by publius
One overlooked aspect of the DNC’s admittedly clusterf***ish meeting this weekend is that things could have been far worse. Consider this — what if the meeting had actually mattered? What if the actual nomination had depended on how the DNC handled Michigan and Florida? That, my friends, would have been ugly. Really, really ugly. And frankly, I don’t see how it could have been resolved legitimately at that stage (or at the convention).
For that reason, the Democrats actually dodged a bullet here. The nomination has essentially already been decided. But if it hadn’t been, then things could have become extremely messy.
The broader lesson here is that the Democrats (and Republicans too) need to get their procedural houses in order before 2012. The primary selection process is need of a drastic procedural overhaul — and this election provides a perfect excuse for comprehensive reform. In fact, I’d like to see “primary reform” on the netroots agenda in the months and years ahead. In that spirit, below is a short list of the most obvious problems/recommendations:
Replace Iowa and New Hampshire with Rotating Regional Calendar
The Michigan/Florida debacle is a direct consequence of Iowa and New Hampshire’s unholy monopoly on the early elections. David Broder aside, there is absolutely no justification for allowing the same two states — states without major urban centers or diverse populations — to host the first elections every cycle. And it’s especially unwise given that one of these states holds caucuses and forces all candidates to embrace ethanol-first policies.
I’d prefer some sort of rationalized rotating regional calendar (e.g., 5 states in Week 1, 7 states in Week 3, etc.). In fact, I’m not sure any individual state should have an election day all to itself. That’s not how the general election works, and individual contests don’t test for the type of skills candidates need in national presidential elections. But regardless of how it’s structured, the order of the states needs to rotate from cycle to cycle. As Senator Levin correctly noted, these states don’t have a God-given right to go first.
Kill the Caucuses
These should simply be eliminated — no ifs, ands, or buts. The Clinton people are right that they are disenfranchising. If you are (1) old; (2) have small children; or (3) work at night, it’s a lot harder for you to sit around the high school gym for hours listening to others talk. And even if you’re none of these things, caucuses still sharply increase the “costs” of voting. If, by contrast, you can just walk in and walk out, you’d be more likely to go vote.
If there are local political issues that need to be debated, fine. Caucus about them all you want. But the actual presidential election part needs to be carved out and converted into a primary.
Kill the Superdelegates (Metaphorically)
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of these guys too. The whole superdelegate concept seems illegitimate to me (in a normative rather than positive sense). Indeed, the Democrats dodged a bullet on this front as well — things could have been worse. Even though superdelegates will ultimately decide this year’s outcome, Obama has a pretty clear (not huge, but significant) lead in pledged delegates. Thus, the superdelegates aren’t “robbing” anyone.
You could imagine, though, a much closer election with superdelegates splitting more evenly. And that situation would be a total disaster — one that would be a mockery of democracy. For one, the decision would be made by unaccountable party hacks that no one’s ever heard of. Second, the decision would likely be based more on deal-cutting and chits than on principle.
The point is that the superdelegate concept creates terrible incentives. Even worse, it creates the conditions for a true intraparty meltdown in the case of a virtual tie (indeed, we got a glimpse of that this cycle). For this reason, I would recommend eliminating them entirely. But if the Democratic rabble is deemed unfit for democracy, then superdelegates should at least consist only of elected officials — no DNC officials allowed. We need some modicum of accountability.
These are just off the top of my head. Others?
Count me in for the rotating regional primaries approach. Its not perfect, but its a lot better than having ONLY Iowa and NH be first, year after year, as if God commanded it. Who goes first is always going to be important- let everyone have a shot at being first.Hey with rotating regional primaries, we could have them voting LAST some years-which is a reason all by itself for RRP. As for money and name recognition, well if a a candidate is good, he will find a way to win.
I'd also want the primary season to run from march to July, with the convention in August. Every other major country in the world manages to select its leader in campaigns that last weeks, not months or years.
