This year’s conventions both showed that the caucus and convention process can be a barrier to the ballot. This means that the caucus process is significant. This fact is quite sad, as it’s perhaps the most undemocratic-democratic process out there (and I do mean small-D democratic, but also big-D Democratic as well). I think that we should a) completely eliminate the caucus process, b) either make the convention ceremonial or eliminate it, and c) move back the date of our primary.
Here’s a couple of reasons why we should get rid of this shitty way of picking our candidates (edit: removed a stupid free speech argument that doesn’t make sense):
- Exclusionary: There are many people who can’t/won’t afford to give up the time it takes (sometimes over three hours) of their lives to attend a caucus. They include parents who can’t get child care, people who work nights/weekends (a.k.a. the working class), members of the armed forces, the disabled*, and young voters*. These are all core Democratic constituencies, and yet their voices are excluded from the caucus process.
- Questionable secret ballot: Sometimes there is a secret ballot at a caucus, other times it is public. It seems to be up to the chair. Not only does this exclude people who aren’t allowed to publicly state their preferences, like journalists, but it means that in order to vote, you must expose your political opinions to your friends and neighbors. No one should be required to do this in order to vote.
- Insider effect: In order to even make the ballot, nominees must appeal to the people who are willing and able to attend caucuses. This group, which I’ve already proven is not representative of the population because they’re able and willing to be there, tends to be the insiders. They’re the people who are on their Democratic Town or Ward Committee, who are going to be with is in November no matter what. They have the potential to eliminate people who might be the most able to beat the Republicans.
- But the caucus process is also bad for those of us (like myself) who want our party to be more to the left then it currently is. For one, it’s a massive waste of resources. How many halls did DTCs have to rent out? How many thousands of dollars were spent by the party and candidates on convention videos, which would only be seen by a select group of delegates? It’s a large enough waste of resources that means that I don’t want to give money to the party or campaigns until we get past that point.
- Finally, eliminating caucuses doesn’t mean that the activists will be ignored. This is always the main argument that the pro-caucus crowd makes. But recognize that campaigns will always need volunteers, and they will always need financial donors. If we are really as organized as John Walsh would like us to think, then campaigns should be courting the organizers who have built relationships with all of the local volunteers, not the DTC chair who hasn’t canvassed in a decade. Rather, eliminating caucuses means that we don’t have to waste time on “slacktivists” who don’t really do anything anyways.
Please share widely!
Christopher says
I’m not sure if activists will be totally ignored, but this is a PARTY process, and the party has every right by freedom of association to determine who participates and how. They just can’t hold “white primaries” or otherwise discriminate on the basis of anything other than political affiliation.
It is an open process. Anybody can register with the party by the deadline and anyone so registered can participate. I’m also fairly certain that in most cases participants and delegates are already to the left of the electorate and even the party as a whole.
You are just plain wrong on the secret ballot part. A ballot is required in a contested race for delegates. There is no requirement that delegates mention whom they are supporting and many delegates in fact have not decided at the time of the caucus.
There is no free speech violation for listening. Many caucuses waive that step anyway. There is no right to vote issue as this is not a state function at this point.
Caucuses use few resources at least from local committees. They are generally in my experience able to get space for free. They are in fact worth it not only for candidate organizing, but also gets more people involved in the DTC.
There in summary is absolutely nothing wrong with having a process for becoming the nominee. Have you attended caucuses? Frankly your diary sounds like it comes from an all-I-know-is-what-I-read-in-the-papers viewpoint. If anything there needs to be more education on this. To the extent we have civics classes I’ve never known them to go into the minutia of a nominating process, but it really isn’t that hard.
becool5555 says
I attended plenty of caucuses this past cycle and have attended my local caucus since I was 14. I take great offense to your ageist attacks at the end:
Keep it to the issue, don’t attack my person.
Yes, but you ignore my main point here: working people and parents who can’t get childcare aren’t able to participate, because everyone has to show up at the same place at the same time. These are CORE Democratic constituencies. They are essentially excluded from the process. You can’t vote by absentee ballot.
