Why Recalling The Nevada Caucus Is A Bad Idea
Dina Titus is wrong. Sheila Leslie is right. After a few hours of celebrating what went well during the Nevada Caucus, critics went straight to work on pointing out everything that went wrong (and no one would be exaggerating, would they?) and mounting what constitutes a recall campaign led by Dina Titus. The euphoria of a record turnout didn’t last long did it?
Titus and others who support abandoning the caucus after the state’s first try site a process that was too complicated, that left people out for various reasons, and forced people to express their political opinions publicly, something many were reportedly uncomfortable with. Dina Titus in the RGJ:
“This notion of neighbors getting together with neighbors to talk about politics, that’s just not Nevada,” she said. “What I found in my caucus is that the meeting didn’t lead to collaboration, cooperation and a good discussion. It led to hostility.
“It’s too complicated. If you had to work, or if you were Jewish it was the Sabbath, or a senior, you couldn’t go.”
So its not Nevada to talk about politics with your neighbors? What the hell does that even mean? My neighbors and I talk politics all the time. Have Nevadans turned shy and polite all of a sudden? And I guess people have a point about people not being able to participate if they had to work, couldn’t get transportation, or were busying observing their sabbath, but isn’t that often an issue in any kind of political process? My neighbors and I were energized by the caucus which makes me thing that perhaps there is something wrong with the shift to making voting more and more convenient. What seems to motivate people to get out and vote is the feeling that their vote is important, that their participation matters, that they aren’t just going through the motions. We’ve encouraged an attitude of passivity and convenience regarding voting that perhaps hasn’t served us well, even though its increased turnout levels. But whose to say a caucus can’t do the same thing–I actually think it did. People were excited , annoyed at the disorganization, but excited. I don’t know all the answers, but I do know that I had fun at the caucus and I’ve never had fun waiting in the early voting line or filling out an absentee ballot. I think Sheila Leslie is on to something:
Experts point out that Nevadans already have weathered what will likely be their most difficult caucus. Next time should be easier. “There is a tremendous learning curve,” said Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Missouri and an expert on the Iowa caucus. “Nevada paid most of that startup cost with this first time. It will probably go smoother.” David Redlawsk, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, said a recent survey of voters who participated in the Iowa caucus this year found the vast majority — 85 percent — had fun at their caucus. “It shocked me,” he said. “And it didn’t differentiate between Republicans and Democrats. They found it a fun and energizing experience.”
Sue Lowden, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party, said she has received more compliments than complaints. “Those who were there loved it,” Lowden said. “People loved talking to their neighbors about Nevada issues. I saw people walking out the door exchanging phone numbers.”
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said she would oppose a bill to return to a primary. “I think it’s a good thing to bring back political discourse to the neighborhoods,” she said. “If we want a healthy, thriving community, we should be able to discuss politics rationally.” Lowden and Leslie said a drawback to a presidential primary is that state taxpayers who foot the bill for it rather than the political parties. Heidi Smith, chairwoman of the Washoe County Republican Party, said reaction was mixed. “People I’ve talked to are 50-50,” she said. “Yes, the rooms were far too crowded. But a lot of people enjoyed meeting their neighbors.”
I’m surprised and dismayed that Dina Titus and other state political leaders are so quick to throw out the efforts of thousands of volunteers and over a hundred thousand voters because a brand new, state-wide, practically revolutionary political process didn’t run like clockwork. Let’s get some perspective first. How about we give it another week of consideration? How about a month? Its amazing that the state Democratic party just spent the past year devoting most of its energy toward running this event, with what seemed like active support from people like Dina Titus, and a week later, some of those same leaders are calling for its end. It speaks to an insincerity, it speaks to impatience, it speaks to a lack of resolve. All this talk about dropping the caucus less than a week after we’ve completed it for the first time (not counting 2004) with quite a bit of fanfare I might ad, makes me question the wisdom of the state party that got behind this in the first place. I don’t think such erratic behavior reflects well on the state. Instead of calling it quits, we should be trying to “Make it work!” as Tim Gunn would say.
Similar Posts:
- The Nevada Caucus: Chuck It?
- Titus Leading Gibbons in Rasmussen Poll?
