The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Nevada caucuses expose flawed system

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Abe Rubenstein:

by Abe Rubenstein

Thursday, January 24, 2008

RENO, Nev. — I’m probably the only person enrolled at the University of Wisconsin who caucused in Nevada Jan.19, and let me tell you — Wisconsinites have it easy when it comes to electing presidential candidates.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, a caucus is essentially a town meeting at which presidential candidates are chosen. It differs drastically from Wisconsin’s presidential primary election, in which you simply vote for your candidate of choice. If only caucusing was that easy.

My caucus took place in the lunchroom of a Reno elementary school, where hundreds of people gathered next to their respective precinct signs for each candidate. The people in my precinct were predominantly supporters of Barack Obama — as was I — and our group spilled into a Hillary Clinton group in another precinct, which all but swallowed the followers of Dennis Kucinich.

The whole neighborhood was there. Many people promoted their choice of candidates by displaying stickers on their shirts. Others were engaged in friendly debate about which candidate to support. If there is an advantage of a caucus over a primary, this is it: In a primary election, you must make up your decision before you go to the polls. But at a caucus, you are welcome — even encouraged — to come undecided and let the masses sway you back and forth.

Things got started around noon when a precinct captain opened the caucus. It was hard to hear her voice above the bustle of hundreds of people without any sort of auditory aid, and everyone felt the first sharp pangs of disorganization.

Our precinct captain was an old woman who did not seem capable of performing her duties. The first task on the agenda was to count the people in our precinct. This was the most convoluted thing I have ever witnessed. Kindergarten classes that count themselves off are much more efficient. Three people volunteered to help her, and after three or four counts, they established that there were 45 people in the precinct.

Next, she was supposed to count the number of supporters for each candidate. I’m not sure why any of these counts were necessary. We were handed paper ballots when we registered — why couldn’t we just mark our ballots and turn them in, giving her both the total count as well as the count for each candidate?

Four more counts later, and after marking our ballots and turning them in, it was decided there were 31 Obama supporters, 12 Clinton supporters and two Kucinich supporters — surprisingly, not a single one for John Edwards.

A candidate needs to have at least 15 percent of the votes to be “viable” and remain for the second round of voting. Obama and Clinton were, but Kucinich was not, and his supporters split in the realignment — one to Obama and one to Clinton. Now the count stood at Obama, 32; Clinton, 13.

In a normal election, 71 percent of the vote is a landslide victory. But according to the caucus math, it’s a tie. The equation gave Obama 1.42 delegates, compared to 0.58 delegates for Clinton — however, since 0.5 is the rounding mark, they each won one.

Thus, a few things stand out from my caucus experience. First, the lack of organization was inexcusable. I can’t tell you if there were really 45 people there. There could have been 44 or 46, depending on who was counting. Plenty of people felt disenfranchised — an old man in my precinct was so frustrated with the process that he walked out in the middle of the caucus.

Secondly, in my humble opinion, a 70-30 split of votes should never constitute a tie, but maybe I’m just bitter that Obama needed two more votes to win the second delegate.

The Green Bay Packers scored almost half of the total points in the NFC Championship Game and they got nothing for it because they scored fewer points than the New York Giants. Why should politics be any different?

Finally, the caucus was at noon on a Saturday. Plenty of people work on the weekend, and holding it at any one time makes it impossible for some voters to turn out. A primary election allows more people to participate because voting takes place throughout the day and absenteeism is not penalized.

Be glad that Wisconsin holds primary elections and not caucuses. A caucus, while providing a forum for debate, does not accomplish anything that a primary election can’t solve more easily and more efficiently — although, if you apply the caucus math to the NFC Championship Game, it was really a tie.

Abe Rubenstein (rubenstein@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in computer sciences.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Sandra More (January 24, 2008 @ 4:05pm):

Abe, I'm also from Reno. I was a caucus chair and the site captain for one of the schools. Not only were things horribly disorganized, scores of people told me when I called on Friday to ask if they intended on participating that they were unable to for reasons ranging from ill health to small children to having to work. Let alone the significant number of military personnel, like my two sons, who could not return to Nevada just to caucus. It's a shame when even their voices aren't heard.

We registered a significant number of new voters - all of them without requesting identification, even though the voter registration forms specifically state that new registrants must provide proof of Nevada residency. Yet we were specifically told by the Democratic Party not to ask for identification. A quick glance through the forms showed that little was provided beyond a name and address. I've no idea if people in my precinct were even eligible to participate. Individuals who said they were from another "country of origin" were not asked for proof of citizenship.

Listening to stories and reading blog entries and letters to editors from around Nevada, it becomes clear that we were far from consistent. Many precincts started at 11:30 rather than noon. Others allowed individuals in viable groups to change their preference and go to unviable groups, enabling them to become viable and gain delegates, while yet other precincts told people in viable groups that they couldn't change their preference. Some participants were allowed for form viable "uncommitted" groups, while others were told they had to choose from among viable candidates. Attendees also had the option of withdrawing and not participating in the 2nd count, which many were not told.

Thank God so few states have caucuses. If you and I are lucky, Nevada will never hold another one.

Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 7:28pm):

Abe:

My name is Anthony Cacibauda. I am a student of the University of Nevada Reno, and I too attended a caucus in Reno just minutes down the winding back roads that most certainly led you to your caucus on the crisp and chilly morning of January 19th. Your article exposes in writing, the very same thoughts I held--and hold--on the subject of botched caucuses�which ours here in Nevada most certainly was. I honestly believe that your above prose--which is very well-written might I add--is worthy of being sent as a hard copy to one, if not all of our state's Congressmen. After all, they are certainly responsible for, at the very least, the conception of having a caucus rather than a primary in our fine state. They should know that you, I, and Mrs. More are not the only three Nevadans that thought our respective caucuses were flawed. Perhaps if you do in fact send your article, you should add a paragraph which explains the fact that they didn't check identification cards anywhere�a practice present in a primary--which allowed for random people to vote without verification that they were in fact inhabitants of the state of Nevada. Also, you should let someone know about a story I heard from an anonymous couple about a friend of theirs who voted in the Nevada caucus even though she lives in California. She simply told a volunteer that she was stuck in Reno for the weekend�which was true�and requested that she be able to vote. Her request was granted and she voted for Ron Paul in a precinct and a state, of which neither she is a resident.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.