The legislature now seems inclined to consolidate the 2012
presidential primary with the state primaries. In tough fiscal times, the money
saved by consolidation seems to outweigh the attention that the state might
gain from having a separate presidential primary. And the low turnout in the
2008 state primaries, which were separate from that year’s presidential
primary, was embarrassing.
For those
reasons, one primary is probably better than two. But consolidation isn’t the
only option. In fact, there is a proven election format that would spare the
state a separate presidential primary while still providing us a boost of
public attention from the national media and candidates.
The caucus.
Yes, I’m talking about the same
sort of presidential caucus used by Iowa. Voters gather in one place for a
couple of hours to decide, face to face, how to divide up presidential
delegates in their area. Such caucuses are usually associated with smaller
states, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen in California.
In fact,
caucuses might be healthy because we are such a big state that is not
particularly cohesive. Consider:
1. Caucuses
would emphasize the importance of local organizing and face-to-face
conversation with people. By many measures, including the California Civic
Health Index [LINK:https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenport-institute/],
California ranks very low on measures of how often we work with neighbors and
talk with family and friends about politics. Caucuses promote the kind of personal
conversations about politics and current affairs that California needs.
2. Caucuses
could strengthen the parties. California’s parties are famously weak. And
whatever you think about parties, they are among the only institutions that
bind a political entity like California together. Caucuses would be an
opportunity for party building unlike any California has recently seen.
3. Caucuses
save the state money. First, the caucuses would take the place of a
presidential primary, saving money there. And the parties should bear the costs
of the primaries, not counties or the state.
4. The
spectacle of a state of our size holding caucuses would make for an
irresistible media spectacle. The cameras would show up from Malibu to the
border to the Golden Gate. If California held the caucuses on a sunny day in
February, it’d also be a nice little ad for state tourism.
Of course,
there are familiar objections to caucuses. Such gatherings are low turnout
events, with usually less than 5 percent of voters participating. The length of
a caucus may make it harder for some classes of voters to attend. And absentee
voting isn’t possible.
But most
California elections are fairly low turnout endeavors. And 5 percent of
California registered voters still adds up to more than one million people. A
caucus would have legitimacy.
It also
might shake us out of political stupor. It would keep us relevant in the
presidential campaign, and at a discount. It would force us to talk to each
other.
California,
let’s caucus.