Posted by: stonetools | June 03, 2008 at 08:23 AM
We can't know how some game from the past would have turned out, if played by different rules. Might Dean have won a nationwide primary -- or rotating regionals? We can't know, nor can we say that that would have led to a better result. (I think it would not have, but rather that the result would have been far worse. Whether this matters depends on going further into the counterfactual: was the relatively narrow margin of Bush's victory in 2004 a factor in the failure of the effort to wreck SS in 2005? Arguably.)
Would Tsongas have won in 92? Maybe. Would Perot have gotten as much traction (and thus put Tsongas in the WH) with a deficit hawk already in the race? Arguably not.
It's a game that's not really worth playing. I don't think the IA/NH system has served badly, and don't see any reason to change it. Obviously people disagree, and are willing to break the rules, and risk chaos, to makew their little point.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | June 03, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Ben and lemuel,
I think you misunderstand me. I am not arguing that there is necessarily some benefit to having less rather than more openness in the nomination process from the party's standpoint. I might have some opinion about that but that is really beside my point. I am arguing that the basis for that argument over how the Dems decide their nominee cannot really be whether or not or how much of a public institution they are.
The public nature of any institution is the part that describes what it is compelled to do according to the various laws under which public institutions are bound. When I say any group is public, what I am really saying is that, as a citizen, I "own" certain rights with respect to that organization that I can require it by law to satisfy if it comes to that. That is true with respect to almost any institution and is certainly the case with political parties. But, in the case of political parties, one of those rights is not the right to tell it how to conduct its elections by law. With respect to that issue, it is not "public" at all. If that were ever in any doubt before, the two cases in Florida certainly clarified it to a large extent.
A party is not, as you know, a Government agency that is required by law to perform elections in a certain way. The only question it needs to ask itself is what is best for its membership and its political agenda. It may be that the answer to that question is to get as close as possible to one person/one vote. But that will be true or not regardless of how public or private it is. Arguing over that particular issue, I think, misses the point entirely.
Posted by: brent | June 03, 2008 at 09:33 AM
"There is a time for democracy and one person, one vote. And it is whenever a self-governing group needs to make a decision.
Imagine some decision needed to be made about the future of Obsidian Wings. ..."
We make decisions any way we like. In practice, we act as a collective. But I would resist any attempt to say that we *must* do so.
My internets went down yesterday, so I didn't get to participate in, or for that matter read, this thread. However:
I think we should absolutely have rotating first primaries. There is no earthly reason why Iowa and NH should always go first.
I also think that if there were some way of writing it in stone that whatever else happens to any state that jumps the party's orders, no *superdelegate* from that state will be seated at the convention, that would do a lot of good. It's the party elites who do a lot of the damage, in this case; ensuring that they pay the price would help a lot.
I also strongly resist the idea that people who bother to caucus constitute "an elite" in virtue of that fact. Caucussing is genuinely open to everyone. The people who show up do not suddenly become "an elite" in virtue of that fact.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 03, 2008 at 09:51 AM
"I believe the situation is similar elsewhere"
Instead of "believ[ing]," try fact-checking.
"Gwangung -- So you're saying Congress never passed the Civil Rights Act, and that there has never been a successful lawsuit for employment discrimination. Right?"
No. Try sticking to reading what he wrote, rather than imagining someone wrote something else.
And check into the fact that if you want to start a "whites only" club, you're free to do so.
"But please don't distort what I've written."
Not quoting everything you write is not "distort[ing" a thing. People have your words right in front of them to read and reread. I interfere with that not at all.
"Gwangung is hopeless"
Gwangung is stating objective facts, and that's all. If you find that disagreeable, rather than simply being disagreed with, the problems lies not with his anodyne words.
"Here is the New York State Election law. You'll see that Article 2 describes "Party Organization" and Article 2 describes "Designation and Nomination of Candidates" (parties' core function), both in great detail."
