It’s May 20, 2014. You are one of the few steadfast Democratic voters in the great state of Idaho. On this day, you are fully prepared to go to your local polling place and pick the party’s nominees in a variety of federal, state, and local contests with the U.S. Senate primary receiving top billing. The choice on the Democratic side is between William Bryk and Nels Mitchell. Bryk is a Brooklyn lawyer who is an unusual perennial candidate; he seeks positions in states that allow out-of-state candidates to run in primaries. So, in 2014, Bryk sought the Democratic nomination for Senate seats in Wyoming, Oregon, Alaska, and Idaho. Mitchell is also an attorney, but at least he’s a local resident. You are one of the 24,286 Democratic voters on May 20, 2014 who will decide this barn-burner of a primary race. And, guess what? You and the 24,285 others as a group outnumber the amount of Democratic voters who will decide the 2016 Idaho Democratic caucuses for President of the United States. That’s a problem and please follow me over the jump as we delve into some raw numbers regarding the caucus v. primary distinction.
With this past weekend in the books, the Democratic Party has conducted caucuses in 12 states to start the process of selecting their delegates to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. In 2016, we are still lamenting the poor state of turnout in caucus states (we had almost the exact same discussions in 2008). Too often we stake out our positions in these discussions based on our preferred candidate and his or her track record in caucuses. Before really committing to a side, I think that it’s helpful to see some numbers that demonstrate just how poor turnout is in caucus states.
The table below lists all 12 of the 2016 caucus states that have voted so far. Each line includes the number of 2016 caucus participants, the number of 2014 primary voters, and the percentage change from 2014 to 2016. For most states, I drew the 2016 caucus numbers from CNN reports of the caucus results. However, for Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington, and Alaska, which don’t report actual vote totals, I had to rely on media reports of turnout. The 2014 primary numbers come from each state’s respective Board of Elections.
State
|
2016 Caucusgoers
|
2014 Primary Voters
|
Percentage Change from 2014 to 2016
|
Hawaii
|
33,654
|
233,950
|
Down 86%
|
Alaska
|
10,600
|
69,733
|
Down 85%
|
Nebraska
|
33,460
|
91,296
|
Down 63%
|
Washington
|
250,000
|
574,285
|
Down 56%
|
Colorado
|
123,499
|
213,746
|
Down 42%
|
Kansas
|
39,043
|
65,819
|
Down 41%
|
Maine
|
50,000
|
65,085
|
Down 23%
|
Idaho
|
23,725
|
24,286
|
Down 2%
|
Minnesota
|
191,645
|
193,347
|
Down 1%
|
Nevada
|
80,000
|
72,521
|
Up 10%
|
Iowa
|
170,000
|
72,411
|
Up 135%
|
Utah
|
76,520
|
*
|
*
|
First, I must address Utah. Unlike most other states, Utah has a convention process for selecting many of their candidates so there hasn’t really been a true statewide Democratic primary in the past four cycles (at least that I could see). So, it’s hard to find any comparative elections for the 2016 Utah Democratic caucuses.
Second, as the chart reflects, only two states have had higher turnout in their 2016 presidential caucuses compared to their 2014 Democratic primary for downballot races: Iowa and Nevada. That makes complete sense since presidential elections, whether the nominating contests or the general election itself, often have much higher turnout than midterm elections. It’s difficult to gauge the exact difference to expect between contested primaries in presidential years and primaries in midterm years, but it’s quite common to see a 30-50% increase in turnout in presidential primaries compared to midterm primaries. And, both Iowa and Nevada got much more attention and campaign resources than the other caucus states due to their early placement on the calendar.
Third, despite the turnout gains experienced in Iowa and Nevada, every other state holding a 2016 presidential caucus has had a lower turnout than they had in the 2014 Democratic primaries. Indeed, four of the caucus states had decreases of over 50% from 2014. This is particularly shocking for Hawaii and Washington, both of which enjoyed “large” turnout in their caucuses this weekend, but they couldn’t come close to their 2014 primary turnouts. And, these differences are particularly noteworthy since 2014 featured particularly low enthusiasm on the Democratic Party’s side and within the electorate overall as the cycle had the lowest turnout of any election cycle in America in the past 72 years. Overall, of all 11 states with comparative information available, the average decrease in participation between 2014 and 2016 was 23%, with almost all of the increase coming from Iowa.
Even though these numbers are quite grim, I also decided to look into the 2008 results in Nebraska and Washington. Both states are interesting in that the Democratic Party uses a caucus process to select its convention delegates. Nevertheless, the state still holds a presidential primary that has no impact on the Democratic Party’s delegate selection. The results were again stunning in their demonstration of poor caucus turnout versus primary turnout:
State
|
Primary Turnout
|
Caucus Turnout
|
Percentage Change from Caucus to Primary
|
Nebraska
|
94,535
|
38,670
|
Up 144%
|
Washington
|
691,381
|
250,000
|
Up 177%
|
So, in both Nebraska and Washington, much more people decided to vote in a meaningless primary preference poll as opposed to participating in the consequential caucuses. As a result, our party based its delegate selections in these two states on the views of 288,670 Democratic caucusgoers as opposed to the views of 785,916 Democratic primary voters. That really crystalizes the undemocratic nature of the caucus process and demonstrates the need for the party to adopt rules that prevent states from using caucuses to select delegates.
To me, the numbers are clear and they mean one thing – presidential caucuses significantly reduce the number of voters who are part of the process of selecting the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. To me, that is wrong and it makes it difficult for us to be the party of ending barriers to voting while at the same time using such an archaic process in some states to select our presidential nominee.