The Caucus System A Good Thing.

It's a Double Effect

As one who has been in local party leadership since 2006, might I offer some thoughts on this.  

• It can be a nightmare to administer, especially in Denver.
  

  This is especially true in a contested national election year or in just finding the space for the attendees

  Most voters don't have a clue about which precinct they are member, and many get angry when they come to the wrong place.

  
  
• It is a good idea if there is turn-out.  Without it, it's does little.

  When a precinct with 200 Dem voters sees 8 or 10 attendees, it's not going to advance participation nor recruit new leadership

  
  
• It's great when the attendees come and participate.
  

  We get new volunteers, even if it's for something small
  We are forced to accept new ideas and move in new directions
  We gain participation in the other segments of the nominating process which helps us both sort out our candidates and begin the process of getting our voters to come to the polls or send in their mail-in-ballot

  
  

Overall, I'd keep it, but try to have it on nights when it doesn't snow.  

---

by: saindenver @ Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 23:45:39 PM UTC

Good points.

In Otero we caucus 10 precincts at one location. Figuring out where new participants belong is a challenge for sure. Plus, we did have one precinct in 2010 that had nobody which means they have no Central Committee member or Precinct Chair, nobody to even contact to walk or make phone calls.

I've finally located someone who lives in that precinct who says she is willing to be active so I'm going to see if she'll walk with me registering voters this fall and try to get some others interested.

---

by: GMFORD @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 02:52:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Having lots of precincts in one place is a good idea

All of Evergreen's Dems always meet in the same place so people don't have to know what precinct they are in and always know where they have to go. Wheat Ridge may start doing the same thing.

---

by: trainstar @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 20:31:53 PM UTC

That does help.

We had a big map in '08 so people could locate their precincts but somehow it disappeared in '10.  I had a single list to look them up but it turned out not to be alphabetical.  Next time I'll make my own instead of relying on the state party.

---

by: GMFORD @ Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 23:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A mixed bag.

I've done it every two years since 1996, been to the state convention/assembly three times, to the county level affair a time or two beyond that, and have served as a county party official who has to figure out how to pay for and administer the system.

Overall, in its current form, it probably does more harm than good.  It needs major reforms and should be replaced with a system that better addresses what it does well and abandons aspects of the system that are no longer functional.  But it is so hidebound and traditional that this is very hard to implement.

There are some things that the caucus system does well:

1.  It provides a reasonably fair way to nominate candidates for offices like SOS and Treasurer and State School Board and CU Regent for which it is very difficult to run a statewide petition and nomination campaign on a shoestring budget, making the process more open in low budget races.

2.  It provides a more informed nominating body in low profile races because caucus goers often have good access to candidate or candidate-proxy speakers and informed fellow caucus goers to guide their decision.

3.  It provides a good recruiting incentive to make political parties viable entities.

4.  It develops face to face personal relationships between neighbors of similar political persuasions increasing social capital and developing the ability of participants to self-govern in a low stakes context.

5.  It excludes Wisconsin recall election "fake Democrats" (or "fake Republicans") from party primaries.

6.  At subsequent stages of the process it builds regional and statewide and ultimately national political networks.

7.  It is more suited to respond to changing circumstances like late breaking scandals or shifts in candidates who are running than a ballot system.

8.  It facilitates the formation of vacancy committees that are a very effective tool for defusing the role of personal scandal in partisan politics in Colorado.

But, there are bad things as well:

1.  It systemically discourages moderate candidates because caucus goers are more partisan than primary voters.  Relatively moderate candidates face to disproportionate burden of the petition process - only about 2% of ultimately elected officials use that process.

2.  It imposes a much higher price on democratic participation that has the effect of excluding 95%-98% of eligible people from the process, much of the cost moreover is devoted to busywork of little relevance to potential partcipants.  This burden is especially heavy in minority communities despite the historical role of caucuses as an empowering force for ethnic communities in the days of machine politics (although back then they were very corrupt).

3.  It makes the nomination system less transparent - insider knowledge is necessary to interface well with the system as a candidate or candidate supporter and it is subject to manipulation by political insiders.  The rules are arcane and only a Roberts' Rule of Order nerd can love them.

4.  Effects 1-3 are magnified for higher offices as those who progress to the next stages are ever more partisan, more burdened if they participate and need more insider knowledge to be effective.

5.  It is often less well organized because significant organizational responsibilities are delegated to ad hoc recuited on the spot officials.

6.  It devotes large amounts of time and effort to a moribund grassroots party platform process that has no practical influence on anything and isn't even approved in some years.

7.  It shifts too much administrative level party management on individuals who don't have to live with those decisions and don't really understand them.  The defensive mechanism in response to that which is blind trust in proposals offered and going through the motions of democracy is a waste of time and doesn't serve much of a meaningful purpose in enpowering rank and file members.

8.  The precinct level of organization is based on an assumption of much higher levels of participation leaving units to small to function as intended when the system was established.

9.  It shifts the substantial financial costs of the public good of operating the electoral system to voluntary private donors who have little incentive to give, even though it is a mission critical function of government without which it cannot operate.

10.  It is awkward when applied to multijurisdictional political divisions.

---

by: ohwilleke @ Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 22:19:30 PM UTC