New York State is extremely unusual in its election laws, Lemuel. Look into it, and check this for yourself.
We have 50 states, and each is unique, and assuming that all or most of the others are like yours is completely provincial, and will frequently steer you wrong. (Says a guy who has only lived in NY, MA, WA, MI, CT, CO, and now NC, with substantial stays in CA and ME.)
While NY State is extraordinary in the degree to which the Republican and Democratic Parties have successfully written themselves into law -- and I think this is extraordinarily corrupt and wrong, but who would think that could happen in NY State politics? -- the law also clearly states (thanks for the link):
Beyond what's already in the law, the parties still make their own rules. NY State is unique in putting this much of a frame around the party rules, but even so, it only goes so far. Most importantly, NY State is very unusual in this area.As I said, even in the unique state of NY, the law only covers a few provisions, and so long as those provisions aren't violated, the parties can do what they damn well like.
Your mistakes include imagining that most states have bizarre election laws like New York. Most don't. It's a fact. Look it up. Check your own facts, rather than assuming.
Your other mistake is not realizing that even in the most maximum example of writing rules for parties into laws, the rules are just bare frames, within which the parties are free to write whatever more detailed rules they like.
Which is what I said in the first place: "You are guaranteed no rights in a party other than that which are incidentally granted by law, or by party rule."
"I would like to see the nomination process come to resemble the simple, transparent, one-person, one-vote procedures used for every single other election in the United States."
You're as entitled to an opinion as every other voter, of course.
"There is no other election in the United States in which [...]" we have a national election. Quite correct. We have only one national election, every four years. No one will argue this point with you.
"But the assertion that political parties have anything like the same degree of autonomy as other "private" entities is fantasy."
Look, this is entirely simple: there are different levels of autonomy, and of public/private nature. At one extreme is the completely private: someone's home and assocations. At the other extreme is that which is completely public: an election for governmental office, a public school, a town square or property.
In between, it's a matter of degree: a commercial enterprise is a private one, with the people who own it having a right of free association, but it's limited by public accomodation laws that as a matter of public policy, and as a matter of constitutional law since the additions of the 13th and 14th Amendments, and subsequent amendments and evolution of constitutional law, limit the right to discriminate in commercial or quasi-private/public entities to a very limited degree.
And political parties, like some other institutions, have both elements of public and private about them. These are not binary distinctions.
So it pays to talk about the specifics. And except where constitutional law, and other limited cases of public accommodation laws restrain commercial enterprises, or parties, or other hybrid enterprises, in very limited ways (specifically, and the language is different in different states, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, ethnicity, etc.) and that's it.
And that's all there bloody well is to it.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:03 AM
"Yes. Fundamental rights are not something you give up to save a little money."
For god's sake, there's no "fundamental right" to not have a caucus. Jeebus.
We have a right to democracy, and to participate in our parties in a grass-roots fashion, rather than leaving the business to those appointed by senior or elected members of the party. I prefer my democracy to be enacted at the grass roots, rather than top down, as it is in primary states. YMMV.
I walked into caucuses not knowing a sole, and walked out an elected official. I was elected to my Congressional District, and to my State, Convention, cold. And that's how 95% of the precinct caucues electees were chosen, and how some 80-90% of electees to the CD and State Conventions were elected.
Tell me how I, or any other citizen, can do that in a primary state, please.
And, publius? Still want to wipe away caucuses? Why? Any plans to address these points? Are you even reading your comments? Give us a sign, maybe?
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:09 AM
"But the point is, some private groups are subject to more 'interference' (a word which already assumes that the public does not have a legitimate interest) than others -- churches more than families, privately held corporations more than churches, public corporations more than private ones, and political parties far more than any of them."
You were correct right up until your last phrase, when your assumption that most states are like NY State throws you off completely. Depending on the state, your statement is true, but not nearly as true as you seem to think it is, or only partially true, or more or less not true at all. If you're interested, you'll have to check all fifty different state sets of laws, as well as the various territories. But they are very different from each other in many ways.
