Hubbry Logo
CaucusCaucusMain
Open search
Caucus
Community hub
Caucus
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Caucus
Caucus
Caucus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of the Politics Series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Syncretic
Major ideologies
Types
Leaders and organization
Internal elections
Party discipline
Party systems
Coalitions between parties
Lists of political parties
icon Politics portal

A caucus is a group or meeting of supporters or members of a specific political party or movement. The exact definition varies between different countries and political cultures.

The term originated in the United States, where it can refer to a meeting of members of a political party to nominate candidates, plan policy, etc., in the United States Congress, or other similar representative organs of government. It has spread to certain Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, where it generally refers to a regular meeting of all members of Parliament (MPs) who belong to a parliamentary party: a party caucus may have the ability to elect or dismiss the party's parliamentary leader. The term was used historically in the United Kingdom to refer to the Liberal Party's internal system of management and control.

Etymology

[edit]
Lewis Carroll mocked the futility of caucuses in "A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale", Chapter 3 of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865): when the "Caucus-race" of running in a circle stops, everyone is declared a winner by the Dodo and Alice is told to hand out prizes to all others, receiving her own thimble as her prize.

The word caucus came into use in the British colonies of North America to describe clubs or private meetings at which political matters were discussed. It is first found in reference to the Caucus Club of Boston, which was established in c.1719, although the name is not documented until c.1760. The origins of the word are uncertain, but there are three main theories:[1]

Native American
James Hammond Trumbull suggested to the American Philological Association that the word comes from an Algonquian word for "counsel", cau´-cau-as´u. It might also derive from the Algonquian cawaassough, meaning an advisor, talker, or orator.[2] This explanation was favored by Charles Dudley Warner.[3]
Drinking associations
The American Heritage Dictionary suggests that the word possibly derives from medieval Latin caucus, meaning "drinking vessel",[4] such as might have been used for the flip drunk at the Caucus Club (see John Adams quotation below). The appearance of the term coincides with the spreading in England – and therefore also in America – of the inns called cocues because they were places to drink the new cheap liquor called "gin" or "cuckoo liquor", since it was obtained from the distillation of so-called "cuckoo barley"; namely, barley sown very late in the spring and therefore unsuitable for the brewing of beer.[5] That caucuses were places where people drank abundantly is attested by Obadiah Benjamin Franklin Bloomfield in his 1818 autobiography: "Richard had set out hospitably [...] A caucus had been accordingly held by these worthies, and it was resolved nem. con. that they should first make a drunkard of him, and then pluck him, aye, even of the last feather."[6]
Shipbuilding
A third theory is that the word is a corruption of "caulkers" (i.e., persons who apply caulk), in the sense of shipbuilders. This derivation was suggested by John Pickering in 1816 in A Vocabulary; or, Collection of Words and Phrases Which Have Been Supposed to Be Peculiar to the U.S. of America. It was later adopted by Noah Webster and also appears in an article of 1896 on the origins of the caucus – in all cases citing the 1788 passage by William Gordon quoted below (although Gordon only mentions shipbuilding incidentally, and does not imply any direct connection with the caucus).[1][7] It likewise appears in Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1888), where it is suggested that the term's roots lay in what is here called the "caulkers' club" of Boston, formed by Samuel Adams Sr. and a group of "sea-captains, shipwrights, and persons otherwise connected with the shipping interest".[8] This entry also discusses Samuel Adams Jr.'s fondness for quoting Greek and Latin "after the pedantic fashion of the time",[8] which might provide a context for a coinage with a Latin suffix.

Early usage

[edit]

The Boston Gazette of May 5, 1760, includes an essay commenting:

Whereas it is reported, that certain Persons, of the Modern Air and Complexion, to the Number of Twelve at least, have divers Times of late been known to combine together, and are called by the Name of the New and Grand Corcas, tho' of declared Principles directly opposite to all that have heretofore been known: And whereas it is vehemently suspected, by some, that their Design is nothing less, than totally to overthrow the ancient Constitution of our Town-Meetings, as being popular and mobbish …

The writer goes on to argue that the underhand attempts of this "New and Grand Corcas" to influence voters are in opposition to the more laudable activities of "the old and true Corcas".[9][10][11]

A February 1763 entry in the diary of John Adams demonstrates that the word already held its modern connotations of a "smoke-filled room" where candidates for public election were pre-selected in private:

This day learned that the Caucas Clubb meets at certain Times in the Garret of Tom Daws, the Adjutant of the Boston Regiment. He has a large House, and he has a moveable Partition in his Garrett, which he takes down and the whole Clubb meets in one Room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip I suppose, and there they choose a Moderator, who puts Questions to the Vote regularly, and Selectman, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are Regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town  …[12]

The following month, a writer signing himself "E. J." and claiming to be "a late Member" of the Boston "Corkass", explained in greater detail how the inner circle of the "Petty Corkass" manipulated the business of the broader "Grand Corkass":

At present the heads of this venerable Company meet some weeks before a Town-Meeting, and consult among themselves, appoint town officers, and settle all other affairs that are to be transacted at town meeting; after these few have settled the affairs, they communicate them to the next better sort of their brethren; when they have been properly sounded and instructed, they meet with the heads; these are called the Petty Corkass: Here each recommends his friends, opposes others, juggle and trim, and often have pretty warm disputes; but by compounding and compromising, settle every thing before the Grand Corkass meets; tho' for form sake … a number of warm disputes are prepared, to entertain the lower sort …[13][10]

William Gordon commented in 1788:

The word caucus, and its derivative caucusing, are often used in Boston […] It seems to mean, a number of persons, whether more or less, met together to consult upon adopting or presenting some scheme of policy, for carrying a favorite point. The word is not of novel invention. More than fifty years ago, Mr. Samuel Adams's father, and twenty others, one or two from the north end of the town, where all the ship business is carried on, used to meet, make a caucus, and lay their plan for introducing certain persons into places of trust and power.[14]

An analogical Latin-type plural "cauci" is occasionally used.[15]

In the United States

[edit]
Precincts from Washington State's 46th Legislative District caucus in a school lunchroom (2008)

In United States politics and government, caucus has several related but distinct meanings. Members of a political party or subgroup may meet to co-ordinate members' actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.

