In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver massacred the U.S. primary process, calling it the “electoral foreplay we’ve been engaging in since February” and highlighting a video clip of a screaming man at the Nevada primaries.

The system, with both primaries and caucuses, is hard to understand for most people and Oliver did his best to explain it to us. Some states have primaries, some have caucuses, and some–like Washington State–have both. At caucuses people have to physically attend a convention that can take hours, and then vote, traditionally leading to a low participation rate–the Republican turnout for its caucuses in 2012 was a terrible 3 percent.

Take Washington, for example, which Oliver highlights. The state has both primaries and caucuses, but the primaries “don’t count”–meaning the state ignores the primary votes and only counts the caucus votes. Oliver also points out that primary voters don’t exactly vote for a candidate; they vote for which delegates will attend the National Party Convention and then those delegates vote for the candidates on the voters’ behalf.

Oliver went through a case when Trump–“America’s walking, talking brushfire”–won the popular vote but received fewer delegates than the candidate who “got his ass kicked” (also known as Ted Cruz). And as Oliver said, there is no clearer evidence that our system is broken, than when Donald Trump is actually making sense. Trump himself summed up the situation by saying, earlier this month:

“You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system, but now I don’t say it’s anymore, because I won.”

Check out the full clip below:

For more info on the primary process, check out: How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Takes on the Broken Primary System appeared first on Law Street.

While New York voters were casting their ballots in the state’s primary on Tuesday, many Bernie Sanders supporters were hoping for a last-minute court intervention to open up the primary after a series of registration issues. While the challenge focused largely on issues with registration records, many voters were upset by the rules surrounding the state’s closed primary. When many independent voters realized that in order to vote in the Democratic primary they had to have already re-registered with the Democratic Party back in October, many were understandably upset.

Voters in New York and across the country have started to feel increasingly disenfranchised as the campaign reveals some of the weirder aspects of the American primary system. But the more you look at the way we nominate candidates in the United States, it becomes clear that the bizarre and varying campaign rules make very little sense.

Between delegate allocation that ranges from proportional to winner-take-all, superdelegates, open and closed primaries, caucuses, the outsized influence of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and the possibility of brokered conventions, the primary process is unnecessarily complex and in some ways, undemocratic.

While most people view the primaries and caucuses as a series of state-wide elections where voters go to the polls and pick their respective party’s nominee, the reality is much, much more complicated. Primaries are a race for delegates, which are allocated by state but do not always live up to the democratic vision of elections that most have. Complexity in the primary system makes the process unnecessarily confusing, and tends to give a greater voice to the parties than to the actual voters.

Neil Irwin at the New York Times made a laudable attempt to find some good out of the current system, arguing that the complexity requires candidates to hire effectively and manage a large, sprawling campaign. Irwin makes a good point in that the complexity of the campaigns can help us weed out candidates, but it doesn’t matter in so far as elections make voters feel like the parties are trying to marginalize them.

Now it’s fair to say that this election is pretty different than past nomination processes. Everything is particularly competitive, and as a result, each delegate means a lot. This has caused many to pay closer attention to exactly how the process works, and for most, they don’t like what they see.

There are a lot of factors that have caused many to feel disconnected from the two political parties, but this election has made disaffection a political message. The so-called outsider or anti-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders have made a point of directing ill will toward the parties and the election results. While criticizing the establishment could be chalked up as a political maneuver, when it comes to the nominating process both candidates have a point. Superdelegates and closed primaries favor the Democratic party because they give party insiders direct influence and can prevent independents from participating. And when half the Republican party is talking about a contested convention that could give the nomination to someone who didn’t win the popular vote, people are justifiably upset.

While some may argue that these quirks have a significant impact by shifting media coverage and the public’s perception of the campaign, they may not change the ultimate outcome. But that doesn’t really matter when the current system still makes many Americans feel excluded. The rules surrounding the nomination process simply become another way for people to be mad at the establishment.

A perfect example of this just occurred in New York. Would Bernie Sanders have won if the state held an open primary? Probably not. But New York’s particularly restrictive re-registering rules made it so independent voters, who tend to lean toward Sanders, still weren’t able to vote. So now the issue distracts from the race and causes many to get angry at the establishment. It also gives the Sanders campaign an opportunity to trash the system and add fuel to the fire.

But underlying all of this is the fact that the complexity distracts people from the issues and erodes trust in our democratic institutions. A casual observer of the primaries is inundated with strategy and horse-race media coverage based on obscure rules that change each election cycle and vary by state and party. Because of this process, we have candidates saying that there is a “rigged system” and we have young voters turning against their party because of a perceived bias in favor of the frontrunner.

Now I’m not saying that fixing the absurdity that is our nominating process will solve these problems. People will still feel marginalized and disconnected from mainstream politics. But when it comes to the most basic form of civic participation, Americans need to feel like their vote counts and that election outcomes are legitimate.

We have a long way to go before the American people trust their institutions and feel included in the democratic process. But when it comes to elections, there’s no reason why we can’t fix some of the more ridiculous idiosyncrasies. Any voter should be able to look at a state’s election results and assess the current state of the race. And there should be very few opportunities for politicians and their supporters to argue that the parties are trying to control the race.

