Let's take a step back from all the blather that Hillary and her boosters produce on a daily basis ridiculing caucuses. Forget for a moment that we've have caucuses for as long as we can remember, and no one complained about them until Ms. Entitlement cried foul when the results didn't go her way. Forget that Hillary put up a video on her website pronouncing that "caucusing is easy," only to call it the most difficult and most complex process ever invented in politics four minutes after she lost Iowa.
Then forget that Obama benefits greatly from caucuses. Forget that one can't be punished for playing by the rules as agreed to when this whole Presidential election cycle started (which was probably twenty-seven years ago), and winning by playing within the rules.
Can you do all that? Good.
Because caucuses are still a good idea.
We used to marvel at the notion that democracy would be played out in gymnasiums, high school auditoriums and firehouses. What happened to that? Perhaps we need to detail why we should still, even now, find a place in our hearts for the caucus system.
The strike against caucuses comes from someone calling it "undemocratic." It's not like a primary, where you can pick the time of day you want to go to the polling place, actually make the effort to go, make your selection and go home. You have to actually go there at a specific time. AND make your preference public. AND defend your preference in one or two rounds of voting. My God, how can anyone withstand that sort of abuse?
So I look up the word "democratic" in the dictionary. Here it is (note: I had to do some modifying of punctuation to make it look readable):
- of, relating to, or favoring democracy
- (often capitalized) of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the United States evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
- relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people (democratic art)
- favoring social equality : not snobbish
Definitions 3 and 4 are the ones that critics are most likely to use against caucuses. "It's not equal. It's not available to the broad masses."
And then I say, "What are you talking about?"
Flip through any newspaper on caucus day. There's a movie, a local basketball or hockey game, a 2-for-1 ice cream deal for three hours at Dairy Queen. Or you can stay home: there's a new episode of a television show, or the opportunity to call your cousin who just got out from work on the other side of the country, or (gasp) the chance to actually have dinner with your family.
Most of this stuff is pretty much appointment viewing (sure, there's your VCR to record the show, but there's nothing like the chance of seeing that new episode along with everyone else in the country), and yet widely accessible. You can take the opportunity. Or not. It's up to you.
Maybe you say that you can't take three hours out of your life to go and caucus. Maybe you're a dishwasher working minimum wage in some second-rate hotel in Las Vegas, and thanks to those stupid caucuses, you can't go and make your preference.
Well, good buddy, have we made it easy for YOU!
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Employee Voting Leave in Nevada
Based on the foregoing, an employer/employee may have the following questions:
- Are the caucus' covered as an "election"?
Answer: Nevada's voting laws do not specifically state the caucus' are an "election" that trigger the requirements of NRS 293.463. It appears, though, since the caucus is the only chance for Nevada's voters to select their candidate of choice, it would likely constitute an "election" that would trigger the protections of NRS 293.463.
- Must I allow employees leave to caucus; what employees are entitled to voting leave and when must leave be requested?
Answer: Yes, leave must be given if it is impracticable for the employee to vote before or after their hours of employment. Further, all employees that ask for leave on a timely basis, i.e., at least the day before the caucus, are entitled to leave.
And it's PAID leave, too! They give you money to go and vote! I'm not confident enough to say that the whole country entitles all workers to go on paid leave for a few hours to go and caucus, but it is the norm in some of the states I have looked at.
And if it's not...shouldn't we, the Democratic Party, make the case to the public that labor laws should be absolute in this regard? That no one should ever be reprised or disciplined financially for exercising their right to vote? Why doesn't Hillary Clinton, the champion of Hispanics, Asians and low-income workers, the champion of voting rights after that Florida debacle in 2000, make this a part of her campaign platform?
Oh...or maybe it's because you, as a prospective caucus voter, don't WANT to make your preference known. Privacy is supposed to be a bedrock principle in democracy, no?
To that, I say, "What are you talking about?"
You say you are a strong advocate for your candidate, and have the diaries and comments on DailyKos to back it up. You say you are tenacious and irrepressible with your support for your candidate. You say you volunteer, and go house to house to house, putting up lawn signs and passing out lit. Then caucus day comes and...oh, my preference is private, leave me alone.
This isn't the "people talk loudly on their cell phones, so wiretapping is not that big of a deal" kind of argument. If you believe in your preferences, however, what's the problem in expressing those preferences?
Maybe I'm crazy, but if American politics is one great debate, then we should hear as many voices as possible. For something as important as choosing the nominees for President, what is the value of having a preference without going to the streets and persuading others to make the same preference? Fighting it out in the gymnasiums and firehouses, defending your preferences and encouraging others to join your cause, all the while without guns or other sorts of physical violence. What can be more democratic than that?
My guy came in third in the Iowa caucuses four years ago, and I hated the result. I couldn't stand the post-caucus speeches, both the Dean scream and the Kerry "Iowa, I love you."
Still, there's one picture I remember from those caucuses. On C-SPAN, a lone Howard Dean supporter, perhaps a university student voting in her first election come that November, stood on a chair in defiant support of her candidate, among a sea of voters just waiting to pick someone else.
"Vote for Kucinich!" another said in mocking fashion.
"I would vote for Kucinich," she said (note: I'm paraphrasing from my terrible memory), "If he had a chance. We have to choose Howard Dean."
It was a losing effort, it turned out. But I look back and I remember that this is how it should work. You take three short hours out of every four long years, go into a room with what you believe in, and hope that you come out getting what you deserve. That's the way to make a choice.
Should they replace primaries? Of course not. Every state should figure out what kind of system they'd like to adopt. It's totally up to them. But each system has its own place, its own benefits and drawbacks. But when caucus day comes, I hate hearing how undemocratic and unfair it is to the people participating. On the contrary, I think it is the way it should be.