The Time Crunch of Deliberation
As my noodling about deliberation intersects with my near-obsessive following of Democratic presidential delegate selection results, it is probably worth examining the undercurrent of controversy about the use of caucuses in some states to select delegates. The argument for caucuses is that they encourage interaction between voters, encourages people to stand behind their choices, and allows for some chance of voters persuading each other to change their minds. All of these are similar to the advantages proposed by deliberation. Many supporters of Hillary Clinton’s campaign have pointed out a potential downside – there is a limited time window and a long time commitment required than in a straightforward election. This drives down participation because some people are unwilling or unable to participate. As much as I have enjoyed Barack Obama’s advantage in garnering support from caucus states, I can definitely see the point here and would certainly support any state that wanted to move from a caucus to a primary. So do various deliberation schemes suffer from the same problem? Well, if you’re doing a deliberative panel to work on a specific issue, you’re going to need to build some support for lost wages, child care concerns, and similar considerations. If you wanted to do a larger-scale deliberation project, you’re probably going to need to space it out over a period of days. I think participation is worth the costs, but it’s worth looking at the practical examples in order to appreciate just how large that cost is.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.
Saturday, February 23rd 2008 at 5:49 am |
I’m so glad to see you’re blogging again, and doing analysis of the way US “democracy” works. I haven’t got the stomach to look to closely at it myself these days, but I can appreciate the 2nd hand analysis this way!
I had friends that caucused in WA state recently – it was my first experience with a caucus over a primary, and I really enjoyed hearing about the process. It seemed significantly more democratic and just plain empowering than the primaries I’m used to.
Wednesday, February 27th 2008 at 11:13 pm |
Yeah, I’m trying desperately to stay on the horse.
I think that if you go to a caucus, it feels more like you’re doing something. (Which reminds me, I need to finish up my post on “Why Voting Is an Irrational Act.” But it’s a more demanding process, so fewer people go. And if fewer people participate, does that serve democracy?
I have no trouble with the idea that if you want democracy you have to work a little for it, but I don’t think that’s the common attitude in our society.