Is it time to put an end to the party caucus system as a path toward the nomination of presidential candidates?
In my opinion, yes. It is the case that for those who participate, caucuses are hands-on democracy. But the vast majority of citizens do not participate. For those who do, one has a greater sense of accomplishment than casting a ballot, but the overwhelming majority of people are not part of the process.
One can say -- well, they could participate. Well yes, they could, but it would overwhelm the system of caucuses. Last night (February 3, 2020), Iowa held its caucus using the Iowa walking caucus with all its latest tweaks. With above average but not record turnout, apparently, the system was overwhelmed, the app did not work, and the results are greatly delayed. (The results have not yet come out as I write this.)
I came to a conclusion years ago that Minnesota should give up the caucus system. Finally Minnesota switched to a presidential primary, and the first one will be held on March 3, 2020. How significant it will prove to be is not clear.
I would argue that the party caucus is a vestige from a simpler society. Today everything must be verified, plus there are cyber security concerns that mandate that high level measures of security must be maintained.
A state party does not have the resources to ensure these extra security measures in the present era. I view a state party organization as akin to a small business. It has adequate money to function with a small staff, but not the staff or equipment to run an election (and the caucus process is a primary.election).
Running a primary adds an extra task to state government, but it can assume it. A state-wide caucus forces a small organization supplemented by hundreds and even a couple of thousand volunteers to assume new tasks and responsibilities with very little training.
It is time to rethink the party caucus. A compromise that will not damage Iowa's place would be to allow it to have the first primary in the nation.
