We keep hearing that “closed” primaries are to blame for Bernie Sander’s demise in the Democratic nomination process. Below is a brief breakdown of how each candidate has fared in Open Primaries, Closes Primaries and Caucuses thus far (information compiled from thegreenpapers.com). Modified primaries which allowed both independents and democrats were considered “open” for our purposes. Thus far Sanders has netted 1371 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1664. Here is how they break down per method of allocation.
Open/CLosed/Caucus |
Clinton |
Sanders |
|
Open Primaries |
57.02% |
42.98% |
Closed Primaries |
60.99% |
39.01% |
Caucuses |
36.16% |
63.84% |
Total |
54.83% |
45.17% |
So, as we can see, Hillary does indeed fare better in closed primaries (by roughly 6%) than she does in total, but by far, the largest differential is Sanders success in caucus states. Bernie has netted almost 64% of the available delegates in the caucuses thus far. Why is this notable? Because, despite all of the conversation about the problems with closed primaries, caucuses are the most disenfranchising method of distributing delegates in the process. Not only are turnout rates terrible in caucus states, they give disproportionate power to the tiny percentage of voters who actually show up. There are plenty of articles describing the disenfranchising characteristics of caucuses, but let me offer this quote from a 2009 study by the Harvard Kennedy School:
“Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates…although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.”
This is indicative of the problem in general with the caucus process. So, when the Sanders camp complains about the unfair practice of parties closing their primary to only members of their party, it seems a bit disingenuous to gladly stockpile delegates in states where disenfranchisement is clearly evident.
There is some merit to the concept of a state choosing to hold a closed primary in an effort to ensure that actual members of the party are choosing the candidate that most reflects the goals of the party. The process of getting people registered could and should be discussed in these states, however in no way can anyone argue that a closed primary is less inclusive than ANY caucus. If the Sanders campaign wants to fight disenfranchisement, the first place to start is right in their wheelhouse, caucus states.