Undemocratic Caucus

Tova Andrea Wang is a Democracy Fellow at  The Century Foundation.

There has been much complaining about the Iowa caucus this year: It is too early, Iowa is not representative of the rest of the country and it has a disproportionate influence on which candidates win the nomination.

While everyone is concerned about Iowa ’s impact on the campaigns, they have forgotten to look at it from the perspective of the voter and voting rights. Caucuses, as opposed to primaries, violate fundamental principles of voting rights. They discourage broad participation and they present substantial barriers to the right to vote.

Since 1968, the nominating process has evolved and now, in theory, it is open to all voters so that the candidate reflects the preferences of the average voter. Yet we still do not approach the nominating contests with the same eye toward ensuring the right to vote as we do general elections.

Unlike primaries or the general election, caucuses involve citizens gathering at a school, restaurant, place of worship or a private home. Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa publicly debate the candidates and gather into groups in different parts of the room depending on which candidate they favor.

Certainly there is great appeal to this type of activity. However, while it is absolutely good for democracy for citizens to engage in group deliberation about the election, this no longer makes sense as a mechanism for actually picking the two presidential candidates.

The data alone bear this out. While primary turnout is shockingly low, caucus turnout is far worse. For example, the percentage of eligible voters who participated in the 2004 presidential primary in New Hampshire was 29.9 percent. Participation in the Iowa caucus was about six percent. Voter turnout rates in other states’ caucuses are far worse, sometimes even plummeting to just hundreds of voters.

The reasons for this are evident. Usually when a voter goes to participate in a primary or a general election, he or she goes to the polling place and votes within a few minutes. She can vote any time of the day from early morning until the evening. 

Not so for caucus goers. It is extremely time specific, time consuming, and complex. In Iowa for example, caucus goers MUST be there by 7:00 p.m. or else they cannot vote. Participants must expect to spend a good two hours at the event, sometimes more. Finally, for Democrats, there is a Byzantine procession of various speeches, physical groupings of voters, realignments and re-votes.

Thus, participation by any given voter – mind, a voter who actually is motivated to take part – depends on any number of factors outside of the voter’s control. Did the voter have to work late? Does the voter work nights? Could the voter get transportation to the caucus site at that exact time of day? Does the voter have child care available for that evening? Does the voter have a night class?

Finally, every participant in the caucus is expected, if not required, to publicly speak, and is required to cast his or her vote publicly, maybe in front of friends and colleagues. Not every citizen is going to be willing to undergo such an ordeal. Participants, especially those not wholly committed to a particular candidate, can also expect to be subject to very vociferous public peer pressure from avid supporters of the different candidates.

Some people face even bigger barriers to participation.

For example, there is one group of voters that is absolutely and completely barred from participating in presidential caucuses: military and overseas voters. Caucuses mandate personal attendance. Students will also find it difficult to participate in caucuses because they may be out of state at school. Voters with disabilities may also confront barriers to participating in the caucuses. While some caucuses will be held in public places which are more likely (though not necessarily) to be accessible, not all caucus meeting sites will be. The media and many Iowans like to wax nostalgic about the idea of citizens gathering in a neighbor’s living room, but having the caucus in someone’s home may also mean it is not accessible. And even if it is, what accommodation is made for the deaf and blind in a process that requires public speaking and following oral instructions? Finally, voters with limited English are likely to have a very hard time navigating the caucus process. Going to a strange place where you are expected to speak and vote publicly might be a daunting prospect for some who are new to this country and/or not comfortable expressing themselves in English.

Short of abolishing caucuses, what can be done?

One idea is to allow groups that currently find themselves literally or effectively barred from participating to vote by absentee ballot. Another alternative might be to find a way to retain all of the charm and appeal of the caucus process without having it as the actual way in which the nominees are selected. Citizens can come together to debate the issues and candidates yet still maintain voting rights by bifurcating the process: have a “day of deliberation” for all who are able to attend and then hold an election that is closer to being a primary, perhaps on the following day.

Regardless of what reforms are considered, the problem is clear and can no longer be shunted aside. The nominating process has changed. For better or worse it is not the exclusive province of insiders anymore. As such, the rules around it must also change with the times.