Simple reforms like doing away with superdelegates, allocating all delegates based on the popular vote, making every election an open primary where voters are free to register and vote for the candidate of their choice, and unifying the rest of the rules to prevent large discrepancies between states would go a long way in making this process more accessible to the average news consumer. More dramatic reforms like fixing the election schedule so it doesn’t favor states that aren’t representative of the rest of the country would also help. While this may be treating the symptom and not the problem, reforming the nomination process would certainly prevent a lot of distraction on the campaign trail and make voters feel more included in the nomination process.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Face it, the U.S. Primary System is Ridiculous appeared first on Law Street.

Now that we are less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses, the first vote in the 2016 primary season, it is important to know why caucuses are different from primaries and why those differences are important. While both formats serve the same purpose–holding votes to nominate a presidential candidate–there are several misconceptions that may lead to some surprises when results are announced. So, read on to learn about the differences between caucuses and primaries.

The simple difference between the two is that primaries are run by the state government and caucuses are under the purview of state party organizations, namely the Republican and Democratic parties. Now this might seem like a minor distinction, but it does have some influence on who actually turns out to vote, which ultimately can affect the outcome.

The primary system is different from the general elections that most Americans are familiar with. For example, in primaries and caucuses voters cast their ballots for delegates who represent the candidates. Generally speaking, that is the same as voting directly for the candidate, as the delegates go on to formally nominate their candidate at the Democratic and Republican conventions later in the year. But delegate selection varies by state and can range from being proportional to the number of votes cast for a candidate across the state to a winner-take-all system. The point here is not to go into detail about all these variations, but rather to acknowledge that the rules can vary widely by party and by state.

For example, for Democrats in Iowa, vote counting is done by a headcount and caucus-goers can see where others stand. The process can also get pretty complicated. For example, the Democratic caucus in Iowa has a threshold for “viable candidates.” In most of the state’s precincts, if one candidate does not get 15 percent of the room’s vote, his or her supporters are free to pick a different candidate. This rule could prove important come next Monday because as the gap between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders narrows in Iowa, Martin O’Malley supporters could decide the outcome. O’Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, has rarely polled above 5 percent in Iowa.

What is arguably more important than these idiosyncrasies for someone watching the primary process unfold is the key difference between caucuses and primaries. The biggest and most important difference is voter turnout. Put simply, turnout is much, much lower in states that hold caucuses and tends to be less representative of the general population.

Researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School took a closer look at primary election turnouts in a 2009 study. The authors found that presidential primaries have notably low turnout relative to general elections, something that is particularly true for states with caucuses. In 2008, the most recent election without an incumbent president running, in the 12 states where both parties held caucuses, the average turnout was just 6.8 percent of eligible voters. While primaries tend to have higher rates of turnout relative to caucuses, average turnout is considerably lower than general elections, particularly for primaries held toward the end of the primary season.

The Iowa caucus had a record-breaking turnout that year, but even then it only reached 16.3 percent of eligible voters. The researchers provide a pretty stark summary of their findings:

In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking—only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4 percent of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2 percent of Iowa adults. Nevertheless, the 16.3 percent turnout level was not only an all-time Iowa record, it was easily the highest percentage ever recorded for a presidential caucus, and about eight times the average for such contests

Because a caucus is an event hosted and run by political parties, attendance is more than just casting a vote. In fact, the process can take several hours as state parties deal with party business and people have the opportunity to give speeches to try and persuade voters to back their candidate. In contrast, a primary more closely resembles a regular election–you show up to a polling location, ask for your party’s ballot, then cast your vote.

So why does all of this matter? The conventional wisdom suggests that when turnout is lower a certain type of voter tends to participate, namely those who are more extreme than the average voter. There’s some evidence to back this up as well. BYU professors Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope conducted a survey of Americans and matched the respondents to state voter files to actually identify those who actually participated in primaries and caucuses. They, not surprisingly, found that those who attended caucuses were more ideologically extreme than voters in primaries. While this may not dramatically affect the outcome of primary elections, it is an important finding to keep in mind when talking about the primaries.

This is also particularly important in the context of polling because pollsters often have a difficult time identifying who a likely voter actually is. Because of that, poll samples tend to be broader than the small group of voters who participate. It is often important to look at how polls identify likely voters and acknowledge the fact that it is extremely difficult to identify and make contact with the small number of Iowans who show up on caucus day. Polls, particularly those conducted early on, can have a very hard time predicting election outcomes.

Want to Learn More?

Josh Putnam wrote an excellent article for the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog breaking down everything you could ever want to know about presidential primary elections.

Putnam also runs FrontloadingHQ, a blog that dives into the minutia of the primary process as well as state and party rules.

The Council on Foreign Relations published a nice breakdown of the role of delegates in the nominating process back in 2008, most of which holds true today.

The New York Times has the full 2016 primary schedule, which you can even add to your Google calendar if you’re into that kind of thing.

For more details on voter turnout in past elections check out the United States Election Project.

The Pew Research Center has a great analysis of likely voters and their importance to polling.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 is Here: What are the Differences Between Caucuses and Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.