Get Me to the Caucus on Time!

There has been a lot of noise from the Clinton campaign over the legitimacy of caucuses. After her disappointing performance in Iowa and with things looking grim in Nevada, Hillary claimed that caucuses "disenfranchise" voters from the process. A few days later, Hillary seemed fairly content with disenfranchisement, heralding it as "how the West was won!" And if Hillary really thought caucuses were undemocratic, wouldn't she have made an effort to change the process at some point in her vast 35 years of experience? Even just from this simple example, I think it's clear that most of the debate about caucusing has been mere political maneuvering to belittle Obama's many caucus victories.

But putting hypocrisy aside for a moment, I am sympathetic to the worry about caucuses. Why does 1-2% of a state's population determine the entire state's delegation? How undemocratic! If we look a little closer, though, I think we can see how caucusing really is a manifestation of democracy at its best.

1) Turnout. 1.3% of Idahoans voted in the state's Democratic caucus. About the same percentage of Kansans went out to vote. A whopping 2.3% of Nebraskans caucused. But I say "whopping" only somewhat facetiously. Look at the percentage of voters that voted in Hillary's heralded "big states." 12% of Californians and 9.5% of New Yorkers voted on Super Tuesday. The difference is not unsubstantial, obviously, but it is not very impressive either. Wouldn't you hope that these big states, the heart and soul of the Democratic party with huge percentages of registered Democrats, would draw a bit more of a crowd? Now, I don't intend to present these figures as a knock-down argument in favor of caucuses. They are, however, a reminder that we should reserve any pretentions about primaries being instances of ideal democracy and universal participation as opposed to the horridly undemocratic leave-voters-in-the-cold caucuses.

The real problem is not that voters are left out in the cold. The real problem is that so many people aren't motivated to go out and vote at all. It isn't caucuses that have disenfranchised voters. Politics-as-usual, breeding distrust and apathy toward government, has disenfranchised voters. So isn't it at least somewhat impressive that, in stalwart Republican states like Kansas, voting increased by up to 28 times what it was in 2004? (Yes, really, 28x. 1,300 Kansans caucused in 2004 compared to 37,000 in 2008). With overhwleming majorities of the voters in states like these going to Obama, he deserves most of the credit for these impressive increases. Obama's enormous influence on increased voter turnout, new voter turnout, and voter party-crossover is consistent across all states -- primary or caucus. Just one indication that small caucuses really might be representative of larger trends -- and at the very least no less so than primaries.

2) Accountability. I mentioned in my first post that the creation of this blog was motivated by several instances of people refusing to actually talk about the election. Several young, intelligent, well-educated friends (literally some of the intellectual elite of our country) have refused to have any kind of debate about the candidates. Some told me it is "private," others told me they had "done their research and made up their mind." I find both of these excuses unacceptable. We don't live in Jim Crow America anymore. Noone is being physically coerced or threatened into voting a certain way. But, as a fundamental principle of democracy, our ideas must be challenged. I am an adamant believer in the marketplace of ideas (one of the few places I'm comfortable just letting the market work its magic!). I subscribe to Louis Brandeis' famous saying that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." It is our responsibility as citizens not only to know about the issues facing our country and our elected leaders, but also to engage in the conversation about those issues with our fellow citizens. If we are to acheive any sort of solidarity, any true sense of a democracy -- a nation governed by the popular will -- then we cannot merely understand the issues from the cold flourescent lights of our own rooms. We need to see them in the light of day, we need to see the way our fellow Americans see them. The "issues" are not just questions of logic to be sorted out in a bubble. They are the forces acting in the lives of every American. So, in order to understand the issues, we need to understand each other.

This year's Iowa caucus was the first time I ever gave caucusing much attention. I hosted a caucus night watch party. But because of that, I have a room full of people who can attest to the fact that I was somewhat enamored with caucuses before I had any idea that they would end in such favorable results for Obama. As I watched Iowans caucus in Des Moines, articulating their positions on the candidates as well as, if not better than, most of my Ivy educated friends (including, perhaps, even myself!), I felt such an overwhelming pride in our political process. Caucuses are a beautiful display of democracy in action.

Looking at a caucus in this way makes one much more skeptical of downplaying the 1-2% of citizens who participate in caucuses. I am absolutely more comfortable allowing 2% of people to choose our future leaders than 10% people if I know, as I do about caucus states, that the 2% that have had the opportunity talk out the issues with their friends, neighbors, and complete strangers, while the 10% might be walking into the voting booth with nothing more than punditry and political spin -- having had no real opportunity to shed some sunlight on their ideas. But when the sunlight is shed on the roots of democracy inherent in caucusing, I find it unsurprising that Obama has fared so well in caucus states.

3) Participation & Activisim. As a final piece of the puzzle, I think it is important to highlight that any discrepancy between how Hillary and Barack have run in primaries and caucuses is not an indication of who is more electable (see my recent post on the new SurveyUSA polls -- both are electable). Additionally, Barack has not run as poorly in the primaries as people have tried to suggest. If he were merely winning big in caucuses and flopping in primaries, he wouldn't still be ahead in the popular vote (even if you count Florida!).

Rather, the primary/caucus discrepancy is a clear indication of how our government would operate under each administration. Voting in primaries is an exercise in passive participation in government. Caucusing is an exercise in grassroots organization and activism. The power people have exercised in caucusing is exactly the kind of participation and activism that Obama will use to deliver the change he promises. In fact, such participation and activism is an essential piece of the change itself. Everyone admits that Hillary and Obama are 97% the same on policy proposals. So, people ask, where is the "Change?" The Change is not just a change in ideas. It is a fundamental change in the way our government functions. No more politicians in their ivory tower in Washington with apathetic citizens who have no desire to participate, or merely to participate nominally. Change comes from people who are willing to go to their public schools, their gyms, their street corners, the doors of their Representatives' offices and demand that their ideas be heard. This is why Obama's ability to inspire is not to be downplayed. Thanks to Obama, vastly more people are motivated to be active, engaged, sunlight-oriented citizens. That's what we've seen in the caucuses. And that's what we'll see for years when Obama is president.

ADDENDUM

As I was gathering some notes yesterday, this post felt a little bit like a leftover from January. Leftover, that is, until recent reporting about a new Michigan caucus to re-seat the delegates, and Hillary's statement that she will not accept a caucus. I hope some of my comments here will work their way into the public debate, before just assume that a caucus is an automatic and/or meaningless win for Obama.