By PLS
In the news media, at least, the caucus system seems to have acquired the warm fuzzy cherished status of folk tradition, which, of course, may enshrine customs and attitudes both worthy and unworthy. Many enthusiasts see caucuses as a welcome expression of pure democracy. Others view caucuses as the apotheosis of neighborliness and community. I’m all for democracy and friendliness. (Apple pie anyone?) But as I watch the operation of the caucus route to nominating party presidential candidates, I find myself wondering if caucusing really is a good way to choose future leaders.
Unfortunately, since caucus procedures vary so greatly from state to state, the word as such is meaningless. Let me narrow down the focus here.
The Primary Type of Caucus
Some caucuses are virtually indistinguishable from an ordinary primary election. You go to a polling place. You mark a piece of paper or fiddle with a machine that may or may not leave a paper trail, thereby casting a secret (and correctly recorded, one hopes) ballot.
That’s how it worked on Super Tuesday in New Mexico, where the process (admittedly) was bollixed up by an incompetent Democratic party “volunteer” who still hasn’t had the grace to resign. There weren’t enough ballot papers! People went to the wrong voting place at the wrong time! It took nearly two weeks to validate and count some 17,000 irregular or provisional ballots, of which there were three sorts: those resulting from voters turning up at the wrong polling place, those cast on non-official bits of paper because proper ballots were in short supply and those resulting from inaccurate voting rolls. All of these snafus speak to the need for radically reforming the process of conducting elections in New Mexico—and to the extent that similar procedural problems have badly compromised the reliability of elections throughout the U.S. in recent years, it illustrates the need for major nation-spanning electoral reform. Maybe I’ll pursue this subject in another post.
Meanwhile, one thing went right with the Democratic caucuses in New Mexico: I was able to cast my vote in quiet communion with my own conscience. All the reading I had done, all the debates I had watched on TV, all the heated conversations I’d had with political friends and foes led me, finally, to that treasure of democracy, that great equalizer of all citizens and enemy of electoral intimidation known as the secret ballot.
The Face-to-Face Caucus
So what I want to talk about here are the caucuses that culminate, as in Iowa, by asking people to vote, not by secret ballot, but in front of a roomful of people who, singly or in strongly united enthusiastic groups, are working to influence the outcome in favor of one candidate or another.
Some see the expression of one’s preference in the open as something forthright and brave, as a celebration of one’s unflinching willingness to stand up publicly for one’s beliefs. Others celebrate the opportunity for good old fashioned horse-trading and good-natured blandishment, as supporters of one candidate try to pry away the supporters of another. These, I think, are sentimental and idealized versions of the process. Open voting wrongly assumes that all voters are equal in their ability to withstand or exercise persuasive powers.
Some People are Persuasive; Others Aren't
In fact, some people are aggressive, articulate and adroit at argument. Others are smart, well-informed and thoughtful, but shy or diffident. In the short run, the quiet types are toast. Their points may sink in and be persuasive in the long run. But during a caucus they will easily be overridden by those who are more personable or more skilled in public speaking. Ditto when it comes to the confident sorts and the self-doubting sorts. The latter, pressed to the wall in public, may feel obliged to side with a majority they don’t deeply agree with and may even fear. Finally, emotional arguments hit home more quickly than low key logical arguments, so instant open voting favors the former over the latter. Thus, anyone who can whip up a little excitement during a caucus is likely to have a disproportional impact on the voting.
Cooling Off is Good
For all these reasons having to do with individual and social psychology, it seems to me, there’s something to be said for a cooling off period between the campaigning phase and the actual voting, which is precisely how it usually works with American elections. Partisan appeals are outlawed within a certain radius of any polling place. No spiels. No brochures. No signs. The thinking that provides for a political no-man’s land derives from a voter’s need to be free of both hard and soft sells as he or she approaches the ballot box or voting machine.
Voters need that mental space to consult with themselves, as citizens pure and simple. Not as friends. Not as neighbors. Not as people beholden in one way or another to others. Voters need to be alone and unpressured as they make a choice that can affect a community, a nation, a world. Voting is a very sober, somber responsibility whose exercise should not be confused with a social event.
It doesn’t matter if a shrinking violet has a hard time holding her own at a party, though one can sympathize with her unhappiness. When voting, however, the shy and easily intimidated need to be protected from the overwhelming peer pressure and the deep need for popularity that animate American society and cannot be eliminated from the highly interactive and socially charged caucus process.
Peer Pressure is Hard to Resist
We Americans like to think of ourselves as individualists. In actuality, the demand that we get along by going along in our society is enormous to the point of irresistiblility. Peer pressure in American society is downright dictatorial, and the desire to be popular leads all too often to social and intellectual slavishness. Thus, unanimity is the goal in many social settings, and the hold out is excoriated, even threatened. Such deeply ingrained attitudes cannot be checked at the door to the caucus hall, especially where caucusing groups are relatively small and involve people who know one another, which is to say the type of caucus which seems to be most admired. Intimidation comes in many subtle forms. It doesn’t require thugs and big money to corrupt an electoral process.
A Way Forward
Given all the opportunities for people to read and hear about candidates, to watch debates and to discuss politics endlessly in innumerable familial, social and public settings, it's hard to believe that a caucus is absolutely needed to provide what’s needed for an informed vote. However, allowing articulate highly committed people to strut their advocacy stuff is probably harmless, so long as the persuasion is followed by a scrupulously conducted secret balloting process. People will be able to hear what their neighbors think, but they will also be able to express their preferences without duress, pressure or intimidation—or of negative reactions after the caucus is over.
In a democracy, there is no substitute for a genuinely secret ballot. It should be guaranteed by law during the primary process as well as during general elections.