some additional caucus thoughts

[ilanarama]

The Electoral Vote site (which is syndicated at electoralvote) has some interesting analysis of the Super Tuesday results. In particular, the Votemaster (Andy Tanenbaum) sorted the Democratic popular vote percentages and came up with the interesting tidbit that the most overwhelming majorities for Obama were in caucus states:

Obama did extremely well in caucus states and Clinton did very badly in them. How come? Turnout in caucus states is always low, usually about 10-20% of the electorate. Only highly motivated people bother to show up, especially the Democratic caucuses, which go on for hours and people haveto publicly defend their choice. Obama has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters. These are precisely the people who can swing a caucus state by showing up in droves and working hard to convince the other voters that Obama would make a great President. In primary states, the media, especially TV ads have a much bigger influence.

This was certainly the case at our caucus, where we had a lot of people who had never before come to a caucus, and all but one were Obama supporters. (They were not all young, by any stretch of the imagination.)

One anomaly in the table of percentages is New Mexico, which is listed as a caucus state but split nearly 50-50 between the candidates. Since Durango's only half an hour from the NM state line, we get New Mexico news in our daily newspaper.  When I read the coverage of the caucus, I immediately thought: hmm, that sounds more like a primary than a caucus.  I did a little Googling and found out that yep, the New Mexico "caucus" is basically a primary. There is no discussion, no open voting.  Voters cast ballots at the caucus site and then leave, and they can even cast absentee ballots in advance. 

I think Obama's success in caucus states says a lot about his appeal. He inspires people. And I think that's important.

Comments

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

It's interesting but I'm not sure that I like the system. Why should people who feel most passionately about a candidate get a greater voice in the choosing? Why should you have to be able to defend your choice? For certain things in life, yes. And possibly choosing a political party's candidate is one of those things but I'm not so sure. Sometimes the quiet people who keep their own counsel know what they're doing. One person, one vote. I realize the primary isn't the election but still ... I'm more comfortable with a system in which people don't have to defend or even reveal their choices.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

I think it's because if all you're doing is pulling a lever or punching a chad, you don't need to be an informed voter. If you show up at a caucus - and you have it backwards, I think: it's not that in order to show up you need to feel passionately, but that those who feel passionately are more likely to show up - you're welcome to sit there quietly and not defend your choice. But you are also by necessity exposed to the arguments of people like you, your neighbors, not just the arguments of the media.

And see what lolaraincoat says below, which I agree with somewhat.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, Michigan (and Florida) have no elected delegates to the Democratic convention because they violated party rules in scheduling their primaries. And now the Dem party is offering to restore their delegates if they agree to run caucuses late in the primary cycle.

Part of what makes this interesting is that if party simply restored the delegates chosen by the invalidated elections, Hilary Clinton would have swept both states. Sorry, that's a bad way to phrase it because I don't think there's any significant conspiracy going on behind this. Obama obeyed party rules by withdrawing from both states' early primaries, and Clinton did not, so there are plenty of legit reasons for a re-do.

Probably only Kucinich and Gravel have reasons to be pissed. Maybe.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the whole thing is sort of eye-rolling. The E-V site points out that all the states which participated in Super Tuesday have turned out to be less important than the later states. I dunno - it's looking like it may come down to the superdelegates, which is a little aggravating.

One of the resolutions proposed and passed by our precinct, by the way, expressed support for a nationwide primary on a single day.