Why Do We Still Have Caucuses?

On-target and to the point!

A discussion yesterday at my wife's workplace revealed that NOBODY there fully understood the caucus process, and everyone was intimidated by it!

If "regular voters" are too dim to figure out how to participate in a caucus, maybe they shouldn't vote. It's really not that difficult. Progressive organizations like Fuse are reaching out to voters make the process easier, and the Democratic party sent out mailings telling voters how and where to caucus. As a relatively new Washington resident, the caucus process was new to me, but I figured it out. The opportunity to help select the new leader of the free world is more than worth the effort. I'm excited to attend my first caucus, participate in person, and have my say.

A truly democratic election process should be simplified and easily accessible to those who are eligible to vote. If a voter agrees with a candidate's platform, he/she should be able to cast his/her vote for that person w/o having to research the steps to participate in a caucus. Many of my successful and college educated friends do not understand the caucus process. Unfortunately with many things competing for our attention and time, understanding the intricacies of caucuses does not rank on the top of our priority list. It appears to me, caucus serves to hinder the AVERAGE voter, who are far from "dim", from participation instead of encouraging involvement.

Really appreciate the well-reasoned takes everyone. Here's a piece that'll be of interest to you all from Slate, which discusses the constitutionality of caucuses and their potential conflice with the one person, one vote principle: http://www.slate.com/id/2183751/

I agree with all the confusion about caucuses, how they work and where they are. AND why the primary AND caucuses??????
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?

Common Law Uncle Jim: Spoken like a classic Wallavegas Libertarian. A very SEXY Wallavegas Libertarian, mind you.

There journalists go again, trying to understand politics. And again, they fail.

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.

Tom hit the nail on the head.

I don't see how the caucus can be undemocratic when any registered voter can attend. When you say
"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.

"People should pick the nominees and not the parties!"
"I don't want the government messing with my Medicare!"
"This isn't censorship - it's only the controlling of ideas."

`When I returned from Saturday's D caucus (my 3rd) I got this note off to party leadership. "I just returned from one of the biggest wastes of time so far this year - a Washington State Democratic Party caucus.
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.

I care not if the Democrats and Republicans wish to continue using this ancient and non-binding method of deciding who has grassroots support. Just please stop using tax dollars to fund it.

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