I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time.
When Maine did away with its presidential primary and switched to a caucus, there were a number of reasons cited. Some felt Maine as a primary state was simply irrelevant compared to neighboring New Hampshire, which holds the “first in the nation” primary.
Some felt Maine needed a more unique system of selecting its nominees for president as a way to attract candidates and media to the state. By having a system that allows for well-organized candidates to win the state regardless of national polling trends, it was believed Maine might get more attention from candidates looking to muscle out a much needed win.
Some felt that the smaller — and more enthusiastic — number of participants involved in a caucus would make better decisions.
None of these things were true, of course. New Hampshire having a primary really means nothing to Maine. Having a caucus has failed repeatedly to bring any real candidate attention to the state, beyond the occasional California rolling-stop-through by a candidate who senses a cheap win. And as for better decisions, well, never mind.
It should be clear by now that Maine’s national relevance isn’t driven by the method it uses to select its preference for president. A state’s importance has to do with timing and competitiveness.
If Maine is early enough in the calendar, it is in a position to hold its selection before the race settles itself, and thus matter. If it is too late in the calendar, its selection is meaningless. If the national race is volatile — such as it is this year — around the time Maine makes its choice, and the state itself is in a competitive spot, then it will matter. If it isn’t, it won’t.
In short, having a caucus rather than a primary really offers Maine no appreciable benefit. The state’s relevance to the national contest is about other things.
But beyond not helping Maine get more notice, it saps energy out of the state. Participation has cratered, going from the tens of thousands of voters that we saw in the primaries to only a handful in the caucuses. In 1996, more than 67,000 Republicans voted in their primary. In 2000, more than 64,000 Democrats and 96,000 Republicans voted.
This year, a little over 5,000 Mainers participated in the much ballyhooed and now very much disputed Romney vs. Paul death match.
And speaking of being disputed, has anyone else noticed that virtually every caucus held this year has been an unmitigated disaster?
Iowa gave Mitt Romney a laughably small lead of eight votes on election night, then the caucus was recounted, and eight precincts were lost and could not be certified. Yet by some unholy mix of recounted and unrecounted results, a winner was declared and the election night results overturned.
Nevada saw wholesale allegations of voter fraud, with several caucus sites reporting more ballots cast than people signed in, coupled with the odd decision to hold a late caucus for Clark County that would be actually be held after many of the results were already known.
And then of course, Maine, where the tally still reads 84 percent of precincts reporting, and Ron Paul activists believe (incorrectly) that had Washington County caucused on election night, their candidate would have won. Now some are calling for some kind of post-hoc inclusion of caucus results that occurred after the main results were announced, which completely changes the calculus of an election in an unfair way.
A messy situation, indeed.
This is all just a very long way of saying that caucuses are a lousy way to select a presidential nominee, and should be avoided at all costs. Holding one is an invitation for the very problems we have seen this year in multiple states, and Maine should strongly consider going back to a presidential primary system for future elections.
Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.
Why not try phasing out the suspect individuals running the show and see what happens before changing the system?
It isn’t the fault of the caucus which is usually MORE transparent than a primary, it is the not counting publicly and waiting to gather them all for a centralized tally that is the problem.
More, not less, transparency is called for.
So Matt doesn’t think the towns that postponed their caucuses should have rescheduled caucus results included in the state count.
No, I don’t.
Allowing a caucus site to know the results that already occurred before they vote taints the entire process, because it warps turnout in favor of that county…
What would the voters of Penobscot county have done if they had a narrow election with fully published results and then were given the chance to basically decide the race? Cumberland? Any other county?
