The courts have ruled that the at-large caucus sites for shift workers in casinos on the Vegas strip are legal. The Clinton team's nominal complaint that this procedure still makes it very difficult for other shift workers to vote is accurate, but of course their proposed remedy of making it harder for casino workers to vote is no remedy at all. Caucuses are, in general, an abomination but working to make them even less democratic doesn't help anything.
« Denial: Also a River in Egypt | Main | Tabling Bloomberg »
Casino Workers to Vote
17 Jan 2008 05:44 pm
Comments (24)
"Caucuses are, in general, an abomination"
Broderian anti-partisan attitudes like these are, in general, an abomination.
I've read the NV Dem party caucus rules. My quick take:
- sites with 4,000+ employees were considered for at-large precincts
- only Vegas casinos in NV have 4,000 employees
- therefore at-large precints were located in casinos
One detail of the plan that was not reported is that any shift worker within a 2.5 mile radius of the at-large precincts could vote if they showed employer ID and affirmed that their job required them to work and that they could not attend their home precinct caucus.
I think ANY employee who shows their ID and affirms that they have to work would be allowed to vote, not just CWU union members. It's a grey area to be sure -- Nevada has never had a caucus before -- but I'll bet if pressed NV Dems would allow ANY worker, including teachers, who are within a 2.5 mile radius of at-large precints to vote.
You can argue about the selection of the at-large precinct locations but from a logistics perspective they make a lot of sense -- locate the at-large precincts where shift workers are most densely located.
Of course, you never heard the Clintons complain about undemocratic caucuses until about a week before Iowa.
HEY! There is Petey! Where have ya been pal? Haven't seen you around these parts since Edwards started fulfilling his destiny. That is the destiny that everyone on this blog and across America knew was going to happen...lose baby!
Where is all the tough talk and stats now wonderboy? Oh I see not so confident huh? Ha! So funny...
David Broder came up with one person, one vote?
In this context, I suppose it should be one party member, one vote.
"David Broder came up with one person, one vote?"
Broderism has opposition to strong parties as one of its central tenets.
Petey is throwing out more non sequiturs than usual today.
"Petey is throwing out more non sequiturs than usual today."
How is being against the reflexive anti-caucus viewpoint a non sequitur on this thread?
I mean, seriously, I'm in favor of a mix of caucuses early in the nomination race because that gives party regulars a larger voice in the process, which is something I fundamentally support.
So when folks bash the whole idea of caucuses, as Matthew does here, I offer up a dissent. How on earth is that a non sequitur?
Until we get instant runoff voting, Iowa-style caucusing is the next best thing imo.
But oh, how I wish we had IRV.
Petey,
I have to say, for a progressive on a progressive site, you sure take a lot of flack.
Wasn't Matt considering an Edwards endorsement for a while? I know it's not an unacceptable position for a liberal.
Hell, i've defended Giuliani on these boards and gotten less snark.
"I have to say, for a progressive on a progressive site, you sure take a lot of flack."
There's always been a strain of Mickey Kaus style thinking present in the lefty blogosphere that is fundamentally opposed to a politically resurgent left.
Comment is free.
I'm pretty sure Petey can take it. No one savages Matthew as hard -- Al doesn't even come close.
Wasn't Matt considering an Edwards endorsement for a while? I know it's not an unacceptable position for a liberal.
Matt did endorse Edwards. And Petey's a big boy, he can take a little criticism.
------
Broderism has opposition to strong parties as one of its central tenets.
Do caucuses really strengthen parties?
The bad thing about caucuses (ostensibly) is that they exclude more voters from the nominating decision than primaries do. The good thing about them (ostensibly) is that they empower people who are committed enough to jump through the hoops and climb the obstacles.
You can favor primaries because they tend to strengthen the connection between the party and the electorate, or you can favor caucuses because they tend to produce more ideologically pure nominees. I favor primaries. I'm not sure I see how either position is necessarily more progressive than the other.
"You can favor primaries because they tend to strengthen the connection between the party and the electorate, or you can favor caucuses because they tend to produce more ideologically pure nominees. I favor primaries. I'm not sure I see how either position is necessarily more progressive than the other."
It seems relatively clear to me.
Movement conservatives were able to take over the Republican party by increasing the importance of ideology.
Giving a larger megaphone to party activists seems an obvious aid to progressives trying to do the same thing in the Democratic party.
One of the major "bad things" about caucuses is that they are public. It prevents secret balloting, and could be presumed to lead to people feeling directly or subtly coerced into favoring the precinct's popular candidate. I have no idea how potent this effect is in real life, but it certainly feels plausible.
This concern is probably even greater in the LV scenario, since the workers will be caucusing with their union reps and co-workers rather than neighbors. Given that the union endorsed one of the candidates, I could easily see someone feeling pressured to support Obama even if they weren't inclined to.
