There are a number of things which don't make a great deal of sense to me when it comes to the election process in this country. First off, the electoral college. How can we say every vote counts when Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 general election, yet lost due to the fact George W. Bush received more votes than him in the state of Florida (all the votes that were counted anyway)? Secondly, there's the Democratic superdelegates. Every person has the right to vote, so why should some votes be tallied as greater than others? Not only should we do away with superdelegates, we should also put the kibosh on caucuses.
In the run up to the 2008 general election, I was fortunate enough to participate in my first caucus, as I cast my vote for Barack Obama in Nebraska. Due to the fact it was my first time at such an event, it was a fascinating and educational experience for me, yet I hope to never have to experience it again. As a matter of fact, I think each and every state should hold primaries as opposed to caucuses. Here are my reasons why:
- Time constraints: Caucuses are time-consuming events which require participants to sacrifice an entire afternoon (sometimes evening) in order to make their political voices heard. This typically results in decreased voter participation.
- Lack of privacy: While it's becoming more common for people to make their votes publicly known, not everyone has followed that trend, and there is typically a sense of privacy when voting on election day. That's anything but the case at a caucus, which could be another reason why voter turnout tends to be inferior at caucuses than primaries.
- Unrepresentative: Due to all of the limitations that come with caucuses, it limits voter turnout, and with that leaves the final results quite prone to being unrepresentative of the population as a whole.
Yes, caucuses can be interesting, even fun experiences, but they shouldn't be used as a means of selecting the leader of our country. Every voice deserves the opportunity of being heard in the electoral process, and going to an all-primary format would without question increase voting numbers in the run-up to the general election. Yes, we need to put the kibosh on the caucus!
In the run up to the 2008 general election, I was fortunate enough to participate in my first caucus, as I cast my vote for Barack Obama in Nebraska. Due to the fact it was my first time at such an event, it was a fascinating and educational experience for me, yet I hope to never have to experience it again. As a matter of fact, I think each and every state should hold primaries as opposed to caucuses. Here are my reasons why:
- Time constraints: Caucuses are time-consuming events which require participants to sacrifice an entire afternoon (sometimes evening) in order to make their political voices heard. This typically results in decreased voter participation.
- Lack of privacy: While it's becoming more common for people to make their votes publicly known, not everyone has followed that trend, and there is typically a sense of privacy when voting on election day. That's anything but the case at a caucus, which could be another reason why voter turnout tends to be inferior at caucuses than primaries.
- Unrepresentative: Due to all of the limitations that come with caucuses, it limits voter turnout, and with that leaves the final results quite prone to being unrepresentative of the population as a whole.
Yes, caucuses can be interesting, even fun experiences, but they shouldn't be used as a means of selecting the leader of our country. Every voice deserves the opportunity of being heard in the electoral process, and going to an all-primary format would without question increase voting numbers in the run-up to the general election. Yes, we need to put the kibosh on the caucus!
Comments
Post a Comment