It is unfair no matter who it is – it fundamentally alters the perimeters under which elections are conducted to have some voters know the results before they vote and others not…
Had Washington county held its caucus as planned, the weather was miserable and turnout would have been about the same as 2008 when only 114 people voted, 8 of which for Ron Paul… and more importantly, no one who voted would have had the benefit of fully published state wide results to deal with before they go into the booth…
Turnout and would have been conducted on the same basis as the rest of the voters in the state… and in the end it wouldn’t have changed the results…
So to me, I’m presented with a scenario which is kind of unfair to the 6000 registered Republicans in Washington county… or a scenario which is entirely unfair to the hundreds of thousands of registered voters in the rest of the state…
You simply can not conduct a fair election with a different set of circumstances and at different times. They’ll still get to caucus and choose delegates, but their preference won’t go toward the total for the preference poll.
Mr. Gagnon — thank you for yet another thought-provoking column! I can’t understand why the Republicans scatter their caucuses out over a couple of weeks (4 years ago the Democrats held theirs all on the same day). No system is perfect, but you are right that this year’s caucuses have been a mess. A primary would allow for greater participation.
Thanks!
Obviously Matt you have not done your homework and your suppositions are based only on past events.
What I saw at Washington Academy last Saturday was a bunch of enthusiastic new Republicans and un-enrolled voters showing up because Ron Paul represents their idea of “freedom.” Many of these folks were young, and some of the older ones admitted that this was their first caucus. The party shouldd have had people there to encourage and direct this new energy, instead a Romney supporter decided to “postpone” the caucuses and came dangerously close to losing these potential future Republicans.
Caucuses are a method of building party membership and support. You meet other party members, talk to them, listen to them, and become REALLY informed, listening to negative ads on TV fails to inform or inspire.
I must believe you and I want the same thing. A strong party that represents the will of the people. I’m not concerned that my candidate doesn’t have the support of the majority (yet) but I am concerned that the grass-roots base of my party is being disregarded by the leadership. “We The People” are the power. If the “leadership” can’t see that, then they have to go.
Harry H. Snyder III
Washington County (Whiting) MAine
“Ron Paul activists believe (incorrectly) that had Washington County caucused on election night, their candidate would have won.”
Ron Paul supporters are not passive (or stupid). There are plenty of other irregularities, not just Washington County’s omission. Once they sort through all the nonsense, Ron Paul will rightfully be declared the winner in Maine.
Delete
I agree with you 100%. This was my first experience with a caucus. I grew up in NH and lived over 20 years of my adult life there. I voted in every primary. There has never been a mess such as the mess we are seeing this year with caucus states.
Add to that the fact that only 7 people of my town, which has several hundred registered Republicans, turned out to cast a ballot at the caucus. And the caucus is meaningless anyway because it is nonbinding.
I can’t wait for the convention. That should be fun.
“Yawn”
Maybe there should be a national primary that all states hold on the same day. As for the election, frankly I believe that the popular vote should take the day. Look what happened with Bush in 2000. He had fewer votes than Gore but won the election anyway. Outrageous!
Bush became president because of the anachronistic Electoral College, which was given to us by Founding Fathers who were great but imperfect — they did not trust the people to behave rationally. So only white males who owned property could vote; they elected state legislators; the state legislators picked the Electoral College; the Electoral College picked the president (this is how Washington was elected; that’s no criticism of Washington, who also could have won a more democratic election). This indirect system was designed to make sure that the educated elite picked the president, avoiding messy democracy. We now let the voters — male and female, white or black or brown, property or no property — pick the Electoral College, but the voters still don’t get to pick the president directly. It’s time to do away with the Electoral College, and let the people pick the president.
In the event of a close election, would you rather have a statewide or nationwide recount?
I’m not sure which would be better, probably each state would do their own recount — but would that be necessary if we had direct election of the president? I would want a national total. Gore defeated Bush nationally by over 500,000 votes. That was an extremely close election, and yet an unassailable margin of victory.
If you had direct election you would have a nationwide recount You would also have nationwide eligibility rules, nationwide voter registration rules, nationwide election times, and a total loss of state control. To do any less would put some voters at an advantage over others. Can you not imagine a scenario where one candidate may win by a margin of, say, 800 votes? Would you rather have an Electoral College and recount one state, or a nationwide recount.
