There seems to be some confusion in the public mind about the purpose and nature of caucus meetings. For example Thomas Wright, chairman of the Salt Lake County Republican Party, is quoted in this article on KSL.com saying:
{the candidates have been busy recruiting people to show and get elected at those meetings.}
“That’s why it’s more important than ever for the everyday citizen who hasn’t been recruited by a candidate to go to their caucus meeting and run to be a delegate. If they allow the candidates to recruit and get their people elected as delegates, then ultimately the voice of that neighborhood has been taken away.”
This statement implies that those who have done their research before the caucus meeting and settled on a candidate are not “everyday citizens.” I freely admit my own reservations with choosing candidates who are focused only on one of the races they will be expected to vote on, but simply because a person has already chosen their senate candidate does not mean that they are not everyday citizens in their neighborhoods.
Another comment I heard directly contradicted the quote above and belied a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and function of representative government. One person stated that the caucus meetings were a failure because so many of the state delegates who were elected were not already committed to any senate candidate.
I would consider it a good attribute in a state delegate that they were already aware and engaged in a major race such as our senate race this year. That indicates a level of preparation that should make them more prepared to cast informed votes. On the other hand, the purpose of the caucus meeting is to choose delegates whose judgement the people of the precinct trust who will be prepared and informed in time to cast a vote at the convention, not to choose delegates who are necessarily already committed to one candidate without the extra weeks of close investigation to make their decision. What would such a delegate do if the race were to change because of their candidate getting out of the race – could their neighbors trust their secondary choice?
A proper understanding of the meetings highlights the underlying problems that we must solve to make any political system work. Over the weekend my father-in-law expressed his wish for a primary system rather than a caucus system. He asked why he could not have a chance to vote on all the candidates. I asked him why he could not vote on every piece of legislation that came before the state legislature or Congress. The answer is that not all people have the ability to get informed in the time available which is why we choose representatives at various levels.
The idea of representative government is that we choose people we trust to take the time and exercise their judgement in making decisions that we are not always able to be fully informed about. Of course those representatives should not ignore those they represent and should work to help their constituents become informed as much as possible but their job is not simply to parrot the will of the majority.
My father-in-law then exposed the fundamental problem when he confessed that after seven years in his neighborhood he still did not feel that he could trust the judgement of any of the candidates for state delegate from his precinct. That tells me that the community is too loose, either politically or generally, if seven years is not enough time to find others in your neighborhood whose judgement you trust in such matters. If you can’t trust anyone in your neighborhood how can you hope to trust any of the senate candidates who are not even that close to you and who will be making even more complex and binding decisions than who to put on the ballot?
You raise some interesting points here. A primary system can be fairly easily dominated by a candidate with enough funding to drown out the voices of his/her opposition, regardless of whether that candidate is trustworthy. A delegate/convention system can be dominated by party leaders simply by making the delegate selection process opaque. With only two political parties, those who feel under-represented or find no candidates who share their views are left with only the option of long-term campaigns to “take over” the leadership of the party from the local level upward. It’s the dark side of having a two-party system rather than a multi-party system, and a electoral process dominated by money.
Ultimately in a representative democracy, it comes down to trust as you say. Will our local delegate make decisions we are comfortable with? It seems likely that delegates chosen in advance by party loyalists and leaders and then ‘ratified’ by a selection process with no transparency are likely to reflect the values and views of the party insiders. So is it necessary to become a party insider to change the system? Is that possible? How long would it take?
I am glad to see people of conscience grappling with the problems of our dysfunctional political process, even if I don’t agree with their views. A lot of what’s wrong is systemic. If we can make our system more democratic, make our people more informed, and make our elections contests of ideas instead of televised sound-bites and attack ads, I trust the American people will make the right choices.
One of the reasons I favor the caucus system that we have (possibly the main reason) is that it reduces the influence of money – especially in the early stages of a race. The system is actually pretty transparent at that level.
While there is potential for party leaders to hand-pick delegates the fact is that the people have the ability to interrupt such attempts by simply showing up. If large numbers of people show up at the neighborhood caucus meetings party leaders will not be able to have a majority of voters who favor them unless the majority of voters in the neighborhood actually agree with those leaders. When people will not even attend those local meetings then party leaders can motivate the few who do favor them to attend and win among small turnout.
When people build their communities so that they can trust their neighbors and then show up in force at these local meetings it is easy to hold the party accountable at least at the county and state levels.
That does not address all the inherent drawbacks of a two-party system but I am not ready to tackle such an undertaking as trying to implement a multi-party system nor to deal with the drawbacks inherent in such a system.
Agreed, but based on the blog you linked to previously, I had the impression that the delegate vote was not exactly transparent and that there was not a high level of trust among the attendees that their votes actually determined the results. Would a vote by raised hands or some other public method be preferable to a secret ballot in these meetings? A simpler voting method like instant-runoff voting might also work where attendees have a choice that includes more candidates than delegate spots and they can select first and second choices.
Ultimately at this local level of the system, democracy is imperative. Informed voters with adequate information about the candidates and a transparent voting process may make a poor selection, but they will at least have to own it.
The system is not perfect and the results were not universally satisfactory but it was not the kind of top-down opaque process that some people seem to think it is. For one thing, despite a much larger than normal turnout we still had well under 10% of registered voters actually participating in the process so there is a lot of room for improvement with regards to participation.
As for the other problems, that’s what I’m trying to tackle starting with my precinct in the next two years before our next caucus meeting.
The delegate system can be easily hijacked by party activists. Even this year when we had record turnout and everyone was patting themselves on the back, only 2 percent of the population actually showed up to the caucuses. The process is too convoluted to encourage the participation of more citizens. But those empowered by the current system are too invested in it to entertain alternative ideas.
You might need to verify that 2% figure because I was told before the caucuses this year that 2% is the level of participation in years past. I have read that we had around three tomes as many people this year so even with population growth that should be well over 4% participation. Not that I am satisfied with that level of participation.
I think it is appropriate that those who are active in the party should determine who should represent the party on the ballot. If the voting public tends to ratify the choice of the party 80% of the time that is their choice. If they are dissatisfied with how the party has chosen they can become active in the party – it’s not a closed club. No matter how much people complain they must be basically satisfied if they choose to do nothing to change things. My dissastisfaction is what led me to start getting active in the party.
For all the talk of the downsides of a caucus system the fact is that it helps to financially level the playing field. A primary system is more easily and expensively purchased.