Are caucuses useful for determining our nominee?

[Cant trust em]

Let me first off say that I am an Obama supporter. I am happy to take advantage of the system while it exists.

Here are the two problems that I have with them.

1. They are more difficult to participate in than a straight election. They are unfair to people who are shift workers, seniors, parents with kids, troops overseas and people in hospitals. I do like the fact that force people to come together and talk about issues instead of being driven solely by the media in determining their votes. There has to be a way to keep what is a good base, but incorporate the different things that make them less useful.

2. They aren't used in the GE. Shouldn't we have the same system in both elections so that we can more accurately predict who will be the better candidate in the GE? Doesn't it make sense to apply the same test in both occassions?

I'm really trying to get an honest dialogue here. I hope that you'll oblige me. Any thoughts?

[PBS Poll-435]

1. No. One Man = One Vote

What did the founders say about "factions?"

[tishaLA]

9. Federalist #10's discussion of "faction" has nothing

--no, less than nothing--to do with caucuses. The religious right? That is a faction. Caucus goers? That is not a faction.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Faction = A Clique or Subgroup

:think:

[tishaLA]

12. You might want to brush up on Federalist #10

because it has a very specific definition of it. And here's a hint: it's not a clique or a subgroup.

Oh and I forgot to mention how quaint it is to hear the term "founding fathers" again; it's a mighty powerful patriarchal construct, no?

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Fed #10 talks about subgroups.

Subgroups with goals contrary to the general welfare.

Fed #10 says that the factions with different political opinions leads to breakdown in the more fundamental goals of a republic.

And as far as your "issue" with the phrase "Founding Fathers," I have never heard an objection to it.

[tishaLA]

21. so you're arguing...

that caucus-goers have goals, and express them, in a way that is contrary to the general welfare? It's a pretty astonishing claim and, I'd be willing to bet, you couldn't find a single scholar of the early republic who would agree with your cockamamie take on the caucus process.

Re: "founding fathers"--most scholars have correctly left that unfortunate patriarchal catchphrase in the dustbins, turning instead to phrases like "framers," "founders," etc.

[juajen]

73. Well, they are male. This feminist doesn't want to rearrange History,

just make History.

[crimsonblue]

118. You're pretty obtuse if you think caucuses are a faction...

Here in KS, any eligible voter may participate in the caucus. Employees may ask to be excused from work, and employers must comply. Plus, the state legislatures, with the consent of the people, instituted caucuses. There is nothing illegal about them, and every person that shows up to vote is given 1 vote. So your whole argument that 1 man 1 vote doesn't exist is absurd.

[MonkeyFunk]

119. It can't possibly cover all employees

What if every policeman on duty asked for the time off? Every nurse in a hospital?

[crimsonblue]

121. ok satan's advocate...

You assume that 100% of eligible voters vote. Wrong you'd be. Voting percent is something like 20-30%, not 100%.

[MonkeyFunk]

124. I'm questioning

your assertion that the law requires all employers to let off all employees who ask.

That strikes me as impossible.

[hfojvt]

135. we had record turn-out in this year's caucus

that amounted to about 6% of voters. Taking the approximately 9,000 votes Boyda got in our county in 2006 compared to the 600 that were at the caucus is 6.66% and that's only of the people who voted in an off-year election, not of eligible voters. Because the race in 2004 was long over, the caucus in my county in 2004 was less than 25 people.

[New Dawn]

18. They also supported slavery and opposed term limits for president.

They were not very fond of political parties too (i.e. "factions").

[MonkeyFunk]

2. No

all states should have primaries.

I never see anybody arguing that our general elections should require everyone to be in a certain place at a certain time for a few hours. It's absurd.

[tekisui]

3. I like them mixed in with Primaries. They do not inherently favor one

candidate over another.

Except that the one with the better organization will do better.

[juajen]

74. Bullshit. They are rife with bullies. So the stronger people

can lord it over the weaker. It is so fucking not democratic. Get real people and stop lying to yourselves.

[seriousstan]

4. No, it is closer to mob rule than a ballot box.

[kwenu]

5. Exactly how does the caucus system favor one candidate over the other?

If someone could resolve that for me I might have an opinion one way or the other but I haven't heard many. Old folks? shift workers? How significant is that in real numbers? All I keep hearing are cute one liners with no basis.