If you google a bit, you can find plenty of write-ups about this, particularly in political journals, but I'm only willing to do so much of someone else's work for them, and we learn best what we learn for ourselves, so I encourage you to look into this for yourself, please.
And let me say about this, additionally: "Gwangung is hopeless"
Gwangung has been perfectly polite. I'd encourage respecting that, myself, and this has nothing to do with the fact that we're both talking facts, even if all of us have been a bit sloppy with phrasing at times, which is the case.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:13 AM
"He died on the 22nd two years ago, and I'm missing him a lot."
I'm so sorry, Bruce. I have some clues as to how much he meant to you, as does your mom. I can only tell you that, for me, a while after 2-3 years, it starts to get better, and the pain is less, and it becomes more remembering the wonderful parts of someone, and ever less of an open wound, though the loss is always there.
But the pain tends to slowly become less raw, and the wound less painful. May it be so for you, while you always cherish all that was good that your father gave to you and your loved ones.
I lost my longtime beloved four years ago, and I still miss her terribly, but the pain is no longer daily, and I'm slowly more able to think of her without crying -- though I'm tearing up again talking about this -- but time does much good.
And the first two years are horrible. There's no way around it; there's only going through it.
Take care, and be good to yourself.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:20 AM
"Primaries are often the best opportunity for ideas and policies currently ignored by the leadership of the major parties to find a place in our national political discussions."
And it's my observation that caucuses do a thousand times better job of this.
It's only through the caucus method that you get together with your neighbors, and talk about what you believe, and elect someone to speak for you, at the level of 5-50 people making a choice for the next level (county convention), and then that level bopping you up another level (Congressional District and/or State Convention), and at each level you're doing nothing but talking to each other, and taking votes on what the majority thinks, and voting for platforms and positions.
None of that is available in primary states, and the alternative of joining a local Democratic/Republican/whatever "club," and doing internal club politics, or working for a candidate's organization alone, is far more opaque, endlessly more of a time committment (dozens or hundreds of hours per year, rather than 2 hours or 8 hours or 24 hours), and is full of cronyism and internal club politics and appointive hierarchies.
And yet you are perfectly free to participate essentially identically as in a primary, in a caucus state, by just showing up, putting down your vote in five minutes, or half an hour if things are badly organized, and leaving. Same exact deal.
Caucuses have exactly the advantages of primaries, plus all that other democratic participatory stuff that is purely optional. That's why they're so effing great!
"1. The party has a strong interest in making decisions in a transparent, legitimate way."
I completely agree.
"A system that leaves large numbers of Democrats with the sense that they have no voice in 'their' party has major strategic costs."
That's how I feel about primaries: they offer me no voice. If I want to have a voice here in NC, or if I were back in NY State, I'm going to have to find local party organizations, see what it takes to join, find out who I have to make nice to, find out what I have to do to impress people, and so on. It's going to be a thousand times more work than just walking into a meeting, speaking for 2 minutes, and walking out an elected official.
And if anyone can tell me it's different in their primary state, that I can become an elected precinct committeeperson/leader after a few minutes of speaking, at a single couple of hours of meeting, I'd really like to know where that state is, so I can consider that factor if I ever see a reason to move there.
Anyone know of such a state? Anyone? Lemuel?
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:31 AM
By definition, those who are most active in an organization set its tone, agenda, etc., and I am really perplexed by the idea that this is somehow a bug rather than a feature of an organization, even one that is as essential to democracy. By all accounts, it is easier to change the direction and agenda of an organization that is the most open to new activists who are more easily able to become the agents of control. I am not dead set against primaries or deadset for caucuses as a means of nomination, but complaing that caucuses give party regulars and activists too much sway really floors me, when, by all accounts, anyone who wants to can assume that activist role simply as a result of their desire to do so. This is definitely not true in a lot of primary states.
