Lately, caucuses have been getting a really bad rap. Clinton and Clinton supporters disparate caucuses as illegitimate, un-democratic systems for choosing the democratic presidential nominee.
Now, we all know that this sudden movement against caucuses has risen only because Clinton lost ALL the caucus state elections (I consider Nevada an Obama victory).
In this diary, I want to offer a defense of caucuses, and argue that the democratic presidential primary process should continue to include a mix of caucuses, open-primaries, and closed-primaries. Caucuses are an important part of the process. They are legitimate, I argue, because not only are they democratic in nature, they also provide an invaluable measure of electability factors, factors that primaries are not able to effectively measure. Moreover, contrary to what Clintonites argue, Obama's overwhelming victories in caucus states provide a strong basis for arguing that Obama is more electable than Clinton. Analysis after the fold.
Critics argue that caucuses are undemocratic and therefore do not belong as part of any truly democratic process.
The premise behind this argument is that any process to measure the will of an electorate should maximize voter turn-out. The greater the turn-out, the more "democratic" the process. On the other hand, a process that significantly diminishes turn-out, like caucuses, is argued to be un-democratic or less democratic. So, the argument goes, we should never permit states to choose a system for measuring the will of the voters that restricts or dampens turn-out.
This argument is flawed, however, because it erroneously conflates democracy with, to quote the immortal words of Jon Stewart, "lever pulling." In other words, democracy is equated with the right to make a decision (cast a vote), and the more people turn-out to make their decision known by casting a vote, the more democratic the process is. Problem is, democracy is more than "lever pulling," and a high turnout doesn't necessarily mean that the process is truly democratic and/or truly reflects the will of the people.
There are at least two other important aspects of a democratic electoral system that the caucus critics seem to ignore. First, a democratic electoral system should facilitate a diversity of candidates reflecting the views of different segment of voters. Without this diversity, high turn-out is meaningless. Case in point, elections during the Soviet Union would get massive, nearly 100% voter turn-out. The problem? Voters could only vote for the Communist party member. These elections were shams, because they didn't provide a meaningful choice of candidates. That is, of course, the problem with the Michigan primary, where probably at least a million voters did not have the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, through no fault of their own.
Second, another essential aspect of a democratic electoral system is one that promotes active participation and deliberation. This conception of democracy is equated fondly with New England style townhall participatory democracies.
Caucuses reflect the values of local, face-to-face democracy which emphasizes participation, deliberation, and citizenship and community building. Because of the community building aspect of caucuses, it's not a coincidence that many of the caucus states are rural and/or sparsely populated states like North Dakota, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Iowa. For people in these states, caucuses are very important community building events where neighbors get together, socialize, deliberate, discuss, debate, and make a decision. Additionally, because caucuses emphasize face-to-face political deliberation, the caucusing process actually can serve an educational function for voters.
Caucuses, therefore, capture an aspect of democracy that primaries tend not to facilitate. In primaries, there is no community building, as voting is an isolated act, done individually and in secret. Moreover, a person can vote in a primary without ever engaging in any meaningful discussion or deliberation with fellow citizens. In a primary, participation in the deliberative process tends toward the passive - i.e., people participate by watching political ads on t.v., perhaps watching a debate, or tuning into CNN's Ballot Bowl on the weekends.
So, while primaries may capture the views and decisions of more voters, those decisions as a whole tend to be less informed, less stable than decisions made through the caucusing process. Primaries measure breadth but not depth.
Does that mean I think all states should switch to caucuses? Not necessarily, because there are other considerations involved. This leads to my second argument about electability. I contend that caucuses are very important and useful ways to measure electability, and they are able to measure several important aspects of electability that primaries do not do a good job of capturing.
Caucuses test a candidate's ability to organize and to appeal to the activist base of the party. Primaries, on the other hand, are better at testing a candidate's ability to raise money and to appeal to a broader array of voters. Thus, both caucuses and primaries are very important measures of electability, but they focus on very different aspects of a candidate's strengths.
In terms of having a primary process set up to pick the strongest candidate for the general election, therefore, I believe it's good to have both caucus states and primary states. That's because the most electable candidate should be one who is very well organized, appeals to the party base AND also one who can raise money and appeal to a broad array of voters. And either caucuses alone or primaries alone cannot test all those aspects of electability.
If my theory is right, then the most electable candidate is one who is equally successful winning both caucuses and primaries. A candidate that only wins caucuses may show that he can appeal to the party base, but unable to appeal to more mainstream voters. That candidate is clearly not very electable. On the other hand, a candidate that only performs well in primaries may have superior finances, great campaign slogans, great political consultants, but they may not be able to appeal to the party base or organize well enough to boost voter turn-out or do a GOTV campaign for the general election.
It's really important for a candidate to have the support of the party base, because those members are the ones who are most dedicated and will do all the heavy lifting campaigning during the general election. Some pundits argue that Bush won in 2004 because he had a much more mobilized and organized party-base than Kerry.
So, the best system to measure all the important aspects of electability looks a lot like the system we have in place right now. I'd argue that Obama is arguably more electable than Clinton because he has been extremely successful with winning caucuses, which is a testament to his campaign's immensely efficient and effective organizational capacities, and his strong appeal to a very enthusiastic, very passionate party base. Also, he has done well in primaries, because he has a very appealing and consistent message and lots of money to pay for ads, rallies, etc.
Clinton has done better than Obama in primaries, but she was totally outflanked by Obama in the caucus states, as she lost ALL of them except for Nevada, and most of them Obama won by blow-out margins. And her losses in caucus states have been attributed to poor organization, poor planning and little appeal to the activist base. Hence, Obama, being well-funded and well-organized, is already instituting its massive and ambitious 50 state GOTV campaign, which could play a huge role, not only in helping Obama win, but in creating coattails that will help the democrats gain more house and senate seats. Clinton does not have a similar GOTV plan. Moreover, even some of her primary wins are mainly attributable to name-recognition. Obama probably would have won California if the primary had been held a few weeks later. And, based on recent polling, Obama would win in a primary rematch in California and also in New Jersey.
So, to sum up, caucuses are good and Obama is more electable than Clinton. Take that, Lanny Davis!