MyDD :: The Iowa/Nevada Caucus Systems Disenfranchises Voters

The Iowa/Nevada Caucus Systems Disenfranchises Voters

by Big Tent Democrat, Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:44:54 PM EST

I hope we all can see now how horribly undemocratic the Iowa Caucus system (used today in Nevada) is. Frankly it is so undemocratic that it makes a mockery of the histrionic hue and cry we are seeing in some precincts.

Barack Obama and his supporters spent a week, rightly in my opinion, decrying attempts to change the rules at the last moment for the Nevada caucus. But he makes a mockery of that complaint when he celebrates the most outrageous form of voter disenfranchisement - the delegate awarding system. Chris Cilizza explains:

The disparity between the raw vote total and the delegate apportionment is centered on the fact that Obama beat Clinton in the state's sparsely-populated northern reaches and more rural areas -- a statewide showing that left him with a narrow delegate victory if not a popular majority.

In simpler English, the votes in the more populous regions of Nevada were given LESS WEIGHT than votes in less populated regions. In case someone needs a history lesson, this was the issue in the famous "one person, one vote" case - Baker v. Carr, which led to Gray v. Sanders, still the most important voting rights case that I can remember.

So for all the sanctimonious ranting you read tonight, understand this very important point - a clear majority of Nevada voters voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic caucuses. Only reliance on a sytem that systematically dilutes and de facto disenfranchises voters keeps this result from being fully reflected in the delegate count. Any sincere person who is concerned about voters' rights would decry such a system, not celebrate it in an attempt to spin a political result.

Tags: Election 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

There are many other things wrong with the system (2.00 / 2)

Not the least of which is the lack of a secret ballot. It really is an unconscionable system.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST

Absolutely (none / 0)

Having caucusing at workplaces, while empowering in theory, makes the lack of a secret ballot even worse. I would not want to vote in front of my co-workers and I'm not in a union with any of them.

Primaries are the fairest way to go.

by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

blame NH (none / 0)

Their state law says they have to be the first primary.

That's why IA can't change, and that's why NV was selected as an early state (according to the original schedule, NV would have happened in between IA and NH). The DNC needed to pick a caucus state with a significant minority population.

See if Saxby Chambliss is helping you.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NO (none / 0)

The GOP has a primary in Iowa basically.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NO (none / 0)

To certain degree. No relignment to manipulate the system and marginalize minor candidates, secret ballots etc. But it's still extremely incovenient to vote at a precise time... This is horredous practice and I can't wait to chop off Howard Dean and Iowa's heads...

by prisonbreak on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: blame NH (none / 0)

Well, some other state should pass the same law, and the two of them can get stuck in an infinite loop while the rest of us go about our business.

I really think this year may have been the last straw for NH. Michigan, for one, is not going to put up with kowtowing to the Granite State again.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: blame NH (none / 0)

Amen.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Couldn't agree more (none / 0)

I was going to diary this, but you did it much more eloquently than I ever could have. Thank you.

These caucuses must go. If the realignment and viability nonsense isn't bad enough, we have this issue if weighting, which is even worse. If I want to vote for John Edwards of Hillary or whoever and they don;t reach that magical 15% in my caucus site, my vote doesn't count. I can't believe we've tolerated this system for as long as we have. And if I live in Vegas, my vote isn't worth as much as some who lives in North Butt-crack.

And it's nobody's damn business who I vote for, unless I choose to share it with them. No one should be forced to vote in a room full of people like this.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iowa/Nevada Caucus Systems Disenfranchises (2.00 / 1)

So in an ironic way Bill Clinton was right. The precincts were weighted unfairly so not everyone's vote would count the same and Obama may very well be the beneficiary (although I personally don't believe Axelrod's spin). But he was wrong on where the imbalance would occur - it did not occur in the at-large caucuses, but in the rural areas. In fact, had the teacher's won their lawsuit, Hillary Clinton might be in worse shape, if I'm understanding where the imbalance is coming from (which in this screwy system is a big question).

I understood why folks were upset about the fight by the teacher's union to try to stop the at-large caucuses. I presume those same folks will be upset at the uneven distribution of delegates. Right? Bueller? Bueller?

by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:53:37 PM EST

democracy (none / 0)

One person one vote, secret ballot, period.

by prisonbreak on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton was a cynical fuck (none / 0)

who did not say a word until the CWU endorsed Obama. He is part of the problem on this.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton was a cynical fuck (none / 0)

Oh, I'm not disputing his reasons for complaining. They were driven solely by the fact that he thought it would hurt his wife. He wouldn't have cared if he had thought it would've helped her. Which is why I think it's ironic that he was right, but in the wrong way. He was probably advocating against her interest when that was clearly not what he intended.

This entire thing is political, all the latest spin from Obama shows is that it's political on both sides. Not that that's surprising.

by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton was a cynical fuck (none / 0)

Ha.

by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

get rid of (none / 0)

Get rid of caucus. It's just a stupid system established for limousine white liberals, kos crowd to manipulate the system and supress the voice of working class voters.

