Caucuses

The Argument for Caucuses

Am I the only one who is concerned about the caucuses?  In fact, if the truth were known, I find them disgusting in this day and age.

Champions of the caucus system tout the concept that they are the original form of democracy, where everyone has their say and a consensus is reached after all issues are openly and fairly discussed.  At least that is the argument.

That is indisputably the biggest pile of bullshit that has been spread since they tried to fertilize 100,000 acres with natural fertilizer in a single day.

The Reality about Caucuses

• Attending a caucus takes a considerable amount of time. Hours at least, if not the majority of a day.  Most people cannot or will not attend a caucus.  Those that do attend do not really represent the majority of voters.  Therefore, those that do attend are made up of:

o   Those who are motivated for a specific candidate.  Albeit this can be for philosophical purposes, it is not limited to that.

o   People who have the time to attend, falling into the categories of:

• Unemployed
• Self-employed
• Students
• People who just happen to have the appropriate time off when the caucuses are occurring – not necessarily fitting the real voter profile.

o   For this reason, using the 2016 Democratic Party election cycle as an example we see the following situation:

Primaries turnout in general averaged over 50% of the general election turnout while caucus turnout was less than 7.5% of general election turnout. One state stood out with 0.5% caucus turnout.

Two states, Nebraska and Washington, had a non-binding primary as well as a caucus. In both cases, the primary results were the exact opposite of the caucus results.  Remember, this was while the candidacy was still in doubt so a switch to “back a winner” was not the issue here.

• A caucus keeps many people, those who do not fall into the categories above, from participating in the election process at all. While they could vote in a primary as it takes a considerably smaller amount of physical time (and there is always an absentee ballot available), they cannot participate in the caucus process at all.  And let us not forget that for some reason or another, there may be barriers keeping them from participation:

o   Physical infirmity or disability

o   Process is intimidating

o   Peer pressure

• Because voter turnout to caucuses is so low, there is no way you can support the concept of it being a democratic process. Only if all, or most all, people attend (per the old “town hall” model) can you have a form of democracy.  This is a self-appointed republic, open to corruption if you can load up the attendees supporting a single candidate.
• Caucuses allow for the argument for and against candidates, changing votes, supporters of “non-viable” candidates pledging to another candidate, and so on and so forth. This is nothing more than open campaigning at the polls, another issue I personally find troubling and something that is illegal in the United States in any other venue other than a caucus.  Seems that there is a reason it is illegal every else.  Why is it allowed at a caucus – hmmm?
• Voting in a caucus is a form of open balloting, not much different that the colored ballots that are common in dictatorships and Communist countries. Think about it.

o   Your neighbors intimidating you to vote a certain way.

o   You being afraid to disappoint a friend, family member, whomever.

o   Sucking up or trying to impress someone.

o   All of the above add up to peer pressure in its ugliest form.

• Sometimes forgotten in the overall picture is that a caucus is a Party function, pure and simple. While most people vote a particular party line and wish to vote for a particular candidate, they are not active members of a political party nor do they wish to be. Most people just want to choose a candidate, not deal with the Party.

o   This can also lead to party maneuvers to influence the outcomes such as happened in 2016 at the caucus convention in Nevada.  Whether influenced by the candidate or not, I do not know nor does it matter.  The Democratic Party of Nevada can and did change the rules on the fly.  That is because it is a Party function and not subject to the same oversight that a primary would automatically be subject to.  In a primary, this kind of crap would not have happened.

 

Conclusion

Am I the only one who is concerned about the caucuses?  If I am, I should not be.  The whole thing is crap on a half-shell.  The participants are not representative of their fellow voters except by pure accident because they are not truly peer participants.

I am not saying that primary voters are either.  However, given the choice between the two I would fault on the side of more than 50% representation over less than 7 ½ % representation any day.  This is especially true when the process is fraught with the ability to openly intimidate and campaign during the voting process, not to mention how very easy it is to “stack the deck” by getting a very few extra attendees into the mix.

How do I know this?  Simple.  Look at the 2016 Democratic Primary process.  It does not take a genius to see how the caucus system failed us.  I am not saying that Bernie Sanders was not a viable candidate.  I am not saying that if the States that Bernie Sanders won via caucus had held primaries that he would not have won as well.

What I am saying is this: in primary States, Hillary Clinton won 27 of 37 States; in caucus States, Bernie Sanders won 12 of 14 States (for the uninitiated, I included Washington D.C.).  In fact, you could argue, and the Bernie Believers do argue, that he should have won 13 of 14 caucus States.

It is so damned obvious that given the time frames of the caucuses and demographics of the States involved that there is a disconnect between the caucus results and the primary results.  The caucus results do not reflect the same outcomes as would have been represented if there were primary voting during the same times in similar States.  Need I bring up Nebraska and Washington State again?

Caucuses are only one small step ahead of the Good Ol’ Boys (and Girls) meeting in the back room and picking their favorites.  The only difference here is that the party polls do not make the choice.  Instead, it left up to a well-organized group, not necessarily representing a true picture of the electorate, to choose a candidate.  This is bad in its best and damned near criminal in its worst representation.  It is the most fraught with corruption of any election process available today short of directly buying votes – and buying votes is possible in the caucus system.

GET RID OF THE DAMNED CAUCUSES