Cock-Eyed, Take Two

Last month, I wrote a piece about the abstract flaws of the caucus system. After attending yesterday's Westbrook Republican presidential caucus, I stand by my earlier complaints.

If you are to understand my primary (pun unintended, but welcomed) complaint about the caucus system, it is important to remember these three numbers: 8,931, 78, and .8.

The first number is the total number of voters elgible to participate in yesterday's caucus (3,365 registered Republicans and 5,566 registered Independents). The second number is the total number of registered Republicans and Independents who actually attended the caucus. And the final number is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a vote for their presidential preference. That's right, only .8% (!) of eligible voters in the Westbrook Republican caucus cast ballots for their preferred presidential candidate. In other words, out of 100 prospective voters, only eight-tenths of one woman bothered to show up.

To be fair, not all (probably not even a majority) of Independents in Westbrook are right-leaning enough to seriously entertain the thought of attending the Republican caucus. So maybe it's a bit unfair of me to lump them in with the city's registered Republicans, who are more likely to participate. But even if I do account for the participation of only potential Republican voters, the turnout would still register at a paltry 2.3%. Sure, it's better than .8%. But it is still pathetic, especially when you consider that is the most rosy massaging of numbers possible.

What (or who), then, is to blame for the infuriating lack of turnout?

Well, prospective voters certainly shoulder some of the blame as they are the ones who, you know, didn't show up. However, not all absent voters were absent by choice (for example, I was informed that one prominent Westbrook Republican could not attend because of a death in the family). Nor do I think this is uniquely a Republican Party phenomenon. I plan to cover the Westbrook Democratic caucus next Sunday and I expect a similar result (though that party's absentee ballots will probably increase participation--not to mention administrative and procedural headaches). Therefore, when we're talking about .8% and 2.3% turnouts, I think the problem goes beyond voter apathy and partisanship. This is systemic failure we're talking about.

The caucus system is too rigid, too boring, and too arcane. It demands you show up at a certain place at a specific time, endure numerous nominations and approvals for positions only a relatively few care about, and participate in a process that requires numerous sets of Frequently Asked Questions (in fact, one party leader in Westbrook confessed she'd read the caucus rules a couple different times, but still wasn't sure she knew how the caucus was supposed to work). Moreover, with the exception of the three Westbrook Republicans who attended yesterday's caucus only to declare they are still undecided about their presidential preference (?!), most everyone was there to do one thing and one thing only: To cast their ballot for the Republican nominee for president.

So let's give the voters what they want. Let's give them a primary election, no strings (or nominations, or by-laws, or whatever) attached.

With the exception of the 1996 Presidential primary elections, Maine's Democratic and Republican parties have always used party caucuses to poll the presidential preferences of its partisans. Caucuses are cheaper and some like the social aspect of gathering with fellow partisans and pooh-poohing the other party's standard-bearers. It's telling, though, that in 1996 (the year of Clinton v. Dole, no less), nearly 100,000 Maine voters braved a snow storm to vote in the primary system. In Westbrook, 639 voters participated in the 1996 primary. Sure does make this year's "good" turnout of 78 look very pale in comparison.

That a primary is more democratic (please note lower-case "d") than a caucus is unsurprising, however. After all, a primary simply requires a check-in with the poll workers, a ballot, a vacant voting booth, and five minutes of a voter's valuable time. Alas, the state legislature decided to forgo the extra expenses required to run a primary in favor of the cheaper (and less democratic) caucus. And we've been plagued with this montrosity ever since. I say it now, and I'll say it again (and again and again) until it happens: Maine needs to scrap the caucus system and adopt a primary system. For good.

Oh, and when it is decided that a better democracy is indeed worth the extra Benjamins, please do us Independents a favor: Be like our southern neighbors (don't worry, Republicans, I'm not referring to Mexico) and let us participate in the primary voting. We do, after all, make up the largest voting bloc in Westbrook and Maine. Just thought I'd remind ya'll of that fact.

Update: I did a little more research and learned that the primary system was also used in the 2000 presidential primaries. According to the Secretary of State's Internet records, a total of 160,903 Mainers cast votes in the Democratic and Republican primaries that year (64,279 Democrats and 96,624 Republicans). And locally, 876 Westbrook Democrats and 986 Westbrook Republicans participated in the 2000 primary.

I apologize for the error.

- John C.L. Morgan

P.S. This screed doesn't have anything to do with a sour experience at yesterday's caucus. In fact, I enjoyed myself, and Martha Day, the chair of the Westbrook Republican City Committee and the caucus chair, should be commended for running an efficient meeting.

P.P.S. Much thanks to Kathy Jones, Westbrook's Deputy City Clerk, for providing updated voter registration counts.