This may be the rule, but I’ve attended at least one caucus where it just wasn’t followed, especially in more rural communities. Perhaps it could have been challenged. You’re correct that many delegates run as undecided.
I don’t see the benefit of organizing it around DTCs if they don’t really do anything in the end, in general. I’d rather spend my energy, as an organizer, organizing around people who will actually be volunteers for my campaign, rather than worrying about when we’ll have lawn signs available, which is the case for more DTC chairs than not. While they may be the same in some cases, they are not in many cases. That’s the point that I was trying to make there.
Christopher says
…and I’m sorry to hear that some have not gone quite by the book. I don’t understand how my jab was ageist, though. I can’t tell from your diary whether you are 20-something, 70-something, or somewhere in between.
DTC’s vary widely in activity levels both collectively and individually. The ones that are on the ball capture the info of participants for outreach in future cycles or the general part of the current cycle.
Regarding the inconvenience I guess I’m OK with this part of the process skewing toward people who are interested and able enough to make this a priority. They may be down a choice or two on the primary ballot, but there’s a good chance someone who doesn’t make the caucus/convention hurdle wasn’t going to get very far anyway. There’s a signature hurdle too, but nobody complains about that and unenrolleds can sign. I like that one piece of this process requires enough commitment to to the party to at least register therein.
becool5555 says
You weren’t ageist, I apologize for the accusation. I just found your tone there to be accusatory, with the assumption that I hadn’t been to one. I’m a 20-something, though I’ve been active in progressive politics for about 10 years now (well, that’s a bit of a stretch. 5 is more accurate, though I’ve worked for campaigns at various levels, as well as in state government).
Definitely agree with DTCs varying widely. My hometown one in Lexington is well-run and well-organized. But there are some that I’ve visited/organized in (I won’t name names here) that were simply laughable, highly disorganized, and in denial about what makes a successful campaign.
I guess I think that the bias against working folks in particular is problematic, as it’s somewhat classist. If the fact that you work the night shift/the Saturday shift and can’t take a day off for politics means that you can’t vote at a caucus, why not just put in place a poll tax? Working families an important group that can’t contribute in the status quo.
I’m fine with the signature hurdle, I would maybe even increase it. That one actually requires that you get organized with volunteers or at least raise enough money early to hire people, which I think is an important test. Caucuses, meanwhile, also require organizing, but it’s a different kind that I find isn’t particularly relevant to general or even primary elections, or at least not in primary campaigns.
jconway says
Aren’t they already on weekends? I am okay with throwing some state party funds to offering on site childcare to encourage more working people to participate. Having organized at the Iowa Caucus that Obama won in 2008, I can tell you that the entire community comes out and getting counted is a big part of the commotion. An absentee ballot sort of defeats the entire purpose of a caucus, and would be tantamount to an early primary. Our party should encourage grassroots organizers to do their party, and caucuses enable that portion of the event.
becool5555 says
It varies by town/ward. But the fact that you have to show up in a certain place, by a certain time, for x hours means that there will necessarily be working class folks who have to work, get stuck in traffic on the way, etc. Another issue here is that a good number of caucuses were held during a common school vacation week in February, when a lot of parents go away with their kids, thus making them unable to vote/run for delegate. I get that an absentee ballot wouldn’t work in a caucus, but that’s exactly the problem. I think that it’s critical to a democratic process.
I think that there’s also a distinction to be made between our caucuses and the Iowa caucuses. There, you move to the corner of the room that you want to go to (ergo my secret ballot point). It’s also a huge event that gets national media attention. The local media barely covered our caucuses this year.
jconway says
I think mandating that they are held on weekends is a fair reform, providing some child care, and perhaps holding them closer together at a different stage in the process. Reforming it makes a great deal of sense, repealing it means that we also repeal the convention, and guys like Avellone or Pagliuca can buy the signatures they need, not all from Democratic voters to get on the ballot. Perhaps closing the primary could mitigate against that. I think the downsides should be addressed via reforms to the process.