[Cant trust em]

8. That's the point of this thread. I hope we get some good responses.

I don't have a firm opinion here, so I'm interested in what team DU has to say.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Well it's obvious that they dont' reflect the real will of the people

Look at Texas.

When it was easy and practical for the greatest number of people to vote, Clinton won.

Only a subset of those voters caucused, and they chose Obama.

So the results of the caucus clearly didn't reflect the will of the voters.

[Cant trust em]

39. participating in a democracy is much easier when it only takes two minutes

Voting is only one aspect of that participation. Other ways of participating include town hall meetings, public hearings, protest marches, voter registration, and a myriad of other possibilites.

[MonkeyFunk]

72. sure

there are lots of ways to participate.

But voting should be as easy as possible.

It's mind-boggling that for years, democrats have fought against poll taxes, literacy tests, encouraged vote-by-mail, same-day registration, have fought for more polling places, etc. etc., and now that Obama wins some caucuses, people are arguing the benefits of making voting harder for people.

[Cant trust em]

90. You certanily make a good point, both systems have their benefits

Maybe some kind of split system where caucuses and straight primaries are held? If for some reason you can't make the caucus you can vote in the traditional manner, but getting together with your community and talking about issues and platforms has so many great benefits to it.

[MGKrebs]

92. ""getting together with your community" is not the distinguishing characteristic

of a caucus. People can (and do) choose to get together to talk about issues, etc. all the time in primary states. Whether it's a primary or a caucus, it's a party function, and there are normally multiple party organizations and events within which one can participate in the process without waiting until the absolute last hour to do so.

And for what it's worth, my SO made up her mind at the last minute in this primary state. But she did so while waiting in line and contemplating everything she had absorbed over the past several months -without the pressure of competing factions and complex strategies or fretting about alienating neighbors.

[Cant trust em]

129. I think we're discussing this somewhere downthread

See my response #86.

Thanks for posting on this thread. Clearly you've done some homework and it's nice to hear what you have to say.

:toast:

[juajen]

77. I'll explain. It is said that Hillary's greatest support is little old ladies,

mainly over the age of 50. I wish I were 50 again. I am 67, and have severe health problems. No way could I go and sit or stand for any longer than 30 minutes, if I'm lucky. I will not go into those health problems.

So, are you saying that perhaps I should only have 1/2 a vote because I am old and unhealthy, or no vote at all. My brain is just fine.

It's also said that her supporters are poorer than O's. Think about that a minute. Poor people usually work for an hourly wage. Should they have 1/2 a vote or no vote at all? Poor people have no flex time and barely make enough money to put food on the table. Should they have 1/2 a vote or no vote at all?

Poor people usually cannot afford to go to college. Caucuses all over the country had lots of college students; after all, they can cut class and have flexible schedules. It is said that Hillary's supporters are not college educated. Well, should it be a 1/2 vote or no vote at all?

You can readily tell that in this particular election, caucuses give an unfair advantage to Obama, not Hillary, and this does not even address the problem of open caucuses that let anyone in to create mayhem, intimidate voters or flood the rolls with people who are supporters of the other party or parties.

So, what are you for. Should we have the Grand Old Rich Party, you know, GORPS, as opposed to the Sad Old Poor Party, you know, SOPPS. The GORPS vs. the SOPPS. Well, it does have a ring, but neither is the Democratic Party.

[Texas Hill Country]

6. no.

[Bucky]

7. A system in which those who get involved and participate matter more than the apathetic?

No way, give me democracy instead!

[juajen]

80. Hey dude, who the Hell are you calling apathetic?

You're the reason Obama supporters have a bad name. You should really apologize,

[MonkeyFunk]

120. Well the superdelegates are the most involved

so we should just let THEM decide the nominee, right?

[Zynx]

136. The level of commitment should not hold the balance of power. If it did we would never be

free of the religious right.

[Secret_Society]

10. No...People shouldn't have to be trained how to vote

I do think Iowa should be allowed to keep the caucus. It's tradition and they know how to participate without training. From, what I understand their turnout is pretty good, too. Besides that NO NO NO. I agree with your two points, I hadn't thought of the second one before but it is true that they don't measure GE viability.

[DemVet]

13. Absolutely not.

Any state that uses the caucus system for the 2012 election should not have their delegates seated.

Follow those rules.

