The Difference Between Caucuses and Primaries

I've said before- the problem with caucuses is many people have a tough time showing up at one certain time to vote- turnout is always higher when the polls are open all day and they can choose a time to vote that is best for them.

Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton won Texas by a 100,000 vote margin in the primary.  However, those who voted in the primary were allowed to return to the polls at 7 p.m. and cast a vote in the Democratic Caucus. Barack Obama supporters showed back up in mass, and Obama won the caucus, and a majority of the Delegates.  So if you were motivated enough to show up twice in one day, you got counted twice- a new concept in Presidential politics.

Tonight we got another example of how much caucuses skew results:  earlier in the year Obama won the Nebraska caucuses by over a 2-1 margin (26,126-12,445).  Tonight when they had a non binding primary in Nebraska the results were way different as Obama barely won 45,805-43,185.  That's a 34 point margin turned into a 2 point margin based on method of nomination.

Before Hillary gets out, I hope she can force some media attention on this.  We have solid evidence through Nebraska and Texas that primary results are far different from caucus results in the same state.  In both cases, turnout was far higher in the primaries.

So if we know that the caucus results are inflating Obama's real support- and when a primary is held with higher turnout Hillary is doing better- why are we counting caucuses towards the popular vote as if they were equal in voter participation to primaries?

Comments

[Interested Observer]

Ben - I don't know how you can compare the Nebraska official caucus and the Nebraska unofficial primary. In one, the votes count and the other, they don't. Basically the candidates play by the rules presented to them. You don't like the results, that is why you are trying to select the contests and situations you like the results in. Obama has played by the rules and won. The fact that Hillary Clinton, knowing the same rules, keeps trying to change them to her advantage. This almost ranks up there with the unofficial elections in Michigan and Florida. To listen to you, these were "real" elections that should count. In reality, they were races that were not contested and, at least one, where only Hillary Clinton's name appeared on the ballot. Oh, and Texas' voting system isn't a first in this election, it is just the first time it has come under scrutiny. It is the strangest, perhaps, but almost every state has a percentage of delegates elected in some non-election manner (aka- super delegates).

If you want to relook at the rules, why not adopt the Republicans rules - winner takes all delegates in a state? That would put Hillary ahead. Plus, McCain would have had trouble emerging in a proportional representation system.

By the way, a Democratic just won a Republican district in Mississippi for the first time since 1970. The Republicans tied him at the hip with Obama and Reverend Wright. The voters still weren't impressed. I think that bodes well for Obama in the general election. And for Hillary, if she emerges, somehow.

Obama trounced Hillary in primaries in Wisconsin, Virginia, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Georgia, Delaware, Alabama, Mississippi ... should I go on?

[Doug]

And Washington, DC. I should point out, no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Washington, DC!!

I'm sorry, your sophistry is quite amazing on this. Read Jim Webb's Born Fighting, you'll get why Obama wasn't going to win this primary and why he will win the state in November.

As for the system, work to change it in 2012. Bitching about it here and now makes 0% of difference.

I agree in spirit, but everyone always forgets that there is no such thing as a "right way" for a party to nominate someone. Although legal distinction and nomination options vary from state to state, we are still dealing with the rights of a state and a political party within that state to choose their own method of nomination.
Up until this year, people always said that late-states didn't count in the primaries because the nominee is always decided by the time PA rolls around. This year, states like PA were more important because their voters had 6-months worth of news-watching, scandals and media reports to review before they got to vote.
Makes you wonder if there are early-staters who would have changed their vote based on Hillary's sniper-gate or Jeremiah Wright had they known at the time.
In a perfect world, all primaries would be on the same day and all states would have the same nominating process. However, I still favor state's rights on this one.

[RicJohn]

This is so silly. You support your candidate by showing up at the polls or the caucus site. If you choose NOT to do this, its on you. Are you going to advocate getting rid of the Iowa caucus? Since Hillary won the Nevada caucus I guess there is no need to mention that one? This revisionist and "shoulda woulda coulda" mentality is annoying. If Hillary was so "tough" she would have went and actively campaigned in those states, setting up staff there and actually trying to expand the Democratic map. Instead, she was too busy writing checks to Mark Penn and not paying attention to voters who didn't live in the "big" states she feels are more important than every other state.

[dems4dem]

You snooze, you lose. The rules are the same for all candidates.

