If you don't hate caucuses yet, you are likely to before this is over.

[pnwmom]

Did you know, for example, that in a small Iowa precinct -- one with only 2 delegates -- the candidate with only 25% of the vote would get the same number of delegates as the one with 75% of the vote?

And that precinct delegates are then weighted based on how many people showed up to caucus in the previous Presidential election?

And that in the Democratic caucus there is no such thing as a secret ballot, and the whole process can take hours?

And they don't announce the final vote count -- just the delegate count?

All this is on top of the fact that caucuses are designed to limit voter participation, compared to the number who show up for primaries. If you have a class or a job that conflicts with the caucus time -- tough luck. You don't get a vote.

But we're still stuck with it in backwards states like Iowa -- and my own state, Washington (at least for the Dems. WA Repubs accepted the public preference -- as determined by a referendum -- for primaries for their delegate selection. The Dems hung on to their caucuses.)

This article was written at a time when the writer expected that Hillary would be ahead, but the points remain true no matter who gets the most voters to the caucuses. No matter who wins in actual votes, it is not likely to be reflected well in the delegate count -- unless they are very close to being tied anyway.

http://time.com/4172793/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders/

The complicated rules of the caucus process are inherently tilted toward equalizing the strength of candidates, especially in a two person race. Only the number of delegates awarded in each precinct will be published on caucus night, which means there will be no official record of the candidate’s share of the voters at the caucuses—a figure that will likely more closely mirror the pre-caucus polls.

As a result, Clinton will be at the mercy of a process little changed over generations, in which candidates can tie the delegate count, even if Clinton has far more support inside the room. If Sanders surprises with an upset, by bringing more caucus goers out, he will face a similar result, which looks more like a draw.

Here’s how it works: Each of 1,681 precincts in the state is assigned a delegate count based on its relative strength of Democratic Party within that part of the state. To earn delegates, candidates are required to meet a threshold—25% in two-delegate precincts to 15% in precincts with four or more delegates—in order to earn any delegates from each precinct. (The vast majority of precincts have four or more delegates, requiring the 15% threshold.)

For the large number of precincts with an even number of delegates, however, Clinton would have to win by large majorities in order to net more total delegates than Sanders. In odd-numbered-delegate precincts, barring a blowout, Sanders would still pick up several delegates.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/31/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa-barack-obama/79575650/

Brandon Holdgrafer, a 20-year-old physiology major, is a good example of Sanders’ challenge.

In between sips of coffee at a Starbucks in Ames, Iowa, Holdgrafer said he feels “really strongly” that Sanders is what the country needs and that he “cares about people.”

Even so, he will not caucus for Sanders. “I’d love to be supportive of him,” said Holdgrafer. “I can’t, I have class,” he said. The same was true for Cesar Victor, a 22-year-old industrial design major, who also has a “time issue.”

[NurseJackie]

1. Interesting stuff to know. But ...

... the entire process seems a bit archaic ... definitely outdated and confusing. Seems like it's a process that actually DISCOURAGES full participation.

[Recursion]

4. That's pretty much explicitly the point of a caucus

It's meant to reward off-year party-building as opposed to just showing up on election night. Obviously that has pros and cons.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. It should be challenged in the courts.

The 15% threshold violates one person, one vote.
And, the mandatory 7pm start time might be a poll tax.
Plus, having to state out loud who you support violates the secret ballot.

The caucus is way outdated and undemocratic.
It should be abolished.

[pnwmom]

15. I agree. The system is outdated and undemocratic. n/t

[HassleCat]

2. Caucuses can backfire

They were intended to smooth the way for candidates like Hillary Clinton, candidates blessed by the party. They were supposed to prevent upstarts like Bernie Sanders from challenging the party establishment. But caucuses can sometimes be tilted away from mainstream party thinking if there is some kind of "groundswell" movement with some organization behind it. And caucuses were designed back when the parties held much closer control over the process, so they were hugely undemocratic back in the day.

[ypsfonos]

3. Backward States like Iowa?

I'll tell them you and Hillary said so...

sounds pretty democratic to me )with a small D)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses


The process used by the Democrats is more complex than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes. Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a preference group). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are viable. Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the viability threshold is 15% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to realign: the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This realignment is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's second candidate of choice can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform. The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses.

[pnwmom]

5. Yup. As I said, both Iowa and my own state are "backwards" in that they retain

this very un-democratic method of choosing delegates. Most of the country switched to the much simpler, more representative, and inclusive primary system long ago. The rest of us should, too.

Have you ever experienced a caucus as a participant? I have, and it was one of the circles of hell. No one knew what they were doing and it lasted for almost 4 hours. Then, because no one who voted for our candidate wanted to be a delegate for the next all-day step in the process, we had to accept a volunteer who had actually supported a DIFFERENT candidate.

What a nutty process.

[Jarqui]

6. Here's a link to some history of results

http://data.desmoinesregister.com/iowa-caucus/history/index.php#1992/dem

In 1992, Bill Clinton finished with 2.8% of the vote. I think he's the only Dem to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and go on to the win the primary.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Pretty amusing and transparent attempt at pre-emptive damage control n/t

[pnwmom]

9. I loathe caucuses. I have since my first one. And everyone should

because primaries are far more inclusive and democratic.

My mother can't vote for Hillary because she can't get to a caucus. But my son can't vote for Bernie, since he's an out of state college student. So that's a wash. But the whole system is stupid.

[1monster]

18. While i'm not going to argue the process, it sounds like a great opportunity to

meet people who have similar values and exchange ideas. A bit like an old time Town Meeting.

[restorefreedom]

10. it seems like the dem process is much more complicated

than the repub one

certainly makes it difficult for working people, caregivers, or anyone in poor health.

kinda the opposite of DEMocratic....

[pnwmom]

12. It's true both in Iowa and in WA. In Iowa, the Repubs have to caucus,

but they can just hand in their slips of paper and leave. They don't have to publicly announce their votes and horse trade for hours.

And in my state of WA the Repubs have a regular primary -- no caucus. As the voters decided. But the Dems somehow were able to retain their caucus system, while tacking on a primary that doesn't allocate ANY delegates. It's just a "beauty contest" that comes after the caucuses.

[restorefreedom]

13. surprisingly, chuck todd had a good summary today of the process

the reason i don't like it is that it seems to favor party diehards, in other words, people who are entrenched in politics. but if you are new, or work a lot, are in poor health, etc etc, no caucus for you....designed to discourage outsiders and newcomers.

so why even have the "beauty contest?" do they think voters are that stupid?

[pnwmom]

14. I think we have to because the voters approved a referendum that set up

a primary.

But the Dem party objected and the court ruled that they couldn't be forced to allocate delegates based on the primary. So we keep having the worthless primary and the non-inclusive, non-democratic caucus.

So my mother can't vote because she's disabled, my son can't vote because he's an out of state student, and the young woman who lives with us can't vote because she works on weekends. What a crummy system.

[restorefreedom]

16. and so antithetical to the party name. how very sad.

no other remedy to get delegates awarded based on votes?

[pnwmom]

17. Apparently not. Not until enough Democrats get disgusted with the process.

But the powers-that-be probably wouldn't care because they have even more power, the fewer voters that turn up.

[DURHAM D]

11. Is Rocky de la Fuente on the ballot in Iowa? nt