Nevada Caucuses - Controversy

Controversy

Caucus participants must publicly state their opinion and vote, leading to natural problems such as peer pressure from neighbors and embarrassment over who his or her preferred candidate might be. Another criticism involves the sheer amount of participants' time these events consume.

A Nevada caucus often lasts for the greater part of a day, preventing people who must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from casting their vote. Absentee voting is also barred, so active-duty Nevadan soldiers lose the opportunity to participate, as do locally-registered college students who leave the state during winter holidays. Nevada’s large active-duty population being barred from the caucusing process has prompted state legislators to rethink holding primary elections. The final criticism is the complexity of the rules in terms of how one's vote counts, as it is not a simple popular vote.

Arguments in favor of caucuses include the belief that they favor more motivated participants than simple ballots, and that supporters of non-viable candidates are able to realign with a more popular candidate and still make their vote count. Additionally, many caucus-goers consider them more interesting due to how much more interactive they are than a primary. Lastly, one other argument in favor is that caucus-goers get more information before making their vote, so those voting will potentially be more educated about their candidate choices than primary-goers.

Additionally, the representation of the caucus has had a traditionally low turnout. Others question the permanent feature of having caucuses in certain states, while perpetually ignoring the rest of the country.