To what extent are caucuses an important means of selecting candidates
Point 1 - Criticism - Low turnout
Caucuses have been mainly criticised for producing unrepresentative decisions
Voter turnout is extremely low due to its long + arcane nature → many did not attend as they may have felt
out of place in comparison with party faithful
EX: 2012 Iowa caucus had it’s largest ever turnout → only 20% of registered Republicans + 5% of registered
voters in the state
In combination with the low turnout - those who DO turnout, are ideologues + tend to be radical → leads to
extreme candidates being chosen → EX: Obama was seen as the most liberal candidate in the race for
Democratic presidential nomination + won Iowa caucuses
Flair: more significantly, If turnout is low in the selection process anyways, there is a case to be made that
caucuses are more appropriate than primaries because caucuses leads to more informed decisions as they
are filled with politically active candidates who consider all sides of the debates before selecting their
candidates → Shown in the large amounts of meetings that occur
Point 2 - Criticism - Over-influence of established candidates
Caucuses are unimportant as the established candidates tend to win anyways
Caucuses have been criticised for giving too much influence to established candidates
Candidates with lots of funds to spend on their campaign tend to do the best
This is because they can make numerous trips and visit all the counties within the state in order to benefit
their chances
EX: Santorum won the Iowa caucuses + was the first to visit all 99 counties
Caucuses also have a large number of meetings + candidates with effective organisation can influence these
meetings over a long period of time (Iowa had nearly 2,000)
EX: Obama’s presidential win credited to exceeding expectations in Iowa → he had lots of funds and were
able to train ‘supporters’ who were known to caucus for him effectively - this influenced many caucus-goers
to vote in his favour.
Caucuses leads to tactical voting = undemocratic → when people see their candidate as being insufficiently
supported + having no chance of winning - many people will switch their vote to someone more established
+ popular → leads to diminishing chance for lesser candidates to win.
Flair - Although established candidates have a better chance, out of the established candidates, the lesser of
the established candidates can utilise the caucus to their advantage + exceed expectation → Clinton was the
favourite but Obama beat her to come 1st + she came 3rd
Point 3 - Criticism - Organisational Issues of Caucuses:
There are great organisational problems with the caucus format.
EX: the confusion over the final result in Iowa in the 2012 Republican caucuses where initial results reported
that Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum by 8 votes but when the final results came out two weeks later Rick
Santorum secured the victory over Romney by a margin of 34 votes. → The reported ‘disappearance’ of
results from eight precincts highlight the organisational problems of a voting format comprising of over 1,700
meetings and the shortcomings of events largely run by unpaid volunteers.
Essentially the issue is that because it isn't a ballot, there is always going to be room for human error when
counting votes.
Flair: Nevada had a plan to switch their caucus system to a primary system. The fact that the bill didn't pass
shows the insignificance of the organisational issues in relation to the benefits of caucuses, the state
legislature insisted on remaining in the caucus system.
Point 1 - Criticism - Low turnout
Caucuses have been mainly criticised for producing unrepresentative decisions
Voter turnout is extremely low due to its long + arcane nature → many did not attend as they may have felt
out of place in comparison with party faithful
EX: 2012 Iowa caucus had it’s largest ever turnout → only 20% of registered Republicans + 5% of registered
voters in the state
In combination with the low turnout - those who DO turnout, are ideologues + tend to be radical → leads to
extreme candidates being chosen → EX: Obama was seen as the most liberal candidate in the race for
Democratic presidential nomination + won Iowa caucuses
Flair: more significantly, If turnout is low in the selection process anyways, there is a case to be made that
caucuses are more appropriate than primaries because caucuses leads to more informed decisions as they
are filled with politically active candidates who consider all sides of the debates before selecting their
candidates → Shown in the large amounts of meetings that occur
Point 2 - Criticism - Over-influence of established candidates
Caucuses are unimportant as the established candidates tend to win anyways
Caucuses have been criticised for giving too much influence to established candidates
Candidates with lots of funds to spend on their campaign tend to do the best
This is because they can make numerous trips and visit all the counties within the state in order to benefit
their chances
EX: Santorum won the Iowa caucuses + was the first to visit all 99 counties
Caucuses also have a large number of meetings + candidates with effective organisation can influence these
meetings over a long period of time (Iowa had nearly 2,000)
EX: Obama’s presidential win credited to exceeding expectations in Iowa → he had lots of funds and were
able to train ‘supporters’ who were known to caucus for him effectively - this influenced many caucus-goers
to vote in his favour.
Caucuses leads to tactical voting = undemocratic → when people see their candidate as being insufficiently
supported + having no chance of winning - many people will switch their vote to someone more established
+ popular → leads to diminishing chance for lesser candidates to win.
Flair - Although established candidates have a better chance, out of the established candidates, the lesser of
the established candidates can utilise the caucus to their advantage + exceed expectation → Clinton was the
favourite but Obama beat her to come 1st + she came 3rd
Point 3 - Criticism - Organisational Issues of Caucuses:
There are great organisational problems with the caucus format.
EX: the confusion over the final result in Iowa in the 2012 Republican caucuses where initial results reported
that Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum by 8 votes but when the final results came out two weeks later Rick
Santorum secured the victory over Romney by a margin of 34 votes. → The reported ‘disappearance’ of
results from eight precincts highlight the organisational problems of a voting format comprising of over 1,700
meetings and the shortcomings of events largely run by unpaid volunteers.
Essentially the issue is that because it isn't a ballot, there is always going to be room for human error when
counting votes.
Flair: Nevada had a plan to switch their caucus system to a primary system. The fact that the bill didn't pass
shows the insignificance of the organisational issues in relation to the benefits of caucuses, the state
legislature insisted on remaining in the caucus system.