Personally, I'd get rid of caucuses because they are undemocratic but you have the to play the cards you're dealt.

8:09

Interesting thoughts regarding the question of whether people would have voted differently given new information, (ie. Rev. wright). I would tend to agree with you. Peoples attitudes are very fluid based on circumstances, if it were not so things would never change. I believe, should obama be nominated, you will see many his early supporters change their minds having had an opportunity to review more of his racist tendencies and clear lack of direction. The “mob mentality” has died down and reality is setting in for all but the most rabid followers.

[Church Hill Dem]

I can't accept that a candidate can't change her approach and be more effective in a different type of nomination contest. Can't run a campaign? Can't run a country.

[Anonymous Is A Woman]

What is amazing is how defensive the Obama supporters here really are.

No, it's not all about rules and it's not a game. We are choosing the next President of the United States. That choice will impact our lives in so many ways: Who will go to war; who will survive or not, who will live or die there; who will be able to afford rising food prices and who won't; which families will sink into poverty or not; and whether social justice and a safety net will be there for Americans.

No, it's not Monopoly or any board game. It's not your favorite sports show.

Ben has a very good point, regardless of who wins this year's nomination. And I have no problem supporting Obama. Nor do I believe we can change the rules at this late stage.

But the real question, for the future, is are the Democrats using the best method to pick a presidential candidate?

Based on this post, and on the results that I've seen, no they are not.

Everything Ben said about the caucuses is absolutely true. We are not getting the strongest candidate nor the one most proven to win the popular vote with this process.

The caucuses favor the best organized, the insiders, and often simply those with the most time on their hands.

They disenfranchise those who may be ill on the day the caucus is held. In some states, they've disenfranchised religious groups like Orthodox and Conservative Jews and Seventh Day Adventists because the caucus has been held on a Saturday - why not on a Sunday ever?

The caucuses are simply exclusionary and undemocratic. They are left over from a time when party insiders wanted to be able to game the system.

I feel the same way about the super delegates, a sentiment with which most Obama supporters agreed until those super delegates began to break Obama's way - now, one presumes - his supporters love the super delegate system too.

It's not about which candidate wins this time. That's really been decided. It's about a flawed system that may hurt us in a general election.

And we should also put to rest the myth that the Florida primary was unfair. All the candidates had their names on the ballot and all of them did fundraising but no campaigning in that state. So, nobody had an unfair advantage. Florida held it earlier than the DNC wanted. That's the only thing done wrong there.

In Michigan, however, all but Hillary removed their names from the ballot, so that primary truly is problematic and unfair.

The biggest problem, though, is that both Florida and Michigan are populous swing states. The DNC can indeed refuse to seat them at the convention and disenfranchise the citizens from the nominating process.

They cannot, however, take away those citizens' right to vote in the general election. The last time I checked, it didn't matter how grievously offended Democrats are at Florida and Michigan. Their citizens get to vote in November anyway.

I'd rather have them vote for the Democrat than for McCain. So, it would behoove the Democrats to find a solution to the problem of seating Michigan and Florida so as to not alienate those states' voters for the future.

Anybody so invested in an Obama victory at all costs that they don't realize that they can game the nomination but possibly lose the general election with their stubborn insistence that Michigan and Florida be completely shut out and punished is short sighted indeed.

official pants of the GOP: TRUE!

http://www.startribune.com/18900229.html

[George Templeton]

Anon 8:09 is spot on. But you have to wonder if a national primary around this time might be a more efficient (not necessarily better way) to do this.

Doug:

Dems who won the WH without DC include FDR, Truman and Kennedy.

You need to read up on your political history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Greg Kane]

Bob and weave all you want. Its a delegate race and Obama has most of the elected delegates AND super delegates.

Years from now I am sure that it will be said "if only the older white Canadians could have been counted..."

[RicJohn]

"The caucuses are simply exclusionary and undemocratic. They are left over from a time when party insiders wanted to be able to game the system."

If Hillary Clinton had won the Iowa caucus and most other caucus states, the Clinton campaign staff wouldn't have said a thing. It is only a problem because they are losing those states, not because they care about the process or "fairness". Obama has gotten the votes from his supporters fair and square. How come the caucuses were fine in 2004, 2000, 1996, and 1992 and before then, but all of a sudden they're awful?

