Nostalgic for polling place

The way presidential candidates are picked in Washington doesn't make sense.

Taxpayers will spend millions on a primary election next week when we just did most of the deciding at party caucuses Saturday.Democrats pick all their delegates at caucuses and Republicans choose half theirs that way.

We should jump one way or the other and I vote for the primary ballot.

I know we've been a caucus state since forever and the idea of caucuses has the warm feel of grass-roots democracy about it.

But it's mostly just that, a feeling.

It's normally the most politically active of voters who show up at caucuses, which is one reason parties like them — caucuses give parties the most influence over the outcome.

That isn't bad, but it isn't ideal for most people, who aren't political junkies, and certainly not for people who may feel pressured to vote one way or another.

People don't always make the best decisions in groups.

People who are naturally vocal and forceful tend to drown out thoughtful but quieter individuals. And when politics is at the center, conflicting agendas and strong passions make it harder to make good choices.

Maybe in a small community you'd have neighbors who know each other well, sorting things out. But not in a city where often even neighbors don't know each other well enough to engage in a comfortable political conversation.

I looked up the origins of caucuses in the United States.

They're fuzzy, but it seems the early ones were not so democratic. They were gatherings of party leaders, sometimes private ones in, yes, smoke-filled rooms.

I feel nostalgic about the polling place. The ballots were private, but the feeling of coming together for a common, democratic purpose was strong, and not bounded by party lines.

I miss that, but I've embraced absentee ballots as a sensible way of voting.

My wife and I sit with our ballots around the dining-room table, which is covered with material we've collected on candidates and issues.

If we need to, we can get on the Web to answer a question before filling in a bubble. It's better than making a wild guess in a booth. It's like taking a test with the textbook open in front of you.

And it's private, which I suspect many people prefer. Journalists, the ones who aren't opinion writers, are discouraged from making their political thoughts public. There are probably other people for whom caucuses are problematic, because of work, travel, health issues, religion.

Observant Jewish voters can't participate on a Saturday. Some well-known people might hesitate, not wanting to be the center of attention.

Republicans' primary votes count, but Democrats have to fill out a "caucus surrogate affidavit" saying they fit one of three eligible groups allowed to submit absentee ballots.

It doesn't have to be that complicated.

The parties ought to put their caucuses to rest.

Jerry Large's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 206-464-3346 or jlarge@seattletimes.com.