Some states, like New Hampshire, have primaries while others, like Iowa, have caucuses. There are good arguments in favor of each of the two different methods of selecting deligates for the party conventions. Interestingly, Texas seems unable to decide between the two and has opted for using both methods.
Some will argue that primaries are inherently more democratic because they allow more voters to participate. Typically, it will take several hours to participate in a caucus whereas voting in a primary can take as little as five minutes. However, a proponent of the caucus system might well argue that primaries can sometimes take even more time , and that just as with a caucus, a great many voters will choose not to participate in a primary and that is their choice.
Proponents of a caucus will often argue that it puts the decision in the hands of people who care and who are better informed. While this is an elitest argument, it is probably also true. People who take the trouble to attend a caucus are probably better informed on the issues than those who vote in primaries, but neither class of voters has a monoply on ignorance.
Another argument that can be made in favor of the caucus system, though I have not heard anyone make it, is that they are more difficult to game. The 2000 and 2004 elections have given most of us good reason to doubt the validity of our elections and there is no reason to think that our primaries are any better. The integrity of the recent New Hampshire was brought into question by a number of bloggers, see for example BradBlog.
The fact is that with the increased use of computers to collect and tabulate our vote, there is really no way to prove that the official totals are correct. As with the New Hampshire primary, there is a temptation to look at the statistics and ask ourselves whether they are reasonable. Not that this can be conclusive and statistical arguments are not likely to overturn an election (O.K., in Ukraine maybe, but not here in America where we can trust our election officials), but they do give pause to wonder.
In the New Hampshire primary, there were suggestions that the tally had been doctored to favor Hillary Clinton. Though one might at first think that this would imply that the Clinton camp were involved, a second round of thinking was that Republican forces might favor Clinton because they see her as easier to beat in the general election. There is even the possibility that the media might have an interest in having her win because it would extend the primary season and help fill their advertising pockets. This is all conjecture of course, to my knowledge there is no evidence that the count was falsified and certainly no evidence of who might have done it, however there is likewise no proof that the official count was accurate.
Most people who follow these things are aware that Obama is winning and that he is winning particularly strongly in caucus states. In fact he has won twelve of the forteen caucus states if you include his recent win in Wyoming. Obama has won 86% of the caucus states but only 55% (16 out of 29) of the primary states. One does have to wonder why there is such a marked difference between the caucus and the primary states.
Of course it is the number of delegates that count, not the number of states and while Obama has won in 65% of the states he now has only 52% of the delegates. The choice is still a close one and the statistics are quite interesting. If these observations raise any concern in your mind that is reason enough for you to favor electoral reform in this country.
A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
Your comparison of caususes to primaries is flawed. Many fewer people vote in caususes than in primaries. So, if you believe that fewer participation in the voting process is best, then you will love caucuses. Also, many senior citizens will not be able to vote, even if they wanted to. We polled our family, and over one-third of them would not be able to attend a caucus. Luckily, in California we have a primary, so they could send their ballots in the mail. Also, swing-shift workers cannot attend a caucus. I think democracy (at least to the extent we have it here in the U.S.) is better served if more people can participate, rather than fewer.
by
Hinnis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 3:51:52 PM
In my article I made precisely your point that more people are able to participate in a primary. However, what use is that if a private company runs the machines that tally the vote and the primary voters' choices are ignored to accomplish a pre-determined outcome? There is at least circumstancial evidence that this is what happened in the New Hampshire primary.
This year I experienced my first caucus. In a town of 4000 people (probably no more than 1500 registered Democrats) 80 people showed up for the Democratic caucus (11 for the Republican caucus). It was held on a Sunday, so I suspect few people were at work and I would guess that half of the people that did show up were retired. However, virtually anyone could show up, provided they did not participate in the Republican caucus. You could change your registration at the caucus otherwise. People who attended were obviously attentive to the process, though not all seemed well-informed. That, however, is mostly a criticism of our media, not of these earnest citizens.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 341 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 5:15:11 PM
I understand your point, however, circumstantial evidence is not conclusive. Sure there may be problems with counting the votes in a primary, as there are in the general election, however, I don't think anyone would argue that we should forgoe our current method of voting in the general, for caususes. Although there may have been some senior citizens at the caucus you attended, as I mentioned, many of our own family members could not have attended; and I can't believe that our family is unique among all families in this country. I do appreciate your personal reply to my post, and I think we are on the same page in wanting the best and most representative method of choosing our candidates and our elected officials.
by
Hinnis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 5:57:51 PM
It appears that my argument may have been obscured by my verbage, so let me try making the argument again, this time in more of an outline form.
1. Both primaries and caucuses have faults, however a major fault of primaries is in the way the votes are tallied. With the system in use today today, many people do not trust the results. Caucuses have other problems, but it is hard to see how their results could be falsified.
2. In the current Democratic primary season there are some suspicious differences between the results for caucuses and for primaries, raising questions about the legitimacy of the primary results. Electoral fraud is not the only possible explaination for the anomolies, but it is one explaination.
3. The mere fact that there are questions about the legitimacy of an election is reason enough to reform it. The electorate should never have doubts about the integrity of their electoral system.
Note: A reform of primaries in no way implies that primaries should be abandoned in favor of caucuses, though that might be one approach. An alternative would be to use paper ballots and count the ballots by hand in public at the polling location.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 341 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 9:01:06 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
