R) and (D) steamroller altogether? Defund (no tax dollars) implementing and promoting the caucus, primary, and other partisan deliberations and see how much grassroots support there is for this process.
Just because you have the term 'Democrat' in your title does not mean that anything you think is a good idea should be funded by we the people.
Change will come if we bring Ranked Approval Voting (or RCV) and proportional representation to Washington State and eliminate this state funded ad campaign early in the election year for any major party.
With (D)'s voting for the Bush agenda and (R)'s putting up candidates that have no clue what their platform even is, why keep diminishing the democratic process in Washington with this expensive and again NON-BINDING process?
Scott~
Chair, LPWA