Caucuses to select election candidates

[edit]
Further information: Iowa caucuses, Texas caucuses, Nevada caucuses, and Colorado Caucus
See also: United States presidential primary and United States presidential nominating convention

There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution. In the first two presidential elections, the Electoral College handled nominations and elections in 1789 and 1792 which selected George Washington. After that, Congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates. Nationally, these caucuses were replaced by the party convention starting in 1832 following the lead of the Anti-Masonic Party 1831 convention.[16]

The term caucus is frequently used to discuss the procedures used by some states to select presidential nominees such as the Iowa caucuses, the first of the modern primary presidential election cycle, and the Texas caucuses.[17] Since 1980 such caucuses have become, in the aggregate, an important component of the nomination process.[18]

Congressional caucuses

[edit]
Main article: Congressional caucus

Another meaning is a sub grouping of officials with shared affinities or ethnicities who convene, often but not always to advocate, agitate, lobby or to vote collectively, on policy. At the highest level, in Congress and many state legislatures, Democratic and Republican members organize themselves into a caucus (occasionally called a "conference").[19] There can be smaller caucuses in a legislative body, including those that are multi-partisan or even bicameral. Of the many Congressional caucuses, one of the best-known is the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of African-American members of Congress. Another prominent example is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose members voice and advance issues affecting Hispanics in the United States, including Puerto Rico. In a different vein, the Congressional Internet Caucus is a bi-partisan group of Members who wish to promote the growth and advancement of the Internet. Other congressional caucuses such as the Out of Iraq Caucus, are openly organized tendencies or political factions (within the House Democratic Caucus, in this case), and strive to achieve political goals, similar to a European "platform", but generally organized around a single issue.

In Commonwealth nations

[edit]

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa

[edit]

The term is also used in certain Commonwealth nations, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. When used in these countries, "caucus" is more usually a collective term for all members of a party sitting in Parliament, otherwise called a parliamentary group, rather than a word for a regular meeting of these members of Parliament. Thus, the Australian Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is commonly called "the Labor Caucus".[20]

The word was used in New Zealand from at least the 1890s, when organized political parties began to emerge: the largest of them, the Liberal Party, used it to refer to its parliamentary members.[21]

In New Zealand, the term is now used by all political parties,[22] but in Australia, it continues to be used only by the Labor Party. For the Australian Liberal, National and Green parties, the usual equivalent term is "party room". In South Africa all parties use the term "caucus".[23] In Canada, "caucus" refers to all members of a particular party in Parliament, including senators, or a provincial legislature.[24][25] These members elect among themselves a caucus chair who presides over their meetings. This person is an important figure when the party is in opposition, and is an important link between cabinet and the backbench when the party is in government.

In such contexts, a party caucus can be quite powerful, as it can elect or dismiss the party's parliamentary leader. The caucus system is a departure from the Westminster tradition in giving members of the upper house a say in the election of the party leader, who may become head of government. The caucus also determines some matters of policy, parliamentary tactics, and disciplinary measures against disobedient MPs. In some parties, the caucus also has the power to elect MPs to Cabinet when the party is in government. For example, this is traditionally so in the Australian Labor Party and the New Zealand Labour Party.

United Kingdom

[edit]

Historic usage

[edit]
"Farewell to the Caucus": 1886 cartoon of Francis Schnadhorst, Secretary of the UK National Liberal Federation, leaving Birmingham for London following the split in the party over Irish Home Rule. His luggage includes a scroll marked "Caucus", several string puppets, and a box of "wire pulling machinery", all in allusion to his reputation as a backstage political manager.

The word "caucus" had a wide currency in the United Kingdom in the late 19th century, meaning a highly structured system of management and control within a political party, equivalent to a "party machine" in the United States. It was used with specific reference to the structure of the Liberal Party. Originally a pejorative term, used by detractors of the system with overtones of corrupt American practices, the name was soon adopted by the Liberals themselves.

The system had originated at a local level in Birmingham in preparation for the 1868 general election, when, under the 1867 Reform Act, the city had been allocated three parliamentary seats, but each elector had only two votes. In order to spread votes evenly, the secretary of the Birmingham Liberal Association, William Harris (later dubbed the "father of the Caucus") devised a four-tier organizational structure (of ward committees, general committee, executive committee, and management committee) through which Liberal voters in different wards could be instructed in the precise combinations in which to cast their votes.[26][27][28] In 1877 the newly formed National Liberal Federation was given a similar structure, on the initiative of Joseph Chamberlain, and again worked out in detail by Harris.[29]

Shortly afterwards the term "caucus" was applied to this system by The Times newspaper, which referred to "the 'caucus' with all its evils", and by the Conservative prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli.[30][31][32][33][34] In 1880 Queen Victoria, following a meeting with Disraeli, wrote disapprovingly in a private note of "that American system called caucus".[35] The Liberal Caucus was also vilified by socialists and trade unionists, who (prior to the establishment of the Independent Labour Party) sought a route to parliamentary representation through the Liberal Party via the Labour Representation League and the Labour Electoral Association, but found their way barred by the party's management structures.[36]

Moisey Ostrogorsky devoted some nine chapters of his Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (1902) to discussion of the development and operation of the "Caucus" in this sense.[37]

Contemporary usage

[edit]

The word "caucus" is only occasionally encountered in contemporary politics in the British Isles. In contrast to other Anglosphere nations, it is never used for all members of a party in Parliament: the usual term for that concept, both in the UK and Ireland, is "parliamentary party".

