"Maybe one of the most intriguing - and nefarious - aspects of this long-running Democratic presidential campaign is that the legitimacy of the system itself has come into question. Doubts, to be sure, have been raised about the role of the unelected "superdelegates".

But the campaign of Hillary Clinton has fingered a different villain for its greatest contempt - namely, the caucuses, which it claims are undemocratic as well as unrepresentative. They argue that her hard-working, blue-collar base was largely disfranchised by the sometimes awkward caucus meeting times.

The ire of the Clinton forces is a bit understandable. While the New York senator has run close to even with Barack Obama in the primary states, she has lost decisively to him in virtually all of the caucuses. The latter constitute a large share of her deficit in both delegates and popular vote which could in the end be her margin of defeat.

It is ironic that such a small slice of the nominating process could prove to be so decisive. For in size, the caucuses are much like the tip of an iceberg. In recent elections, about 35 to 40 states have held primaries. The rest have scheduled caucuses (with Texas Democrats famously holding both). Turnout has always been much, much larger in the primaries. So far this year, more than 33 million ballots have been cast in the sanctioned Democratic primaries, compared to less than 2.5 million votes in the Democratic caucuses.

Yet until this year, the credibility of the caucuses was rarely, if ever questioned. They were considered a worthy part of the nominating process that tested a different set of political skills than a primary. Conducted like a general election, the primary offers voters the flexibility of casting their ballot morning, noon or night. A caucus, particularly of the Iowa variety, has a set starting time and can last for hours.

An old rule of thumb is that while a primary demonstrates vote-getting appeal, success in a caucus demands considerable organizational ability. And while a primary can draw tens of thousands of "casual" Democrats or Republicans, a caucus tends to be limited to the party's dedicated "hard core" - the long-time activists and newly energized voters who make the party click at the grass-roots level. In short, caucus defenders promote their process as a place where the quality of the turnout trumps the quantity.

When the Democrats overhauled their presidential nominating process after the 1968 election, there was considerable sentiment within the party's reform commission to encourage the creation of more caucuses just for this reason. But in the political ethos of the late 20th century, with the elevation of "one person, one vote," greater voter participation was accented and the scales were tipped in favor of more presidential primaries.

Figure 1. '08 Democratic Primaries and Caucuses: Four States Held Both

It is understandable why Hillary Clinton detests caucuses. She has run much better this year in the higher-turnout primaries than the lower-turnout caucuses, a point illustrated by results from the four states that held both. The caucuses elected Democratic delegates in all four states (Idaho, Nebraska, Texas and Washington) and were won easily by Barack Obama. The primaries, however, were much closer, although the one in Texas (carried by Clinton) was the only one of the four that also elected delegates.

Note: An asterisk (*) in the primary date column indicates a non-binding primary that did not elect delegates. Primary results from Idaho and Nebraska are based on nearly complete but unofficial returns. The Texas caucus results are based on an incomplete tally while the caucus turnout is an estimate from the Texas Democratic Party.

(Rhodes Cook, The Crystal Ball, May 29, 2008)