[LisaM]

14. I don't like them for a variety of reasons. I've been to 3.

All the experiences were bad. One thing I particularly dislike is the "bullying" effect the vocal supporters of one candidate or another can have on the group. This was particularly true in 2004, when the Dean people actually cost their candidate votes in our precinct by coming over from another precinct and lobbying in our group. In our caucus this year, the Hillary people were literally shouted down. It was unpleasant. And, you wind up with a Groupthink that I don't like.

[New Dawn]

15. Yes, they're great.

We had a caucus for the first time in our state and it was great. People actually defended their views in public and did not simply hide in a polling booth. That being said, for people who didn't want to talk, they were not required to say anything at all, just stand in one side of the room. It is a good, fair system that should be used in every state to determine the party's presidential candidate.

[juajen]

81. You're a riot and obviously have not read this thread. NT

[bigwillq]

17. Maybe I don't understand the caucus system

as much as I should but I don't really like it.

I voted for Kucinich, and from what I understand, if he didn't get enough percent of the vote in my district/county/city, I would be forced to side with another candidate? :shrug: I don't like that.

I am all for public acknowledgment of who I voted for. I also think the caucus system seems more fun to participate in. But I want to vote for the person I want to vote for and not another candidate just because he/she didn't have enough support.

[justgamma]

24. You don't have to chose another candidate.

That's your choice. You just won't have a delegate. Sometimes if the candidate isn't viable, their supporters will go to another group to make that candidate viable. In our precinct, Hillary did not have enough support for a delegate, so the few Biden supporters went to her group so she would get a delegate.
There was no pressure to do it. They could have gone anywhere, but wanted to make Hillary viable.

[bigwillq]

25. So my vote doesn't really count

for the candidate that I want to vote for. Yeah, don't like that.

[thoughtcrime1984]

84. Your vote wouldn't count in primaries either

If a candidate doesn't receive 15% of the vote in a district, they get zero delegates, just like in a caucus. The difference is, in a caucus, you can make a second choice if you wish to. If not, then your vote counted exactly as it would have in a primary.

[rinsd]

70. But states with viability tests don't allow you to vote for a non viable candidate.

Your choice is another candidate or going home.

[Undercurrent]

19. I have loved going to my caucuses!

The caucus is very much like the old town hall meeting of the colonial period (nothing like the faux town halls we see in politics today, and unlike what the lamestream media likes to show in short clips, and sound bites.) The discussions are often very interesting, and people sometimes change their minds. It's more like a jury deliberation than what you see portrayed on TV.

[Oak2004]

36. Exactly

If caucuses aren't democratic, then neither is Vermont, where most local governments conduct yearly town meetings. And the town meeting system is generally recognized as the most democratic of systems.

[juajen]

82. Do you vote for the Pres. nominee at those town hall meetings?

If not, then the two aren't comparable.

[Oak2004]

93. No, we decide who will be our local officials, local policies, budgets, etc.

Not nominees, not to be voted on at some future point,but the real deal -- what is decided in a town meeting is final.

[MGKrebs]

98. What could possibly be more democratic than every single Democrat

being eligible to go and cast a vote during election day?

[MGKrebs]

97. You should try your local party meetings.

Or your local neighborhood association, and you can get that feeling every month.

[MGKrebs]

20. Voting in private is generally considered a good thing.

Having to state your vote in public, potentially in front of your boss, your husband, your neighbor, your kids teacher, your mechanic, and pretty much anyone else who wants to see it, has a lot of built in obstacles to people "voting their conscience".

Have the caucus. Let people get together and talk things over. Even take a straw poll if you want. But ultimately let people vote in private.

[Exilednight]

28. People will always complain about them, but here's the truth ..........

Not so long ago, it use to be that we had no say in who the nominee would be. It was all done behind closed doors by party insiders.

They do promote the grassroots aspects of the party.

Finally, decisions are made by those who bother to show up.

[MGKrebs]

30. I have no idea what you are talking about.

When did we not vote?
And even if we didn't, it would seem the caucus is the same damn thing.
How is the caucus more grassroots than showing up to vote?

[Exilednight]

34. 1972 was the first nation wide primary, in the 1968 election only 13 states ........

held primaries, prior to that it was done in back room dealings.

Caucuses are open to the public. It requires a grassroots effort to organize and turn out caucus goers.

[MGKrebs]

59. So NONE of the grassroots organizing that goes into GOTV

efforts for primaries count for anything? It only counts when it's a caucus?
A caucus, with the potential for bullying and pressure and coercion, strikes me as much closer to the back room dealing than does people voting in private.
Have your caucus... and then vote in private.

