Our view on presidential nominating process: Caucuses are no way to choose a candidate (USA Today)

[Phil McCavity]

This year's presidential nominating caucuses have featured large numbers of voters coming together in crowded rooms, arguing vigorously for their presidential candidates and voting for their choices. On TV, the process looks like the very model of democracy.

Except that it's not.

...

* Turnout is much lower at caucuses than at primaries. The caucuses in Washington state on Saturday drew fewer than 50,000 people. That's about 1.3% of the state's registered voters.

This isn't just a Washington phenomenon. In the more than 20 Super Tuesday contests, average turnout at caucuses was only about 6% of eligible voters, while primaries averaged about 29%, nearly five times as many, according to the U.S. Elections Project at George Mason University.

* Caucuses disenfranchise some voters. Attending a caucus can be prohibitively difficult. Caucuses are typically held for a limited time on a specific day — an hour or two on a Thursday evening in Iowa, for example. Though some states make provisions for those who can't show up, caucuses usually exclude people who are working, out of town or serving in the military overseas. By contrast, primaries allow voting from early morning until the evening, and provide ample opportunities for absentee ballots.

* Caucuses violate the tradition of the secret ballot. Though some caucuses allow a private ballot, others require participants to publicly "vote" — by standing in a designated part of the room in Iowa's caucuses, for example. For anyone worried about pressure or retribution from spouses, friends or colleagues — or, more ominously, from bosses or government officials — it's a significant disincentive. Former president Bill Clinton claimed he witnessed union officials pressuring workers before Nevada's caucuses last month, threatening to change their work schedules so they couldn't attend the caucuses unless they promised to vote for Barack Obama.

Continue reading:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/our-view-on-pre.html#more