But there were frequent complaints of overcrowded polls, long lines, inability to hear instructions and a process that was far too time-consuming.
"They should go back to the primary process because this is murder," 81-year-old Abbot Mosher said Saturday. Mosher participated in the caucus at Sun City Summerlin's Mountain Shadows Social Center.
The debate about whether primary elections or caucuses should be held is nothing new, according to political scientists. Critics call caucuses unfair because they do not reflect a one-person, one-vote process and some voters can't participate within the two-hour window. Others support them because they are less expensive for the taxpayer and trigger discussions about the candidates.
"The more people look into the way caucuses are structured, the more they support primaries," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "I used to be a supporter because I thought it built parties, but I think they exclude too many people. People can't get off work, they're in the military, they're sick."
But Nathanial Persily, a Columbia School of Law professor, said primaries take power away from the voters.
"The move toward primaries has transferred power away from political parties to the media, who are then in a position to describe someone as having momentum," Persily said.
Nevada has been a caucus state for decades. Presidential primaries for Democrats were last held in 1980, when Jimmy Carter won the party's nod. The 1981 Legislature considered moving the primary up, to March from May, but killed the primary instead as too expensive. The Republicans, however, did hold a presidential preference primary in 1996, which was won by Bob Dole.
The state caucuses became more relevant this year when the Democratic National Committee, at Reid's urging, moved it up in the schedule. It provided a gauge for candidate support in Western states and prompted frequent visits from presidential hopefuls.
"Caucuses are complicated but, like anything else, the more you do it the easier it becomes," said Jon Summers, spokesman for Reid. "I suspect that the next time around, people will feel more comfortable with the process because they will have participated before."
Stephen Cobb, who recently retired from the U.S. Air Force, said he appreciates the caucus process but there were problems with his precinct, 3533. Cobb said the woman who served as precinct captain did not live in his precinct, which consists of 13 homes. He said he was the only one who showed up from his precinct, yet the woman appointed herself as a delegate. Cobb said he supported Rudy Guiliani; she was a Mitt Romney backer.
"I know everyone in that neighborhood and that girl does not live here," Cobb complained. "It's a vote taken away."
Las Vegas resident James Hall expressed his support for the process in an e-mail sent Monday. He said he appreciated the unusually large turnouts across the Las Vegas Valley, including the Winchester Community Center where he participated.
"Sure there was some grumbling about long lines and one person walked out," the Hillary Clinton supporter said. "Next time people will be more organized. We loved the give and take. I saw no evidence of any coercion."
State Democratic Party Chairwoman Jill Derby said she fielded many calls and e-mail messages Monday from people complaining about the caucus process. Some want Nevada to return to presidential primaries where the state Secretary of State and county election registrars would oversee the process and balloting would be more secure.
Derby noted the state held presidential primaries in the past, but the Legislature banned them because of the cost. Primaries also were conducted too late to give Nevada much say in selecting president, she added.
Because of the confusion about party caucuses, Derby expects there will be moves in the Legislature to re-establish presidential primaries.
Derby also said Monday that an official report showing how Nevadans actually voted in Saturday's caucus won't be compiled since the party never kept that information.
"We hoped to have a paper trial, but a lot of places ran out of (presidential) preference cards and used blank pieces of paper," Derby said. "It isn't critical. It wasn't about voting (for president), but electing delegates."
Derby denied caucus leaders manipulated participants' choices for president by not keeping presidential vote tallies. She said most problems in Saturday's caucus were caused by the unfamiliarity of participants with how a caucus works.
"We know how many people participated. We have the attendance sheets."
Patricia Axelrod, a Reno Democrat who attended her precinct caucus at a local grade school, expressed concern Monday that Clinton may have been given more delegates than she deserved because the party deliberately did not report an actual vote for presidential candidates.
"If (Sen.) Harry Reid and the national party can claim in excess of 116,000 participated, then we as Democrats are entitled to see the precinct-by-precinct returns that prove that fact," she said. "Otherwise the process is open for manipulation and corruption."
She and others across the state also expressed frustration because Democratic Party Web sites showing county-by-county delegate counts in Nevada were not working Monday.
From observations at her caucus, Axelrod said supporters of Clinton were running the caucus, while most participants held up preference cards that indicated their support for Barack Obama.
Derby said in some precincts an exact vote was taken. In other precincts, preference cards were not collected. During some caucus meetings, participants held up cards showing their preferred candidates and a tally was made. Supporters of specific candidates then tried to persuade backers of other candidates to switch to their candidate. From this process, county delegates were elected.
Axelrod thinks voters are entitled to presidential primaries. "We are fighting overseas for fair elections and we have no way of knowing if the caucus we held here was fair," she said.
David Damore, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said there are two primary benefits to caucuses: Parties must foot the bill rather than the state, and the parties and voters are forced to be more organized.
"It's a much better way to build grass roots because it requires people to be organized, disciplined and exercise a plan," Damore said. "That is significant in and of itself rather than just going somewhere and pulling a lever."
Contact reporter Adrienne Packer at apacker@reviewjournal.com or (702) 384-8710. Review-Journal writer Lawrence Mower contributed to this report.
RSS