I fail to see why a state should have any involvement in the election of our chief executive. It is a national concern, not a state concern. Perhaps the states could tally votes but not to elect participants in the electoral college. Interestingly some states do not require these electors to vote as directed by those who send them to the electoral college in the first place. The whole system is outdated and exclusionary to the point of disenfranchisement of the citizenry. It should be changed.
There are no national elections in the United States. The President is chosen by the states.
When the Supreme Court intervened in the Florida controversy (Bush-Gore-the chads) it set a very dangerous precedent by intervening in a state matter.
Yes, that’s the crux of the problem: the president is chosen by the states, and not by the people. Yet the Constitution says that it is “we the people” who form the United States of America.
Can you reply without changing the subject or hurling insults?
That isn’t true at all. Who the Chief Executive is does indeed involve the states, and the citizens of the several states. No matter how “nationalized” our country is, and our system is, we continue to give a high level of autonomy and self-determination to the individual states. Living in Maryland is very VERY different than living in Virginia, which is very VERY different from living in Maine… or California…
As such, the citizens of the several states have dramatically different concerns, and if we are going to choose somebody to lead our country in a democratic fashion, doing so with the understanding that states are different and have different considerations, and building in some kind of system that takes that into account, is not an outrageous affront to Democracy… it is a protection against mobocracy and the tyranny of large groups.
And if you take a step back and really think about it… if you fail to see why a state should have any involvement in the election of our Chief Executive… ask yourself why an 18 year old kid who knows more about World of Warcraft than tax policy… or a middle aged farmer who doesn’t even read the newspaper, has any say in who leads the most important country in the world.
I mean, if our goal is to select the best leader for the nation, than really, popular elections, electoral colleges… all of it… they are a really dumb way to find the most talented human beings to manage the country.
But obviously the cat is out of the bag and this is how leaders are chosen… so if we are going to do it with voting, than finding a way to balance popular will with the diverse and widely divergent concerns of fifty states is the best way to go about it.
That isn’t the whole reason for the Electoral College. The Electoral College results in the selection of a President of the United States. He/she presides over the Union.
There are no national elections in the United States. All elections are state matters. The states pick the President, through the Electoral College. It is a feature of our federal system of government.
If the Electoral College were to be abolished and replaced by the popular vote, our form of government would begin a shift away from a federal system, to a unitary system. And the title of the elected individual would more appropriately be “President of the American People” as opposed to “President of the United States.”
There are democratic governments that are unitary states (Britain, France, Italy, to name three), but we need to understand all the implications of going to a popular vote. It is a fairly significant step toward a unitary state, in which all power is really held by the central government, and sub-national governments only having the powers delegated by the national government.
By the way, all US states have a unitary system of government. Towns in Maine have home rule, but that could be changed any time we decided, through the Legislature, to do so. The power really all resides in Augusta.
Before the U.S. Civil War it was customary to refer to “these United States.” Since the Civil War we have spoken of “the United States.” We decided, through war, that we are one nation, not 13 or 50 nations; states cannot nullify federal legislation, and they cannot withdraw. That’s just an historical fact.
The nation changes over time — that is inevitible.
If the president was elected by the popular vote of the people, rather than by the Electoral College (which sometimes thwarts the will of the people), very little else would change — it would not be as big a deal as the changes the Civil War brought about. It would not make us into a “unitary” state — at least, not as much as the Civil War and other historical events already did. The states would still do all the other things they currently do.
You might as well next suggest making representation in the US Senate proportionate to population, lest the Senate thwart the will of the people.
No, I might as well NOT suggest anything I haven’t suggested. Don’t put words in my mouth. If you have an opinion about the Electoral College, defend your position. Please don’t change the subject.
I did defend it.
It can be changed, as I said earlier, but it is a fundamental shift in our form of government.
Changing Senate representation would also diminish the role of a federal system.
Take your meds, would ya?
So you have nothing but insults?
