by Peter Longo, University of Nebraska at Kearney Professor of Political Science
Before I answer the question as to what I think of the primary/caucus process and how I might change it, please let me state from the onset that I favor participatory democracy. Let me further state that from a personal perspective, I am frequently a loser on many, okay most, political battles. So take my two cents as nothing more than that.
But here we are approaching a primary/caucus season even months longer than the seemingly endless NBA season. When Nebraska Democrats gathered in February to “caucus” there was so much excitement. Caucuses are the closest thing to a McGruff the Dog gathering of neighbors to announce they are for crime prevention. Conversation, a few snacks, some happy folks, and some not so happy folks. But, a declaration is made… In Nebraska there was so much caucus excitement, that Republicans were confused as to the color of Nebraska. Oh the excitement of it all. In case you lost the name of the winner, it was Obama. Now Republicans eagerly await May so they can vote in the “primary” and Democrats can cast perhaps a non-binding primary vote (remember they declared a winner, but there is the whole issue of super delegates). Primaries are elections to determine the delegate assignment of the respective candidates. In Nebraska, primaries are “closed”, that is, only registered Republicans can vote for Republicans … no Democrats allowed. Some states allow for “open” primaries, in which registered voters can vote for their favorite candidate, regardless of party. Either way the state is paying for a Republican Party function or Democratic Party function, the determination of a Republican or Democratic candidate.
I prefer that political parties start paying for their own selection process, provided all caucusing parties are committed, contractually, to provide opportunities for all willing participants to attend a caucus. The selection process needs to be pared back both in time and money. Again, political parties can assert some discipline and shorten the numbing length as well as the ridiculous costs associated with capturing an office. Caucuses can restore a bit of humanity to the selection process. My recommendation: next time, caucuses for all the neighbors and beyond.
by John Hibbing, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Political Science Professor
Americans love their democracy to have all kinds of opportunities to participate even as they often do not avail themselves of those opportunities. Nowhere is this more evident than in the nomination process.
In nearly all developed democracies other than the United States, there is not much public participation in the nomination process. Party insiders decide on the slate of candidates and then, in the general election, the people choose between those options that have been provided by the parties.
In the United States, we let the people provide substantial input not only at the general election stage but also in shaping the slates of choices themselves. The role of primaries and caucuses has greatly expanded since 1968 when Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination without winning a single primary. Now, 40 years later,
such a possibility is unthinkable and there even is great consternation that a small percentage of delegates to the Democratic convention are “Superdelegates” and as such are not completely beholden to public input.
Though the public craves this input, it comes with several downsides. The current nomination process is ridiculously spread out, levels of participation are abysmal, particularly in caucus states (usually just 10-15 percent of those eligible participate even in “high participation years” such as 2008, input, accordingly, is horribly biased toward a small slice of the population, and sometimes the people simply do not make good decisions. Party ideologues may prevail in the nomination process only to find that non-centrist candidates fare quite poorly in general elections. This is often believed to be what happened in the first presidential election heavily influenced by the primary process.
In 1972, George McGovern won the Democratic primaries but was crushed in the general election by Richard Nixon, winning only the state of Massachusetts. Would party insiders have nominated a more competitive
Democratic candidate? We will never know, but we do know that, for better or worse, the American public will continue to expect and even demand that it play a vital role in the selection of party nominees. Let us hope the people are up to this important responsibility.
I did not make it to the caucuses but friends told me the lack of parking at many caucus places made them just drive on by and go home. It was exciting having Nebraska finally have somewhat of a say in the Presidential process this year. I think 2008 is going to be a year we all remember.
I think the Caucus and the Primary should not be so far apart. I would have them at least 4 weeks apart to maintain any enthusiasm for the process. I would have the Caucuses be just for President and eliminate the names from the Primary ballot.
one nationwide primary day,any registered voter can vote his or her choice for President be they GOP . DEMS or IND ,I am an Ind and can't vote til the general election by then my candidate is usually out, this would pit the top 2 vote getters against each other in the General Election "REAL CHOICE"
