Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Highlights From My First and Probably Last Caucus

Posted by Sara Davidson, AlterNet at 6:33 AM on February 11, 2008.


It's time for a grassroots uprising to demand national popular elections, both for the nominees and the president.
caucus
caucus

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Democracy and Elections in your
mailbox!

 

"It's 7 p.m, and the Democratic caucus is in session!" the leader cried over a bullhorn.

Pandemonium erupted - cheers and war whoops - in the overcrowded school where I was attending my first caucus. I'd moved to Colorado, a caucus state, 5 years ago, but in the 2004 election, John Kerry had already been declared the nominee before our state caucuses were held. Only 200 people had showed up that year at the elementary school gym, but this year, on Super Tuesday, there were 2500. An unprecedented number!

I was excited: my first taste of democracy in action. But by the end of the evening, I would wonder if it was democracy at all.

I'd just broken my collar bone in a ski accident and torn a ligament in my knee. I was wearing a brace and couldn't drive, but nothing could stop me from attending. A friend picked me up an hour early for the five-minute drive to the school, but we had to scrounge for parking and wait in line in the freezing night just to register. So by 7, tension was high. Would Obama or Clinton get the most votes?

The caucus leader spent 20 minutes reading procedural rules, while people grumbled, "Bo-ring." One person was allowed to speak for each candidate, but they said things we'd heard a thousand times. Finally, the leader said we would proceed to voting, "which HAS to be open. No secret ballots."

We broke up into our neighborhood precincts, and mine gathered in the cafeteria. We counted ourselves off aloud: 115.

"Do you want to discuss the candidates further?" the precinct captain asked.

Silence.

"Okay," she said. "All in favor of Clinton, raise your white voting card." To my shock, only 24 people raised their hands.

For Obama, 91 hands shot up. Clinton was awarded 1 delegate and Obama 4.

The lopsided numbers surprised me, because Colorado traditionally votes conservative.

"Now," the captain said, "we're going to select the delegates to the county convention." She tried to explain how the county delegates would vote for delegates to the state convention, who would choose delegates for the national convention, but half would be super delegates who are not bound to vote for the winner of the caucuses. No one, including the captain, could understand this arcane process, but it sounded time intensive and not really reflecting the will of the people.

In our precinct, we had to choose 5 delegates and 5 alternates, but instead of taking nominations and voting, the captain asked anyone who wanted to be a delegate to come forward. After ten people had sidled up to the front of the room, the captain told them to decide among themselves who would be delegates and who would be alternates. "If you need to, flip a coin."

That was it? What a let-down. "This is not 1875," a man said, as he headed for the door. In frontier times, the caucuses were full-blown town meetings, a major social event that people would ride 100 miles to attend. There was no TV, radio or internet, so they had to exchange ideas with each other. A party worker told me that Colorado and other states preserve the caucus system because it's cheaper than printing ballots and using computers, which would cost several million. With caucuses, volunteers count each person and phone in the results.

The other presumed advantage is that caucuses can stir up more energy and community spirit than voting in private. But one of my friends said she thought open voting was a violation of privacy. Most of her neighbors were passionate for Obama, she said, and if she had voted differently, "I would have been ostracized."

Pamela Dennis, one of my neighbors, disagreed. She had voted with the minority for Clinton, and said she was thrilled by the participation of so many, and the freedom everyone had to express their preferences in public. "If you're going to be intimidated by your neighbors? I say -- Get over it!"

And so say I.

