Caucus vs. Primary

[nickshepDEM]

Which do you prefer?

I've never participated in one, but from what I hear, they are basically endurance tests. If you support your guy (or gal) and stand strong, eventually you will win.

Doesnt such a process discourage shy and less enthusiastic voters from participating?

[DaveinMD]

1. primaries

are much more democratic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Have you ever experienced a caucus?

??
We had primaries in Oregon. Candidates just seemed to come out of nowhere, and we didn't get to vote on any platform planks. Instead, questions got put to the voters through the highly corrupted initiative process (professional crackpots paying professional signature gatherers to say whatever it took, including outright lies, to get passersby to sign their crackpot petitions).

[eridani]

2. Caucuses build local Dem parties

Primaries are a media and money-driven method. Still, they are real world tests in a way that caucuses aren't.

[longship]

3. Caucuses!!! Definitely.

Bring back the smoke-filled rooms before these primaries give us more crap like Dubya.

[TygrBright]

4. Caucus is THE way for ordinary people to have a "say"...

...in how the parties are run, in what the parties stand for, and in who the parties endorse for office. Primaries were invented as a way of disempowering people while making them think they could get self-government "the easy way."

adamantly,
Bright

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. I experienced my first caucus in 2004

when I moved back to Minnesota.

Since then, I'm all for them.

What you're describing is the so-called "walking caucus," where people go around trying to round up supporters. Since 2004, we've had straw polls instead.

You get together in a schoolroom with your neighbors and not only vote for candidates but also pass resolutions. For example, in 2004, a group called Peace in the Precincts joined together to pass anti-Iraq War resolutions in as many precincts as possible.

If a resolution is passed, it is presented at the district convention, and if it passes there, it can go all the way to the state convention and be put on the party platform. What could be more democratic?

Furthermore, party delegates are chosen by the same local-->district-->state -->national process, so it's possible to work your way up from neighborhood activist to national party convention delegate. I know several people who made it to the convention in 2004, including a couple of DUers, none of whom were professional politicians.

By contrast, Oregon seemed very top-down. I never figured out how delegates were chosen or how the party platform was put together.

I think this is why the Minnesota DFL is more liberal than Democratic parties in other states. Ordinary people have a lot more input than they do in many other states. In fact, I wonder what the correlation is between caucus vs. primary states and the ideological make-up of the various state parties.

So now I'm a big fan of caucuses.

This is what democracy looks like.

[Pirate Smile]

6. I went to the 2004 Iowa Caucus. I didn't know anyone going in but

was happy to see my neighbor and one of the Brownie leaders there as well.

There wasn't any pressure re who you were for - you went to where they said the group for Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, etc. were sitting or standing.

If your candidate doesn't have enough to be viable, that is when you have to decide what you want to do. You don't have to do anything or go to any other candidates. Some people just left then. The Kucinich people (most of them) did switch and go with Edwards like their agreement said. A Clarkie or two went with Dean. I was in the Dean group. My neighbor and the Brownie leader were in the Kerry group.

It was very interesting but there wasn't any pressure and you didn't have to say or do anything other then go stand with your candidates group so they could count how many people were supporting each candidate.

[Radical Activist]

8. I think the caucus is more democratic.

I think its important that we get people involved beyond the passive act of voting. The Caucus is a step in the right direction. People discuss, learn new things, maybe think a little more. It gets us closer to a real participatory democracy.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Caucus ...

I loathe our primary system.

[CTLawGuy]

10. primary

the secret ballot is the foundation of a fair voting system, and caucuses don't have them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Mine had a secret presidential preference straw poll

Scraps of paper were passed out, and we each wrote down the name of our preferred presidential candidate. Three people (I was one of them) were then chosen to count ballots.

We took the box to another room and sorted the ballots into piles according to candidate. Then we each counted each pile to determine how many votes each candidate had. I still remember the numbers: 55 for Kerry, 37 for Edwards, and 22 for Kucinich.

[CTLawGuy]

16. that's good

I know the Iowa caucuses do not have the secret ballot.

[Infinite Hope]

11. A mix of both.

Both offer important things. Primaries give voters a direct voice with a quick and easy vote. Caucuses are a more prolonged process that most voters don't care to partake in. But they offer a stronger candidate as second choices matter as much or more than first choices. It gives the concensus candidate for better or worse.

Edit: In other words, I support caucuses in states where caucuses work (Iowa, etc.) and primaries in others.

[question everything]

13. Have done both. Primaries win hand down

Caucuses are for party members to debate the issues that the party should debate during the state convention. Great for party activists.

But what if you just want to get into the polls and vote for your candidate, or for a ballot initiative? Yes, I would say it discourage participation. What if you have a sick child, or have to work shifts, or out of town, or just don't like to drive at night, or are just dead tired after a full day of work?

So what you have are party activists dominate the caucuses and then they select the representatives for county and state conventions. State convention than endorses the candidates and if you were not endorsed you pretty much drop from the race. Even if you stay, you do not campaign, you do not get much media coverage, you cannot raise funds you might as well have the word "loser" stamped on your forehead.

Oh, and then you have the regular primaries that in many cases are like the ones in the former Soviet Union, or in dictatorships, where there is only one candidate.

There was a thread here about whether liberals are elitists. I would say the caucus system if very elitist. Only party activists who think that they know what is good for the community get to determine who the candidates be.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Caucuses are "elitist" only if nobody shows up

In 2004, when local Democrats were desperate to get rid of Bush, 5 times as many people as normal showed up for my precinct caucus. I know because I had the attendees' list from 2002 as part of my canvassing for the Kucinich campaign.

We had people presenting resolutions and debating them, democracy in action.

[lojasmo]

15. Ugh...primaries.

Caucusing is a time wasting pain in the arse. It EXCLUDES people from the process.