Personally, as systems of candidate nomination, I have always liked the idea of primaries better than that of caucuses. I mean I get the "homey, town hall" feel of caucuses that activists like a lot, but the fact is that caucuses are long and complicated processes that, furthermore, often don't even afford one a secret ballot, but instead have people vote by peer pressure. Such processes are designed to favor the most dedicated people and those who have the most leisure time to spare. That ain't working class people! Turnout levels for caucuses, accordingly, are much lower than those for actual primaries. For example, the Iowa Caucus regularly generates a turnout rate of less than 20% of eligible voters, as compared with more than 50% for the New Hampshire primary. To this end, I'm glad that only 7 states will be using a caucus system this time around, compared to 14 four years ago. I hope we get to a point where caucuses are replaced by primaries across the board, including in Iowa, and preferably by open primaries (like New Hampshires) rather than closed ones that only registered Democrats can vote in (like New York's) because that maximizes turnout by including independents.
I get the aesthetics of conversation and participatory democracy that activists love, but ordinary working people need a convenient process, and one that's preferably devoid of public shaming. Just simple, straightforward voting, by secret ballot, is what works best for working class people. You do want ordinary working people involved in the political process, right?
Last edited by Jaicee - on 11 February 2020