[MGKrebs]

96. I've been reading up on this.

The caucuses up until 1968 were mostly restricted to party leaders. After 1968, it was decided to open the caucuses up some. Most states abandoned caucuses altogether in favor of primaries, but thse who kept caucuses at least opened them up to all party members.
So my presumption appears to be correct. The caucus system is a legacy of the back room dealing of the last century.

[Justitia]

100. So what? We didn't even used to pick our own nominees. Caucuses are open to all now.

Sorry that Hillary wasn't organized or supported enough to win them, but that is the fault of the candidate and her campaign.

Her husband had no such problem winning them when he ran.

[MGKrebs]

105. Caucuses are open to all who can spend the time and are willing to expose themselves

to the pressure. It's like saying that everyone has the opportunity to be a millionaire. Sure, but some more so than others.

This in contrast to everyone just simply casting their vote at their convenience, and now with early voting many places allow a week or more to get to a polling station.

Don't caucus states have to have elections anyway? You don't caucus for all your state and local positions do you? Why is that?

[Justitia]

109. PA (where Hillary won) does not have early voting. If you can't vote at a certain time, tough.

In my prima-caucus state, you can vote over a two week period (always including a weekend).

So, my caucus state seems certainly to be more accessible than Pennsylvania, where working people w/children can't cast a single vote in some cases (my sister was one of these people).

So, are you going to say the outcome of PA was illegitimate because some people could not participate there?

[MGKrebs]

112. Please clarify.

You had to schedule a time in PA?
What is a "prima-caucus" state? Which part of "prima-caucus" gets to vote early? Why are you then a "caucus state"?
Who doesn't get to cast a vote in PA and why?
Actually, I'm just saying that caucuses are no more "open to all" than primaries are. Maybe less so.

[Justitia]

115. PA: 8 - 7, election day only, no early voting. TX has both a primary & caucus.

TX: Primary and caucus represent fractions of a whole delegate allocation process.

Primary (ballot) portion is open for 2 weeks. Caucus portion is the evening of election day.

My sister could not vote in PA because she has a job during poll hours and has to pick up her kids after work. Because they do not allow early voting, she was effectively disenfranchised.
Hillary won PA, a state which disenfranchises people like my sister, who must work on a particular Tuesday.

Have you ever participated in a caucus? Or are you just basing your dislike of them because Hillary had no idea how to win them?

Bill Clinton handily won our TX caucuses, BOTH times. It's not like they didn't understand them.

[MonkeyFunk]

122. Why can't you discuss this

without bringing Clinton or Obama into it? The topic is bigger than this election.

Whether you enjoy caucuses or not is irrelevant. Is it RIGHT to have a system that necessarily excludes large groups of people. Is it RIGHT to have a system that's designed to be more onerous than simple voting? If so, would you support making voting in the general election more onerous?

[MGKrebs]

130. OK, you are saying that the primary is the system that offers the most access,

It's the primary system that can offer early voting, it's the primary system that can allow voting all day, and it's the caucus system that only allows voting during a window of about 2 hours- and you'd have to be there for the whole time.

The solution for your sister not being able to vote during an 11 hour window is to restrict that window to 2 or 3 hours?

I believe in most states, it is the law that employers must allow time off to vote, and most, if not all, states offer absentee voting for those who can't make it to a poll.
http://www.toolkit.com/news/newsDetail.aspx?nid=02-075voting

If you want to be partisan about this, fine. Just say that them's the rules and Obama did better and then leave the rest of us to try to actually have a conversation about this. You've made your point. You can go find another thread to play in now.

[Justitia]

134. So I guess you haven't ever participated in a caucus & I guess you didn't like my explanation.

Sorry it's not favorable for your candidate, she obviously can't win them and that has ignited your disdain for the process.

Oh well, I'm sure the process will survive her candidacy.

[aquart]

22. Damn useful for Obama.

[Justitia]

38. As they were for Bill Clinton - TWICE. Only the losers bitch about them.

[MGKrebs]

62. Ah, "the ends justifies the means" argument.

Good one. You can justify anything that way.

[Justitia]

79. Sorry, caucuses have been a tradition in Our Party long before Hillary Clinton couldn't win them.

[MGKrebs]

99. See post #96.

[MonkeyFunk]

125. Why not discuss the topic

without bringing in Clinton? That's not what it's about.