True barriers to participation are a different issue that need to be addressed -- but some of the claims here come very close to, "well, since some people find it difficult to participate, no one should have the right to participate more than the person who has the least interest or ability in participating."
No significant or complex human endeavor will succeed on that basis. Whatever short term "democratic" gain that would be gained by that philosophy will be more than offset by long-term shortage of human investment in the organization as a whole.
Posted by: Barbara | June 03, 2008 at 10:33 AM
"f you want caucuses, at least take steps -- as everyone here agrees -- to increase participation."
I absolutely agree with making it mandatory that every state with a caucus system have: a) proxy voting; and b) a mandatory mail and email ballot option to vote for your presidential selections of your choice.
And to amplify a point previously made, lots of states now have mail and early voting that takes place over several months before the election. In Colorado, we've been voting by mail for several elections. Here in North Carolina, there's early voting. California has early voting. Etc. 49 out of 50 states, as it happens, are not NY State.
Some actual facts:
All have early voting.Here is a complete list of states allowing absentee and early voting.
Summary:
Hope This Helps.Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:37 AM
"I walked into caucuses not knowing a sole"
Or even a heel, or a halibut. Or a soul.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 10:40 AM
You could have said "a sole person" and that would also have been correct.
Posted by: Barbara | June 03, 2008 at 10:43 AM
DIng! Ding! Ding!
Posted by: gwangung | June 03, 2008 at 10:46 AM
By the way, lemuel....
Yes, the rules for parties and corporate entities are different. But until you point out what the differences are and how the substance works out in the real world, you don't have much of a point. If you can point out how these differences make operation of a political party much more onerous and constrained than that of a LLC or corporation, you'd have a stronger case.
Posted by: gwangung | June 03, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I started to like the idea of caucuses more after I talked to some people who had gone to them in Iowa. They described what sounds to me like heaven (though after hearing about the DNC meeting, it could easily descend into hell), people who are voting actually being conscious and aware and willing to talk about their choices and justify them.
But then again, if you're not a geek like me and as willing to talk about this stuff in person with strangers as you are on the Internet, I can see how it makes things harder.
The biggest thing that I think would make a difference is requiring election days to be holidays. Granted, that still usually means that service industry workers are stuck working, but perhaps our friggin' democracy is important enough that we should call everyone off work those days.
To ensure the largest amount of people voting, I'd go with same-day voter registration and early absentee-in-person voting (so if you suddenly get called out of town and don't make the absentee ballot deadline...). That seems to me to be completely glaringly obvious, though, so if no one brought it up in the two hundred comments I didn't read above, I'm shocked.
Posted by: Sarah J | June 03, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Gary: Thanks, man. It is easier this year than last, partly because I know more of what to look for and prepare for when it comes to me as an individual.
I remember the words Neil Gaiman gave to Dream to say to his son Orpheus after Eurydice's death: "You are mortal: it is the mortal way. You attend the funeral, you bid the dead farewell. You grieve. Then you continue with your life. And at times the fact of her absence will hit you like a blow to the chest, and you will weep. But this will happen less and less as time goes on. She is dead. You are alive. So live."
(And then this reminds me of when I quoted on GEnie Dad's idea for an adult theme park where you could drive all that great big construction gear after training in its basic use, and Neil said, "There are now going to be days when I say, 'That's it, I shall retire and run the steam shovel.'"...laughter lives close to sorrow sometimes.)
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | June 03, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I think the reason this is so difficult is that the nominating process does lots of things besides picking the nominee, and that even the definition of the "best" nominee is unclear. The tradeoff among competence, ideology, and electability is a problem all parties have to face.
In short, the nominating process is not an election. It is, IMO, a sort of giant gearing up for the general election, a wakening, in some sense, of the party. So we have the fringe candidates heard from; we have the serious but improbable types - Dodd, Richardson - looking for a lightning strike. We also get lots of publicity, some focus on what issues are important and how the candidates respond.
