My sister and Jen both posted accounts of their experiences in the Washington state caucuses last Saturday. I found both interesting, especially Katie’s. I had not thought much about the logistics of a caucus prior to reading her entry, except for thinking that the idea of gathering together to vote seemed fairly out-dated. Reading Katie’s account of her precinct’s caucus only reinforces that thought. She has many good points. Why should your ability to vote depend on your availability for a two-hour block of time on a single day? Why should we put voters in situations where they may be unduly pressured into casting their vote one way or the other?
I’m excited about the upcoming Texas primaries on March 4. I don’t recall voting in the primaries in 2004, though I did vote in the general election. I would guess that Kerry had probably already become the default nominee by the time Texas rolled around four years ago, and thus it didn’t strike me to bother. It is so exciting that my vote is important this year.
Why are the primaries so spread out? Why does Iowa vote at the beginning of January but Montana votes a full five months later? I wonder what sets this crazy schedule that puts so much importance on the seemingly random selection of states that get to vote early. Why aren’t all primaries held over the span of a few weeks? Or even a few days? That would be much more like a general election, I suppose, but I’m not sure what the problem with that would really be.
Jose’s mom mentioned that Hillary made an appearance just outside of Corpus Christi last week. After that, Jose and I spent a while looking through both of the Democratic candidates’ websites on Thursday evening, searching for a schedule of their upcoming appearances. We couldn’t find anything. We found many instances of supporters holding rallies, and many listings of upcoming Bill Clinton appearances in east Texas, but nothing about where Clinton or Obama will actually be each day. I’m sure their campaigns are scheduling on the fly, but I still found it odd. Shouldn’t they want to make it easier for voters to find them? And hear them?
The Chronicle reported today that Obama is coming to Houston for a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps I will go hear him in person. I hope I have an opportunity to hear Clinton as well. I’ve got to decide which candidate gets my vote on March 4. I have flip-flopped between the two many times already.
Hi Sarah,
I think you have to realize that primaries and caucuses do not so much belong to the people as they belong to the parties. The DNC/RNC structures its procedures to choose a candidate partially based on historical traditions and partially as a test of a candidates ability to organize and communicate in many different local markets. It’s an impossible task to organize everywhere at the same time and a national primary would cheat states out of the opportunity to see the candidates up close, ask questions and get answers in person. The idea is that the more questions asked and answered, the better for us all. The caucuses are not supposed to be fair for all the voters in a state, but rather to test a candidates ability to get a statewide organization running. If you don’t have people on the ground organizing, motivating, being activists for your person, you’ll lose a causus and probably the general election in that state. Hillary has lost most of them because of her lack of such an organization. Barack seems to have more grass roots. Maybe it is good to have this as a test for the general election. Can your people deliver the votes? Maybe not.
Primaries are more like an election of course, but depend more on massive advertising, sound bites, flag waving, etc., and less on real contact and discussion of ideas with politically motivated people.
Ideally, if we don’t like the party candidates, we can still run someone else as an independent candidate in the general election, but if Teddy Roosevelt, having already served as a popular president couldn’t win coming from an outside lane, then it probably can’t be done.
I’m just glad you are interested in the process.
In one canton in Switzerland, the whole population gets together once a year and votes on everything before them by raising swords in yay or nay… They broadcast it on national television. That was teh same canton that didn’t give women the right to vote until the 90s.
I think I heard Clinton was coming on the 28th. Unfortunately I have rehearsals on both the 26th AND the 28th so I won’t be able to hear either one of them, but I’m pretty sure I have made up my mind. I’ll probably vote this week in early voting.
Interesting comments, Sarah. I agree with your points, though I’m not sure whether or not they overrule the counter-arguments.
When it’s really easy to vote – and it is in WA; we vote by mail – people will just vote flippantly. The one thing I really like about the caucus is that all the people there, at least in my precinct, had really given the issue some thought and cared about the outcome. It was inspiring. Also, while there are definite drawbacks to not having private ballots (like having some people vote against their true feelings) I liked that people actually stood up and justified their votes and weren’t afraid to say, yes, i’m voting for so-and-so and here’s why!