Everyone Hates The Caucuses Now, Again

Ahh, caucuses. As John Avlon notes, there is no better expression of the "romantic notions" of street-level politics than the sight of friends and neighbors, gathered together in high school gymnasiums, taking those first fitful steps on the year-long journey of our democracy. Is it possible to not love them, and their pageant-drenched role in presidential politics?

Actually, it is possible to do so, now more than ever, because of the numerous problems that have plagued the caucus process this year, which include such matters as "counting votes" and "accurately determining the winner."

Yes, this year, some of the intrinsic difficulties of staging the caucuses, which tend to be woolly affairs compared to primaries, have made themselves manifest. Begin in Iowa, where two weeks after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was declared the winner, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) was declared the winner. Missing votes and counting errors prevented Iowa from determining the winner in a timely fashion, and despite the fact that the confusion briefly made Edith Pfeffer and Carolyn Tallet media celebrities, the overall verdict was that the process had "damaged the credibility" of the Iowa Caucus.

But the snafus did not end in Iowa. In Nevada, the eternity it took to count up the votes were just a sideline problem in a process that was plagued with confusion and disorganization. As Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun reported: "Instead of the pride of the West, one national commentator described it as a 'national embarrassment.' And Nevada’s role as a 'major player in national politics' has been thrown into question." And the Maine caucuses might have provided the tipping point in getting the caucus process reformed. There, counting errors were compounded by a caucus that was cancelled due to snowfall and several other precincts whose tabulations were left out of the mix.

Avlon says it's time to do away with caucuses altogether, and not just because of the rampant lack of competence:

Even after the endless media hype surrounding the GOP primary contests this year, turnout was essentially flat in the Iowa caucuses between 2008 and 2012, despite the absence of a Democratic contest to siphon off participants. Turnout was dramatically down in caucuses in Nevada, Minnesota, and Colorado. In Maine, fewer than 6,000 voters bothered to participate--roughly 2 percent of the registered Republicans in the state. Overall, caucus turnout is averaging about 10 percent of registered Republicans in each state.

Moreover, those 10 percent who do turn out tend to be the most ideological and hyperpartisan--meaning that the winner of a caucus is increasingly a bad barometer of who might actually carry the state in a general election by being able to win over independents and centrist swing voters.

In addition, caucuses are one of the chief offenders when it comes to setting the primary season's calendar. Florida and South Carolina both paid a price for moving their primaries up to the early part of the season -- each state's delegation will be slashed in half for ruining the Republican National Committee's sacred rules. But because the caucuses are non-binding, they aren't subject to sanction. As Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner note, "Minnesota, Colorado and Maine have held February caucuses this year without paying any kind of penalty." But those states contributed to the frenzied calendar chaos just the same.

Yet as Blake and Weiner go on to report, it seems that while this year's caucus mishaps call out for reform, party elites are hesitant to do away with tradition altogether:

“The problems encountered in two or three caucuses does not call out for abolition of caucuses, but for better methods of implementing caucuses,” said Tennessee Republican National Committeeman John Ryder. “And I say this as someone who favors primaries -- at least for my own state.”

Mississippi Republican National Committeeman Henry Barbour agreed, but noted that primaries have experienced problems too: “I think there is definitely a place for caucuses in the nominating process, but not without a transparent, accurate reflection of the vote count.”

In addition, Blake and Weiner note that the Caucusdammerung discussion is an evergreen one:

This debate is leftover from the 2008 campaign, when President Obama won the Democratic nomination largely on the strength of his wins in many caucus states.

At the time, Hillary Clinton’s campaign argued that caucuses didn’t matter as much because they were low-turnout affairs that had no bearing on actual delegates — much the same argument Romney’s campaign made when he lost in Minnesota and Colorado last week.

What's been left out of this discusssion? The campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), and its plan to hack the caucuses. In the coming weeks, as the various caucus states head to the next steps in the process by which the Republican National Convention delegates are selected, we'll see how successful Paul's operation is at poaching delegates from the candidate that everyone presumes is going to the nominal "winner" of the caucuses. If it's successful, you can bet that calls for reform will pick up considerably.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Comments

[sociocanuck]

05:19 PM on 02/17/2012

I won't waste my time on which of Primaries and/or Caucuses are better. Both have way more observable flaws than they do amorphous noncorporeal benefits. They both exist to game the system, both by adding to the evidence (if only deliberately forced evidence) that Americans should pay attention only to the two major parties that hold them - by means of quantitative overwhelmment rather than qualitative differentiation - and also by creating a false narrative of giving the country the opportunity to pick its nominees for leadership. The problem is (never mind leaving out all the alternatives) that the more drawn out the primary season is, the higher the bias from early states on later ones' voting patterns.

The early primary states like Iowa and New hampshire know this and cause a stink about it every time other States try to shuffle the calendar. It has nothing to do with 'maintaining tradition' and everything to do with maintaining control over the descending bias. If at least all primaries and caucuses were held on exactly the same day, there would be no such bias. It would still dominate the media's attention for that one day; but it would mean that in order to fill all those other days they might have to spend a lot more time exploring all the other parties, nominees, positions, statistics, etcetera.

And I fail to see how that would be a waste of resources, even if the two party system were undiminished.

