Real quick, explain how these primaries and caucuses work in layman’s terms. Perhaps you can, but I’ve been following the GOP primary elections more closely than most and still have difficulty understanding it all. It’s as if layers of rules are added specifically to confuse us. Take a look at what happened in Missouri. This is what a typical broadcast sounded like:
“Rick Santorum has sent a message to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, that this race isn’t over. With all precincts reporting, he has won 55 percent to Romney’s 25 percent and gains momentum heading into Super Tuesday.
“Of course, this was merely a beauty contest and won’t affect the delegate count. The primary is non-binding and Missouri will vote again on March 17 at its caucus, when the vote actually matters and delegates will be apportioned.”
Wait a minute. Santorum sent a message but didn’t win anything? More than 200,000 Missourians voted for nothing? And they get to vote again?
That’s how it works in the confusing, convoluted world of Republican and Democratic presidential primaries. The first series of caucuses was especially problematic.
Iowa, as always, hosted the first one. The state initially reported that Romney had won by eight votes. But he didn’t. A misallocation and incorrect numbers from one town eventually flipped the results in Santorum’s favor. But when the state declared the new winner, two days after the votes were cast, far fewer Americans were paying attention and it cost Santorum some of the momentum he may have gained.
Then Maine had a problem. Its caucus actually lasted a week, from Feb. 4 to Feb. 11, but that apparently was not enough time. When the Republican Party there declared Romney the winner of that state, several localities still hadn’t voted, many of which heavily favored Ron Paul.
So, after public outcry, Maine allowed those counties that had postponed their caucuses due to snow, to vote on Feb. 18. As expected, Paul made some big gains, but Romney still bested him by about 100 votes. It took two weeks to find out.
Nevada, another caucus state, had its own problems with low turnout, bad organization and excruciatingly slow counting. Results from its Saturday vote weren’t released until two days later. Romney won.
The presidential caucus system itself is partially to blame for fewer people voting. State parties and volunteers instead of state election officials organize them and, while there are rules dictating which states can hold primaries at the front end of the calendar, many of them don’t apply to caucuses. And everyone wants to be first.
Montana Republicans tried one in 2008. The results were mixed at best (Romney won), with several Republicans upset that they didn’t get to vote since they had not been selected as precinct campaigns. While other caucuses have less stringent rules, they still have the following in common: they lead to fewer people voting and those who do are often activists in their respective parties.
In response to these problems, Republicans nationwide are reassessing the caucus format, but few party leaders are calling on ditching it altogether.
“The problems encountered in two or three caucuses does not call out for abolition of caucuses, but for better methods of implementing caucuses,” Tennessee Republican National Committeeman John Ryder told the Washington Post.
Maybe. There is still some mystique to neighbors gathering in the local gymnasium and stumping for their preferred candidate before writing his or her name on a piece of scrap paper and dropping it in a shoe box.
But when Maine takes two weeks to tally results, and when only about 6,000 people in a state of 1.3 million cast a vote, it makes you wonder whether there is a better way. There is. It’s called a traditional primary.