For what it’s worth, the online Cambridge Day and Cambridge Chronicle both discussed the caucuses, so some local media covered it. I don’t think Channel 5 would cover every caucus across the state to the same degree it covers the Iowa caucus, but even our convention got scant press coverage using that metric.
becool5555 says
For sure, many of these issues could be fixed. Though I think that child care would be a bit unfeasible in some of the smaller towns, at minimal benefit. But the biggest one, the fact that people can’t make it for very legitimate financial reasons, remains. Unless you can pay people who miss work to attend or mandate that employers give time off to attend (which would be ridiculous), you exclude a significant Democratic constituency.
On media: yes, some local media covers it, but a) they tend to be insider-y, like Bernstein, who I love, but Joe the plumbing union member would never read, and b) the minutia of the process is so technical that most reporters can’t even understand the intricacies. Hell, most organizers don’t even understand it.
So overall, yes, significant reforms would make it much better, but I think that there are still some inherent problems that remain.
Christopher says
…and to the extent they got any press the media largely chose to play the cynic card about insiderism rather than do their jobs and explain to voters how to participate. As election day approaches we routinely see editorials about how important it is to exercise the franchise, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an editorial encouraging caucus participation. Regional papers should print a nice article about when and where caucuses are held instead of a hard to find reprint of the one-paragraph DTC press release required by party rules.
HR's Kevin says
Deval Patrick is a great counter example. He was able to mobilize a relatively small number of people at the grassroots level to show up at their caucuses and take the nomination away from the connected insiders.
While caucuses do take time, anyone may come and if they are organized they can show up in enough numbers to make a difference. If you take away caucuses then you are left with just primaries and the necessary massive fund raising effort.
JimC says
Seems implied, if the issue is “barrier to ballot.”
becool5555 says
I don’t see what we get out of it, honestly. Party endorsements tend to be meaningless. A modest bit of momentum maybe, but it gets killed over the summer anyways.
JimC says
Just signatures?
becool5555 says
I would even increase the signature requirement slightly, and maybe limit it to Dems so that there’s a check on independents, as I think that that one actually does require a certain amount of organization: you need to either recruit x volunteers or raise y dollars to hire paid collectors in order to be on the ballot. other than that, I’d rather campaigns spend their energy on the doors engaging with primary voters, instead of dealing with largely self-important insiders.
fenway49 says
I lived for more years than I cared to in the great State of New York. There are no caucuses there. There is no 15 percent rule. The convention is pro-forma, a glorified pep rally. And I cannot imagine a larger group of utterly uninspiring candidates or more apathy about state politics.
Eliminating the caucuses and the 15 percent rule just allows candidates to skip ahead to a focus on raising money so they can “engage with primary voters” with the kind of pabulum you see in campaign commercials and literature, without first having to pass through the gauntlet of activists who know the issues and care enough to show up. Ditto New Jersey, where I have relatives involved in local Democratic politics.
That system favors insiders and corporatists much more than ours. A Don Berwick never would have emerged. And the energy doesn’t go to the doors. My NJ relatives, who are on the local Dem committee, were shocked to hear that people here actually canvass.
jconway says
Where party insiders, committeemen, and bosses still can select slates in such a manner as to avoid contested primaries and actually democratic contests. Michael Madigan, who would likely be re-elected anyway by his desperate district, regularly gets potential foes removed from the ballot. A Hispanic district in his state senate district had their long time Irish alderman replaced by another Irish alderman who was a former Madigan hand due to Committee selection confirmed by Mayoral appointment.
Marian Ryan also was appointed by the Governor, but she has a vigorous grassroots challenger who worked the caucuses strongly to gain momentum. As much as I dislike Healey during the course of this ugly campaign, hard to argue she hasn’t done the same thing in her race against Tolman who would likely have been handed a nomination under the IL system.
I even like that we contest the LG separately, in IL the candidates have to pick a ticket. Caucuses seem to be a way around bosses and committeemen rather than a way to enable them.
