KINGSTON — Washington state took an important but small step closer to bringing mainstream neighborhoods into the political process March 3 as voters caucused in significant numbers to select a Republican candidate for president.

While there was no immediate way to tell if the increased participation was the result of no state-funded primary or the increased interest in divisive political issues, the end result was an important application of practical civics. To put matters in perspective, the caucus for Apple Tree precinct near Kingston had less than 10 voters at the table in 2010. This year, there were more than 30. With more than 170 votes in the Kingston pooled caucus and more than 50,000 statewide, the Washington State Republican Party claims attendance was four times the previous caucus. History and intuition suggests that this is how the political process should really be: Face to face, neighbors with neighbors at the grassroots who assemble and talk about the issues that directly affect their families, community and lives.

I found it relieving to be at an actual caucus — a meeting of consultation to discuss platform ideas, select a presidential candidate, and do our best to influence what has been too commonly thought of as an establishment system managed by elite brokers.

The 2012 caucus nudged us back to the fundamentals in a way that we could distance ourselves, if only for a time, from the million-dollar sound bites and insular seclusion of mail-in ballots toward a community conversation where facing your neighbors to test your message becomes an accountable act of citizenship.

Historically, the caucus is believed to be of uniquely American origin and was mentioned in the diaries of founding father John Adams, as he referenced the smoke-filled rooms of men gathering together to grapple with their ideas and select candidates for a vote by their townspeople. They would choose a respected moderator, now replaced by a precinct committee officer, to guide proceedings and put questions to a vote. Fast forward to 2012: there would be no smoke-filled rooms, there were at least as many women as men, and the residential meeting place was a large cafeteria that could pool many precincts into a single place. There was also the calming presence of students and children who could be there to observe community civics in its most practical form as a powerful reminder of who and what we are as a representative democracy.

Not everything about the caucuses went perfectly. To the dismay of some, it became painfully clear that the small group of volunteers, who had organized the proceedings and worked very hard, had also underestimated attendance. Regardless, it was refreshing to see that everyone could work earnestly together through it all.

It seemed admirable, for example, that I heard no one complain that they had to prove who they were. It was expected. After doing so, registered voters were quickly directed to their proper precinct table by number. Nostalgically, I admit regret about my precinct number, one I have a stubborn tendency to forget. It is such a sterile reference to such an intimate community forum.

The reality of an increased turnout also meant there were participants who had not caucused before and were unclear what to do. Without a background, some attended with only the desire to cast a “primary vote” and leave. This may be what the state has oriented us to do over time, but it is not a caucus. The vote may be private but the conversation is not.

Sadly, there was also difficulty communicating because of the lack of a public address system, and many of the forms we used were in short supply. We got over it.

One significant educational moment was the observation of how well precinct committee officers led or managed their precincts to elect delegates to the County Convention and consider the issues through debate. Some precincts did better than others, but ultimately there may be a renewed awareness of why voting for a PCO should be well considered.

It was also notable that some of the precincts did not have an elected PCO so were encouraged to select a moderator the old-fashioned way, just as they did in the time of John Adams.

With so many personalities new to the caucus, I suspect that the value of consultation was not best taken advantage of but it was encouraging. The necessary ingredients were there: people with a desire to participate in government and learn. There were Republicans, independents, conservatives, libertarians, and probably others. And while no one could possibly agree with everyone, the principled tenacity to communicate and educate in a respectful way was prevalent.

It was encouraging to observe a few of the precincts continue to debate long after others had cast their votes and adjourned. At a time when our political process seems more divisive than ever, a sense of community in caucus, difficult as it may be, seemed much more productive than listening to attack ads, professional pundits and million-dollar sound bites.

For a few hours, it wasn’t about big business, big labor or big government. It wasn’t about Washington, D.C. or Olympia. It was about practical civics in our neighborhoods. It was Americana at its best.