That said, I totally agree with Matt and most of the rest of the progressive blogosphere that "solving" the issues of the LV caucuses by prohibiting them is no solution at all.
Oh and Petey, while you raised a couple interesting points in defense of caucuses I hadn't heard before, to assert that criticizing the caucus system is "anti-partisan Broderism" is just absurd.
"One of the major "bad things" about caucuses is that they are public."
In my book, that's a feature, not a bug.
Delegates don't vote at the convention by secret ballot either.
-----
"to assert that criticizing the caucus system is "anti-partisan Broderism" is just absurd."
There are multiple reasons folks criticize caucuses. Lazy punditry that doesn't bother to think through the implications is often a culprit. But the Broderian political philosophy that seeks to empower the political center by weakening the party bases really does see things like caucuses as an abomination.
Giving a larger megaphone to party activists seems an obvious aid to progressives trying to do the same thing in the Democratic party.
I think we have to distinguish between the goal of entrenching progressives in power within the party and the goals that flow from progressives' political philosophy. I want to win by persuading a majority to vote for the people like, not by making people I like less accountable to the people or the members of their own party.
I want to win by persuading a majority to vote for the people like, not by making people I like less accountable to the people or the members of their own party.
Ugh, so sloppy. Sorry. Let me rephrase:
I want to win by persuading a majority to vote for the candidates and policies I like, not by making my friends less accountable to the voters or the members of their own party.
I disagree with Petey:
The turnout in caucuses is substantially lower.
It is only the party faithful, and only the party faithful that can be organized. Now, there's a Washington Times article, which showed the different between Missouri in a presidential primary having a voter turnout of 745,000 to a caucus in Missouri, which had a turnout of 20,000 statewide or 0.2% of the previous turnout. Great for rulers, not so great for those that are ruled.
On one level, you can say it's a nice thing for the caucuses to have all this grassroots activity and it's clearly party people. On another level, it gives enormous advantage to strong, organized, ideological minorities. It also eliminates those with second jobs and people lower on the social-economic scale. And you have been witnessing this, you know, week an article which essentially said that five states had been moved, you know, had been moved from holding primaries in their states to caucuses in their states.
Another element of that move is party ideology. In four of the five states, or three and a half of, you know, the five states, the move was made by Republican-controlled legislatures. Because of the way we district -- create voting districts for our representatives to Congress and our representatives to the state legislatures, we have created, essentially, an overwhelming majority of districts for those two offices in which they're designed to produce the results that one party wins, a one-party district, which means in our system that the most important election for those districts is not the general election, because that's foreordained, but the primary election.
The average turnout for a Republican statewide primary -- for senator or governor -- is 8 percent of the electorate. It is smaller than that for Congress. That, in turn, means that an organized minority of 3.5 percent of the electorate can win the primary and be tantamount to being elected.
If you want to explain the general rightward drift of the Republican Party over the last 30 years, it is in that phenomenon, because the organized, zealous element of the Republican Party is the religious and secular right. Those people now are in state legislatures. When they argue, you know, that they want to move from, you know, primaries to caucuses, what they're really suggesting -- in an uncontested race, you know, in which George Bush, you know, barring some catastrophe for him, will be the nominee -- is that they want to be the delegates to the convention in order to continue the current platform on abortion and a number of other issues, you know? And that's the likely result of this move.
I think I like caucuses. But not for the reason I think Petey does. Because I don't care about parties and in fact I hate them. I like caucuses because it appears that the people who care, and the people who have put a bit of effort into knowing the candidates, are given disproportionate power. People who vote for a candidate because he is the one they'd rather have a beer with are less likely to vote in a caucus, more likely to vote in a booth. Because I'm an elitist who thinks these people ought not to be voting at all - yay caucus!
But I'm not a class elitist - I also think if you're going to make voting take longer you absolutely have to bend over backwards to accomodate everyone. However you have to do it. Have it on a Saturday AND a Sunday. I don't know. Just do what you have to.
Being pressured to vote at work by one's union bosses and one's peers out in the open seems a lot like anti-democratic forces at work. very unfair. One must be free to vote one's own belief without this kind of work-related pressure. One becomes almost a scab to cross the room and vote for the candidate not endorsed by the union and then one must keep working with and for those same people. inherently un-fair.
"I like caucuses because it appears that the people who care, and the people who have put a bit of effort into knowing the candidates, are given disproportionate power."
A very similar rationale to mine, Phoebe.
Comments closed January 31, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
There's something deeply hilarious about a people who are $9+ Trillion in the hole chosing their next President in a Casino.
On the other hand, chosing the nominee by drawing for a high card --or rolling the dice -- does seems more rational than the process so far.
Posted by Don Williams | January 17, 2008 5:55 PM