One thing all Nevadans can agree on: Caucuses must go

Sunday, April 10, 2016 | 2 a.m.

In a society gorging on technology and consumed by new interactive ways to share information and promote points of view, it is befuddling that political scrums known as caucuses, with roots dating to the 1700s, are still conducted in Nevada and 13 other states to boost candidates for the presidency.

Let’s take all the time we need to reflect on all the good things we’ve experienced or heard about the caucuses this campaign season.

Anyone?

OK, then let’s move on to the opposing question: Is there enough time to cite all that is wrong about caucuses? You’d have had plenty of time if this were the day of your caucus and you had three hours or so to kill, standing in line to register, before being assigned a room to participate in political discussion with neighbors with whom you have little to do the rest of the year. Or maybe there was no discussion at all, and the time was spent wastefully as the volunteer organizers tried to keep track of everyone, and who was voting for whom, even if it meant having to raise hands two or three times so everyone could agree on the final count. And then, at least in one Henderson precinct, the head volunteer in the classroom, putting his cellphone on speaker so all could hear, called party headquarters to relay the results only to misdial and reach a recorded voice that purred, “For new homes, press 1 …” And so it went, the not-so-well-oiled political machine barely staying on its tracks.

Everyone who participated in a Democratic or Republican caucus has a favorite story — a gripe, actually — about the experience. At El Dorado High School, participants ended a poorly run Democratic gathering by chanting, “No more caucus! No more caucus!” Similar sentiments spilled over after Republicans held their precinct caucuses three days later, proving that poor planning and poorly trained volunteers are a bipartisan failure in the execution of democracy.

To be fair, there was a time when caucuses worked — say, 200 years ago. It was a way for men living relatively near one another to gather, maybe in someone’s barn, and argue the attributes of candidates seeking the presidency of our upstart country. This might have been the first opportunity for such a political airing, and after everyone got their two cents in, the group would vote, with the results passed up through the party stream.

These gatherings made sense at the time of a very young, rural America, when there was little other way of learning about the candidates. And in time, the emerging parties realized they could use these events to enrich the ranks of party faithful, and maybe even line up some workers. It was a fine way for people to buy into one party or another, a kind of passage, an exercise in political commitment. And that logic — of caucuses being a place to identify and enlist partisan stalwarts — is an argument for caucuses that is still made today.

But today’s caucuses hardly seem a place to breed party faithful. If you participated in this year’s exercises, you likely grew angry because of the delays, frustrated by the disorganization, skeptical of the results and so disillusioned if not downright cynical as to swear off politics entirely. Thousands of Democratic delegates and their alternates — most of them having promised allegiance to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — didn’t bother to show up for their follow-up county convention to affirm their votes, allowing supporters of Bernie Sanders to stand in and skew the results toward the Vermont senator. The Republicans were bracing last week for their own political scuffles heading into their county convention, which was Saturday.

In other words, these caucuses and their follow-up county and state conventions are hardly engendering the confidence and loyalty of rank-and-file voters — not to mention those who are disenfranchised because, for any number of legitimate reasons, they were not able to attend the affairs.

Such complaints about caucuses are echoed nationwide. The decision on whether the parties should choose their presidential candidates through caucuses or primary elections are made by state lawmakers. Nevada’s elections chief, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, favors elections over caucuses, even though the states have to pick up the tab. Nevada lawmakers have gone back and forth on this question, supporting caucuses sometimes, elections other times. A bill in the 2015 Legislature to bring primary elections back to Nevada didn’t go anywhere, and another try for elections is promised for the 2017 session.

Politicians seem to think that, given the structure of caucuses and the way various levels of delegates are selected, the process gives party leaders an oversized voice in the matter. In fact, nothing in the U.S. Constitution extends to citizens a role in how the parties promote their candidates for the White House. They are party affairs, pure and simple, and it’s up to the parties in how inclusive to be. The only guarantee to citizens is the right to vote in November.

But the parties need to reconsider their misguided and selfish strategies. Poorly run caucuses, held at times that are inconvenient to many if not most voters, don’t nurture partisan passion. And in today’s media-saturated world, nobody goes for want of information or opinion. We don’t need to meet in a barn to discuss politics. And today’s technology allows parties to identify and reach out to their loyalists in ways much more pleasant than enticing voters to wait in line for hours so they can sign in at a caucus that will only serve to further turn them off to politics.

Nevada’s state lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be able to agree on this, and bring back the primary elections that everyone embraces.