MARK SMITH MORE COLUMNS Advertisement

As should be clear by now, the uproar over the caucuses goes deep and deserves the simplest possible result:

Junk the stupid thing and go with a one man-one vote primary, period.

What seems to be assumed by those who have written and favored the caucus is that it is, in and of itself, worthwhile.

It isn't.

It denies the franchise to people who have to work when the caucus is on.

It denies the franchise to, of all people, those away from home serving in the military.

How much farther do we have to go to see the point? How many of those caucus supporters would tell a soldier face to face, "You don't rate because you're not here"?

Here, in brief, is basically, as I have been given to understand it, why we chose a caucus. Because New Hampshire would have raised the roof had we gone for a primary on the first date chosen. That was well ahead of the New Hampshire primary, and New Hampshire actually has a state law that requires its primary to be ahead of anyone else.

OK, as far as I'm concerned, the N.H. primary is a pointless pain in the neck in that respect. But the law exists, the Democratic National Committee is unwilling to force any change, so we were stuck with an early caucus.

But then, mirabile dictu, New Hampshire moved its primary forward, and the result was that a caucus here was no longer vital in keeping the peace.

Dig it -- the reason for a caucus here no longer obtained, but for whatever set of reasons, we plugged away and held it anyway.

And even then, it was a mess.

I have heard from at least three people in this office who had no idea beforehand that they weren't voting for Obama or Paul or whoever but for "delegates." This was well after we had printed what we were told was a good, worthwhile, accurate description of what we'd be facing Jan. 19. If the people who outlined the process to us couldn't get it straight, how could we? Please note: the article was printed 10 days ahead of time. Anyone who noticed what wasn't in the article could have called us up to correct things. None did.

The closest we came to any indication of delegates was a remark apparently by John Timmerman to the effect that the Republican party faithful "will also be electing 186 or 187 delegates to the Nye County Convention in Beatty in March."

Note the "also" in there, as if the delegates would be an afterthought of some sort. Now I'll agree that we can get things wrong, but the way that was written suggested the importance of the delegates was not exactly stressed by the powers that be.

Finally, it was only after the caucus that we discovered that we would not be able to acquire actual vote totals from the Democrats (who had never mentioned to us the significance of delegates until we began asking after the fact).

Dennis Keating said later that the actual presidential preference ballots were to be counted, but also the show of hands made earlier. Why both were needed was not made clear.

Nonetheless, a letter today from Mary Berg crows, "Was it a success in terms of the turn out? Absolutely -- especially for the Democrats." One wonders how many Democrats in uniform overseas or at a variety of bases around the country would have agreed. Or how Ms. Berg would excuse their disenfranchisement.

The real answer is to quit bragging about the caucus and get a grip. Dump the caucus and hold a primary. Let everyone vote. It's that simple, it's that complex.

* * *

Actually, I have to wonder why we're holding all these primaries and caucuses.

In 1960 they were far and few between, with only West Virginia, New Hampshire and Wisconsin noteworthy for their early importance. Then in 1972 the McGovernites began an upheaval that has ended up turning the whole process upside down. Suddenly the primaries and caucuses took over and the actual conventions became little more than jazzed-up celebrations.

On the good side, the power of the urban machines was diminished and the so-called smoke-filled rooms became a long-ago remembrance. But oddly enough, no one can say the actual quality of the candidates was in any way improved.

The real difference, as indicated this year, is that the campaigns are becoming permanent fixtures. We're stuck with them, year in and year out.

So here's my suggestion.

Put the quadrennial primaries on a rotating basis by region: Northeast, Midwest, South, etc. And choose those states that make sense and offer roughly accurate representations of the country's makeup.

South Carolina and Florida make some sense; Iowa and New Hampshire don't.

Finally, ensure that no one can win the nomination until the convention is actually under way.

Believe me, the old floor fights and related foofaraw meant candidates had to give a little to get a lot, and they had to compromise along the way.

That would not be a bad ideal to which we might wish a return.

* * *

On the other hand, we have as front-runners a black man and a white woman. And unlike when Geraldine Ferraro and Jesse Jackson were in the ring, no one is suggesting either can't win. And that is a sea change indeed.