[PM]

Democratic Losers Who Lost West Virginia

John Kerry 2004 56-43%
Al Gore 2000 52-46%
Walter Mondale 1984 55-45%
George McGovern 1972 64-36%
Al Smith 1928 58-41%
John Davis 1924 55-44%
James Cox 1920 55-43%
William J. Bryan 1908 53-43%
Alton Parker 1904 55-42%
William J. Bryan 1900 54-45%
William J. Bryan 1896 53-47%
Horace Greeley 1872 52-47%
Horatio Seymour 1868 59-41%
George McClellan 1864 68-32%

Democratic Winners Who Won West Virginia

Bill Clinton 1996 52-37%
Bill Clinton 1992 48-35%
Jimmy Carter 1976 58-42%
LBJ 1964 68-32%
JFK 1960 53-47%
Adlai Stevenson 1956 54-46%
Harry Truman 1948 57-42%
FDR 1944 55-45%
FDR 1940 57-43%
FDR 1936 61-39%
FDR 1932 55-44%
Woodrow Wilson 1912 42-29-21%
Grover Cleveland 1892 49-47%
Grover Cleveland 1888* 43.3-43% (won popular vote but lost Electoral Coll)
Grover Cleveland 1884 51-48%
Samuel B. Tilden 1876* 57-42% (won pop. Vote by 3%; lost EV by 1 vote)

[John]

Ben - the caucus problem is one we should fix for next time. Along with eliminating Superdelegates and not counting states with white, working class demographics. (Sorry, joking about that last one of course). And the timetable - the biggest problem. Iowa and NH need to be replaced. And it should be iron clad clear - so we don't end up with a MI and FL situation again.

[LibbyGrove]

I am totally in agreement with Anonymous is a Woman.

I would take it a step further and say that I think only Democrats should be able to vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses, but I know that is a very unpopular stance and I don't expect a lot of people -- especially here and especially Obama supporters -- to agree with me.

I don't, however, think a National Primary Day is a good idea. In fact, I think it is a terrible idea. It would mean that the person with the most money going into it would be at a huge advantage. Those who might not start off with a money advantage have a chance now to prove themselves and catch up.

Also, being President of the United States is hard. I want the primaries to be long and drawn out and difficult. Perhaps not THIS long and drawn out, but it shouldn't be easy to get the nomination. Move from state to state, make your message work as well in California and Illinois as it does in South Carolina and Tennessee.

Furthermore, it was exciting to be in North Carolina the last few months. A state that is generally forgotten by the Democrats was motivated to vote and had the highest voter participation in decades.

[Anonymous Is A Woman]

RicJohn, they weren't fine in those years. I've always worried about the caucus states - especially Iowa. In the past, my major worry was that a small, rural state, which lacked a diverse population base, had an outsized impact on the nomination process.

Actually, the early voting status of both Iowa and New Hampshire is problematic precisely because the winner of those contests is often not the strongest candidate Democrats can field.

Personally, I still believe John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd would have been more competitive in the general election.

But this is about method, not individuals.

I'd like to see the system reformed so that there are regional primaries with each region getting a shot at being "first in the nation" on a rotating basis. And it's ridiculous that the large, populous states with urban centers have positions of less importance than these two small rural states.

Let's face it, the Democrats have not won the White House all that often in the 20th century and now the 21st century that we can afford to rest on our laurels.

We need to fix the way we nominate our candidates. And that is a question of process, not personality.

That's what some of Obama's supporters can't separate out of this discussion - it's not always about their candidate, sometimes it's about a flawed methodology regardless of who wins the nomination.

I'm concerned about victory in November.

[Vivian J. Paige]

One minor correction - Hillary's name was not the only one on the ballot in MI. Kucinich, Dodd & Gravel were also there.

And it's not as if the others didn't actively work to get their voters to the polls. Take a look at this. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html

But I agree with AIAW. The process is horribly flawed and needs to be revisited. It should never be about the candidate - it should be about the voters. And this process hasn't been about the voters.

[Sam]

AIAW - I have not heard a single Obama supporter say they love the superdelegate system who didn't say that before as well. I, like most Obama supporters, think it's horrendous, but am glad that at least they're not in line to undo the will of the voters anymore...

Ben's distinction in Nebraska here is a joke. Trying to compare a binding, meaningful caucus to a non-binding, why-vote-if-you-have-anything-better-to-do primary is absurd. Note how Ben didn't bother to tell us that because of this, turnout between the two was actually comparable...