At the same time the various segments of the party - activists, primary voters, contributors, elected officials - get heard, as do some independents.
I think all these things are valuable. To see the nominating process just as a means of selecting the nominee is too simple. So various pieces of the process serve various ends, and it's hard to balance it all. Any simple solution, like a one-day national primary, cannot accomplish this.
The test of the process is whether it produces winning results in the general election, not whether it conforms to some ideal standard for elections. And winning the general is not just a matter of the nominee. It is a matter of organization, energy, unity, plus a strong nominee.
While the current system has obvious flaws, I'm far from convinced that a messy system is not best. It gives voice to lots of people, tests the candidates' organizational skills, and generally gets people moving. I think the focus should be on improvement at the margins - fewer superdelegates, more accessible caucuses, some shortening of the contest, rather than a drastic overhaul.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 03, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Checking in later; sorry, some of my responses have sorta been covered already.
Lemuel, as far as I know, you're right that the national party can dictate that caucuses are eliminated. Personally, although I'm not a fan of caucuses, I'm inclined to leave that decision to the states because it's less top-down, for just one reason. If the Dems in Iowa want to use the process to submit their picks, fine. If there's a nomination calendar that diminishes the ridiculous over-inflation of the Iowa caucus, all the better.
Gary, that's a good point regarding caucuses not solely being about picking a candidate, but also voter registration, party building, and so on. You seem to have had good experiences with caucuses. I've read some other bloggers who have similar feelings. I've also read several accounts of horribly run caucuses, and have heard the same from a number of people I've met (including at Drinking Liberally last Thursday). Again, I'm inclined to leave it to the states.
One question would be, how did Dem voter registration this year compare in caucus states versus primary states, and to what degree did caucuses aid that? I don't have those numbers offhand. If primary states fail in that respect compared to caucuses, that is a very valid concern. If they do (and I don't have that data), then I wonder how that gap can be filled, and if party rallies or other measures can do the trick. But again, the data I've read said the participation was less than 6% in Iowa in 2004, up to 16% in 2008, compared to 53% in New Hampshire in 2008. Did New Hampshire register more new voters, proportionately, than Iowa? I'll have to research that later this week (although I wouldn't be surprised if an ObWi commenter has that). I imagine most newly registered voters this year will vote in November, but if there's some significant decline there, that and the causes would also bear studying.
I'm also in complete agreement with you on the proxy/early voting thing for caucus states (and all states, actually). That would address one of my chief concerns. (And again, I'm a fan of instant runoff ballots in primary states.)
Like you, I'm certainly open to persuasion. I'm just glad we're having this conversation. Cheers.
Posted by: Batocchio | June 03, 2008 at 02:06 PM
"...stuck working, but perhaps our friggin' democracy is important enough that we should call everyone off work those days."
That's simply not possible. Hospitals have to keep working, and all that supports them, power has to be kept on, infinite amount of infrastructure has to be kept up, food and perishable goods must be kept moving, police and fire and emergency workers need to be available, and on and on and on.
Thus my pointing out that mail, and internet, and early, voting for the basic choice of Presidential nomination preference is precisely as easy in a caucus state as it is in the 34 states that presently allow some form of it.
"...laughter lives close to sorrow sometimes."
Finding ways to laugh, and not worry about a dark sense of humor, is one of the best ways to be able to respond, I think, and no matter if it's while crying, or causes crying a moment later. They do mix, and sometimes well.
And I'm taking a wild guess here, but my guess is that your dad would want you to, as you can, slowly move to laughing more when you remember him, and talk about him, along with your sadder responses and thoughts.
I agree with all of Bernard's 12:57 PM, by the way. (This is often the case as regards many of Bernard's comments.)
"I've also read several accounts of horribly run caucuses"
Sure: it's tautological, but true, that anything badly run is a mess. And definitely there needs to be better planning for most caucuses than there were this year. I saw all sorts of stuff that could and should have been done far better, and for which there was no excuse, and I wasn't at one of the really screwed up ones.
