Summary: Bernie Sanders loves the caucus states. Most of them have been favorable to his bid and have provided him with delegates in his increasingly longshot candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Yet caucus states themselves conduct their primaries not only in a fundamentally undemocratic way, but in an anti-democratic way as well. The caucuses are designed to place a premium on the participation of the white, the well-off, and the well-connected. They also disincentivize the working poor and minorities, who can’t afford to make the investment of time and personal attendance necessary in a caucus state. The Sanders has done so well on the caucus states raises disturbing questions about the legitimacy of his outreach to poor white and minority voters. Perhaps it’s time for the convention rules and credentials committees to strap on their cojones and refuse to seat delegates from states that do not conduct an honest-to God-primary election.
As the Democratic primary campaign slouches toward Philadelphia, the numbers begin to look better for Hillary Clinton and worse for Bernie Sanders. Of course, a series of primaries in the so-called caucus states may help delay the inevitable for a short time, but they raise a question which should perhaps be answered before we repeat this process four years hence: why do we permit caucus states to hold their primaries that way?
With a few exceptions, the caucus states have leaned heavily toward Sen. Sanders, while the primary states have tended to lean toward Sec. Clinton. Yet, on balance, the caucus states that lean toward Sen. Sanders tend, again with a few exceptions, to be heavily white, non-diverse constituencies.
But what makes caucus states objectionable is not that they usually represent heavily white constituencies, as much as they are, as Markos Moulitsas noted today in The Hill, fundamentally undemocratic. The caucus mechanism itself requires personal participation in a rather lengthy process. The Iowa caucuses, for example, do not permit absentee voting, and they require personal attendance for several hours on what are often cold, snowy, winter evenings. Other state caucuses are similar. What they all share in common is that the caucuses all favor the white, the well-off, and the well-connected. Because it is the white, the well-off, and the well-connected who can afford to make the investment of time necessary to participate personally in a caucus. Latinos, African-Americans, and the white working poor don’t have that option.
If you’re working two or even three jobs, you can't afford to take a couple of hours off on a Tuesday night to attend a caucus. If you are disabled, you may have no means of attending a caucus. If you don’t have transportation, you may also have no means of participating in a caucus. In short, the in-person process of a political caucus advantages the advantaged, awarding them a premium position in the delegate selection process for their state. By contrast, a primary election allows for far broader participation in the delegate selection process. In California, for example, a primary election is one in which every registered Californian has the right to vote. Indeed, one need not take time out of one’s day; one may cast one’s ballot at an early voting location or vote by mail. It’s worth recalling, in fact, that when the Stonewall Democrats in West Hollywood ran their so-called Vote Naked campaign, encouraging registered voters to cast their ballots by mail, voter turnout in West Hollywood increased perceptibly.
In short, a primary election, as opposed to caucuses, encourages a larger, more democratic, voter turnout. It also has the advantage of being a secret ballot, obviating the risk that devoting the “wrong” way will expose one to potential retaliation, either domestically, socially, or in the workplace. By contrast, caucuses place a premium on personal, vocal, participation, with all the risks of adverse consequence that participation entails. No American should have to worry about suffering an adverse consequence because of his or her vote.
Unfortunately, many of the Sanders campaign’s most dedicated activists don’t believe any of this. Sanders does well in caucus states for one very simple reason. Most of his voters are white and most of the caucus states have significant white majorities in them. In short, Sanders does well where white privilege does well. In the same way that Donald Trump makes overt racial appeals, the Sanders campaign appeals to white, well-off, well-connected caucus voters. Worse, it pitches fits when Sec. Clinton does unexpectedly well. For months now, we’ve been hearing Sanders supporters repeatedly engaging in conspiracy theorizing about the Iowa caucuses. We have heard them engaging in similar theorizing about the Massachusetts primary, as well is about the results in Illinois, and now they are complaining because of the asswhipping she administered in Arizona.
This probably is the reason why Sanders activists love the caucus states, advantaging and rewarding as they do privileged white voters with enough time on their hands to spend hours in a caucus. The Sanders campaign isn’t as overtly racist as the Trump campaign; it just seeks the same result using dog whistle methods.
Since the Sanders people have complained about just about every Hillary Clinton victory out there, and have repeatedly demanded that the rules be changed in the middle of the game to advantage them, let turnabout be fair play: the rules committee and the credentials committee at the Democratic national convention in Philadelphia should refuse to seat the delegates of caucus states, declaring that states which do not have a legitimate primary election cannot be heard.
That would make the Sanders people even crazier than many of them already are.
No comments:
Post a Comment