Caucuses are far more representative than primaries
Voters might be confused by the difference between caucuses and primaries, each state offering one or the other to find the right contenders for the general election in November. We will treat both.
In a primary, the overriding principle is that everyone should vote regardless of how informed or ill-informed one is. Television is the major — often the only — source of information for older voters as is social media for younger voters. Neither source by itself is enough. Candidates can submit a word statement, often a paragraph, promoting themselves on the ballot, but rarely is enough given for voters to make an intelligent choice. This is the only free coverage allowed a candidate. Candidates seeking the office of judge rarely leave any information on the ballot from which to evaluate them. Many voters just guess.
In a primary voting, choice may be but a whim. There exists nothing to protect us from the uninformed. One giving only 10 seconds of forethought may nullify the vote of someone spending six months studying an issue or candidate. The whole system is an ignorance paradise. Voter preparation may take 20 minutes.
In a primary, the candidate “buys” the office. Serious candidates know that they must hire a campaign manager who develops campaign strategies, never gives specifics (if the campaign slogan cannot fit on a postage stamp it is deemed too complex), and spends tens of thousands of dollars on media ads mostly defining the opponent as unfit. Of course, those who give large contributions expect access to the winner after the election, so he or she mostly represents them. The poor, outside being used on occasion for street demonstrations or envy politics, have no real representation in either major political party.
In primary elections, it is not a matter of how well informed, experienced, or qualified one is. What is absolutely critical to winning is whom you hire to promote you. Money, not knowledge, is primary. For the rest of the campaign, you become a professional beggar, asking everyone always and endlessly to contribute to your campaign. Running for office is not the model of Abraham Lincoln, riding the caboose of a train and making speeches at each stop. Today, candidates give their messages to special interest groups that can deliver votes and money. Far more time is spent asking for money than explaining views. Regular voters only know of a candidate by way of television, print, or social media.
The following is representative. In the greater Bakersfield, California area, where I once resided, campaign manager Mark Abernathy was the “king maker.” Those in the know realized this. In a conversation with him, he named virtually everyone holding public office in the area as his and boasted of his winning at least 90 percent of all elections the previous 10 years. He often ran several candidates for different offices simultaneously. Those he brought to power were expected to endorse his future candidates. Rarely did anyone beat the “Abernathy machine.” He is certainly a pleasant fellow, dedicated to his philosophy as well as skilled and ruthless in the art of getting someone elected — but at a hefty price. In a phone conversation with me, he said, “I perceive that you do not have money,” meaning $100,000 or more. I acknowledged this, and he selected another candidate to support. Thus in 2010, I failed to secure a seat in the California State Legislature before a single vote was cast.
In a caucus state such as Utah, there is protection from the “drive-by” voter. Neighbors gather together and select from themselves those who have earned their respect. They spend whatever time is necessary at candidate activities visiting with candidates, reading their literature and more in order to differentiate between the candidates before voting. Citizens accept that all voters cannot devote such time and energy in the effort. Each of 2,235 precincts in Utah choose from one to five state delegates to differentiate between state candidates, and thousands more to do the same for all county candidates. Thousands of state delegates, at their own expense, meet in the Salt Lake City area, and county delegates meet somewhere in their counties the following month.
In that 30-day time period before a vote is cast, candidates seek to impress these selected delegates with their credentials for the office wanted, and delegates can meet with them and ask probing questions. This is a far better vetting process than voting based on sound bytes and hunches.
With respect to issues, caucus delegate voters are far more informed than the general public, because the public selected them to probe. There exists no public acclaim for delegates. They have to take off work with no compensation for meals and/or travel for a weekend. They do it to ensure liberty.
In a caucus, no one “buys” the office as they do in primaries. Since candidates do not have to appeal to the less informed but rather only to delegates and are much more interested in details over generalities, they normally do not have the vast sums of money needed in a primary election. A candidate of modest means can compete for any state or federal office, which is far more democratic than a state utilizing the primary system for selecting candidates. The representatives of the people choose their leaders rather than “king makers” do in primaries. Candidates can put priority on issues rather than on fundraising and appealing to the moneyed class.
Articles related to “Caucuses are far more representative than primaries”
Hillary denied! No globalist in the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover
