If The Caucus Stunk, Why Punish Taxpayers?

Complaints about wacky rules, weird math, overzealous precinct captains and a general sense of "what the hell is going on?" were to be expected when Nevada held its first real presidential caucus. But the solution to such problems, as proposed by Dina Titus, stinks even more.

The state senator has announced she will introduce legislation in 2009 for the establishment of a Nevada presidential primary instead of caucuses. While it's not completely clear if this means the forming of a separate presidential-only January primary or the moving up of Nevada's traditional August primary, both options have big problems.

If Titus is proposing the creation of a January date solely for the presidential primary, this would mean Nevada taxpayers would be on the hook for three separate elections in 2012. Even more egregious would be the fact that Nevada taxpayers would be paying for a political party function that excludes the 200,000 or so voters who aren't registered Democrats or Republicans. If the parties want their own January date, let them to continue to pay for it.

However, if the Titus proposal entails moving the usual August primary up to January, the cost to taxpayers is just the addition of a few names to an existing ballot. But then there is a whole new problem created.

While American are becoming used to marathon presidential campaigns, do we really want to extend that to state assemblymen, congressmen, county supervisors, school board members, etc.? If Nevada's August primary was moved to January you would have candidates campaigning and putting up signs in the summer of 2011 for an election to be settled in November 2012. Do Nevadans really want a David Bobzien or Dean Heller hitting the campaign trail just a few months after being sworn in?

And then there would be the 10 months between a January primary and the November general election. While the presidential candidates will have moved on to Florida and Super Tuesday, state and local primary winners would be left with the expense and effort of having to keep their name, not to mention campaign signs, in front of the voting public for almost another full year.

The actual solution, though, is pretty simple. There's no state law saying political parties have to run caucuses with confusing rules. That was their own doing. So if most people want the simple one-person, one-vote without someone seeing it primary experience, give it to them. Set up precincts with a ballot box, keep the doors open longer and have an absentee voting system for those who can't attend. You could even have an open primary for your party if you were so inclined, it's your dime.

Now some die-hards will argue that the caucus is all about electing delegates, that in turn go to county conventions, then state conventions and, for the lucky few, the national convention. And this is absolutely true.

But two quick points. Most of those delegates "elected" at the caucus are non-binding. They can vote for whoever they want at their conventions. And, most important of all, it was the raw percentages, or beauty contest, that Americans wanted to know. It didn't matter that Barack Obama may have actually won one more delegate than Hillary Clinton, the story was she had more "votes" and was declared the victor.

Plus, wouldn't it have been nice to see how many people actually supported John Edwards, instead of the 4% he ended up with after "viability" rules were enforced.