Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Volunteers count and record caucus totals at Clark County GOP headquarters Sunday morning.
Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Caucus vote count in question
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of the Republican Party Caucus vote counting process being questioned, Feb. 7, 2012.
Sun coverage
The caucus is a civic process that involves talking politics with neighbors, benefits from being run by well-oiled institutions and asks citizens to set aside part of a weekend that might otherwise be spent with family or stocking up for the big game.
A straightforward primary election is easier to conduct, and after Saturday’s troubled Republican caucuses, the state’s political leaders are now suggesting they’re ready to switch.
Final results from Saturday’s caucuses weren’t released until Monday, and turnout fell well below expectations, with more than 10,000 fewer Republican voters than showed up in 2008.
Republican lawmakers are talking of submitting bills for the next legislative session to switch to a primary.
Carol Howell, a member of the state Republican Party’s executive board, said she collected hundreds of signatures from caucusgoers who want to switch to a primary process.
“There are too many voters who can’t make a three-hour window,” she said.
Sen. James Settelmeyer speaks during the first day of the 2011 legislative session Monday, February 7, 2011 in Carson City.
She has the support of Republican Sen. James Settelmeyer of Minden and of a number of Assembly lawmakers, including Pete Livermore, R-Carson City, she said.
Republican political consultant Greg Ferraro blamed the low turnout on the caucus process and predicted that there would be a number of bills to change the process at the Legislature.
Settelmeyer, a rancher, said the caucus “disenfranchises voters. There are people who have to work, are serving in the military and the elderly.”
He cited 90-year-old constituents in his district who couldn’t make it.
Settelmeyer wants to move the states’ primary elections for other offices from June to February, even if that means “people will be setting up campaign signs while you’re setting up Christmas decorations.”
Other political leaders want to hold a special presidential-only elections early in the year, which would cost $1 million to $2 million, according to the Nevada secretary of state.
But there will be opposition.
State Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, noted that much of the grousing right now is coming from anti-government Republicans.
Sheila Leslie
“I find it very ironic that the very same people who complain government is not efficient at running anything now want government to take over the presidential choice,” Leslie said. “These are the same people who will not raise taxes to fund public education. ... Talk to me when we adequately fund education and a social safety net.”
Moving the entire primary process to February — with the general election in November — would burn out voters and candidates, she said.
The Nevada Democratic Party, meanwhile, is like the kid in a footrace who just watched his opponent sprawl out on the pavement. The machine sees no problems with the current rules of the game.
Democrats had 12,000 people show up for their caucus in January — which, with President Barack Obama running for reelection, was not competitive.
A better comparison, party officials said, is to their turnout in 2008, when 116,000 people participated.
“The caucuses are democracy in action. It’s a way for people to come together and have open and energetic discussions on who should be leader of country,” said Zac Petkanas, spokesman for the state party.
The state party in 2008 had 30,000 people register on its caucus day and signed up 4,000 volunteers.
“When done correctly, they can be very effective,” he said. “It demonstrate the very best democracy can offer. But they have to be done well.”
Switching from a caucus to a primary could jeopardize Nevada’s early status, which would almost certainly mute any attention and voice the state has in the process.
So why no vote-and-go, election machines in our grocery stores and convenient absentee ballots to be mailed in?
The simple answer is that it has almost always been done this way in Nevada, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats cemented that status in 2006.
Sen. Harry Reid shakes hands with Bob Carsten as he greets community members following his speech during the 2012 Democratic Caucus Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012, at Cheyenne High School.
From 1952 to 1972, Nevada picked a slate of “presidential electors,” similar to caucuses, according to a history compiled by the nonpartisan staff of the Legislature.
Nevada took a break from that and held “presidential preference primary elections” in 1976 and 1980 but stopped because of cost, low turnout and the “fact that presidential nominees had been determined by earlier primary elections in other states,” according to the history.
Since 1984, the Silver State has been holding caucuses, but many people didn’t notice or care because the political process has let party elites, farmers in Iowa and whoever decides to live in New Hampshire mostly determine the process.
That changed in 2006, when Reid lobbied the Democratic National Committee to get Nevada into the early slot. National Democrats had been looking for a Western state, with a labor presence and Hispanic voters, as a way to diversify their early states. The fact that Nevada was a caucus state also helped, since New Hampshire is protective about its slot as the first primary state.