- Aliens Invaded Gibson’s Website
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>
Titus is wrong. The lack of face to face REAL discussion between neighbors about politics is one of the things that has gone wrong with the world. When people get their talking points only from FOX or from Air America and don’t engage in the give and take of actual thoughtful discourse it only leads to problems.
I must admit, I’m not convinced that “virtual” discourse is that helpful either.
I disagree. The voices of people all over the state were silenced if they had to work that day. The next day, everywhere I shopped or ate, workers said they didn’t get to go as they had to pull in their just above minimum wage salary.
You’d think Hillary and Reid would have wanted non-English speaking people statewide to have a say in the caucus and not just the ones on the Strip. No id was required. How legal were those voter’s registrations?
I thought the whole process had obscene intentions.
One thing to consider: how will the Dems get volunteers
for the next, wide open (i.e. competitive and hot) caucus?
That might be a problem (given what many of us went through).
Many have vowed not to do it again.
Can Nevada really afford to go to a primary system? Parties pay for caucuses while primaries are paid for and administered by state governments. Does Titus really think that Nevadans would rather divert resources from say education to a primary rather than meet in neighborhoods and discuss politics? Titus can say adios to another statewide run for office.
Ross, I don’t think we are going to go to a primary
system.
The reason will be, I think, that people will realize
that THIS 2008 Caucus is one for “[history] books”!
We will only see SOMETHING like this one when we have
open and hotly contested races for the nomination.
If the Republicans win in 2008, I suppose we would
face this again in 2012…..but a Republican win is
probably unlikely. (Unless Hillary Clinton is the
nominee, which is now very unlikely. Superdelegates
will FLOCK to Obama…I predict.)
BTW, Titus’ dreams of any statewide office went out
the window when she endorsed Hillary Clinton. She
will never ever garner sufficient northern Nevada votes
to win any statewide office.
BTW#2, some fella at mysilverstate is organizing a
campaign targeting Nevada based superdelegates, to get
them to support Obama. Not a bad idea for action!
What I would love to see (but I and the rest of us
won’t ever for this year’s caucus) are the raw vote
totals for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich.
I’m wondering…..is it possible Obama got more raw
votes? He had good raw vote leads in some precincts
where the delegate result ended in a one to one tie.
(There were at least two like that at Reno High, I think.
1006 and 1039.)
PLUS, if I hadn’t had a recent major senior moment,
by forgetting to caucus when running the caucus (LOL!),
I think the math for my precinct would have resulted
in a 6-2 victory for Barack, not the 5-3 one he got.
I’m just wondering. (Not proposing some whacky conspiracy
theory.)
While I enjoyed interacting with my fellow neighbors at my caucus, I’m supporting Titus’s bill. Not because I thought things didn’t run smoothly, but because the caucus is an inherently unfair voting system. It suppressed the votes of: those working, observant Jews, the infirm, and those serving our country either in the military or through other service outlets. If the Democratic party stands for election reform, then they ought to lead by their own example. I suggest an Instant Runoff Vote primary, with absentee votes allowed.
Are you Freaking Kidding Me?
The Caucus was fantastic. We should NEVER get rid of it.
If you are opposed, keep in mind that since we have ALWAYS had a Caucus and YOU have never cared before, I helped make MY NEIGHBORHOOD CAUCUS FUN, EXCITING AND ENJOYABLE, maybe YOU oughta just go back to watching American Idol and leave the politics to those of us who really care. People who really cared about the Caucus TOOK the DAy OFF WORK!
Some more things to think about:
A Primary will cost $4Million Doolars. Try telling Nevadas that their Smoles price is gonna go up a buck to pay for it.
To be a Citizen and vote n this county, you already have to be able to speak English. It i a requirment.
If you are just bitching about the Caucus ‘Cause your candidate didn’t win. Shut up. You should have tried harder. It is not the processes fault, and IT IS IN MY OVERBEARING OPINOIN that the NSDP’s ability to Party Build and raise excitement is MORE Important then YOUR candidate not winning. (by the way I am an Obama elected Delegate, so shut yer piehole whiners)
Dini Titus’s email is HERE If you agree, tell her NOT TO SACRIFICE OUR PARTY’S “PARTYBUILDING” ABILITIES OVER HER personal Political asperations.
