Something I’ve found mysterious, since joining the Democratic Socialists of America, is that the national leadership seems wildly out of step with the membership as a whole. Admittedly, this belief rests on an assumption on my part, because the national leadership has opposed non-binding polls of its membership, but I think it’s reasonable. As someone who believes in DSA’s big-tent, internally-democratic model, I’d like to figure out the reasons for its failure.

For context, one of the organization’s two co-chairs belongs to the Red Star caucus, which identifies as Marxist Leninist. The label, in case readers are unfamiliar, refers to those who support Stalinism and its authoritarian, descendant ideologies, like Maoism. In contrast, my guess is the average member of DSA, for better or worse, is essentially a New Deal Democrat. They were likely inspired by candidates like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Zohran Mamdani and don’t even believe in the long-term, fully democratic socialist program I’d like.

So how did this incongruence arise? Part of the problem seems to be that caucuses have a level of power within DSA that is absurdly disproportionate to the number of members they actually represent. Caucuses effectively call all of the shots in the organization. And yet, when I asked those who might know what percentage of DSA members were caucused, the estimates were in the range of 1 to 5 percent. Unfortunately, there don’t appear to be hard numbers here.

The information is kept secret for whatever reason, but individual caucuses are widely assumed to have membership in the low hundreds. In July of this year, DSA as a whole had more than 120,000 members! To be clear, I’m not saying caucuses shouldn’t exist. Rather, I think the level of influence this small minority has within DSA reflects a significant degree of democratic insufficiency, that members should take steps to rectify. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I believe the organization’s governing structure plays a role in this.

First of all, DSA does not operate on the principle of one member one vote. Different chapters have different rules, but frequently, those who have a say in the organization’s directions are those who can attend specific meetings at specific times. For example, as someone with three kids, attendance is a struggle for me, and while I can make some meetings, I can’t make them all. Some of those who oppose one member one vote, like members of Red Star caucus, cite technological or financial limitations for their stance.

I’m open to the idea that internet voting is insecure or mail voting is too expensive, but what I’ve found, while debating the issue on DSA’s internal forums, is that many opponents of one member one vote actually think it’s a good thing so called ‘paper members’ aren’t given a voice in the organization, regardless of initially stated technological or financial concerns. They believe keeping members who don’t know enough or aren’t able to donate a requisite amount of time from voting separates the wheat from the chaff.

Beyond this, national leadership isn’t voted on directly. Local chapters elect delegates to a biennial convention, which then selects national leadership. All of these barriers to straightforwardly assessing the will of the membership seem to work together to empower disciplined, minoritarian caucuses. This is how I believe DSA has come to have a co-chair representing a faction that lauds China and other authoritarian countries as positive examples of real-world ‘socialism.’

Jon Hochschartner lives in Connecticut. He is the author of a number of books, including The Animals’ Freedom Fighter: A Biography of Ronnie Lee, Founder of the Animal Liberation Front. Visit his blog at SlaughterFreeAmerica.Substack.com.