2008 Woodie Awards
Should we create regional electoral caucuses?
Matt Flanagan
Opinion Editor
Issue date: 3/3/08 Section: Opinion
First off, I would like to thank the think-tanks who brought me to my computer tonight, typing this diatribe against the creation of a regional voting system. You are still fine Americans, looking for newer ways to create solutions to problems that face the nation, and I do not care if anyone else says anything different. Discussion of important ideas is truly the only way to advance any society, and I believe that was your aim in creating this idea.
I believe our current system of caucus voting, although perhaps it is a bit strange, is an idea worth keeping. The power struggle that exists for certain key states follows from the fact that the first states essentially eliminate the other candidates.
If you do not know what I am talking about, it is fine. I will explain.
Our current system of primaries and caucuses is based on a state-by-state vote in which citizens of each city can choose delegates for the presidential race based on party affiliations.
Lately this has been starting in Iowa (God knows why), and spreading across the United States like a patriotic wildfire. After the voting, these delegates will appear at the party's respected national convention held later in the year.
That is the system we currently use.
The main aim of the supposed regional caucus system, as I understand it (albeit somewhat haphazardly), is to grant citizens equal voting power in choosing presidential candidates.
While at a glance this appears to be a simpler way to go about the elections, the glaring truth in the matter comes from neglecting the fact that this election is meant to "weed out" other candidates along the road who may be unfit for the office of the president. This is why caucuses exist in the first place: to eliminate Joe Blow Democrats/Republicans from the poll and leave the respected majority winners.
That's how our entire electoral process works in general: by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the respective political parties themselves can force candidates who are unfit for office out of the race, and keep the ones America wants.
Back to the regional idea: if it were implemented, I don't think it would be the end of the world as we know it. But I believe that the idea of this system necessarily making electoral processes "easier" or "more efficient" is a bit misguided.
The main reason anyone might think a regional system would make more sense than a state-by-state system is because it deals with regions of states rather than states themselves. That just means you are dealing with higher volumes of votes at once, since you are talking about 3 or 4 states voting at once per day. It may not even make any real difference in determining the outcome, so why change it?
I believe our current system of caucus voting, although perhaps it is a bit strange, is an idea worth keeping. The power struggle that exists for certain key states follows from the fact that the first states essentially eliminate the other candidates.
If you do not know what I am talking about, it is fine. I will explain.
Our current system of primaries and caucuses is based on a state-by-state vote in which citizens of each city can choose delegates for the presidential race based on party affiliations.
Lately this has been starting in Iowa (God knows why), and spreading across the United States like a patriotic wildfire. After the voting, these delegates will appear at the party's respected national convention held later in the year.
That is the system we currently use.
The main aim of the supposed regional caucus system, as I understand it (albeit somewhat haphazardly), is to grant citizens equal voting power in choosing presidential candidates.
While at a glance this appears to be a simpler way to go about the elections, the glaring truth in the matter comes from neglecting the fact that this election is meant to "weed out" other candidates along the road who may be unfit for the office of the president. This is why caucuses exist in the first place: to eliminate Joe Blow Democrats/Republicans from the poll and leave the respected majority winners.
That's how our entire electoral process works in general: by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the respective political parties themselves can force candidates who are unfit for office out of the race, and keep the ones America wants.
Back to the regional idea: if it were implemented, I don't think it would be the end of the world as we know it. But I believe that the idea of this system necessarily making electoral processes "easier" or "more efficient" is a bit misguided.
The main reason anyone might think a regional system would make more sense than a state-by-state system is because it deals with regions of states rather than states themselves. That just means you are dealing with higher volumes of votes at once, since you are talking about 3 or 4 states voting at once per day. It may not even make any real difference in determining the outcome, so why change it?
Be the first to comment on this story