Granted, becool has been to several and I’ve been to none. And ensuring they are on weekends and some child care can be made available seem like easy and sensible reforms. Replacing the caucuses, the convention, and that process with a signature requirement will led to more Rauner’s (the IL GOP nominee who bought his signatures via paid signature gatherers and even got two pet ballot initiatives on as well) rather than less.
jconway says
We agree there, that’s the only good idea you have here.
becool5555 says
That was originally a bigger part of this diary
shillelaghlaw says
As it stands now, a state representative, state senator, or congressman who loses in a September primary spends four months as a lame duck – about a sixth of his term. Moving the primary to June would increase the lame duck period to about thirty percent of his term.
When Gary Condit lost his primary, he was a lame duck for ten months! Almost half a term!
Long lame duck periods just create opportunities for mischief.
jconway says
Also I think our fractured party would’ve been united by this point behind a nominee, as David often argues.
becool5555 says
They don’t really do anything between July 31st and the end of the session. So sure, maybe they’re a lame duck for 2-3 months or so extra, but remember that not much occurs after July anyways.
sabutai says
Lame duck periods can create opportunities for leadership as well, since politicians do things without worrying about election.
fenway49 says
People who show up to caucuses and participate on their local Democratic committees are just “slacktivists” while people who can’t be bothered to show up once a year should be catered to? That’s just silly.
I won’t touch the idea that a political party, which is not a government agency, violates the First Amendment (on a theory with no legal traction anyway) because people who attend the caucus might have to, gasp, hear others speak. Attending high school must be a really serious violation then.
And I can tell you my DTC chair canvasses pretty much every week.
becool5555 says
Some are good, I’ll grant you (mine is, for one). But for every 1 that does things, I’ll bet there are 5 who do rather little.
The first amendment argument, I’ll admit, was rather silly.
But the one thing that I challenge you on is that people who don’t show up to caucuses don’t care about who is on the ballot. I think that there are a solid number who can’t make it due to very legitimate obligations (childcare, work, etc), and I have a problem with a democratic process where the working class doesn’t have a voice.
fenway49 says
We have about 3,000 registered Democrats in my caucus area. This year, the busiest in memory other than 2002, about 50 people showed up. I just don’t believe that a significant portion of the 2,950 registered Democrats who didn’t show up really wanted to be there but couldn’t arrange childcare or work schedules. I’ve asked many a person to come to the caucus and have never heard that as the reason for not coming.
I think most people who don’t show up might care about who’s on the ballot in some theoretical sense, but not enough to disturb themselves for a couple of hours on a Saturday.
becool5555 says
I don’t think that my classmates at Brandeis would go to a caucus (despite my nagging and insistence) because it means giving up a big chunk of their weekend, but is it really fair that they don’t get a vote just because they aren’t willing to give up a couple of hours on a Saturday, 9 months before the election, when the media isn’t paying attention? What about the man who works into the evenings, whose only time with his kids is on Saturday? These are people who regularly vote in primaries, and who volunteered a significant number of hours canvassing for Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Deval Patrick. They’re active members of the Democratic Party, in fact they’re the base.
fenway49 says
Frankly, yes. I don’t believe the political process should cater to a bunch of college students who refuse to give up a chunk of their weekend once a year, at a time of year when the weather sucks and there’s little else going on, to participate in the process. Who cares that some people in the media aren’t paying attention? By the time of the caucuses everyone here knew who was running. It was readily available via BMG or David Bernstein or Twitter.
This seems to boil down to, “People are busy and not willing to give up any of their time, so the Democratic Party should eliminate anything requiring any of voters’ time from its nominating process.” Democracy is a participatory sport.
