To What Extent Are Caucuses an Appropriate Means of Selecting Candidates

Although most states hold primaries, caucuses are another way political parties nominate candidates for election. Caucuses are a series of meetings held across a state. At these meetings, party members discuss the candidates, and then openly vote for state delegates who represent the candidate they support. Those state delegates, in turn, choose delegates to attend the national convention, where they are expected to support the candidate whom they had pledged to support.

One reason why caucuses are an appropriate means of selecting a candidate are that caucuses could reinvigorate interest in the nominating process. Neighbourhood meetings might stimulate enthusiasm in what is now an out of touch nominating process. If the caucuses met in late February or early March, they would by far be the largest delegate prize for candidates seeking delegates before the Super Tuesday showdown. for example the large delegate pool in both parties easily surpasses the number of delegates chosen in any of the early voting states--Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan.

A caucus would provide the party organizations with a meaningful activity, and give local party activists a real role in the nominating process. Given the weaknesses of political parties these days, a caucus could provide an impetus for party building and party activity, long missing from contemporary politics.

The word "caucus" itself comes from the Native People of America and means "to gather together and make a great noise." This seems rather appropriate but this system of electing a presidential nominee is becoming less and less popular as it puts a great deal of power in the hands of local party bosses and the fear is that the beliefs of the people themselves at a local level are not necessarily listened to. By 1980 only 25% of the delegates to the national conventions (coming from 18 states) were voted for in this way. In 1988, only 16% of the Democrats delegates were selected in this method. In addition, because of the time required, public nature and sometimes arcane procedure, turnout is usually very low, often around 10% and so can be seen as undemocratic and inappropriate for a democratic election. In Iowa only 19.8% of republicans and only 5.4% of the states electorate voted in its 2012 caucus.

Because of the large number of meetings (in Iowa, for example, approaching 2,000), candidates with extensive organization and money may have an advantage; Barack Obama’s nomination in 2008 depended on his string of successes in caucus states. Thus capable politicians who do not have the sort of funding as their opponents may not succeed as they should. However it may be argued that this extends to all American elections, and should not be applied to Caucuses alone. Another disadvantage of caucuses is that due to the effort required to partake in them, they attract only committed party supporters and are unreflective of the electorate in the state. This may enhance the standings and opportunities of partisan candidates, which may disadvantage moderate candidates, such as the Republican Christian right in Iowa, often producing outcomes which support more extreme candidates like Rick Santorum.
However Caucuses may also be seen as providing a pedestal for less wealthy or mainstream candidates. The win of Rick Santorum and the strong showing of Ron Paul in Iowa in January 2012 suggest that caucuses still reward candidates who have a strong presence in the state (Santorum was the first candidate to visit all of Iowa's 99 counties) or have a core of committed support (Paul). They also provide a bounce for candidates who are not considered front runners, thus balancing out the race and making it more democratic. The Republican caucuses in Iowa 2008 were won by Mike Huckabee with 34% of the easily beating Mitt Romney (25%), John McCain (13%) and Fred Thompson (13%). than 3 months before Iowa, in mid-October, Huckabee was polling just 8% national polls and was in fifth place amongst the Republican candidates. Huckabee on to win primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee as well caucuses in Louisiana and Kansas and the state convention vote in West Virginia. However this does not necessarily apply to all caucuses, which may be seen in New Hampshire. Thought its importance is undeniable, victory is not an absolute necessity for a candidate. None of the last three presidents — Bill Clinton (1992), George W. Bush (2000) or Barack Obama (2008) — won his party’s New Hampshire primary.