When the term is used, it generally refers to a subgroup, faction or pressure group within a political party. For example, in 2019 the One Nation Conservatives and Blue Collar Conservatives were established as factions within the Conservative Party, both being described as "caucuses".[38][39][40]

In organizations

[edit]

In conventions, where the membership from different parts of the organization may gather, each separate group within the organization may meet prior to the convention as a caucus.[41] Each caucus may decide how the group would vote on various issues that may come up at the convention.[41] Unless the votes are made binding, however, each delegate is still free to vote in any fashion.[41]

In alternative dispute resolution

[edit]

The term caucus is also used in mediation, facilitation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution to describe circumstances wherein, rather than meeting at a common table, the disputants retreat to a more private setting to process information, agree on negotiation strategy, confer privately with counsel or with the mediator, or simply gain "breathing room" after the often emotionally difficult interactions that can occur in the common area where all parties are present.[42] The degree to which caucuses are used can be a key defining element, and often an identifier, of the mediation model being used. For example, "facilitative mediation" tends to discourage the use of caucuses and tries to keep the parties talking at a single table, while "evaluative mediation" may allow parties to separate more often and rely on the mediator to shuttle information and offers back and forth.[43]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Caucus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A caucus is a private meeting of members or supporters of a , faction, or interest group, typically convened to deliberate on , select candidates, or allocate delegates for nominations. The term originated in 18th-century politics, with its first recorded use in 1763, likely derived from an Algonquian word such as caucauasu meaning "counselor" or "," though alternative theories trace it to ship caulkers' gatherings or Latin caucus for "drinking cup." In the United States, caucuses play a prominent role in electoral processes, particularly as an alternative to primaries for allocating presidential delegates in certain states, where participants gather publicly to discuss candidates, form preference groups, and vote through consensus or ballots, often emphasizing over anonymous secret voting. caucuses also occur within state legislatures and , functioning as internal conferences for majority or minority parties to organize , set agendas, and coordinate votes on . Beyond formal party structures, congressional caucuses comprise informal, bipartisan or partisan groups of lawmakers united by shared policy interests—ranging from substantive issues like to niche topics such as or —serving to build coalitions, host briefings, and influence bills without formal authority. These mechanisms highlight caucuses' in fostering but have drawn for potentially amplifying organized interests or activists at the expense of broader , as participation demands time and physical presence rather than simple .

Etymology

Origins and Early Usage

The word caucus first entered English usage in the mid-18th century, with its etymological roots most plausibly traced to an Algonquian term such as caucauasu, denoting an advisor, elder, or counselor in Native American languages of the northeastern region. This derivation, advanced by philologist J. H. Trumbull in 1872 and supported by subsequent linguistic analysis, reflects adaptation by English speakers in colonial America to describe informal gatherings of wise or influential figures for counsel. While debated alternatives include a link to Latin caucus (a drinking vessel) or Boston ship caulkers' slang, the Algonquian hypothesis aligns with phonetic patterns and the term's emergence in contexts involving advisory deliberation. The earliest recorded application appears in John Adams's diary on February 22, 1763, noting a meeting of the "Caucus Clubb" at the home of his brother-in-law in . This group, operational by the 1750s, comprised local merchants, artisans, and leaders who convened privately to discuss civic and electoral strategies amid growing colonial tensions with Britain. , a key organizer, leveraged such caucuses in the for coordinating opposition to imperial policies, including discreet planning for town meetings and candidate endorsements. These proto-political assemblies emphasized closed-door consensus through debate rather than open voting, serving as advisory councils for influencing outcomes without formal hierarchy or broad participation. In Boston's networked caucuses, such as those in the North End, members like Adams and William Molineux focused on unifying select stakeholders for practical ends, blending social fellowship with strategic counsel in a manner predating structured party politics. This foundational usage underscored secrecy and collective reasoning, adapting indigenous-inspired terminology to colonial needs for trusted, insular deliberation.

Evolution in Political Contexts

In the mid-18th century, "caucus" denoted informal, private gatherings of political leaders or local voters in , often convened to deliberate on candidates or issues without broader public involvement. By the early , amid the formation of structured , the term transitioned to describe organized party meetings explicitly for nominating candidates, differentiating these from opaque elite deliberations—derisively termed "smoke-filled rooms"—or mass conventions by emphasizing localized, member-driven selection processes. This conceptual shift gained momentum during the Jacksonian era of the 1820s and 1830s, when advocates for expanded white male suffrage and anti-elitist reforms repurposed caucuses as participatory mechanisms to counter the system's perceived corruption and exclusivity, thereby formalizing them as tools for influence within parties. Such adaptations reflected a causal push toward democratizing nominations, prioritizing direct voter input over centralized party insider control, though they retained the core feature of closed deliberation to build consensus. By the , the term's semantics broadened beyond nominating functions to encompass enduring factions or interest-based alliances within legislative bodies, where lawmakers coordinated on policy agendas independent of formal leadership. This expansion accommodated the growing complexity of representative assemblies, enabling subgroups to amplify specialized voices—such as on regional, ideological, or demographic lines—without altering the original of strategic, intra-party grouping.

Core Characteristics

A caucus constitutes a closed or semi-closed meeting of individuals affiliated with a or faction, convened for the purpose of deliberating on matters, selecting candidates, or allocating delegates through open discussion and voting. This process inherently prioritizes interactive engagement among participants, often involving verbal persuasion, group formation around preferred options, and iterative rounds of preference expression rather than isolated individual choices. Such gatherings typically occur at local levels, like precincts or districts, and are organized by the party itself, distinguishing them from state-administered elections. In contrast to primaries, which employ secret ballots to enable anonymous voting and accommodate broader participation—including absentee and early options—caucuses demand physical attendance and public commitment to choices, fostering debate but potentially limiting turnout to more committed activists. This deliberative format allows for real-time shifts in allegiance, as supporters may publicly realign with viable alternatives during the meeting, a dynamic absent in the fixed, non-interactive nature of primary balloting. Caucuses also diverge from conventions, which aggregate pre-selected delegates in larger, hierarchical assemblies to ratify decisions rather than initiating grassroots deliberation among ordinary members. Direct elections, by comparison, rely on individual votes cast without intermediary group processes, emphasizing personal preference over collective negotiation; caucuses, however, embed voting within a framework of communal influence and consensus-building, which can amplify the voices of persuasive participants at the expense of quieter or absent ones. Party-specific rules often introduce variations, such as viability thresholds in multi-candidate scenarios—requiring a minimum support percentage (e.g., 15%) for continuation into subsequent rounds—prompting strategic withdrawals and preference consolidation to streamline outcomes. These elements underscore the caucus's role as a mechanism for internal party mobilization rather than mass polling.

