Have you been hearing fragmented lamentations about the recent Iowa caucus drama? Or been following the news and too ashamed to admit that you don’t know what a caucus even is? If the answer to either of these questions is “yes”, settle in for a fascinating, abbreviated discussion regarding one of the most heavily debated voting practices in modern America.
What is a caucus?
Phrased in the most simplistic way possible, caucuses are gatherings of individuals within a given political party (in a particular state) who come together in groups (precincts) to vote on a candidate.
Seems simple enough, right? Not so much. Each caucus state has the liberty to establish their own rules, establishing the foundation upon which states can imbue their primaries complexity and chaos (whether intentionally or not). Just last week, the American public caught a glimpse of just how easily this system of voting can over-complicate the primary election process when Iowa chose to use a phone application for precinct reporting.
The complex caucus logistics, however, surpass the matter of their practices being state-driven. Caucuses, in themselves, are often long, crowded, and require that individuals publicly announce their favored candidate. On the day of a caucus, party members in a given state gather in local precincts and divide into groups based on their favored candidate. All candidates who receive the support of 15% or more of the people in a given precinct are deemed “viable”, which means that they have met the support requirements to have delegates. The number of delegates that a viable candidate receives is typically determined by a formula put in place by a state’s political parties.
NOTE: During caucuses, there is often also a process of realignment, in which supporters of a given candidate can try to sway their peers to transfer their support to another candidate.
Are primaries and caucuses the same thing?
No, they are not. At their core, there are several large differences between primaries and caucuses. Whereas primaries use secret ballots to determine the number of individuals within a state who support a given candidate (allowing them to keep their personal candidate views private from others in their community), caucuses require a fairly public acknowledgment of each precinct member’s preferred candidate. Furthermore, primaries allow for much more efficient and accessible voting, allowing Americans to show up to a polling location, fill out their ballot in private, and leave as soon as it is completed. Caucuses, on the other hand, require that all precinct members remain present for longer periods of time (often for multiple hours), until a final consensus is reached in the group.
The most significant organizational disparity between primaries and caucuses, however, is who determines how they are run. Primaries are organized and controlled at the state level, allowing the state to regulate how elections are being carried out (either via closed or open primaries). Caucuses, on the other hand, are left up to the discretion of political parties themselves, awarding less control at the state-level.
Who still uses the caucus system?
While the caucus system is waning in popularity in the United States, there are still five states (Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming, and the Republican Party in Kentucky) and three U.S. territories (American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and Guam) that adhere to it. Arguably, the Iowa caucus hold the greatest name recognition among these states and territories, as it is always the first state to vote on presidential nominees. It should be interesting to see, particularly in the wake of the recent caucus nightmare in Iowa, how many of the above states will adopt a primary election system in the coming years.
Why are caucuses problematic?
While a multitude of concerns have been raised by Americans regarding the caucus systems still in place in several U.S. states and territories, two of the most prominently cited of these are the disproportionate voting power given to people who are passionate about special interest issues and the lack of minority voting representation that this system encourages. Studies have found that a significant portion of the voters who turn out for caucuses are those who are “the most committed and ideological”, which at times leads to precincts’ selection of political leaders who are not representative of the larger population’s views. Furthermore, caucuses tend to exclude minorities and many blue collar workers due to the long hours that individuals are required to stay in the caucus location and the physical location of precinct gathering spaces, which are, at times, inconveniently far away from individuals’ homes. When the voices of a significant and already frequently silenced segment of society are silenced, are elections really giving power to “the people”?