More important, I would assert that it's time for a grassroots uprising to demand national popular elections, both for the nominees and the president. Let every citizen have an equal vote.

~~~

Your thoughts? Please reply to website-feedback@saradavidson.com

Digg!

Tagged as: elections, clinton, obama, election reform, colorado, caucus

Sara Davidson, a journalist, novelist and screenwriter, is the author of Leap! What Will We Do with the Rest of our Lives? and the international best seller, "Loose Change." She’s written five other best-selling books, and contributed articles to the New York Times Magazine, Esquire, Newsweek, Harper's, O, the Oprah Magazine, the L.A. Times and Rolling Stone. For 25 years she's written dramas for television. She’s currently writing a drama series for A.B.C. based on “Leap!” that will feature Goldie Hawn. To read an excerpt of "Leap!” visit www.saradavidson.com


Democratic Senators: Franken Won't Be Seated with New Class
Fallout from the surreal political scandal in Illinois has now wafted into Minnesota.
Post by Sam Stein and Ryan Grim. January 6, 2009.
Update: Al Franken Declared Winner; Coleman's Options Dwindle
"Today, the Supreme Court once again affirmed the validity of the rules under which this recount was conducted."
Post by Steve Benen. January 5, 2009.
Franken Winning Vast Majority of Wrongly Rejected Absentee Ballots
Norm Coleman's lawyers tried to stop the counting of hundreds of wrongly rejected absentee ballots and now we know they had good reason.
Post by tremayne. January 3, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ummm...
Posted by: Rishy on Feb 11, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a couple things.

Our founders avoided instituting popular elections for a reason. Consider the general population IQ, the raw numbers that regularly watch faux news to gobble it up unquestioned, and the size of the segment of the population that actually does its due diligence before exercising the franchise—do you REALLY want to be voting in opposition to those numbers?

I agree that we need to look at improving the election process; I am just dubious about the concept of popular elections being the correct answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ummm... Posted by: Bec59
» RE: Ummm... Posted by: Rishy
» RE: Ummm... Posted by: Bec59
» RE: Ummm... Posted by: mnascimento
» Ummm... ummm... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Ummm... ummm... Posted by: Rishy
Rebecca from Ohio
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 11, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey America!------until we make elections totally publically funded, go back to the "equal time, equal access" rule in our media, (or some better version), make our voting system secure with paper ballots that we can see with our own eyes, make election day a (payed?) National Holiday so all have few excuses not to vote, make voting an act of personal pride and responsibility in the eyes of all, make elections "clean"-- do something about our crazy electoral system (win by popular vote!) in other words, make it real so that ANYONE can run for elective office in this great country of ours---not just the wealthy--
then no one will have to compromise their values to get money to buy the time, to pay the fat-cat owner/ broadcasters who use OUR AIRWAVES. Until that day when we take back our power as a people who should be lighting the way as we used to be known and admired for, then we're stuck with this inherently unfair system of ours.
The caucus versus primary system is loaded with drawbacks, too, as we have been enlightened by the author of this article.
They (our leaders) make us imagine that we have some power, but then, when those delegates make their promises and then get behind that election booth curtain, they are free to vote however they want?! Enough of this baloney!
Make election coverage free (and time limited so we don't get bored with it and broadcasters can still pay their bills)) on the networks!
The airwaves are ours ---why should people in broadcasting be able to profit off of our national campaigns?
We'd be farther ahead as Americans if the politicians would just divy up the campaign money they collect and send each citizen an outright check instead of spending it on touting themselves in useless 15 second and 30 second sound bites.Talk about a fiscal stimulus package? Enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ebecca from Ohio Posted by: jeanna
» RE: ebecca from Ohio Posted by: Bec59
» RE: ebecca from Ohio Posted by: p1d1s1
» RE: ebecca from Ohio Posted by: Bec59
Another viewpoint...
Posted by: buffeliscious on Feb 11, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I attended caucuses in my state, and I found the old-fashioned meet your neighbor approach a great relief! An inspiration really! Plus, there were nprecedented numbers of people there, neighbors I'd never met. More than once, I wiped away tears of joy that finally people were waking up and participating in the process. Yes, it's dampened by this silly super-delegate thing. But if we all get involved that can change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another viewpoint... Posted by: Bec59
» RE: Another viewpoint... Posted by: debjbaba
Are Caucuses Elitist?
Posted by: arieden on Feb 11, 2008 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Caucuses happen at very specific times - as opposed to primary voting which can happen all day long. A lot of workers don't have the flexibility to attend a caucus event at a specific time - but could make it to the polls sometime between 7 AM and 7 PM. This has been offered (on TV) as one reason that Obama does better than Hillary in caucuses - her base of support is more working class. I'm also wondering if the caucus process intimidates voters who may be less educated or sophisticated or who are just plain timid. Can the caucus process really be considered progressive if the above are true?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are Caucuses Elitist? Posted by: Bec59
secular
Posted by: secular on Feb 11, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To change the electoial system requires a Constitutional amendment, which is a long drawn out exercise. An outfit called FAIR VOTE has a plan, which some states have already signed on to, to provide a popular vote election for president without a constitutional amendment. Visit 'fairvote.org'.
And yes, we do need some form of federal funding for electing congressional and presidential elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why conservative?
Posted by: YogiBear on Feb 11, 2008 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lopsided numbers surprised me, because Colorado traditionally votes conservative.

Not sure if I understand the conservative=Clinton comment. Because of race? There's some evidence more people have an issue with women than blacks. Is it left-leaning? Though she's broken ranks on some core issues, Clinton is still one of our most liberal senators. Did you just mean she's a known known?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]