I had intended to write about this at length at my own blog, but my recent move and life changes, and usual health problems, haven't allowed for it. Maybe eventually. But, yeah, Organization And Planning Are Good.
Cripes, at our country convention, in Boulder County, Colorado, our set of precincts took written votes that didn't even have a place for names, let alone ID numbers, or any means of validation whatever.
This only changed because I ran up to the people running it, and pointed out the really serious problem here, and got them to institute a signature and real name requirement on our ballots. As it was, it took three weeks for the votes to be counted due to this bit of idiocy.
Etc. The Party needs more experienced events planners for this sort of thing; it's not at all hard; you just have to have some clues as to what you're doing, including how to structure physical crowd flow on sites, etc.
"One question would be, how did Dem voter registration this year compare in caucus states versus primary states"
Off-hand, the figures I've seen for Boulder County, at least, were that we jumped about ten times the level of previous election cycles, and that that was around the level seen all over the place. Huge, huge, huge jump, by an order of magnitude. And it was perfectly predictable, but for some reason, most caucus planners were just blind to that, and thus there were serious problems in many minor ways in some places.
But a lot of those complaints were also partisan playing up of trivial stuff to make a partisan issue out of it. What I saw in no way affected the actual voting; it just made everything take much longer than it should have. Our county convention went on about 6 hours later than it was supposed to, because of this sort of logistical poor planning. But nothing serious.
"And again, I'm a fan of instant runoff ballots in primary states."
I trust you're aware that instant runoff ballots are essentially how caucuses allocate delegates/votes for nominees.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Just regarding the efficiency of primaries: I worked as an election integrity volunteer for a national organization this year, and at many primary polling locations in Texas, voters, mostly African American, had to wait for an hour or more because their polling location ran out of Democratic (but not Republican) ballots and the local county clerk's office (which runs the election) would only photocopy 50 at a time to provide to a given polling location.
In effect, a state agency in a state that is controlled by Republicans can seriously impede the primary voting rights of minorities and others just by doing a piss poor job. Now, the caucuses were also chaotic, and much of the chaos was due to level of turnout, but the point is, anything that can be done badly can usually be done well, and that's true of both caucuses and primaries.
Posted by: Barbara | June 03, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Gary, thanks for the info on Boulder. Good news, too.
Um, "tautological" seems rather glib, although I could have been more clear, but I didn't want to write an epic comment describing problems I suspected were well understood. Barbara's point about poorly-run primaries is well taken. But caucuses being poorly run, from the descriptions I've heard, are the rule rather than the exception. I'm glad you were there at your caucus and they listened to you. That sure didn't happen at the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada that were described to me. It's anecdotal, but when I keep running into smart, motivated activist types disgusted with that process, with little to no desire to do it again, it does make me question whether the system itself and not merely the people running it is part of the problem. Add to that concern the much lower participation rate at caucuses. Is that off-set by other benefits? I don't know. At the very least the subject bears some more study. I remain most interested in the voter registration rates and also how participation in primaries vs. caucuses translate into general election participation. At some point I'll probably dig into that.
As for instant runoffs and caucuses, duh. But there's a key difference in that there's no "viability" issue with an instant runoff ballot in a primary. As in my first comment, most of my suggestions have been aimed at eliminating the problems of caucuses while preserving the better aspects of them, including the ranking of candidates. As I've said, I think the caucus/primary issue is best to left to the states, so it's somewhat moot, especially if, for instance, overall the citizens of Colorado like their system as is.
Posted by: Batocchio | June 04, 2008 at 08:56 AM
One more comment, since my last one was veerrrry late at night/early in the morning for me - yet again, I'm happy to see the nomination process being discussed. There are many more pressing issues right now, perhaps, but it's cool to see this. See ya all in other threads...
Posted by: Batocchio | June 04, 2008 at 12:53 PM