General Procedures and Variations

Caucuses typically commence with a check-in process where participants verify their eligibility, often requiring registration with the relevant political party and residency in the precinct or district. These meetings, organized by political parties at local levels such as precincts, involve attendees gathering in person to express candidate preferences through interactive methods rather than secret ballots. Standard steps include initial discussions or brief presentations on candidates, followed by participants forming groups based on their preferred choices, with undecided individuals often assembling separately. Group sizes are then counted to determine support levels, and in systems with viability thresholds—such as 15% minimum for Democratic caucuses—non-viable groups may realign once, allowing participants to persuade others or shift to viable options before a final tally. This process allocates delegates proportional to final preferences for higher-level conventions. Variations in procedures arise across parties and jurisdictions, with Democratic caucuses emphasizing public grouping and persuasion, while Republican formats may incorporate secret ballots or direct voting without realignment. Participation rules differ, including closed systems limited to party members, for independents, or semi-open hybrids, though most demand physical attendance during multi-hour events, contrasting with the brief, anonymous voting of primaries. Some caucuses weight outcomes by precinct population size or permit limited in exceptional cases, but standard implementations prioritize in-person commitment to foster debate and consensus-building over expedited individual choices. These mechanics, party-run rather than state-administered, typically span several hours, requiring sustained engagement from participants.

Historical Development

Emergence in American Politics

The congressional caucus emerged as the primary mechanism for nominating presidential candidates in the United States during the early 19th century, with the Democratic-Republican Party's caucus of House and Senate members selecting nominees from 1800 to 1824. This system filled the constitutional void in candidate selection by leveraging the dominant party's congressional majority to achieve internal consensus, reflecting a first-principles approach where party elites in the federal legislature coordinated to present unified slates amid fragmented electorates. For instance, the caucus nominated Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and James Madison in 1808, ensuring party cohesion without direct popular input. Dubbed "King Caucus" by critics, the process drew sharp rebukes for its unrepresentativeness, as it empowered a small cadre of incumbent legislators—often insulated from pressures—to override broader party sentiments, fostering perceptions of over voter sovereignty. Empirical discontent peaked in the 1824 , where the caucus endorsed despite stronger regional support for and ; Crawford's third-place finish invalidated the system's legitimacy, culminating in a contingent that underscored its disconnect from expanding white male . This causal backlash stemmed from Jacksonian demands for , where elite congressional control clashed with rising expectations of participatory legitimacy, prompting parties to seek mechanisms broadening input beyond Washington insiders. The post-1828 era marked a pivotal shift, as Andrew Jackson's victory and the Democratic Party's formation accelerated popular participation, diminishing the congressional caucus's presidential role while spurring state-level adoptions of caucus-like assemblies for nominations and delegate selection. By the 1830s, the Anti-Masonic Party's innovations—initially through local caucuses evolving into the first national nominating convention in —catalyzed this transition, pressuring major parties to replace pure congressional dominance with hybrid systems incorporating state conventions and precinct caucuses to aggregate voter preferences more proximally. These adaptations causally addressed representativeness critiques by decentralizing authority, enabling rank-and-file activists to influence delegates amid surging turnout, though caucuses retained elite vulnerabilities until further reforms. By mid-century, such procedures had embedded caucuses as foundational tools for intrastate party organization, laying groundwork for their refinement into structured delegate-allocation events.

Adoption and Adaptation Internationally

The term "caucus," denoting organized party deliberations, spread from its American origins to British politics in the , as Liberal organizers sought efficient structures to manage expanded electorates after the Second Reform Act of . The Birmingham Liberal Association pioneered the "Birmingham Caucus" around –, borrowing American methods of delegate selection and constituency coordination to counter Conservative advantages in grassroots mobilization. This adaptation emphasized permanent committees for candidate endorsement and policy alignment, addressing the causal pressure of mass on traditional elite-driven politics. Francis Schnadhorst, as secretary of the National Liberal Federation from 1877, scaled the caucus model nationwide, integrating it into the party's machinery for disciplined campaigning and internal consensus-building. The mechanism's appeal lay in its utility for parliamentary systems, where unlike U.S. , fused executive-legislative dynamics necessitated tight party cohesion to sustain governments amid factional risks. Through imperial networks and English-language political discourse, this British variant influenced dominions during late 19th- and early 20th-century federation processes. In , the Labor Party convened its inaugural federal caucus on May 8, 1901, adapting the form for legislative members to coordinate across state branches in a federal context, prioritizing policy vetting over public nomination. Similar patterns emerged in and , where caucuses facilitated intra-party deliberation suited to Westminster adaptability rather than U.S.-style primaries. These adoptions reflected pragmatic responses to scaling representative institutions in settler colonies, leveraging the term's connotation of confidential group strategy. Adoption remained confined largely to Anglophone realms due to linguistic barriers and the term's in common-law electoral traditions; non-English systems typically employed analogous functions via centralized party bureaus or assemblies without importing the , as deliberative selection proved less viable in proportional or unitary frameworks favoring hierarchical .

