Here on MyDD I've read innumerable diaries about the meaning of the popular vote (or lack thereof), and there has been a lot of discussion about the value of the caucuses to the democratic nomination process (or the lack thereof).
Sadly, the discussions seem to play themselves out in the same way over and over again. Clinton supporters talk about 'counting the votes', and Obama supporters point out that the Democratic nomination process is a race for delegates, not votes. Occasionally someone comes in and claims that Obama won in caucus states because he cheated somehow. If not, it is at least claimed that the caucus process has disenfranchised somebody's brother, sister, or grandparents and is not democratic or representative.
In defense of caususes, it has been stated on numerous occasions that while primaries are good measures of the breadth of a candidate's support, caucuses measure the depth of a candidate's support. But this never fully crystalized with me until I thought about the value of MyDD's own Alegre to the Clinton campaign. The passion, committment, and dedication that Alegre brings to the campaign of her candidate is the perfect example of why some states use caucuses. Having an Alegre on your team is probably worth a hundred of almost anybody else.
Put simply, Alegre's vote for the democratic nominee should count for more than mine. And if I understand correctly, she lives in Washington where they had a caucus, so her vote did count for more than mine.
No, this is not snark.
And no, I am not calling out Alegre.
(more below the fold...)
Let's not forget that the Democratic Party is a private political organization that can choose its presidential nominee however it wants. Sure, it used to be the smoke-filled rooms and convention floor fights, but now it's mostly primaries and caucuses -- and the obviously undemocratic concept of the superdelegates who can vote for whomever they wish for any reason. While the process has evolved into something that looks a lot more democratic (note the small 'd') than it used to be, the purpose is of the nomination process is to come up with the best candidate for the general election -- regardless of the method of selection. This is why the whole concept of 'one person, one vote' in the Democratic Party's nomination process is simply inoperative. Sure, in the general election, as an American, my vote counts the same as everybody else's (at least within my state), but in choosing a Democratic presidential nominee, not all votes are created equal.
Think about how much time Alegre has devoted for her candidate.
Think about how much money Alegre has raised for her candidate.
Think about how many people have been inspired by Alegre's words to support her candidate.
Think about the tenaciousness with which Alegre has advocated for her candidate.
If you're trying to choose the best nominee to go up against the other party, having Alegre on your side is a hundred times more important than some random Democratic, Republican or independent voter who pulls the lever for Clinton or Obama in an open primary. The support of an activist like Alegre is immeasurably more important than the support of a politically-inactive supporter whose contribution to the campaign is limited solely to his or her vote. Campaigns need people to organize events, make phone calls, raise money, and get out the vote, and caucuses help the Democratic Party identify which candidate has more supporters that are more likely to put in this kind of work for their candidate. No, it's not a perfect correlation -- I'm just saying that caucuses show us something different than primaries by bringing out the activists.
And this is why caucuses play a valuable role in determining who might be a better candidate in November -- because they require more committment from participants than just marking a checkbox; because they force participants to stand up in public and declare their support for their candidate; because they encourage political activism by allowing you to make a difference by bringing a carload of your friends; because they encourage you to use your powers of persuasion to convince supporters of other candidates (who didn't make the 15% threshold) to come to your candidate's side.
Caucuses show us which candidate has more supporters like Alegre that are willing to work their asses off for their candidates. And having more Alegres on your team is the best way to beat your opponent in November.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 56 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
