From 2017 through 2018, I attended every meeting possible to attend and watch The Unity Commission work on turning suggestions from the Sanders campaign and Clinton campaign into a workable strategy to better improve our process for selecting a nominee. One of the items that came into discussion frequently was how we handle caucus.
Before we get going, we have to clear a few things up. The DNC cannot undo the role of state legislators in paying for a primary. If a state legislature refuses to pay for one, then the party cannot command that they switch. If the state legislature sets the date on an election by primary, the party also has no control at all over this process.
Still, the discussions held in the Unity Commission brought forward a few items that had to be changed. The first is presented above. At request of the Sanders negotiating members, more individuals, one request was an accurate count of a caucus. This means paper ballots. Yes, even the Iowa caucus last night had paper ballots, so that an exact number can be done, and so that recounts and recalculations are possible.
Where is the current caucus system
The most common argument in favor of caucus during the Unity Commission meetings was that it was a party-building method that helped identify future party leadership. Members of the committee disagreed, but the Unity Commission as a whole could not come to an agreement. Caucus states had been friendly to Senator Sanders in 2016, but the Sanders members wanted a change in Caucus. Many members of the Clinton team wanted to see caucus changed, but not all. Both sides had advocates and opposers of caucus systems, making it one of the more controversial issues brought forward.
In the end, a compromise was reached. Caucus would provide paper ballots and work for a way that offered better early and advance participation to enable those with disabilities or the inability to attend and participate.
States offered plans and many states adopted for things like balloting systems, party-run primaries, and mail-in ballots. States where both a caucus and a primary were held adopted to drop the caucus and offer the primary as their main result for the most part.
All it takes is money
As I noted above, caucus states are caucus states because their state government refuses to pay for a primary. They can work on a party-run primary, but a party-run primary is much more expensive than a traditional primary, and mail-in caucus can mean that results are difficult to know for days after a mail-in is conducted, because ballots received post-election day, but mailed on or before still count toward the state total.
Some campaigns have been great about working to help defray some of the cost from a state or help the national party raise money to help states offset the cost. This is well-received and certainly a way to move us toward an easier to run system, where people simply cast their ballot and leave.
All it really takes is money.
The Iowa situation is not a conspiracy
We need to talk about many things the Iowa situation is NOT. The Iowa Democratic Party had been asking for weeks for help in getting state party help from surrounding states. Asking people to be neutral and make sure the process runs well by manning phones and providing support is difficult, but for a state like Iowa, even more difficult in a year where a ton of campaigns were taking up a lot of volunteers.
No, Robby Mook had nothing at all to do with the app system. Applications to be used by the state party went through a long series of tests in regards to expectations, and Bob Lord, who helps look after data security for the DNC, as well as data security experts, looked at all of the programs. That’s a conspiracy theory.
“We’ll never know”
Is a conspiracy theory. This is why paper ballots were used, so there is a way to look back and have an absolutely accurate count in case a precinct was counted or calculated incorrectly, and to give campaigns a chance to check their work.
No, there isn’t a “Pete Cheats” or “Warren Lied” or any other reality in these claims on Twitter about any campaign. Any political director with absolutely any experience at all will tell you that in face of unsure results, you go out on the stage and you proclaim you did well because there is no way to say otherwise and your volunteers, who worked their heart out for months, want to go home at least feeling OK. Winning the PR war in a state with not a ton of delegates is sometimes more valuable than even winning the state.
How do we change?
We have to alter our understanding of what we want. People who would go on and represent every campaign, including those who dropped out, attended meetings of the rules committee that discussed how to implement caucus systems. No one, no one at all, was blindsided or caught unprepared. One question that came up was how long could it take to get results in some caucus states, and in states that provide mail-in options, it is technically possible they could alter for days after the caucus or primary date. Campaigns were told upfront in more than one meeting I attended that the goal was to be “accurate first”.
President Obama had, according to several, wanted to change the order of Democratic consideration to put Nevada or South Carolina first. The diversity was a good reason, but also because many of the reasons for Iowa first no longer exist. Iowa was good to go first because as a state small enough, a small campaign could catch fire and move on. Today, campaigns are already looking at some form of national reach early. The Missouri primary, as an example, is more than a month away, and Elizabeth Warren opened her offices there weeks ago, followed by Michael Bloomberg. The case for using a state like Iowa because of affordability simply doesn’t exist now as it did years ago. Social media and the pressure of a campaign are just different.
We need a federal government prepared to offer state governments more financial support to help run elections and primaries. Where state governments are resistant, we need the ability to help state organizations run party-run primaries.
For all the attacks on the Democratic National Committee or Iowa Democratic Party, the lion share of those who are in both organizations are or begun as volunteers. It is very difficult to ask people to “volunteer harder”. We can build a better caucus system. More drop and go. Advance balloting. Vote by mail. Voting systems. It will cost money.
Quickest way to guarantee neither of those is ever possible? Start attacking the only groups paying for these things to happen.
I’ve said before: I oppose traditional caucus. It is something I find completely at odds with our future as a party. Last night may end make a permanent change in the caucus system, which is great. What changes it won’t be a conspiracy, or an attack on an organization. What will change it is electing a Democratic president who can work to overhaul our election system with better guidance, funding, and support for changes going forward. If we do not win the presidency, the odds of this changing diminish to near nothing.