Political Uses in the United States

Presidential and State Nominating Caucuses

Presidential nominating caucuses are intraparty meetings organized at the precinct, county, or district level to select delegates pledged to presidential candidates for national conventions. These events, distinct from secret-ballot primaries, involve participants publicly declaring preferences through grouping, followed by opportunities for persuasion and realignment before final counts determine proportional delegate allocation according to state party rules. The process favors committed activists willing to attend evening gatherings, often lasting hours, which empirically results in lower participation compared to primaries. The Iowa caucuses, held first in the nation since 1972, exemplify this system and have significantly influenced presidential campaigns by rewarding candidates with strong grassroots organization. In the 2024 Republican caucuses on January 15, Donald Trump secured victory with approximately 51% of the vote, capturing over 50,000 delegates statewide amid turnout of about 110,000 participants—roughly 15% of Iowa's registered Republicans. This low turnout, the lowest in over a decade despite Trump's dominance, underscores caucuses' reliance on a motivated subset of voters, contrasting with primaries where millions participate nationally; for instance, larger states like Florida saw over 4 million primary voters in recent cycles. State variations include hybrid approaches or transitions to primaries for broader accessibility, as seen in where the 2016 Democratic caucus yielded a narrow win for (52.6% to ' 47.3%), highlighting how caucus dynamics—emphasizing verbal advocacy—can amplify differences from hypothetical primary outcomes favoring wider electorates. In 2024, few states retained caucuses for major parties: for both, for Republicans (Trump won decisively), and limited others like for Democrats, with most opting for primaries to boost turnout and reduce logistical barriers like required in-person attendance. These mechanics prioritize delegate proportionality but often reflect activist preferences over mass voter sentiment, as evidenced by 's consistent underrepresentation of the state's full eligible population.

Congressional and Legislative Caucuses

Congressional caucuses consist of informal, voluntary groups of members from the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that transcend formal committees to advance shared policy goals, often organized around ideological, regional, or issue-specific interests. Unlike official standing committees, these caucuses lack formal authority to report legislation but exert influence through agenda coordination, vote whipping, and lobbying external stakeholders. Prominent examples include the House Freedom Caucus, formed in January 2015 by conservative Republicans to advocate limited government, fiscal conservatism, and strict adherence to party platforms on spending and social issues; the Blue Dog Coalition, established in 1995 as a group of fiscally conservative Democrats promoting centrist economic policies and deficit reduction; and the bipartisan Congressional Future Caucus, launched in 2015 to unite millennial and Gen Z lawmakers on long-term challenges like climate resilience and technological innovation affecting younger generations. These groups facilitate internal coordination by pooling resources for research, drafting policy alternatives, and pressuring leadership on floor votes, thereby shaping legislative priorities without binding members. By the , the number of such caucuses exceeded 200, with many registered as Congressional Member Organizations () to access shared staff and funding, reflecting their proliferation as tools for niche advocacy amid growing partisan fragmentation. Bipartisan iterations, like the Future Caucus, demonstrate potential for cross-aisle collaboration, though ideological caucuses often amplify intraparty tensions, as seen when the withheld support from Republican leadership to enforce spending cuts. In the 119th Congress convening January 2025, following Republican gains in the 2024 elections that secured slim majorities in both chambers (House: narrow GOP edge; Senate: 53 Republicans), conservative caucuses such as the Freedom Caucus gained leverage to enforce fiscal restraint, demanding offsets for new spending and blocking omnibus bills to align with incoming President Trump's agenda of deregulation and debt limitation. Progressive Democratic caucuses, relegated to minority status, faced diminished influence, struggling to coordinate defensive votes against GOP priorities like Medicaid reforms and clean energy subsidy phases, highlighting caucuses' amplified role in majority dynamics but constraints in opposition. This post-2024 configuration underscored caucuses' utility in vote discipline, with GOP factions successfully stalling appropriations to avert deficits exceeding $2 trillion annually.

Political Uses in Other Countries

Commonwealth Nations

In Australia, parliamentary parties conduct caucus meetings—commonly termed "party room" gatherings—to deliberate on selection and policy positions, with leadership spills serving as a mechanism for internal votes to replace incumbents. The Liberal Party, for example, amended its spill rules on December 3, 2018, requiring a signed by a of party room members before a vote could proceed, following turbulent spills that year which ousted . These processes, prevalent in both major parties, prioritize factional bargaining among MPs over broader membership involvement, often culminating in rapid changes driven by dissatisfaction with electoral performance or internal power dynamics. In , party caucuses function as closed forums for MPs to discuss legislative strategies, directions, and leader confidence, exerting significant influence on prime ministerial tenure independent of formal parliamentary votes. Caucus discontent has historically prompted internal no-confidence motions against leaders, as evidenced by Liberal Party MPs contemplating mechanisms to oust shortly after his May 2025 election, highlighting the caucus's role in enforcing accountability amid challenges. Provincial parties mirror this structure, adapting caucus deliberations for regional leadership contests and alignment, though outcomes frequently reflect loyalty pressures rather than extensive debate. New Zealand's rely on parliamentary caucuses to coordinate between elected members and extra-parliamentary structures, focusing on elections, bill scrutiny, and strategy formulation in a mixed-member proportional system. These meetings, integral to parties like Labour and National, emphasize unified positioning but are characterized by limited transparency, with decisions often reinforcing over factional dissent. In , the (ANC) utilizes its parliamentary caucus—encompassing all ANC MPs in the and —for policy evaluation, strategic planning, and advancing cadre deployment, a post-1994 policy placing party loyalists in roles to ensure alignment with ANC objectives. Cadre deployment, restructured through monthly caucus sessions for ongoing assessment, has been criticized for prioritizing ideological fidelity over merit, correlating with governance inefficiencies such as scandals documented in inquiries from 2018 onward. Across these contexts, caucuses predominantly enforce intra-party loyalty and hierarchical control, subordinating open contestation to maintaining cohesive parliamentary fronts.