I did not suggest changing Senate representation — you did.
I suggested a relatively minor change; a more fair system for picking the president. Can’t you defend your position without throwing insults, and without changing the subject? Insults are a sign of a weak argument.
I agree whole heartedly.
I believe JFK had fewer votes than Nixon also.
Al Gore blew it when he couldn’t even win his own state of Tennessee.
I think it was Lieberman who blew it for Gore.
John Kennedy had 112,827 more popular votes than Richard Nixon in 1960 — one of the closest elections in U.S. history. Kennedy won the Electoral College by a wider margin.
But back in 1876 Samuel Tilden, a Democrat, had the most popular votes, but lost the Electoral College to Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican.
Thanks, maybe it was the number of states. I think Nixon lost the big delegate states. I was too young to vote then and was into race cars and girls.
I was too young to vote then too, but I Liked Ike, and thought Nixon would continue the Eisenhower years. And I thought that Nixon’s daughter Julie, who was around my age, was cute. I also distrusted Kennedy at the time. I met Richard Nixon in 1964 — he was campaigning for Barry Goldwater, and I was a Young Republican.
I think he was likely referring to the voting irregularities that presented themselves in places like Illinois, where the Chicago Democratic bosses churned out tens of thousands of votes, and swayed the election in that state… something that happened in other states.
The Nixon campaign believed that what happened was an obvious fraud, but didn’t challenge the results because he didn’t want to be remembered as the only man to have ever challenged the results of a presidential election, and won that way…
Eight of the top ten closest states (all decided by less than 2%) narrowly went to Kennedy over Nixon… including Hawaii by 0.06%, Illinois by 0.19%, and Missouri 0.52%
Those three states flipping by themselves would have given the election to Nixon. But, the reality is that we know that fraud happened mostly in Illinois and Texas… and both of those states are really what delivered the electoral college to Kennedy, as well as the popular vote.
So, I think saying Kennedy won the electoral college by a wide margin is slightly misleading. Although true from a raw numbers standpoint, the number of votes that gave him that “wider” margin were shockingly small… and probably fraudulent.
I didn’t say Kennedy won the Electoral College by a wide margin; I said it (303 to 219) was a “wider” margin than the popular vote. Yes, I agree, there may have been some vote fraud in Illinois — we will never know for certain. Tens of thousands of votes? I don’t know, but that still is probably less than Kennedy’s 112,000 margin of victory in the popular vote. If Kennedy had lost Illinois, giving Illinois’ 27 electoral votes to Nixon, Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College. Either way, Kennedy won the election.
I was for Nixon in 1960, by the way. My overall opinion of both Nixon and Kennedy has fallen over the years. Both were very flawed human beings; both had important strengths as well.
It seems that these Republican Caucuses are ripe with VOTER FRAUD for Romney. Time for primaries go to election results instead. One man one vote. Not one Romney Dollar one vote.
I totally agree with you. We already have too many crooks and thugs in D.C. Why do we put up with this crap in Maine. I would like to be able to vote for the republican presidential candidate, and have it count. I can’t even figure out how to vote in this stupid caucus process.
I’m going to disagree with Gagnon and say that the caucus plays an important role in our political process, in many cases giving life to dark horse campaigns lacking the financial resources to compete in large state primaries. Having said that, Maine appears to be incapable of functioning well as a caucus state. Alternating from primaries to caucuses every few cycles doesn’t promote the development of a strong caucus system that serves Maine or the nation. Unless the GOP is going to make a serious effort to improve the caucus process, i.e. hold one in each town, all on one day, they should push for a return to a primary system.
Let’s assume that both methods of electing our party candidates are equal in every aspect. Can anyone measure the economic impact and political benefit to New Hampshire that Maine does not enjoy. I know, more robo calls etc, but to a poor state like ours anything that gives us some clout would help.
How much clout did we gain from the circus side show we just witnessed?
I hate the causcus system for 10 different reasons. I beleive that we’d have more power doing it the NH way.