Roy Reid, Clinton's NV campaign manager(?) is advocating primary in the future. You can hear this interview...

http://www.taylormarsh.com/audio.php?aud io=http://www.taylormarsh.com/podcast/mp 3/WS_30027.WMA

by prisonbreak on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:54:36 PM EST

Great! (none / 0)

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great! (none / 0)

Caucuses by their very nature are meant to disenfranchise. They are meant to limit participation. Who is usually left out? Mothers, and the working class, often the elderly, people who have a hard time making a meeting set at a particular time. It's worse than that ofcourse because the more agressive supporters can push people into supporting their candidate as second choice. Imagine someone in the voting booth with you pushing their candidate on you. The whole system reeks.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then add in Bill Clinton and (none / 0)

Barack Obama working the casinos just before the at large caucuses opened there.

by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get rid of (none / 0)

The first prisonbreak post I agree with.

by Korha on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Senate (none / 0)

Just curious, what's your opinion of the senatorial distribution--that is, the fact that both CA and WY are represented by 2 senators in the Senate, despite the fact that California has 72x more people than Wyoming.

That's not a rhetorical question, just to be clear.

by DPW on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:54:53 PM EST

It is awful (none / 0)

For the very rreason explained herein. the academic defense of that system is that the Senate was designed to represent STATES, not people. And indeed, that argument had support when the State legislatures chose the Senators. But since that system was long abolished, that rationale no longer holds. IT is past time that the Senate be abolished. Will never happen though.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is awful (none / 0)

Yeah, I understand the general objection, but I also think some amount of federalism needs to be maintained and that directly proportionate representation would cause serious tension between states. More sparsely populated areas like Wyoming or Alaska, in many cases, face far different political challenges than, say, California. So, those places have legitimate reasons to resist too much federal political authority as it concerns the lives of their citizens.

Now, that doesn't mean that the senatorial distribution is the best way to maintain the appropriate distribution of power between the federal government and the states. And, I general avoid appeals to federalism, since it is a political doctrine that is often abused by the right. But, it is the case that we are a federation of states--even though I would argue that the 14th amendment watered down significantly the amount of authority reserved to states--and that keeps me from fully supporting the elimination of the electoral college and the distribution of senators.

I don't want to get you off topic--since this really isn't all that responsive to your diary--but the one-person/one-vote principle (as sound as it seems in the abstract) does present fairness issues in the context of geographically defined groups with unique political circumstances. Essentially, we find ourselves in a situation where one group (due to it greater population density) possesses enough political power to override the distinctive, shared interests of some other group of people.

Did any of that make sense? I felt like I was trying to hard to say something rather simple.

by DPW on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stupid Way to Choose a President (none / 0)

Is it me or does it seem like since at least 2000, every presidential election cycle seems to illustrate how damned dumb our process is.
Let's see:

Nobody can design a ballot (2000)
Nobody can count votes accurately (2000)
Nobody knows how to poll anything (2000, 2004, 2008)
States have terrible voting technology (2000, 2004)
Neither party has any control over their own primary schedule, so let's just frontload the sucker and hope that works out for everybody (2008)
Caucuses are ripe for problems (2008)

by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:06:02 PM EST

Should've Added (none / 0)

That it seems like for a country that claims to love democracy we keep finding new and stupid ways to disenfranchise people. And the only reason that none of them get fixed the way they should is that everyone is afraid that their candidate or their party will be hurt by it. Because apparently nobody has enough confidence to believe they would win under a better system.

And here's Obama,* claiming to want to change politics, doing the exact same damned thing. No wonder I'm cynical.

* Clinton totally does it, too. The only thing I will say on Clinton's behalf is at least she doesn't claim to be about changing politic. But I admit that that's feint praise at best.

BTW, Edwards does it, too. I fully expect Edwards to claim that he was hurt because he wasn't viable in some precincts, the final percentage under rates his support, but I didn't hear him bragging about how his support in Iowa was overrated because of the same system.

by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

caucus system (none / 0)

This system has margalized minor candidates who could add more diverse voices in the debate in a big way.

Biden/Richardson/Dodd essentially had to withdraw due to their poor showing under this skewed system.

Edwards was further marginalized in NV caucus...

by prisonbreak on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:45:07 PM EST

Re: The Iowa/Nevada (none / 0)

I personally think voting should be "private" and do not like people knowing other's people's votes unless they choose to tell. I think it does keep people from voting.

by reasonwarrior on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:44:57 AM EST

Re: The Iowa/Nevada Caucus Systems Disenfranchises (none / 0)

Actually, it's a double disenfranchisement. First, rural voters are dramatically overcounted in the assignment of state delegates. (That's something you don't hear about a lot, but it means that Clinton won the vote by much more than the 6% she won the state delegates by.) And then, rural voters are further favored in how state delegates eventually get to select national delegates.

Once we move to the large primaries on Feb. 5, where the bulk of delegates will be awarded, these distortions will no longer apply -- and Clinton will benefit.

by markjay on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 07:12:30 AM EST

The DNC professes it has the (none / 0)

authority to discipline states holding their primary or caucus on a date the DNC distains. Who, if anyone, has the power to determine whether a state may use the caucus system as opposed to holding a primary? I'm assuming each state party makes this decision.

by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.