United Kingdom Specifics

In the late , "caucus" in British politics denoted structured organizational committees within the Liberal Party, exemplified by the Birmingham Liberal Association's model established around 1868 under secretary Francis Schnadhorst. This system divided members into wards for disciplined electioneering and advocacy of Radical reforms like extended suffrage and Irish Home Rule, enabling coordinated agitation that bolstered Liberal electoral gains in the 1870s and 1880s. Unlike informal Radical groupings, these caucuses imposed hierarchical control to align local activism with parliamentary strategy, fostering party cohesion amid reform pressures. Contemporary parliamentary caucuses function primarily as internal party management bodies rather than nominating mechanisms, emphasizing backbench influence on and policy. The Conservative Party's , founded in April 1923 by 156 MPs opposed to the Lloyd George coalition, convenes weekly to represent backbenchers and oversees contests. It administers confidence votes, triggered when at least 15% of Conservative MPs (52 as of 2024) submit letters to its chair, culminating in a secret ballot where the leader must secure a majority plus 15% of votes or face resignation. This process, activated five times since 1979—including against in 1990 and in 2022—channels dissent internally, mitigating broader party fractures by enabling orderly transitions. Labour's equivalent, the (PLP), holds similar meetings but relies on annual elections rather than formalized no-confidence thresholds. Post-Brexit factionalism highlighted caucuses' role in policy enforcement, with the (ERG)—a Eurosceptic Conservative caucus formed in 1993 and peaking at around 100 members—influencing withdrawal terms from onward. The ERG coordinated amendments to dilute Theresa May's 2018 Brexit deal, amassing 48 letters of no-confidence against her in 2018 and contributing to her 2019 resignation after failing to deliver EU exit. By prioritizing over economic ties, the group shifted dynamics toward no-deal , empirically stabilizing pro-Brexit cohesion but exacerbating volatility, as evidenced by four prime ministerial changes between and 2022. Such caucuses enhance causal stability through veto power over untenable policies, averting electoral alienation, yet recurrent interventions underscore their potential to amplify intra-party divisions when ideological rifts deepen.

Limited Applications Elsewhere

The term "caucus" sees limited adoption in non-English-speaking democracies outside the Anglo-American sphere, primarily appearing in borrowed or informal contexts within supranational bodies like the rather than domestic legislatures. In the EU Parliament, political caucuses have been organized sporadically, such as by the ahead of Conference on the Future of Europe plenary meetings to coordinate social democratic members, reflecting coordination among transnational factions rather than institutionalized practice. Similarly, the group references a "Political Caucus" for affiliated members of the , indicating occasional English-language usage in multilingual, federal-like structures influenced by Anglo-American terminology. These instances stem from the EU's English-proficient bureaucratic environment and cross-border alliances, but the term does not supplant native equivalents like "groupe politique" in French or "politische Gruppe" in German for standard parliamentary operations. In , usage remains exceptional and confined to specific ideological blocs, as seen in Brazil's Evangelical Caucus (Bancada Evangélica), a parliamentary front formed in the 1980s comprising evangelical legislators across parties to advance religious policy interests, which explicitly adopts the English-derived term despite predominance. This adaptation likely arises from evangelical networks' ties to U.S. , facilitating terminological borrowing, yet it does not extend broadly; most regional legislatures employ terms like "bancada" or "bloque" for similar factions in countries such as or , underscoring the term's marginal penetration amid linguistically distinct party systems favoring centralized blocs over U.S.-style decentralized meetings. Adoption in and other non-Western regions is negligible, with no widespread parliamentary or party equivalents using "caucus"; instead, structures like Japan's "habatsu" (intra-party factions) or India's "parliamentary committees" fulfill analogous roles without the terminology, attributable to entrenched native political vocabularies and Westminster-influenced but localized systems that prioritize party whips over open factional deliberations. The sparsity reflects causal factors including linguistic barriers—rooted in the term's 18th-century English origins tied to American colonial assemblies—and structural divergences, where multiparty parliamentary setups in these areas emphasize unified party lines over the flexible, interest-based groupings characteristic of caucus systems.

Non-Political Applications

In Private Organizations and Interest Groups

In labor unions, caucuses function as organized subgroups of rank-and-file members that meet privately to discuss grievances, develop strategies, and nominate candidates for internal elections, often serving as vehicles for or opposition to established leadership. For example, the Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) caucus within the (UAW) emerged as a faction in the early 2020s, advocating for rank-and-file of contracts during the 2022 negotiations with automakers, which contrasted with the Administration Caucus's approach of leadership-driven approvals. Similarly, the (TDU), active since the 1970s, organizes caucuses open to members and their families to promote democratic reforms and challenge one-party rule in union governance. In nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and professional associations, caucuses enable focused deliberations on policy positions or operational priorities, typically requiring a minimum membership threshold and alignment with the parent body's mission. The (APHA), a nonprofit , defines caucuses as groups of at least 25 members addressing specific issues, such as or , to formulate recommendations for annual meetings or campaigns. Procedures mirror scaled-down political models but adhere strictly to bylaws, involving closed sessions for , straw polls, or consensus-building to produce unified stances before plenary votes, thereby streamlining in voluntary settings without coercive authority. Advocacy groups and interest associations further employ caucuses for delegate selection in conventions or strategy alignment on campaigns, fostering internal cohesion amid diverse memberships. In the (AFT), the Solidarity Caucus operates as a rank-and-file network to address member concerns like contract bargaining and political endorsements, emphasizing input over top-down directives. These mechanisms prioritize empirical assessment of proposals—such as strike efficacy or —over ideological conformity, though entrenched caucuses aligned with leadership can dominate outcomes, as observed in union elections where reform groups like UAWD secured breakthrough wins in regional leadership votes by 2023.

