Have you noticed that Barack Obama wins most of the state Caucuses by a large margin (better than 2/3 of Wyoming, for example), but loses many of the primaries, usually by very small margins? The prevailing theory in the mainstream media is that party activists (i.e., concerned, engaged people truly involved with the political process) hold more sway over the votes in a caucus, where people vote publicly by joining with others in groups dedicated to one or another candidate. The implication is that people are more free to express their preferences (and prejudices) in private, with an anonymous vote, than they are when voting with their feet, in clear view of their neighbours.

I have another theory. I think that caucuses encourage people to vote by getting them involved in the process, rather than merely "calling it in" with a ballot of some type. I think they see their neighbours making courageous choices and feel empowered to join in rather than take the seemingly safe choice. I also think that it's much harder to screw around with the totals when so many people are witness to the results in an open, "eye-ball" verifiable forum. Caucuses are real, old-time, visceral democracy in action; the "town-meeting" style of government where people get to sound off and take a stand, the kind of involved self-government to which this nation owes its very existence. No amount of electronic hackery or ballot-box shell-gaming can derail this oldest style of democracy and the obvious choice of the people.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.