Throughout this whole discussion this has not made sense to me. Who are all these people who can’t possibly spare two hours for the caucus because it’s their only time with their kids, but are out there canvassing their hearts away? If you can canvass, you can make the caucus. Pretty much every single person I know in my community who canvasses or does anything else on a campaign was at the caucus.
becool5555 says
I guess I think that it’s participatory, but to expect everyone to be able to come to this meeting, dropping every other personal, family, or financial commitment, to show up at this particular time and place, is insane and exclusionary. Part of my frustration, I think, comes out of how many people I attempted to recruit to caucus for Berwick this year that just couldn’t make it to their caucus for reasons that I couldn’t argue with. I’m convinced that had they shown up, we would have had an even stronger showing at the convention. Now, I’m sure all campaigns face this roughly equally, but I think that it’s particularly bad for progressive ones who try to appeal to working families.
I think that you also need to “check your privilege” a bit, as they say. Recognize what it takes to be able to follow this process: you have to be able to devote a considerable amount of time to it, you have to be able to understand it (some people just don’t have the education for that), and you have to be interested enough to keep up with it. I just don’t buy the premise that those of us who are privileged enough to be able to participate in the process should have more of a say in our democracy than those who can’t, won’t, or don’t. I find that sentiment to be very undemocratic. Would you say that someone who’s privileged enough to be able to follow, understand, and participate in the political process should have the right to an extra vote on election day? Of course not. That’s the parallel for me.
Christopher says
Part for those who are willing and able to put in a little more time and discernment, and part for everyone. This isn’t rocket science, but certainly more publicity would be useful.
SomervilleTom says
Sorry, but the whining coefficient of this anti-caucus argument is too high for me.
The caucuses are easy to attend, easy to participate in, and happen infrequently. Participation, even leadership, in the caucuses is significantly easier than participation in virtually any little-league, soccer league, church organization, or summer camp — not to mention Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, or local business forum.
If an individual (of any age) values an evening of drinking with his or her peers over participating in a caucus, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for those who have different priorities to set the course of the Democratic Party.
becool5555 says
There are people in this Commonwealth who can’t afford little league. They can’t afford summer camp. These are the people who have to work on Saturdays, making the fries at McDonald’s. All I’m saying is, I wonder what the ratio is between people on food stamps who vote versus those who attended the caucuses, compared to the overall population.
Now, maybe I’m wrong about that, or maybe it isn’t a significant number of people. I had an experience while organizing for them (part of what inspired me to write this), where someone couldn’t participate, who wanted to, for quite tragic reasons.
mimolette says
But I still can’t let this pass without pointing out that in my own far from wealthy Gateway City, we had solid representation from across the socioeconomic spectrum. And far from being exclusionary, the caucuses and the possibility of being a convention delegate helped bring new people into the world of political activism who have often felt profoundly alienated from the electoral process as we otherwise know it.
Which is hardly surprising, when you think about it. If what you know about an election are some names on a ballot that might as well have been put there by magic for all the connection you have to them, plus the limited substantive coverage our state races are given in the media and some advertising no one trusts anyway, why would you feel any particular sense that your vote mattered?
But go to a caucus, perhaps find yourself elected as a delegate to a nominating convention, have the experience of direct participation with your neighbors, and your entire perspective shifts. As does the perspective of all the people connected with you, because even if your family and friends couldn’t be at the caucus with you, they’re the people you’ll talk about it with, before the caucus and afterward. Which means that your participation has an effect on your community that’s multiplied many times.
Now, obviously the caucus system does this more effectively where your town or city committee and the rank and file put some effort into outreach ahead of time, so that people who aren’t obsessed with politics know what the caucuses are and what their role is in advance. But that’s not difficult to do, and at least in our experience, if you take the trouble it will not be only the wealthy white political junkies who come out and make their voices heard. Not by a long shot.
fenway49 says
This is where the academic world goes off the rails. I think Tom has it right. How on earth is it the fault of the nomination process that there are people who don’t understand it? The basic contours of the caucus system are not all that that complicated. Does democracy require eliminating all things somebody might not understand?
It doesn’t take all that much time to keep up with things enough to participate. Personally I put a lot of time into it because it’s my thing. I made a conscious choice to read up on the issues and the campaigns and to go to meetings, etc., when I can do so consistent with my other obligations. Sometimes that requires some juggling. On occasion I miss out on things. I put virtually no time into TV sitcoms, don’t play video games, don’t play fantasy football. I know plenty of people who definitely have the time but don’t have the interest.