In Alternative Dispute Resolution

In alternative dispute resolution (ADR), particularly , a caucus refers to a private, confidential meeting between and one or side in a dispute, allowing for the discussion of sensitive information, emotional venting, clarification of positions, and exploration of potential concessions without the other party's direct involvement. This technique is commonly employed in contexts such as proceedings, commercial disagreements, and labor disputes to de-escalate tensions and uncover underlying interests that may not surface in joint sessions. The procedure typically involves the mediator shuttling iteratively between separate caucuses with each party after an initial joint opening, conveying settlement proposals or counteroffers while maintaining to encourage candor and incremental movement toward agreement. For instance, in a commercial dispute, a party might reveal its bottom-line position or best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) solely to , who then tests feasibility privately with the opposing side to gauge viability without risking . This shuttling fosters trust in the mediator and facilitates breakthroughs by addressing misperceptions or power imbalances that could derail open negotiations. Unlike political caucuses, which often involve binding delegate selection or group deliberations, ADR caucuses are voluntary, non-binding tools focused on consensual outcomes, distinguishing from where caucuses play a lesser role amid more formal, adjudicative processes resembling mini-trials with binding decisions. Empirically, caucuses contribute to 's effectiveness in reducing litigation costs and time, with studies indicating higher settlement rates in labor-management disputes when caucuses are utilized, though overall mediation success—often 70-80% settlement in civil cases—stems from the combined process rather than caucuses alone.

Evaluations and Controversies

Advantages and Empirical Strengths

Caucuses promote informed among participants through structured discussions, efforts, and realignment phases, contrasting with the isolated ballot-casting of primaries. In formats like the Democratic caucus, attendees publicly for candidates, assess viability thresholds, and shift support to viable alternatives, fostering consensus-building and exposure to counterarguments that enhance participant understanding of policy positions. This interactive process engages committed individuals for extended periods—often 2-3 hours—yielding higher intensity of involvement compared to the brief act of voting in primaries. Empirical analyses indicate caucuses selectively attract ideologically consistent and highly motivated activists, filtering for nominees with strong commitment rather than broad but superficial appeal. Experimental research demonstrates that caucus systems draw participants with more extreme policy preferences and greater partisan attachment, producing electorates that prioritize ideological coherence over moderation. This mechanism has historically enabled parties to nominate principled candidates, as evidenced by Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican nomination, secured via caucus and convention victories that empowered activists against favorites despite primary setbacks. Proponents emphasizing party control argue caucuses empower insiders to vet candidates, mitigating risks of populist excesses driven by low-information mass voting in primaries. By relying on dedicated activists, caucuses ensure nominees align with core values, potentially stabilizing nominations against fleeting media-driven surges. Additionally, caucuses impose lower administrative costs on states, as parties manage without taxpayer-funded polling sites, ballots, or tabulation—shifting expenses to voluntary organizational efforts and avoiding multimillion-dollar outlays typical of primary elections.

