Chaotic. Disorganized. Noisy. Confusing. Those words (along with a few others unfit for print) were used to describe Saturday's local presidential caucuses, events that drew the ire of many local voters.
Clearly, state and local organizers underestimated the turnout and were ill equipped to handle the crowds and resulting chaos. In hindsight, more ballots, larger caucus locations and better organization would have improved the process.
However, the blame does not lie completely with local caucus volunteers, who should be applauded for their efforts to give Nevada a stronger voice in picking our next president. Few in the state - including party officials, volunteers, campaign representatives and the media - expected such a healthy turnout Saturday.
Unlike primaries, political parties - not taxpayers -fund caucuses. While some Nevada voters would have preferred an August presidential primary, the results would have been meaningless as the nominees will likely be apparent within a couple of months. Given our state's current budget difficulties, asking taxpayers to fund another election while education and social service budgets are slashed would seem to be an imprudent decision at best.
As Churchill County Republican Central Committee Chairman Mark Feest pointed out Saturday, only five people from the Fallon area showed up when the state party met last year to discuss the caucus.
"Some people think they only have to show up that day to vote," Feest said. "To me, the process is just as important as the actual vote. You need to be involved."
It takes little initiative for a voter to complain about the caucus, but true dedication to the political process is required for concerned party supporters to volunteer their time.
Nevadans learned a lot about the caucus process Saturday. If the Silver State ever hosts an early presidential caucus again, let's hope the lessons we learned will lead to a better experience for all Nevada voters.
• This editorial appeared in the Lahontan Valley News.