It’s two hours once a year. What’s “insane and exclusionary” is the system in other, non-caucus, states where outsider candidates don’t even have the opportunity to make a splash with a good showing like they do here.
JimC says
Stupid time-space continuum! Where’s Jeff Bridges when you need him?
Christopher says
Not to sound like a broken record, but there is not a lot of public discussion of this process and the media are too lazy to be anything other than cynical. Mostly it is activists who know the candidates’ names at that point, though as previously cited Deval Patrick is a great counterexample, one that frankly I did not see a single statewide candidate replicate this year. He had a full fledged field program in place BEFORE the caucuses and the strategy clearly paid off for him, bringing lots of new people into the process.
becool5555 says
is that it’s a complicated system. Seriously, it took me a couple of years to figure it out, and then I had to study the rules again this year. I’m convinced that the media doesn’t quite understand it. But I also think that they don’t want to because it’s not exactly a sexy news story, and the election is 9 months away. The voters aren’t ready for it yet, and the media knows that they will tune out over the summer anyways. However, were the primary in June, they would tune in January and February, because instead of organizing the ultra-insiders, they would be targeting average voters, and thus they would be interested in it. And the media would stay interested over the summer, because the campaign would be unfolding.
On the Patrick example: I think that the Patrick campaign had a once-in-a-generation candidate who was able to do what he did. He was successful not only because he was extremely well organized (which he was, better than anyone has been in recent memory), but also because he was quite charismatic, exceptionally inspiring, and his opponents were frankly unattractive. I’m not saying that someone couldn’t do it again, but I think that we risk loosing many strong candidates, just because it takes them a little while to figure out the process and get organized, and I think that the primary process is a much better way of doing that then the caucus process.
Christopher says
For a rank and file Dem it’s a matter of showing up at the correct time and place for your town or ward, though both the party and the media could do a better job publicizing those. I’m also not willing to give the voters or media a pass. Citizenship doesn’t just happen on balloting day and the media need to do a better job earning their “fourth estate” label. I get that it is a business, but the media, IMO, especially those that use the public airwaves, have a responsibility to offer voters information about the candidates and process whether the voters are ready or not.
becool5555 says
It’s a perfect world vs. real world problem, IMO. They ought do exactly what you’re saying. I just don’t see a mechanism for getting them to pay more attention.
But forget the people who choose not to get involved, or don’t know to get involved, for a minute: I really do think that there are people who can’t get out of work (newsflash: some people work on Saturdays and in the evenings and they can’t get out of it). It’s sad that these people don”t have a say in picking our potential nominees.
ryepower12 says
a no-name candidate ended up steamrolling much better known, far more established and (at the time) better funded candidates.
I’m willing to listen to changing things on the margins — for example, going from requiring 15% to 12% — but eliminating them altogether?
No thanks.
ryepower12 says
.
becool5555 says
I think that the Patrick campaign had a once-in-a-generation candidate who was able to do what he did. It was almost a perfect storm that allowed him to succeed. He was successful not only because he was extremely well organized (which he was, better than anyone has been in recent memory), but also because he was quite charismatic, exceptionally inspiring, and his opponents were frankly unattractive to the progressive base. I’m not saying that someone couldn’t do it again, but I think that we risk loosing many strong candidates, just because it takes them a little while longer to get organized, and I think that the primary process is a much better way of doing that then the caucus process.
Look at Berwick: had we been organizing for the primary since the beginning, I’m confident that he would be leading at least Grossman in the polls right now. But we put 100% of our energy into the caucuses and the convention throughout the winter. We simply didn’t have the resources to do that AND organize for the primary at the same time.
I also think that even the Patrick campaign would have hit what I hit while caucus-organizing this year: some people just can’t make it, and they have (sometimes really, really) good reasons for it. I’ve gone into this pretty deeply elsewhere, but I think that it’s sad that the guy who can’t get out of working the Saturday afternoon shift at McDonald’s has less of right to representation than I do.