That there is a disparity between caucuses and primaries, however, is undisputable. I think Texas proved that. It is not as large as some might think, I believe Obama still would have won many of these states. However, to complain now, instead of in November or December, and to only complain when we know which candidate this system benefits, is absurd.

Primaries should probably be used instaed, but to complain now is a joke.

[Anonymous Is A Woman]

Sam, if we win in November, and I hope we do resoundingly, there will be less incentive to revisit the issue. Success rarely makes one as self-reflective as failure does and I don't want us to fail in order to reform this flawed system.

Now is the time to talk about it because we are still livng with the result of all the flaws and we are more focused on it now.

The disparity in Texas truly shocked me. That one person could win a convincing victory in the popular vote and still lose the delegate count due to a caucus opened my eyes to how truly flawed this system is.

Also, Libbygrove raised a good point I had forgotten. I believe the nominating process should be open just to Democrats. After all, we are picking the Democratic candidate.

In Iowa and some of the earlier states, I have no doubt that those Republicans crossing over sincerely wanted Obama because they were dissatisfied with the choices on the Republican side. And those voters may indeed stay around in November, which would be a wonderful pick up for us.

But I have serious doubts about those Republicans who are voting now. Let's face it, they've already picked their candidate and some of them are not voting for either Hillary or Barack because they wish us good will.

Some of them are trying to parse who the weaker candidate will be and that's who they are picking, regardless of whether they are voting for Hillary or Obama.

I think, on general principle, that it's inappropriate for Republicans to be allowed to choose our candidate for the general election.

If they dislike their own party choices, they should reconsider staying Republican and perhaps switch parties before having a say in our nominating process.

whoops -- I put Stevenson in the wrong column -- he was a loser

[Not Larry Sabato]

Sam, that was obnoxious. I put the raw totals up- yet you say that I didn't point out they were comparable?

First of all, the numbers are up so people can see for themselves. Second, turnout in the primary more that DOUBLED from the caucus- how the *+@# is that comparable?

[Captain Spaulding]

So wait, Obama won in Nebraska, a nearly all white state full of "working class" voters he supposedly has so much trouble with. It also is a rural state, like West Virginia. Shouldn't Hillary have won this by 30 points?

Even taking out caucuses and including Florida and Michigan (giving Obama the not Clinton vote), Obama still beats Hillary in primaries.

[Dan]

LibbyGrove,

I can't speak for all Obama supporters, but this Obama supporter agrees with you completely on several points.

I agree with you that only Democrats should participate in the nominating process. A political party is a community of people with common beliefs and ideals and should pick their candidate free of outside interference. They then make their appeal to the entire voting population in the general election.

While there is no one "right way" to nominate candidates you are right that a national primary is a terrible idea. It would eliminate any possibility of a lesser known or lightly funded candiate from catching on and successfully competing for the nomination.

If the goal is to insure that those who control all the money and power and influence maintain their control forever, then I can think of no surer way to protect the powerful than to have a national primary.

I don't know that I would use your term "long and drawn out" to describe what is desirable in a primary season, but I abhor the way we previously seemed to think we had to choose a candidate in twenty minutes. In 2004, the Virginia primary was held fairly early and the nomination was hardly a foregone conclusion. I was trying like hell to round up votes for Edwards and I kept running into a wall of "well it looks like Kerry is the winner so I'm voting for him". We all know how far we got with that numb nuts.

You are right. A proper process and at least a little serious consideration should go into this business.

I think the greatest flaw we need to address is the way we do proportional representation in the primary states. The Democratic Party rejected the extreme of winner take all primaries long ago. And with good reason. We wanted to be sure that significant minority views were represented in the process, not completely ignored.

But we have lurched to the other extreme which is just as ludicrous and unfair. A candidate can win a solid victory in a district with an even number of delegates and end up with an even split. And while giving districts with stronger Democratic showings in general elections more delegates may be a reasonable way to allocate delegates within a state, we may want to rethink the formula we use. If one is trying to make the system more democratic though, one might argue that this weighting is very UNdemocratic. Why should a Democratic voter in the 8th Congressional District count more than a Democrat in the 1st?

As we embark on any effort to rewrite the rules after this election we should remember that we will never have universal agreement on what is fair. And the current rules we operate under were written with an eye on trying to be fair to everyone.