<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: That Silly Old Caucus

Democrats need to realize the system is outdated, leaves out many voters

The Columbian
Published:

In case there was any doubt that caucuses are an antiquated, outmoded, and downright silly way to choose a state’s delegates to a national party convention, Washington’s Democrats have driven home the point.

Party leaders in the state have decided to cling to a caucus system for the 2016 presidential race, rather than holding a primary in which a vast cadre of citizens can vote for the Democratic nominee. In caucuses, party acolytes come together to discuss the candidates, exert influence, and pick their favorites; picturing a Grange Hall of yesteryear and a gathering of good ole boys would not be far off the mark.

Anyway, in the wake of their recent decision, Democratic State Chair Jason Ravens reinforced the horse-and-buggy nature of caucuses: “It encourages more active participation, with Democrats across the state showing up to caucuses and talking with their friends and neighbors about their presidential candidates.” To which the calm, analytical, rational response is: “Hogwash.”

Perhaps Ravens is not familiar with the Internet, or with Facebook and Twitter, or with the idea that members of the public spend more than a year discussing candidates and trying to influence their friends before it comes time to vote. As Ralph Munro, former Washington Secretary of State, wrote on Facebook: “I’ve said it before … more people go to the boat show than to caucus meetings.”

Therein lies the problem. While the public is welcome to attend a caucus meeting, reality suggests that the process leaves out a wide swath of voters and places democracy in the hands of a relative few. Consider that in 2008, Washington Democrats drew about 240,000 people to caucuses around the state, while nearly 700,000 Washingtonians cast ballots for Democratic candidates in that year’s primary. Or consider that in Iowa, where the caucuses receive an absurd amount of attention thanks to their first-in-the-nation status, the Republican winners in the past two presidential cycles have been Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. They soon both found themselves in the where-are-they-now file, reinforcing the meaninglessness of caucuses.

Caucuses and/or primaries are used by political parties to decide which delegates a state will send to the national convention. In the days when the nominations were not sewn up long in advance, this was meaningful; in the modern era of conventions serving as little more than coronations, it is not.

And while Washington Democrats fail to recognize that the 1950s have long since passed, a more pressing issue is this state’s lack of influence at the national level. With Washington typically choosing delegates late in the game, party nominations are decided by the time voters in this corner of the country have their say. In 2004 and 2012, Washington did not even bother to hold a presidential primary, in part because it would have no impact on the nominations.

As The Columbian has written editorially: “Ideally, the nominating process across the country would be brought into the 21st century. All states should have primaries, rather than caucuses, and those primaries should be bunched together over a three- or four-week span in the spring, with each state selecting convention delegates that reflect the will of the voters. Put the power in the hands of the people and remove it from the antiquated clutches of old-time party politics.”

Yes, some modernization is sorely needed in how this country chooses its presidential candidates. But, as Washington’s Democratic Party has reminded us, the system is mired in the past.

Loading...