Earlier I caught part of Terry McAuliffe on MSNBC griping out how primaries are better than caucuses, in the context, I think, of a “do over” situation regarding Michigan and Florida, should the Democratic nomination come down to that.
He was insisting that primaries are superior to caucuses on democratic grounds. I concur. Two simple factors by way of example: the time commitment needed to participate is higher for caucuses, which is an exclusionary feature, and the scheduling at night also means that caucuses are more exclusive. So more power to you, Terry.
However (and this a big however), his vociferous argument for more democratic rules would be a lot more convincing if it was made before the process started and if it was being done on principled grounds (say in the context of reforming this process) than for wholly self-serving grounds (as he full well knows that Obama has a better track record in caucuses than the candidate he works for, i.e., Mrs. Clinton).
Update: I see that John Cole noticed as well…
Sphere: Related Content
I am not fully persuaded of the “more democratic” case for primaries over caucuses. If we accept Schattschneider’s famous dictum about democracy being unthinkable, save for political parties, then rules that undermine parties are actually undemocratic.
I would start from the premise that democracy is an institutionalized mechanism for making collective decisions on behalf of the citizenry, while parties are quasi-private organizations for representing and structuring the preferences of a subset of that citizenry. Thus while maximum involvement by voters is critical for democracy when parties face one another to control public authority, the same principle does not necessarily follow for determining the candidates of those parties.
So the question would be whether primaries–in which a self-selected and non-randoms sample of ordinary voters mostly plays no role other than each voter’s brief moment casting a single vote–are better or worse for parties than are caucuses, in which a smaller, self-selected and non-random sample participates, but with a more intense commitment to the party organization.
I think this is very much an open question.
Comment by MSS — Wednesday, March 5, 2024 @ 12:12 pm
Of course, that could range into the open v. closed primary argument as well.
It seems to me that a caucus diminished participation, potentially, even of those well-informed and committed “members” of the party.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, March 5, 2024 @ 1:08 pm
Fair points there.
I think the principle I am attempting to articulate is simply that part of the democratic principle is that parties should be free to choose their procedures (at least within certain limits of transparency and non-corrupt practices) and then compete against each other for votes of the general electorate.
Of all the aspects of US electoral and party politics that violate democratic norms, I would place the existence of the caucus system pretty far down the list.
Comment by MSS — Wednesday, March 5, 2024 @ 4:19 pm
Point taken.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, March 5, 2024 @ 5:09 pm