The Nevada Caucus: Chuck It?
(AP)
Besides mine of course. I still find the position of Democratic leaders like Dina Titus and Mike Zahara to be prematurely reactive (ha!) to the extreme and sort of, I don’t know, short-sighted? I don’t understand spending a year supporting an event in order to increase Nevada’s political influence, and then, just when that happens (caucus turnout not only met expectations but exceeded them), withdrawing support because it didn’t go as smoothly as it could have rather than focusing on fixing the process you supported? The fact that Nevada held a caucus rather than a primary is probably one of the reasons Nevada was selected as an official early caucus state, well, that and our Hispanic population and Harry Reid. So focus on fixing a process that Nevada was selected to run rather than tossing the whole thing out. I also find it amusing that anyone is even entertaining the idea that Nevadans or the state legislature would seriously entertain the idea that paying for a state primary is a good use of taxpayer money–some Nevadans don’t even want to pay for roads!
Anyway, Blogging Assemblyman David Bobzien enjoyed the caucus:
What about the philosophical debate about caucuses in general, and the need for a state-sponsored ballot-based primary instead? That conversation is just beginning and I look forward to hearing the various perspectives in the months to come.
But as a legislator, I can tell you Nevada doesn’t exactly have a lot of extra money lying around for taxpayers to support a party nomination process that puts us ahead of other states in voicing our presidential preference.
I also appreciate the opportunity to get together with my neighbors to talk politics. Many of us spend way too much time in our isolated boxes these days, and interaction and cooperation with our fellow citizens is at the root of all progress we can make as a society. I lost count of how many of my neighbors I got to meet yesterday, some for the first time. Congratulations to everyone who took the time yesterday to make new friends at their meeting.
At the end of the day, Nevada matters now in selecting a president, and it was everyone who participated, Democrats and Republicans alike, that made the difference.
Nevada has much for which to be proud this weekend.
And for once I agree with Eric Herzik who had this to day in the Lahontan Valley News:
The turnout, Herzik said, though it caused a lot of disorganization, “is a problem any political party would take any day. We complain when there’s low turnout, then when there’s high turnout people still complain,” he said. “Get over it.”
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
One point needing to be reemphasized is the reason for record turnouts in 2004 and 2008: My guess is it wasn’t party loyalty or a new wave of patriotism. Listening to my neighbors and friends, there’s more than a reasonable dissatisfaction with the “politics as usual” we’ve been living with for a while now.
Folks are tired of feeling let down and want change in the way we’re dealing with the wars and economy, and they’re desperate to pick someone, anyone, who will light the way. And nobody should make the mistake this was purely a Democrat itch that needed to be scratched. The GOP caususes were packed to the ceilings down here in Carson, too.
Like they said in one of my favorite movies: “People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.”
So caucus, primary, smoke signals. It doesn’t matter. People want to be heard and they’ll keep turning out in droves until we get somebody in charge who’s borderline reasonable or until we run out of sand.
The caucus format was largely based on how Iowa did
it.
I think next time (if there’s a next time), we should
make changes that address all the problems we had this
time.
There’s one issue no one is addressing. (I only brought it up once.) This past year, hundreds of us plugged in as volunteers to the caucus. Receiving training, attending mock caucuses, distributing monthly newsletters, etc.
I can report that many of these folks are expressing an unwillingness to do it again. For the caucus to work, or to be judge a success, you need more than high turnout. You need the volunteer force to pull the event off.
I am very skeptical, given the general chaos people experienced, that they will ever again be able to recruit the numbers of volunteers that they did this time.
I would judge it (personally) as an overall wonderful experience. But, never again! (At 57, once is enough!)
Your take is beginning to sound Gibbons-esque: hey, lets keep a highly-flawed, vote-suppressive system because we’d have to spend a little cash to fix it. Were you against the recent indigenous defense decision by the Nevada Supreme Court because it also represents new costs?
And (now moving to just attacking Gibbons) we all know there’s only one way to pay for programs such as these: cut all other programs by 6%!
Record turnout in 2004? I suppose so, if you count the TWO people that showed up in my precinct to caucus in 2004. I don’t remember anyone throwing a fuss about the caucus back then. I liked the whole process. Both times. It was much more exciting with 87 people in good ole Precinct 3009 this time around.