Christopher says
You say the campaign put 100% of its energy into caucuses, but frankly 100% didn’t seem to amount to much. Berwick easily could have been the Deval Patrick of this cycle, but when did he staff up? The Patrick campaign hired Nancy O’Connor Stolberg, a field rock star in her own right, several months before caucuses as Field Director. She recruited early and often when the presumptive nominee at the time was likewise a sitting AG. I decided on my candidates very early this cycle and expressed interest to them in being Field Director as far back as the 2013 convention, but was consistently told the campaigns weren’t ready. Frankly, those decisions continue to show as I have never seen such a ho-hum cycle with so many contested statewide races. To pull off the field/caucus program the Patrick campaign did you HAVE to be ready that early. This year I saw little evidence on anybody’s part of having really organized the caucuses, of which I attended several as a DSC member. The two exceptions where there were pretty obvious successful slates were locally initiated and one of those didn’t really take effort because it was the hometown of one of the statewide candidates.
Regarding time off, we are required to do jury duty when summoned and are legally excused from work. Maybe there could be a law excusing caucus-goers as well, but honestly I’m not convinced that many people would take advantage of it.
becool5555 says
In fact at least 2 or 3 people that I’m thinking of. We started in the summer organizing for the caucuses. We had over 10 RFDs and FOs in place by November, a full 3 months before the caucuses. Do we really want this to be a full, year-and-a-half process? We already have an activist burnout problem as it is, do we really want to have a system that will cause even more burnout?
W/R/T time off, I think that such a law would be opposed by most of the legislature who like to see this process be insider-y, and also get laughed out of committee for being ridiculous.
fenway49 says
You seem to think the political system should require as little of people as possible. I think quite the opposite. We already have too much of that, even in Massachusetts, where there’s more retail politics than any place I’ve seen. Activism is a full-time thing for people like me, even if I’d rather do something else some days, because I know it’s sure as hell a full-time thing for corporate lobbyists and big donors. Taking away from activists even an opportunity to shape the field early doesn’t make things more democratic. It just increases the importance of big money in campaigns and allows campaigns to avoid the hard questions they’ll get while fishing for delegate support, questions that help them revise their policy platforms.
becool5555 says
In all seriousness, I agree with you. It should be a full-time thing. But we should be channeling our efforts through advocacy groups and orgs like Progressive Mass into the legislative process and advocating for policy change, not playing insider baseball in the caucuses.
But I don’t think that I was clear: I was actually referring to the support calls that people get and love to complain about. Many people already complain about the volume of phone calls that they get right before the caucuses, just like voters complain about it right before the election. Do we really want to increase that by several months?
Christopher says
Caucuses are only for statewide candidates, though one argument for keeping them is the both legislative incumbents and challengers know that’s where they can speak to a bunch of strong activists and reliable voters at once.
becool5555 says
Moving up the primary would impact them quite a lot.
Christopher says
…but you clearly said you thought time off would be opposed by legislators who would prefer an insider process, which is what I was responding to.
fenway49 says
At this point it doesn’t look like he’s going to win the primary, but the success he did have at the caucuses and convention gave him some good press coverage and almost certainly helped with fundraising. Without the caucus system he’d have missed the ballot entirely or, if he got the signatures, have gotten no media coverage at all.
becool5555 says
n/t
Jasiu says
The pros of caucuses along with pros and cons of the alternative (here, primaries) have to be detailed as much as the cons of the current system.
Some of the issues with primaries have been written up here, but IMO if we looked at the entire picture, the answer might be “Caucuses aren’t great, and the only thing worse are all of the other choices”.
There is no perfect system.
Christopher says
…where we are discussing how democratic things should be to more directly quote Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”
jconway says
And it’s quite adaptable too. I came up with this version after my brother and sister in law told me they started going back to Mass after a burnout with the evangelical parishes they’ve tried,
“Catholcism is the worst form of Christianity,except for all the others that have been tried from time to time”
They found it funny.