Column | Lewis: Caucus: Colorado’s political insanity
It’s no secret, my wife chairs the Democratic Party here in Eagle County. And yes, if you are now wondering how she puts up with me, a fiscal conservative and fierce independent, well, let’s just say that we have some interesting dinner conversations.
In her role as Chair, Lisa has organized campaigns, run events, managed volunteers and generally dealt with the chaos that comes with local politics. But nothing — and I mean nothing — has frustrated her more than Colorado’s caucus system. Watching her try to manage it has convinced me of one thing: it’s time to end this insanity.
For those who have never experienced a caucus, imagine trying to run a political election using a system designed sometime around the invention of the telegraph. That’s essentially what Colorado still does.
Instead of simply voting — the way we do in every other election — voters must show up at a specific time and location (Zoom is now being used as well), sit through long meetings, navigate procedural rules, and elect delegates who then go to other meetings where more delegates are chosen. Eventually, somewhere down the line, candidates may or may not emerge.
Caucuses are not elections. They are party meetings where a small group of highly motivated activists gather to debate candidates and select delegates who then influence the nomination process.
Support Local Journalism
The key word is small. How small? The recent Democrat’s caucus had a “surge” to a whopping 13,000 people. In a state of nearly six million people, that means about one out of every 450 Coloradans helped decide which candidates advance through the system. Even within the Democratic Party, that represents barely more than one percent of registered voters.
That means the system is not representative of voters. It is representative of activists. If you want a system that favors the most ideological, most organized, and most committed party loyalists — congratulations. The caucus system is perfect.
If you want a system that reflects the will of actual voters, it’s terrible.
The barriers to participation are obvious. Caucuses require people to show up at a fixed time and sit through lengthy meetings. That automatically excludes huge numbers of people — parents with kids at home, shift workers, people commuting long distances, and frankly anyone who simply doesn’t want to spend an entire evening arguing about parliamentary procedure.
Colorado already runs one of the best election systems in the country. We vote by mail. Ballots arrive at our homes. Participation is high and the process is simple. And yet, for the critical first step in choosing candidates, we still rely on a system that feels like it was borrowed from a 19th-century political club. Supporters of caucuses argue that they promote grassroots engagement. In theory, people gather, debate issues, and deliberate together.
In reality, what happens is much simpler. A handful of party activists show up. They spend several hours navigating a confusing process. Then they select delegates who often represent the views of the most committed political insiders rather than the broader electorate.
Colorado is one of very few states (roughly 5) that still uses a caucus-and-convention system as a major path to the ballot for state offices. The fact that almost all states have moved away from caucuses should be a sign. Primary elections are simply more democratic. They allow people to vote quickly, privately and conveniently rather than attend hours-long meetings.
Colorado already understands this in practice. Most voters participate through primaries and mail ballots. Yet the caucus system still lingers as an unnecessary and inefficient gatekeeper.
The legislature should end it.
Candidates should qualify for the ballot through two simple paths: gathering signatures or competing in a primary election where every voter can participate. No multi-layered delegate system. No hours-long meetings. No insider process that only a few people have time to navigate.
Just voters.
Ending caucuses would not weaken democracy. It would strengthen it by allowing more people to participate rather than limiting influence to a small group of activists.
And it would save a lot of local party chairs from prematurely going gray.
