The Case for Caucuses

Renew America ^ | 02/27/2008 | Adam Graham

[Keyes2000mt]

Many commentators have called for an elimination of caucuses. I beg to differ and in fact argue that we should give primaries the axe. The arguments for primaries can be best summarized as follows:

Caucus rules are hard to understand.

Caucuses disenfranchise voters.

Caucuses may not necessarily be representative of the people of the state.

Are Primaries Necessary to Democracy?

Many advocates of primaries will point to the system as far more democratic than the "antiquated" caucuses with their idiosyncratic rules. Primaries allow a large pool of voters to go out and cast votes for the candidate of their choice.

Yet, if primaries are a necessity of democracy, someone needs to tell the rest of the world. In no other country on Earth will you find political parties that throw the nomination for the highest office in the land up to millions of people. In fact, you'll find that up until about thirty years ago, primaries were not the popular way of choosing a presidential nominee. We went without presidential primaries for nearly 200 years, and we can go without presidential primaries much longer.

Whose Party Is It?

The purpose of the nominating process is to determine who will represent the Republican and Democratic parties in the Fall election. The question then is, "Who is the Republican Party?" If you live in states like New Hampshire, the answer is any one who so identifies themselves as well as any Independent who chooses to vote in the process, including those who will likely vote for a Democrat in the Fall.

Even in closed primary states that insist only registered party members vote, there is a problem. No club or group has such low standards to be a member as does the Republican Party. This is where you get letters to the editor where voters declare their anger with a member of a party and preface their comments with, "I'm a lifelong Republican but..."

I've often read these letters and thought, "A lifelong Republican? Have I seen you at a Lincoln Day Dinner? Have you worked a fair booth? Did you ever contribute to a candidate for office?" The simple truth of the matter is that to consider yourself a lifelong Republican generally means that you vote that way at least 60% of the time and like the general ring of "Republican" better than "Independent."

Who actually makes the GOP work? Who mans the phone banks? Who works the precincts? Who writes letters to the editor — in favor of Republicans and/or the GOP platform? Who sends checks off to support candidates they believe in? I would suggest that those are the Republicans. They are the ones who will have to deal with whoever the party nominates for President. They are the ones who everybody needs to hear from and who delegates should be representative of, not Independents and Associate Republicans who vote in an open door primary.

These Core Republicans will be left to clean up the mess left by Independents in New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina who voted for a nominee who will not inspire Republicans to go to the polls and will cost many good Republicans their seats.

These Core Republicans are more likely to sit through an hour-long meeting than an Independent trying to make trouble for the party. Therefore, a caucus only system increases the influence of active Republicans.

Would some people be unable to make a caucus meeting because of a work schedule? Sure, that's possible, but like everything else in life, it's a matter of priorities. Caucuses are scheduled several months in advance, if it's important for you to be there, you'll take time off or arrange your schedule accordingly. If it's not, then it's not.

Fundamentally, a caucus only system would be far less expensive. It would require much less fundraising by candidates, thus encouraging candidates to run who might otherwise sit out a campaign. It would also save states millions of dollars. Most of the presidential primaries held this year, with few exceptions, have been in addition to the normal primary contests.

It would also ensure a more informed electorate of the party nominees. An irresponsible voter who has not bothered to study the candidates is unlikely to take an hour and a half of his life to go and Caucus. If they do, their ignorance will be corrected by the information they learn at Caucus.

Conclusion

Everyone has a right to vote in the general election. Everyone does not have the right to choose the nominees for President.

Our current system works to produce an uninformed decision that benefits an aristocracy of special interests and the media. I say let's create an aristocracy of those who actually make parties work and care enough about their country. to take the time to cast an informed vote.