Perhaps I got lucky in my caucus location and precinct. There was no chaos, there were no bad experiences around me, people were having fun, energetic, and efficient. We ran out of cards, but big whoopee, they used scrap paper instead and those folks receiving them were perfectly content with that. The biggest thing I heard all day over and over? ‘Wow it’s great so many people turned out.’
There were folks of all age groups, including some that looked like they were 3 steps away from death…yet they made it out to caucus…how cool is that? The 70+ crowd in my precinct were unanimously for Hillary.
We’ve supposedly been caucusing since 1984 with few complaints right? So it sounds like the problem is people severely underestimated the amount of turnout and didn’t quite prepare for it. So what? You learn from it and move on. Maybe I am being narrow minded because my precinct and location went very smoothly at Vaugn Middle School. Perhaps other locations should look at that as an example of how it was set up?
I kind of agree with the financial argument for keeping it a caucus. Have you seen what Giblet, I mean Gibbons is having to do to keep our state’s budget in check? Things are a little scary right now, and putting the cost of a primary to the State might make some cringe.
IMO, if these legislators like Dina Titus were smart, they would shut up about this for now, focus on more important things, and then maybe come back to this in 2 years when hopefully the economy may start picking up again, and at that point people won’t care about the financial factor and they would have a much better chance of changing it.
I think in all the discussions on primary vs. caucus one very important aspect is left out. If Nevada moved their usual primary election, currently in August, to January for the presidential candidates, you are forgetting everyone else who is now inconvenienced. What about the assemblymen, senators, county supervisors, school board members, dogcatchers, etc. who are also featured on primary ballots?
Do you really want your assemblyman or congressman to start officially campaigning five months after being sworn in? Or have to endure campaign signs and media spots popping up in July 2009 for a bunch of races that won’t be decided until November 2010?
As it is now, with just under three months between the primary and general election, voters can stay relatively engaged with the races and candidates. But a 10-month span?
If people don’t like the caucus method, then why not have the parties change the rules? Instead of draining Nevada tax dollars with a gratuitous presidential-only primary (on top of two other elections later in the year), or making it difficult for all the other local and state races by moving the current one to January, just have the parties hold it primary style. People can walk in, fill out a secret ballot and leave.
crazymonk, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the state spending money on a primary but I imagine that most legislators and citizens will as I clearly noted in the original post. People don’t even want to pay for roads in this state for god’s sake. So, to answer your question….no. Generally, I want this state to provide more infrastructure support, social services, etc.
I still find the reaction of some party leaders to the caucus puzzling and troubling. Many of the points they are making now couldve been made before–about the schedule, about disenfranchisement, about the fairness of a caucus vs. a primary. I find it sort of disingenuous.
Anon Guy (above)and Tom Clark from yesterday’s post make excellent points about the problems with moving to a primary. Anon Guy makes a good suggestion for an alternative too.
I, too, would support Anon Guy’s suggestion.
Heck, with the Preference Cards the Party used, that’s already what everything thought we were doing anyway. Just put a cardboard box in the middle of the room–voilá!
I wasn’t suggesting that the presidential and statewide primaries be conflated. I like Anon Guy’s idea, as long as absentee ballots are supported. And it’s true that the problems with the caucus have long been evident.
Myrna, sorry I misinterpreted your thoughts on the financial issue. Still, you haven’t responded to the vote-suppressive aspect of caucuses in your support of them.
Yes, I am against voter suppression. Now, fix the process we were chosen to run, the process that everyone supported until the evening of January 19th, the process that brought national focus to the state just like everyone wanted. All of the problems except for the logistical issues. lack of experience, and the conduct of campaign workers didn’t seem to bother anyone BEFORE January 19th.
You are missing the single major point - that the caucus concept is corrupt! The caucus disenfranchized the vast majority of the masses - and manipulated the minority that showed up to participate - it made a mockery out of our Democracy!
We need the legislature to change the laws, the major political parties to change their rules and respect the will of the majority of the people (gee, what a novel idea) and go to a primary - and the parties can bear their fair share of the costs!
Of the 14 volunteers that helped me - NONE (that’s zero, zilch, nada) WANT TO EVER DO ANOTHER CAUCUS!