Saturday, February 9, 2008

Access versus Depth

I'm from Vermont, so I have a sentimental attachment to town meeting day. It seems almost as close to pure democracy, bypassing the representation, that exists. For a while, I thought caucuses were almost like town meetings-- a chance to interact with other people and discuss candidate preferences gives each person the opportunity to express a more nuanced political opinion than pulling a lever. I love the way systems like instant run-off voting let voters rank preferences rather than just vote for their top candidate, and in a sense, caucuses are closer to this model.

However, caucuses are not a discussion of issues and solutions, or an airing out of concerns. They take much longer than the two minutes required to rank candidates and leave the voting booth. Instead, they are a multi hour process completely inaccessible to those who can't find a sitter for their small children or can't get the night off work. They are unappealing to those who work long hours and dread the thought of tagging on a few more. They're a challenge to people who plan to vote differently than their boss, husband, or best friends-- all people who may caucus at the same place.

Because of the time and political capital investment required, caucuses substansialy increase the cost of each individual's vote. They limit the types of individuals who can participate in the political process.

All these points about caucuses have, of course, been made over and over again by people far more knowledgeable and articulate then me. The point I want to make is not that caucuses are less democratic than primaries, but that in their best forms, a caucus and a primary represent two different democratic ideals. Is it more valuable to have a deeper discussion that may allow for a more nuanced representation of issues or to allow more people to participate? I tend to favor access over depth-- I think it's just a more democratic principle-- but I do think there's a real debate to be had there.

No comments: