The Poundstone/Maes contribution-that-wasn’t-a-contribution scandal has not yet catalyzed a discussion about the value of the caucus system in Colorado. It should.
You can’t blame the success of Maes and Buck at the Republican state assembly of caucus system delegates on the tea party. If these candidates are faulty, if they weren’t adequately vetted, and they appear not to have been, you’ve got one group to thank for that, and that’s the self-anointed precinct caucus state delegates led by Dick Wadhams and the Republican party officials from each county who consorted to present them to the voters.
So the question to Mike Rosen on the party-trumps-person theory of electoral politics is, “Does party trump delegate negligence?” Do you hold your nose and pull the lever for the apparent fraud and for the old-guard Washington-monied tea-party-poser on the thin hope that you might get some taxpayer-favoring legislation out of one of these folks some day down the road?
Or do you reasonably expect them to behave consistently within the characters they’ve already shown–characters which raise questions about how carefully they would husband Colorado’s public wealth and taxing power–and as a voter look around for alternatives? Obviously, we know how Tancredo answers that question.
These are serious failings of Colorado’s caucus system. This is what happens when the anointed run amok. A petition process where all candidates go before the voting populace from the beginning, where they all face tough questions from the voting populace from the beginning, would not necessarily produce a better outcome, but at least the responsibility for the outcome would be in the right place, and that would greatly improve our chances.
Postscript: I get nervous when I hear a politician tell me about the will of the people: Rowlands grassroots perspective and ensuing debate