Criticisms, Shortcomings, and Reform Efforts

Caucuses in presidential nominating processes have faced criticism for consistently producing lower compared to primaries. In the 2024 Iowa Republican caucuses, participation reached approximately 110,000 voters, equating to about 15% of the state's 752,000 registered Republicans. Historical data from shows turnout often below 20%, such as in 2016 when roughly one in five registered voters participated. Studies indicate caucuses generally yield lower participation than primaries due to their in-person, time-intensive format, with one noting primaries attract broader electorates while caucuses draw narrower, more committed groups. Accessibility barriers further exacerbate these shortcomings, particularly for individuals with disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, or those affected by weather. Caucuses require physical attendance for extended periods—often evenings in winter—posing challenges in states like , where severe storms have historically suppressed turnout; for instance, forecasts of extreme cold and snow in January 2024 were expected to further dampen participation. Voters with disabilities have reported difficulties securing accommodations, including unreturned calls to officials and inadequate site access, as documented in Iowa ahead of the 2020 caucuses. These issues disproportionately exclude working parents, the elderly, and rural residents without reliable transportation. Critics argue caucuses favor ideological activists and party insiders over representative voter input, as the format rewards those with resources for mobilization rather than secret-ballot convenience. This structure amplifies voices of committed partisans, potentially skewing outcomes toward extremes and reducing appeal to moderates or independents unavailable for multi-hour deliberations. The 2016 Nevada Democratic caucus exemplified operational chaos, with disputes over , precinct irregularities, and strong local turnout favoring over despite his statewide popular vote edge, leading to complaints of manipulation and legal challenges from Sanders supporters. Controversies have intertwined caucuses with broader party dynamics, such as the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) use of superdelegates, unelected insiders whose early endorsements can influence caucus delegate selection and perceived fairness. In 2024, despite DNC efforts to prioritize diverse states like for earlier primaries to better reflect the party's electorate, Iowa retained its caucus-first position for Republicans, while Democrats shifted to a non-binding mail-in process amid sanctions threats. Reform efforts include transitions to primaries for enhanced accessibility and turnout. Following DNC pressures and post-2016 scrutiny, several states adopted primaries; for example, the threat of calendar penalties prompted widespread shifts, correlating with higher participation rates in former caucus states. Advocates like the Brennan Center have called for eliminating caucuses in favor of open, vote-by-mail systems to broaden inclusion, though defenders counter that caucuses preserve party sovereignty in vetting candidates through deliberative processes, arguing primaries dilute internal accountability. , among others, exemplifies this trend by moving to primaries to address logistical flaws.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caucus
  2. https://www.csg.org/2023/11/09/what-is-a-caucus/
  3. https://www.etymonline.com/word/caucus
  4. https://www.usa.gov/primaries-caucuses
  5. https://www.house.mn.gov/caucus/home/
  6. https://case.house.gov/about/committees-and-caucuses.htm
  7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/caucus
  8. https://blog.oup.com/2024/01/the-origin-of-the-word-caucus-conclusion/
  9. https://boston1775.blogspot.com/2008/01/colonial-boston-vocabulary-caucus.html
  10. https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/11/birth-caucus/
  11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/16/caucus-word-origin-election-iowa/
  12. https://americainclass.org/the-expansion-of-democracy-during-the-jacksonian-era/
  13. https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/NomProcess.html
  14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07343460802683125
  15. https://ballotpedia.org/Caucus
  16. https://www.lwv.org/blog/what-presidential-caucus
  17. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-differences-between-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses/
  18. https://www.eac.gov/voters/primary-election-types
  19. https://www.polyas.com/election-glossary/caucus
  20. https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s-elections-work/how-does-a-caucus-work.html
  21. https://www.senate.gov/about/parties-leadership/nominating-presidents.htm
  22. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=book_sections
  23. https://www.press.jhu.edu/newsroom/killing-king-caucus
  24. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/nominating-candidates/nineteenth-century/
  25. https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/birth-of-party-conventions-antimasonic-party-video/retro-report/
  26. https://civicsforlife.org/the-evolution-of-political-conventions/
  27. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/iv-the-origins-of-the-birmingham-caucus/576790203AE05A16ACC52B37C7056EB1
  28. https://liberalhistory.org.uk/journal-article/birmingham-the-caucus-and-the-1868-general-election/
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2139646
  30. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/238994
  31. https://www.chifley.org.au/in-depth/nation-builders-from-day-one-120-years-of-the-federal-alp/
  32. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-word-caucus-Is-it-used-in-the-English-speaking-world-outside-the-US
  33. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iowa-caucus-turnout-2024/
  34. https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464804185/why-does-iowa-vote-first-anyway
  35. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224749221/trump-wins-republican-iowa-caucus-2024
  36. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/16/iowa-caucus-turnout/
  37. https://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11079458/nevada-results-hillary-clinton-wins
  38. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/caucus-states
  39. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40683
  40. https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/congressional-caucuses-explained
  41. https://ballotpedia.org/House_Freedom_Caucus
  42. http://bluedogs-gluesenkampperez.house.gov/about
  43. https://futurecaucus.org/future-caucus/congressional-future-caucus/
  44. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/fundamentals-american-government/congressional-caucuses
  45. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZFkM0S8DI
  46. https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020s-crossover-districts/
  47. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/14/text
  48. https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2025/05/look-ahead-to-the-week-of-may-19-2025
  49. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/16/congress/gop-shutdown-anxiety-grows-00612834
  50. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-03/liberal-party-passes-leadership-spill-rules/10579172
  51. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/surviving-australian-politics-4-reforms-to-stop-ousting-leaders
  52. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/25/canada-liberals-fire-party-leader-00368243
  53. https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Print=2&Sec=Ch02&Seq=3
  54. https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/5-cabinet-decision-making/cabinet-and-cabinet-committee-procedures
  55. https://www.anc1912.org.za/cadre-deployment/
  56. https://theconversation.com/south-africas-ruling-party-has-favoured-loyalty-over-competence-now-cadre-deployment-has-come-back-to-bite-it-199208
  57. https://irr.org.za/fan/media/anc-cadre-deployment-what-is-it
  58. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2077-49072021000100015
  59. https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/file/1557180
  60. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/retrieve/15626365-990e-4741-bcdc-1715289e747a/scan_ic21_2020-02-07-16-43-27.pdf
  61. https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/the-1922-committee-what-are-its-origins
  62. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01366/
  63. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/conservative-party-leadership-contests
  64. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/1922-committee-the-22/
  65. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-european-research-group-erg/
  66. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42719026
  67. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-and-the-conservative-party/
  68. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/freedom-of-information/revealed-the-files-that-expose-erg-as-a-militant-party-within-a-party/
  69. https://socialistcall.com/2022/10/11/uaw-administration-caucus-uawd-reform/
  70. https://uniondemocracy.org/legal-rights-and-organizing/questions-and-answers-about-legal-rights-and-union-democracy/forming-a-caucus/
  71. https://www.apha.org/apha-communities/caucuses
  72. https://aftsolidarity.com/faqs/
  73. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/alternative-dispute-resolution/the-importance-of-a-caucus-during-mediation/
  74. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/caucus
  75. https://adrtimes.com/caucus-mediation/
  76. https://mediate.com/caucus-an-aid-in-mediation/
  77. https://familylawheadquarters.com/2024/04/12/what-is-the-caucus-approach-to-mediation/
  78. https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/about/arbitration-vs-mediation
  79. https://www.metlife.com/stories/legal/mediation-vs-arbitration/
  80. https://www.abi.org/feed-item/2017-aba-report-on-research-of-mediation-techniques-%25E2%2580%2594-and-the-need-for-research-on
  81. https://gould.usc.edu/assets/docs/directory/1000159.pdf
  82. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/803183343/caucuses-or-primaries-why-states-might-pick-one-or-the-other
  83. https://www.nytimes.com/article/iowa-caucus-explainer.html
  84. https://news.ucdenver.edu/caucus-vs-primary/
  85. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/who-caucuses-an-experimental-approach-to-institutional-design-and-electoral-participation/6C85BF6D4BE5A89F1FAFEA9876D10D83
  86. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=mlr
  87. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psq.12886
  88. https://goodparty.org/blog/article/caucus-vs-primary-election
  89. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/for-such-a-key-race-iowas-voter-turnout-remains-surprisingly-low
  90. https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Brief2_Caucuses_Right_to_Vote_042616_forprint.pdf
  91. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/14/iowa-caucus-low-turnout-primaries/
  92. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-disabilities.html
  93. https://19thnews.org/2024/01/iowa-caucuses-moms-caregiving/
  94. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/rationalizing-presidential-nomination-process
  95. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5264&context=flr
  96. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-super-delegates-can-do-super-damage-to-america/
  97. https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_the_2024_Democratic_presidential_primary_calendar
  98. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/how-the-near-death-of-caucuses-supercharged-voter-turnout
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.