The Republican Party, afraid of being out-organized in Nevada — which is one of a handful of swing states in presidential elections — also moved up its caucus.
But the party has not had Reid as the all-powerful wizard behind the curtain to help them organize. So leadership has been mostly disjointed, and underfunded.
Some Democrats also have advocated for a primary election instead of a caucus.
Secretary of State Ross Miller addresses the Nevada State Democratic Party Convention on June 26, 2010, at the Flamingo.
Dina Titus, at the time a state senator, submitted a bill draft after the 2008 caucus to switch the process, citing complaints from her constituents. She was elected to Congress and did not return to the Legislature. The bill never gained traction in the Legislature.
Secretary of State Ross Miller, also a Democrat, said he supports a one-day primary where the only question is who should be a party’s presidential nominee.
“I think everyone acknowledges, political parties are not in the business of running elections,” he said, noting that Lewis Carroll in “Alice in Wonderland” mocked caucuses. “I think elections are best run by professionals.”
Miller, said as long as Nevada can maintain its early status, the state should run its nomination process “in a manner which withstands national scrutiny.”
These are incompetent people. They hate government, so why would they be good at running something they hate?
The caucus did just exactly what it was supposed to do and that was judge voter preference and it didn't cost the taxpayers a bundle as a primary would. The parties need to do a better job of promotion. Where was all the critical analysis of the low turnout at the democrat caucus?
Another failure of private efforts where government works much better. Since the Republicans can't even run a simple event why should voters think that such incompetence should be voted into office?
No one cares how Nevada votes on anything. Nevada didn't get to the bottom of the barrel in almost everything by being politically or economically savvy.
I prefer the caucus......it tends to weed out the casual and uninformed voters and doesn't cost the taxpayers a bundle.
Non Partison Idependent voter here.....the GOP needs to change something for sure. This weekend they looked like F Troop. Not inspiring anyone to follow their leadership.
Brainiac Comment of the Day:
"Where was all the critical analysis of the low turnout at the democrat caucus?"
Unfortunately for Obama haters, Democrats have the President of the United States running unopposed in the primary. Oh, and we like our chances in the general election.
Yeah, the caucus is a horrible idea. Can you actually believe I had to leave my house and associate with people that live around me that I would otherwise have not had a chance to meet? This media driven controversy about it being too confusing, and too hard for people to get there, is ridiculous! Most people I have spoken to that went to the caucus loved it! The media is interviewing the 12 people that didn't like it because the cranky Ron Paul people hijacked their site. What a joke. DON'T TAKE AWAY THE CAUCUSES!
<<I prefer the caucus......it tends to weed out the casual and uninformed voters and doesn't cost the taxpayers a bundle>>
Just_Me - have you ever voted in a primary?
Voting in a primary does not mean it is just "casual and uninformed voters". That's kind of an arrogant statement there....but what do I expect from one of Mitt's supporters. People who vote in primaries ARE informed voters.
Here in Illinois, or at least in Chicago when I voted there in primaries, you had to declare your party and you then received the party ballot. For the primary next month, there are multiple candidates running for every spot in both parties. And this is where I don't like the "declare your party" because in the past, I liked a Republican candidate instead of the Democratic one but I had to choose one on the Dem party ballot. But at general election time, you could vote for who you wanted.
I guess it's different when you live in a State with much more diversity and Congressional spots than Nevada has. And Illinois has quite a few congressional districts. I say this because in our Congressional district alone, there are 5 Democratic candidates on the ballot running against the Tea Partier who won in 2010.
Political parties are private organizations able to nominate candidates for office in any manner they so choose....disenfranchise voters? Too bad, you're not a member of the club so you don't get a voice.
If you want the public to operate your nominating process then either pay for it or open voting up to any registered voter. Government should register voters, not party members.
I support the caucus system because it requires some thought and some commitment. I would support a primary but only if it is an open primary.
After taking the caucus training class I concluded it wasn't going to be much better than 2008. My two objections are the lack of secret ballots (I don't see the advantage to be badgered personnally by spokemen, I've researched the candidate as others should) and the restrictive hours. I usually use absentee ballots and wish we could go back to the primary system.