There's an emerging debate in the U.S. over the nature of state caucuses versus primary elections used by our political parties to choose their Presidential candidates.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has begun making the case that caucuses are somehow less democratic than primaries. The argument is that since a caucus is an actual, real-life meeting -- the word derives from the gatherings used by the Algonquin Indians to make decisions -- it excludes people who can't attend a meeting, whether due to infirmity or work obligations.
Thus, delegates chosen by caucus vote are less representative of the people's will, and worth less than those allocated by primary votes. Mrs. Clinton cares about the distinction because she ranks far closer to Barak Obama in delegates chosen by primaries than those selected by caucuses, even if the Democratic party has never had cause to make such distinctions.
Hats off to her strategists for even introducing the idea, which I'm blithely parroting here.
But caucuses are conversations. Debates. Arguments. Something close to physical fights sometimes, I'm sure. Voters who don't actively participate in the noise at least have to witness and endure it, and then quite literally declare their selection (usually) by a show of hands. Arguably, meetings are very democratic, both literally and figuratively.
Caucuses are real-life social media.
Conversely, votes by ballot, which is how general elections are conducted, are very one-way.
Candidates can claim positions and, short of the media providing context or interpretation, voters can skip all conversation, and simply tick a box on a paper or electronic form. This is why candidates save lots of their propaganda claims and spending money until a few days prior to election day; quite literally telling people how they should vote is scarily effective.
With no reason to debate, any truth or falsehood is held sacrosanct, buried in a citizen's consciousness, destined to see the light of day anonymously, and after the fact, once a vote is cast. This is why one-way media works best in primaries and general elections.
"Old style" campaigning -- replete with its attacks, sound-bites, and shrugs -- is an artifact of ballot voting. It's the negative aspect of a very positive development: namely, not only giving each citizen the right to think what she or he wants, but the freedom to cast votes based on conscience, and do so without fear of any harm or reprisal. Ballots are the product of an analog world wherein the right to hold an opinion needed to be affirmed. Massively convoluted propaganda machines have evolved to change them.
But conversations change opinions, too, and they effectively vet those that are unchangeable. And caucuses, like social media, are enabling technologies.
Old style campaigning falls apart in a room in which every declaration can be analyzed and debated. I know it's a horribly flawed experience for many (watching supporters of one candidate or another chanting as they shake placards at one another doesn't bring to mind refrains from the national anthem), but an imperfect conversation is still better than none at all, isn't it?
It seems to me that conclusions reached via caucuses are more democratic, not to mention heartfelt and realistic, than those delivered by secret ballots.
Think for a moment about what's going on in the business world.
- Unlike the rare strata of politically-aware activist who visits blogs to rant or rave about issues, a lot of rank-and-file consumers use social media to make decisions as mundane as selecting a toothpaste brand, finding a vacation hotel, or comparing offerings of car insurance
- When it comes to consumer products and services, the days of mass media command-and-control branding are long over. Brands don't declare values as much as demonstrate them, or get held accountable for them by their consumers
- "Old style" marketing died many years ago, even if some marketers haven't fully come to terms with it yet. New marketing is digital, just as the strategies that utilize it are involving and social
- Likewise, I think caucuses are digital, and primaries are analog
So, while the case could easily be made that general elections should forever stay grounded in the inviolate sanctity of a secret ballot, it seems silly to suggest that party conversations about candidates are somehow less democratic than letting individuals get manipulated by one-way propaganda.
If people need to talk about what facial tissue to buy, I think it's worth talking about which candidate should run for President.
Link to original post