Nevada should scrap caucus for primary

Nadia Romeo, Las Vegas

Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008 | 2 a.m.

What idiocy made Nevada decide to have a caucus instead of a primary?

The caucus will disenfranchise many of us, including people who work, the elderly and those like me who need medical treatment such as chemotherapy.

The caucus demands that you be at your precinct at a definite time, whereas with a primary a person has all day to get to his polling place and is able to go at the most convenient time. You go, you push buttons and you leave.

You don’t have to play games or argue with other people about whom to vote for. The caucus is an antiquated means of voting and should have been scrapped long ago instead of being emulated by Nevada.

I predict Nevada will have a lower voter turnout at the caucus than it ever has had in any primary in recent memory.

Discussion: 3 comments so far…

By claudiam

1/16/08 at 10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Right on Nadia. This was not a good move for Nevada. We need to make it easy for all Americans to participate in the electorate process. I live in Tucson and feel that it is about time for the "West" to get the respect that it deserves. I feel that this caucus is only going to hurt the cause.
By lasvegasreb

1/16/08 at 2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Um, the State doesn't want to pay for it?

The big difference is that the costs of a caucus are borne by the party, and the costs of a primary are borne by the State.

I agree with what you're saying, but it gets back to our priorities here in Nevada.
By slbk

1/16/08 at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Caucuses can be held by simple vote as well, over a two hour period. The circus doesn't have to happen nor the open voting in front of people.

Caucuses could still be held to discuss priorities for the county and state conventions and delegates could still be selected at each level without the other crap. People could even have early ballots.