In the 1865 fantastical classic, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the titular protagonist Alice creates a flood from her own tears. Almost drowning from Alice’s tears, a collection of animals dry off by running around in circles in what their leader Dodo deems a caucus race. After an undetermined amount of time, the Dodo suddenly calls out, “The race is won!” whereupon everyone wins and they all receive a prize. [1]
The book’s author, Lewis Caroll, uses a variety of experiences to showcase the chaotic yet entertaining aspects of our society, but also to satirically critique his era. The caucus race was an electoral process commonly associated with American politics. Before party dynamics became formalized and gained citizen input, candidate nominations were decided in smoke-filled back rooms brimming with party leaders and prominent figures. ‘Caucusing’ together, they would decide party nominations and put forward a candidate to run in upcoming elections.
The Dodo’s declaration that “EVERYBODY has won” is most likely built on Carroll’s criticisms of electoral systems, including the flawed caucus races that produced certain candidates as a result. Literary professor Kent Puckett points out as much in his essay, saying Carroll was an electoral theorist and the Dodo’s flawed system is potentially built on an actual electoral flaw, Condorcet’s paradox, in which individual preferences are aggregated but don’t genuinely reflect the majority view. [2]
In modern times, the caucus system continues to see use but has been highly formalized. The Iowa Presidential caucuses are the most well-known in the nation, and Utah allows for political parties to use the caucus system. Only a few states still use a caucus compared to a straight-to-primary vote. [3] Like Carroll’s satirical ruminations, however, the caucus system does still have its flaws and thus promotes certain candidates. Utah made changes to this process, though, beginning with the passage of S.B. 54 Election Amendments–coloquillay referred to as SB54–in 2014. [4]
The state now enjoys a dual-pathway primary system for electing officials. That is, no matter what you must participate in a primary, and to be a candidate on the primary ballot you must be nominated for a qualified political party. This nomination process is through a caucus/convention system, or by collecting a sufficient number of signatures within an intended district. The number of signatures needed differs depending on the level of office, and there are some inherent inequities within it. For example, to run for Utah State House, an intended candidate must collect 1,000 signatures to qualify for the primary ballot. [5] While each state house district has an equal population apportionment every 10 years, there is still fluctuation within the decade, and the requirement does not discriminate between rural and urban districts.
District 69, which encompasses five counties in the southeastern portion and nearly a quarter of the geographical size of the state, has the same requirements as District 37, which can be driven from one end to the other all around in under 10 minutes. [6] Additionally, voter turnout fluctuates in each district, with some ranging from 5,000 to 20,000. [7] A 1,000 signature threshold would be from anywhere to 5-20% of actual voter turnout.
Despite these inequities, the signature gathering route was a major compromise for Utahns, as previously the only pathway was the still existing caucus/convention system. Under this system, qualified political parties hold an evening meeting and elect party members of their neighborhood precincts to act as delegates to the county or state convention. At conventions, delegates then vote up-and-down ballot races to determine party endorsements and nominees. Until SB54, this was the only method by which candidates could obtain access to the primary ballot. In fact, pre-SB54, if a candidate did not split a simple majority with another and instead received at least 60% of the vote, a primary was not held at all. [8]
The caucus system originates from the early days where agrarian-focused towns were small enough to hold city hall meetings to talk politics and elect representatives to vote on behalf of the community at the state level, thereby lowering the public costs for voting. In essence, the caucus represents the republican half of our democratic-republic government, in which the voice and will of the people does not directly decide every division but instead vests power in chosen representatives. While associations centered on political discourse and civic engagement have at times fallen to extreme lows in the modern era, the caucus represents a system from an older age of America’s deliberative democracy.
Despite the good, Americana intentions of the caucus, Carroll rightly satirizes its flaws. With technological advances, the time, energy, and resources needed by the average voter to attend caucus night, as compared to modern-day election polling or mail-in ballots, are disproportionately high. Caucus night is historically on a single Tuesday night, located in a rotating public building in your community. Voters not only have to register, locate, and attend said meeting, but they must be prepared to make decisions that night and endure lengthy arguments regarding their proposed options. In our modern world, the burden of the caucus is shared inequitably. Working people, families, transient students, and those unfamiliar with party systems are all consistently underrepresented. Because of these structural inequities, the candidates that emerge from caucus night tend to be skewed by older, more affluent, and less diverse voters. This breakdown tends to decrease the participation of moderate policy advocates and thus ideologically skew the caucus results. [9] This is especially true when considering that delegates who are elected must commit to serving for two years, almost guaranteeing that younger, more transient individuals can never attain political power.
For all the critiques of the caucus system, however, it is a thrilling process. I attended my own caucus back in March 2024 and was elected to be a state delegate. The benefit of the caucus system is the small voting pool heading into convention, which forces expectant candidates to curry delegates’ favor. As a delegate, I received phone calls from potential congressmen, governors, school board members, and mayors all wanting to earn my support. It was exciting and I felt real connection with those running for office.
So, while the caucus is flawed, the current dual pathway system enables unique experiences and for greater equity through signature gathering. Nonetheless, this latter route for ballot access should be strengthened. The biggest argument against signature gathering is the “pay-to-play” style and reliance on large campaign financing. In 2024, each signature gathered was estimated to cost almost $15 for the time, success rate needed, and verification. [10] If the signature threshold were to be lowered and standardized at a percentage based on the previous election’s turnout, candidates would find a far more accessible route to higher office. Concerns about someone winning with a small plurality due to a high volume of candidates could be assuaged by instituting a primary runoff. While not cost-effective, it is the most politically viable method considering modern hesitation to adopt ranked choice voting amongst a faction of lawmakers. [11]
Unlike Carroll’s Dodo, I don’t feel that everyone is a winner in the caucus race. The inequities that arise from the caucus fundamentally shape what choices voters have at a primary level and who can make a decision at all. If readers are interested in learning more about the Utah caucus, as well as its pros and cons, I suggest visiting the BYU History Department page on this very topic. [12] While the caucus system can be maintained to promote deliberative processes and ensure parties’ private rights to support candidates, I believe they should not hinder the people’s ability to express their will. Electoral systems should facilitate the will of the people, not will the people into following.