[popart]

05:23 AM on 02/16/2012

The way we vote for president here in America is really pretty stupid when you get right down to it...obviously the intent is to benefit one canidate over another one political machine over another...and confuse the voting public as much as possible...politicians will do and say just about anything to get elected and will never make it easy for the average joe to cast an informed vote for the top office in the land....and we just go along wih it like the passive drones we have always been....i guess it is just nature's way.....a few smart wolves and lots of dumb sheep.

[Dodger300]

10:48 PM on 02/15/2012

To think, Republicans pretend to be concerned about "voter fraud."

They can't get their own house in order, but want to dictate to the country it should run elections.

[Russell Masingale]

08:57 AM on 02/16/2012

they just want to share the joy of not knowing who won for 2 weeks after with us. or they just dont like democracy when they lose.

[sawadee2000]

10:36 PM on 02/15/2012

Even Hollywood would reject a screenplay based on the 2012 Republican caucuses as being too farfetched to be believed. The snafus to date are so egregious that the people who organized them should resign in shame. There are banana republics out there who do abetter job then these folks. Given the clown car that has carried this years candidates around the country, it isn't surprising that the process of choosing one of these less than stellar know-nothings shouldn't be equally absurd. I can hardly wait for the fun and games at the Republican convention to begin.

[treadway123]

08:56 PM on 02/15/2012

It's NOT the Caucus! It's the Republican Fraud that makes the caucus bad! An these are the people who want to lead our Country, who can't count votes, keep their fingers out of the Ballet box!

[Suzy 24]

09:41 PM on 02/15/2012

Yes,and keep there finger out of our tea.

[charleshbuchannan]

08:36 PM on 02/15/2012

Lord knows the Clintonistas got their panties in a wad over caucuses.

It was as if Obama had invented the concept to steal the nomination from Hilary.

[comraderoger]

08:30 AM on 02/16/2012

It's not that he invented the concept, he just gamed the system to the max to ensure that the hundreds of people who showed up to caucus for him would garner him enough delegates to offset his losses in NY, MA, NJ, PA, OH, CA and so on.

In WA, Obama won the caucus with a pathetically low turnout. A few weeks later, Hillary won the WA primary by a substantial margin. But, the DNC ignored the WA primary and used the caucus results instead to award delegates.

Caucuses are the most undemocratic way to select a candidate and should be eliminated regardless of who the candidates are.

[charleshbuchannan]

11:39 AM on 02/16/2012

Obama "gamed" the system in order to win???? Oh, boo hoo! Gee. How unfair! Too bad that HRC and her team had no reason to know how caucuses work! How were THEY to know??????

Regarding WA, I don't know what is the STANDARD process there, but if it is as you described what happened, then I don't know what you are whinging about.

You say that caucuses are undemocratic. How do you figure? Any member of the party can come and participate.

Would you prefer that poll workers go door to door getting people to vote? Would that be more democratic. In Australia one gets hit with a modest fine if one does not vote. Would that be more democratic?

I have news for you. This was a contest by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to find a nominee. It was not an election. If the Democratic Party was to decide that the party bosses would choose the nominee, that would be perfectly legit.

If the party decided that only left-handed red headed men would have the franchise, thatwould be legit.

American, Anglo Saxons for that matter, have been participating in caucuses for 400 years. If HRC could not compete competently in the caucuses she had no business expecting to win.

Nothing like dragging the term caucus thru a room to get the Clintonistas barking furiously. The rules of the game are the rules of the game; Obama had a competent understanding of that game, apparently. She lost, fair and square.

[oldgeek1]

08:12 PM on 02/15/2012

If that is how States want to select their delegates or chose a candidate it's their choice. I guess the 19th Century serves them well.

[Rachel Slur]

07:51 PM on 02/15/2012

the caucuses need to continue into october. they are just that educational.

[disporting]

07:36 PM on 02/15/2012

You obviously don't know what the h.ell you are talking about. Caucuses are enjoyable and a good last minute chance to sway people to support your candidate rather than a primary. Caucuses act as a meeting, it is a good time, and you know, instead of ripping on the tradition, maybe rip on the people who COUNT them? I don't see the democrats having any issues counting the results of the caucuses in 2008 and this year. Do you?

[comraderoger]

08:32 AM on 02/16/2012

You obviously weren't paying attention to the 2008 primary. Many people, myself included, railed on and on about the horrible caucus process.

If you want to have a pre-caucus before a primary, knock yourself out. But to exclude people who can't be in Irving and Marge's living room at 7.00 on a Tuesday evening from the process is just flat out wrong.

[runfastandwin]

07:13 PM on 02/15/2012

And yet, Democrats in 2008 had no such issues. Maybe it's just that Republicans are, for lack of a better word, stupid.

[comraderoger]

08:35 AM on 02/16/2012

Many Democrats, myself chief among them, went on and on about how ridiculous the caucus process is.

I guess you just weren't paying attention.

[efell]

06:57 PM on 02/15/2012

Primaries only, and all on the same day. How friggin' hard is that?

[tacevad]

08:08 PM on 02/15/2012

more ebb and flow this way and more opportunity to use their few core supporters in more places and inflate the ole campaign coffers.

[comraderoger]

08:35 AM on 02/16/2012

The only the candidates with the most money to advertise and with the most name recognition would win. Retail politics would be totally dead using this idea.

The problem is that states with small and non-diverse populations get outsized influence while big states like IL, NY and CA are usually left out of the process entirely.