Titus is a huge Clinton backer, so I don’t think who won the caucus has anything to do with this bill.
It’s as simple as moving our useless August primary up in presidential years.
We’re not Iowa, and never will be. Iowa doesn’t even do the Iowa Caucuses all that well.
We completely disenfranchised 830,000 Nevadans, esp those in the military or working. It’s long past time to join the overwhelming majority of other states and presidential primary.
You can choose each party’s delegates in a private party paid for meeting.
Caucuses are for party hacks and operatives, not real voters. Those who showed were in the super-majority of angered participants at the partisan slugfest–only a mere 17% of voters showed up for both!
The DNC will not come back to Nevada without a primary. If we pass it in 2009, third Saturday in January, all parties, all offices–we’ll still be an early state, but may share the date with CO & NM.
Not doing so pushes us back to Feb or Mar and off the national stage.
Let’ leave the 19th century behind and primary for 2012.
I think that the Caucus had problems because TWO things happened at once. First there is the vote for the candidate and then there is the allocation of county delegates. If there was an all day straw poll, like a primary, done so that people could vote for the candidate, which closed at say 6pm, followed by the meeting to elect delegates for the really politically motivated. Only registered Democrats. That way every body’s vote is counted and people won’t squabble over the distribution. Delegate lists could be compiled by the campaigns. No wasted effort. No aggravation. The big networks could focus on the poll results and go home.
There are other problems with a caucus:
1. not everyone can attend; my mother can’t spend her Saturdays (the highest paying day) away from work
2. many don’t want their employer or union organizer to see how they are voting (unions sent ‘observers’ to caucus locations, and while I’m sure it was for an innocuous reason, many felt leaned upon)
What does work well is same-day registration!
Punting the Caucus for an early primary is a bad idea, unless your like me an run political campaigns. Imagine that we did what Titus suggests, the state would have to move every race to the primary date - like Mike suggested. The filing period for candidates is currently in May so you’d have to move that date back far enough into the previous year for declared candidates to campaign and educate the electorate about themselves. If we keep the same amount of time as we have now the filing period would be somewhere around the end of September/early October. there are major problems with that logic: People already think that candidates campaign to early for local and state office; the amount of money a candidate would have to raise (another complaint of the people)would triple; early voting would begin right after the new year, and we have to have early voting so that people aren’t inconvienced or disenfranchised, right? the date would be set in stone rather than the flexible caucus dates so we could lose early status; legislative candidates would file for office a mere 3 months after the close of the legislative session so those people that work as teachers, firemen, etc. when there not in session would simply never run. Being a legislator would become a full time job and you know only those evil rich people would get elected.
I could go on for days about why this is a bad idea for the people of our state. Let’s keep the caucus, fix the problems we had, and continue to be courted by presidential candidates like we’ve been for the last 6 months.
If anyone attended the caucus on Saturday, they would of hear the same thing I did; I’d rather vote in a primary and be done in 5 minutes. However, I think this year’s caucuses were a fluke. In the future, it certainly won’t be as a contentious an election as this one has been. One party will have an incumbent running more than likely, which will drive down turnout. Therefore, in the interest of saving money, I think the caucus plan is the best for our State in the long run.
I would suggest the Legislature make a provision in the law for just such an occurrence as what happened during this year’s election where no incumbent was running. The provision should allow the parties to petition the Legislature to allow them to conduct a primary instead of a caucus if the same conditions present themselves again.
Mike Jamieson:
My precinct’s (2020) final vote: Obama 23 (3 del.), Clinton 9 (1), Edwards 3 (0), with two walkouts. The lone Kucinich voter in the first alignment switched to Obama.
‘mike’:
From what I’ve read, the actual turnout was just a bit over 25%, not that magic number issued by a lot of far-right and far-left haters you quote. And if you really wanted to be a part of the caucus, you went. You knew when it ws going to happen, so you arranged to get the time off to go. Maybe you worked an extra shift or two to compensate. I took a day off from my job as an overnight courier so I’d have the energy to run a precinct caucus single-handed. I’ll deal with the short-term loss of money, because the caucus was just that important.