So let's stop dancing around and get brutally honest about flaws in the caucus system. I invite caucus supporters to respond.
First let me say that I am a life-long Republican who has regularly attended caucus meetings for many years. I've been a state delegate, county delegate, precinct chair and vice-chair. So I want to emphasize that I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has been active and engaged in the system. I have also worked on legislative campaigns and I'm serving a third term as a City Councilman. While the office I hold is non-partisan (thankfully) I have a small measure of first hand experience running for and holding political office. What I'm not is a wealthy "elitist" which many caucus supporters say are the only ones pushing to get rid of the current system.
So with that background, here is a list of my grievences:
#1 - Why in the world do I need a "middleman"?
This is by far my biggest issue and really gets the heart of the caucus system. The whole point is to elect a handful of folks who will choose all the candidates for various offices on my behalf. Why on earth should I want that? It makes no sense, and worse, it takes away my vote. My voice. While, yes, it's true that we have a representative form of government, since when do we need representatives to pick our representatives? That's ridiculous! While I appreciate the effort of delegates to vet candidates I really just want to do that for myself, thank you very much.
Sure, most people don't invest the same time as I do but why should I be penalized? Of course I can always run to be a delegate myself, which I've done, but in my precinct there are lots of people interested in being delegates, lots of people who want the opportunity to cast their vote. But only a tiny minority can and the rest are shut out. It seems the caucus system presumes that only a few are interested enough and capable enough to vote.
And as more people become engaged in the process the more the caucus system begins to break down. Years ago we held our caucus meetings in a living room with maybe a dozen or so in attendance. Attendance increased and we moved to a school but the process got bogged down. Our last one had over 60 people and it was all but unmanageable. Yet we could only choose 2 state and 2 county delegates to represent an entire precinct of hundreds. Instead of spending 3 frustrating hours to elect delegates those 60 people could have all just voted and gone home!
It's repeatedly said that delegates invite input on who they should vote for but let's be honest, it doesn't happen in reality. Similarly office holders and candidates running for office solicit constituent input but in those intense weeks between the caucuses and the conventions they are laser focused on the delegates alone. The delegates are really all that matter because only they can vote. Anyone who says otherwise is either hilariously naive or misleading you.
#2 - Caucuses are stacked.
The biggest benefit touted by caucus proponents is that it protects elections from money-fueled manipulation. The truth is that it's still just a political game in which those with the best strategy and execution win. I'm not saying it's rigged or anything like that but it certainly can be manipulated and money does matter. Money matters because name recognition matters so incumbents and well funded campaigns still have a clear advantage.
The best strategy for winning a party nomination is to get more than 60% of the delegate vote at the convention thus avoiding a primary race. The best way to do that isn't merely to convince the delegates to vote for you but to ensure that the delegates that are elected are your supporters to begin with. Candidates "stack" the caucuses by having their supporters bring their friends and neighbors to elect them as delegates.
In my precinct at our last caucus we had several candidates for delegate stand up to explain why they should be elected as delegates. Before they could barely start people began to cut them off to ask just one question:
"Are you pro-Hatch or anti-Hatch?"
The Hatch re-election was the high profile race of the year and the only thing most attendees cared about and the only criteria by which the delegates were elected. Like most precincts, mine elected mostly pro-Hatch delegates which set the tone for another fairly easy re-election for Hatch.
But I don't really have a problem with this. It's how the game is played.
The part I really have a problem with is that no one talked about or cared how they would vote for the other races. Oh yes, the other races. Delegates vote on a wide variety of candidates from legislators to County Assessor, State Auditor, State Treasurer etc. but delegates are mostly elected based on affiliation with one or two high profile races alone. But I actually care about all the races and no delegate, no matter how great of a person he/she (but mostly he) may be is likely to vote for all the candidates I want.
In this case I think I have a right to be selfish. I want a vote in all the races.
#3 - I'm sorry but Caucus meetings are just way too...inconvenient. On purpose.
I know this sounds trite but, seriously, it's 2014. Why do I have to show up at a specific place and time and spend 2 or 3 hours to elect representatives that will elect my representatives? For crying out loud, why can't I just walk into a polling location at a time of my choosing, cast a vote in every race and leave. That would take all of 20 minutes barring long lines. I could even vote by mail.
And did I mention that the meetings are long and boring, even for a political groupie like me? I often spend hours talking politics but what gets me is the inefficiency! Simple things like handing out and counting ballots quickly takes an eternity and gets worse with more people showing up.
I admit there is something patriotic about Caucus night. Meeting with neighbors to discuss politics is very grassroots. Very American. But that time would be better spent meeting with and vetting the actual candidates, not choosing who will do that work in your place.
The honest truth is that all the inconveniences such as requiring attendance at a specific time and place and keeping folks for several hours is an intentional barrier to participation. Yes, it's by design. By artificially keeping attendance low (approx. 4%) it raises the odds for the party insiders to fill coveted delegate slots or other position and makes it easier to stack the votes.
I'd rather do the truly American thing, walking into a booth and voting for the candidates myself.
Finally I also have to express frustration that the GOP Central Committee, consisting mostly of precinct chairs elected at the caucuses, refused to enact a single reform to the caucus system. They basically said it's perfect just the way it is. By so doing they've invited the Count My Vote initiative to do away with caucuses entirely and go to a direct primary. Well maybe their stubbornness will be the undoing of the system and we'll all be better off. Truth be told those who currently have a monopoly on power have simply been unwilling to give it up and they should be ashamed!
Now Senator Bramble has introduced legislation (SB54) that seems to have momentum in the Legislature. This bill simply enacts a few reforms the Central Committee should have done already but doesn't address any of the fundamental flaws I've described above. The system itself needs to go.
Direct primaries aren't perfect but I say it's time to ditch the caucuses.
Let's cut out the middlemen.
