Humanities desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 16[edit]

Why didn't caucuses (as in the method of voting) catch on outside of the United States?[edit]

In United States presidential primaries, there are primaries (which are similar to elections, with ballots and all) and caucuses. Looking at our articles, it appears that caucuses (as in referring to those meeting-like events with groupings) don't appear to exist outside of the United States; the closest equivalent I can think of is division in the UK parliament and even then I don't think that's an exact analogue. So the question is: why didn't the concept of caucuses catch on outside the US? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caucuses aren't even that big in the US I don't think, most people probably live in primary states. Iowa being first does raises the caucus method's profile and importance though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many European countries don't even have primaries as we think of them in the U.S. However, there are "constituency selections" in the U.K... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many people outside the USA will have only the vaguest idea what a caucus is, so I've linked it. Division, in the Parliamentary sense, is nothing like it. DuncanHill (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a division at Westminster is directly analogous to an up or down vote in Washington. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate selection will also be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the USA only have the vaguest idea about what it is. Only four states currently have caucuses for internal party elections, and none use them for any other sort of elections. --Jayron 32 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Town meeting lists some European examples. They are sort of like caucuses but more for "ballot question" types of issues. Caucuses came under criticism in the US presidential primary season in 2016 and it won't surprise me if they go away in coming elections. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The caucusness of the caucus is the only reason why New Hampshire's okay with going 2nd. They cannot decaucus, New Hampshire would fite them to recaucus. It's a must caucus situation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The media tend to make a caucuses mountain out of a molehill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "caucus-race" scene in Alice in Wonderland (not with much resemblance to what goes on in Iowa every four years, though), and the Capitol Steps informed us "If you caucus with Max Baucus then your caucus may be too raucous"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason is likely that no one sees a compelling reason to adopt the practice. Nominating caucuses in the U.S. are often criticized: here is one example. ("Soft" paywalled, you might need to disable your ad blocker if you're using one, or try a Web search for how to avoid triggering it.) The usual criticisms: they're time-consuming, and depending on caucus rules, which vary between states and parties, may forbid absentee voting and deny a secret ballot, leaving voters susceptible to being pressured. All of this depresses turnout, meaning the caucuses are decided by a tiny minority of eligible voters. Many consider that undesirable. As noted, even in the U.S. only four states currently use the caucus system, and I'm not aware of any outspoken movement for more states to adopt them, so even within the U.S. they're not tremendously popular. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deal with fixing that is that political parties are NOT an organ of the government, and the government takes little role in regulating their internal processes and procedures. The parties can decide entirely by their own rules how they will select candidates to stand for office. They could use any damned method they want to. They could just have a committee select someone. They could have a cow wander a field with pictures of party members littered around, and then put forward whatever candidate the cow shat upon. It really doesn't matter because the government has nothing to say about how parties, which are private organizations and not regulated by the government, select who to endorse in elections. --Jayron 32 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS said differently in Smith v. Allwright... AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have asterisked it, because I was sure, shortly after writing it, that someone would have brought up that exception. Generally, the government allows individual parties to manage their own affairs, except in cases where it needs to combat racism or other bigotry. The Federal Government, usually under the guise of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Due Process Clause that entities which serve the public in some way (which usually includes political parties) cannot discriminate based on race. As long as some such organization is NOT discriminating on the basis of race (and by other later laws things like sex, handicapped status, etc.) then it is generally left alone. The could still use the cow patty method of nominating candidates, because AFAIK, that is not subject to racial discrimination. --Jayron 32 17:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that means members of a party can't pressure their party to change its nominating process. Indeed, up to the 1970s, the major parties' Presidential candidates were picked by party leaders. In the '60s, activists began to protest this, culminating in the unrest at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The recommendations of the McGovern–Fraser Commission spurred both major parties to shift mostly to the primary system. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently I was wrong above. More states use caucuses than I thought, at least for the Democratic Party, though it's still a minority of states. I was going off glances at the Wikipedia articles. However, as that article states (read it; it's interesting) Democrats in some of these states are moving away from caucuses towards primaries. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]