***CORRECTION: In this column, the author mistakenly asserted that presidential nominating caucuses cost money. In actuality, they do not have entrance fees. In addition, the second part of the Nevada caucus was not a "do-over" but a different segment of the process.***

The American primary system is riddled with problems. The Democratic presidential nominating process has continued for over a year, and we still don’t have a winner — we likely won’t have one for another couple of months. Most political parties in other countries pick their standard-bearer in six weeks or less. Also troubling is that some voters in America have more of a say than others — Iowa voters have certainly mattered more than those in Kansas. The most absurd problem with the nomination process, however, is the easiest to fix. It is, you guessed it, the use of caucuses in many of the states to determine delegates.

Barack Obama has clearly dominated the caucus states, winning all but one of them, most of them by more than 20 points. He’s gained an enormous number of delegates this way. While a victory based on superdelegates for either candidate is certainly problematic, winning an election due to caucus states will be illegitimate, as well.

Caucuses are entirely and inherently undemocratic, even antidemocratic. Few people realize that caucuses are primarily fundraisers for state parties, not rigorous determinants of voters’ preferences. Entrance to the caucuses costs money, so state parties make money on every voter. Yet they have been twisted by small states and a drama-constructing media into mattering. They shouldn’t.

Caucuses reward candidates with a small group of fanatical supporters rather than someone with a broad base of more moderate support. Due to the need for fanatical supporters, candidates are encouraged to pander to small groups so they turn out and pay for the privilege of supporting their candidate. It’s a wonder Ron Paul didn’t do better in caucus states.

Caucuses also hold voters to a far higher standard than the normal, constitutional and democratic style of selecting politicians used in the general election. Participants are expected to understand how the complex multi-round process works and how delegates are allocated. The increased complexity and time requirement, however, has not lead to an increase in civic dialogue and activism, as proponents of caucuses argue — turnout in most caucus states has been below 10 percent.

The Nevada caucuses, which figured prominently into Hillary Clinton’s comeback after an ambiguous defeat in Iowa, were riddled with allegations of campaigns manipulating the results and controlling the process at individual precincts. The state party quietly decided to have a do-over a few months later due to the deeply questionable results of the first attempt, all the while making bucket-loads of money for the second time in three months.

The most sacred principle of voting in a democracy is the “secret ballot,” yet this principle is violated time and time again in caucuses. In Nevada, all the main Las Vegas unions endorsed Barack Obama. There were widespread reports that workers would not get time off to participate in the caucuses unless they held to the union line. As a result, every single person in their precinct could see whom they were voting for.

It’s obvious that caucuses will remain a part of the primary process for decades to come, even though the vast majority of the process simply acts to maintain established interests, namely that rural states like Iowa become dominant players. What should matter is which candidate is able to build a broad-based coalition and turn out the most voters in a fair process, not who is able to bring a devoted few thousand, who have three hours to spare, to the polls.

Stuart Baimel is currently deciding whether caucuses, like the mythology surrounding the Olympics, can be considered “insane.” Let him know your psychological evaluation at sbaimel "at" stanford.edu.