Would you support making caucuses even harder to ensure that only the most-committed voters attend? How about making it an all-day event? A 3-day retreat?

[musicblind]

23. no, Caucuses are not good in my opinion. Nor are Superdelegates

we need to fix this after this election is done with. People, in my humble opinion, should have the RIGHT to vote in private without the fear of intimidation. I really haven't heard many folks outside of Obama supporters who think caucuses are great. I also have the feeling that once this election is over, even those Obama supporters (though there will always be exceptions to the rule...) will come over and admit that deep down, they know caucuses are not fair elections. No election is fair if you are not allowed to vote in private.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. No, and for the reasons you listed. You forgot to mention

the handicapped, though. For a lot of people, it's too much to go to a caucus; they don't have the stamina Even standing in line to vote can be too hard, or sitting in a wheelchair.
Sure, they can vote by absentee ballot but often they'd like to go to the polls. So that's one more group.

I think the discussion aspect is good but have heard too many accounts of dominant personalities controlling things and of disorganization at caucuses. People need to vote in secret to have a truly free vote.

Maybe there could be public discussions two or three times before a primary. Everyone wouldn't turn out for them but if they were productive discussions of issues, they should draw more people as they became established. A town meeting sort of thing is what I have in mind. Most of the country doesn't have that. You can go to city or county commission meetings and school board meetings but that's not the same.

Of course, town meetings are about local issues but that type of thing to discuss national issues would be good. It could be about local issues at times, national issues at others, or combine them.

Have you ever read about Huey Long? He had a national radio show and had people all over the US, thousands of them, who organized local groups to discuss politics. His ideas, and his popularity, influenced FDR a lot. I don't know if people would participate as much today, but you never know unless you try.

[justgamma]

27. I have a question for those who have primaries.

At our caucuses, we vote for county Dem officials, we have nomination petitions for possible candidates to offices, we talk about the platform and make suggestions that are sent on to state. We build the party at a real grassroots level at the caucuses. There's a lot going on besides the electing delegates.

When do these things happen when you have a primary? I mean, don't you just vote and leave?

[MGKrebs]

31. Discussion isn't the issue. It's voting in private.

Have your discussions. Nothing is preventing people in primary states from having meetings or discussions or debates or forums . Why would you want to MAKE people vote in public?

[justgamma]

32. I understand you want your vote private.

I would just like to know a little more about how things work in a primary state. When do you work on your platform and stuff like that? I'm really curious.

I will forever be grateful to the caucuses. I've lived and voted in the same town for 20 years before I went to my first caucus (wasn't really interested in politics). I didn't even know there were other Dems in my area. Imagine, living in a very blue area and I thought I was the only Dem.

[Cant trust em]

41. It doesn't happen. You wait in line and they give you your ballot and you mark it up.

You don't talk with anyone or discuss anything.

At least that's how it works in California.

[MGKrebs]

66. Only if you consider the actual moment of voting as the only eligible

time to have discussion. I have been to endless party meetings (which is essentially what caucuses are), as well as Meetups, candidate forums, campaign events, happy-hour political get-togethers, email groups, neighborhood meetings, etc, at which political discussion not only occurs but is the dominant topic.

Y'all act as if you're not allowed to talk about politics except at the caucus, and that any political discussion that DOES occur outside the caucus doesn't count. WTF?

[Cant trust em]

86. Right. But having caucuses on a specific day that gets major advertisement

is a good way to ensure that people know that this is going to happen. I definitely like the idea of something like a statewide political holiday that is a huge deal and that everyone comes together to hash things out.

[MGKrebs]

106. Let me ask you a question... How do you elect your senators and reps?

Do you get together to talk about those races too?

[Cant trust em]

42. I think we're coming to a good consensus here.

People can be put into groups and discuss their candidates and platforms, etc. Then they can go off and vote privately. If the most important thing is voter privacy then that can certainly be obtained while maintaining a participatory democracy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. All Irrelevant Side Effects That Have Not An Iota To Do With Choosing The Best Nominee For The Party

[Bettie]

57. That is the great thing about the caucuses

I went to my county convention for the first time this year and it was great to have the input and see how energized all the other delegates were. It is the thing I like most about the caucuses.

[Bill McBlueState]

63. there are state and local conventions

Party members meet and do all these things, but not at the same time as they're voting for candidates.

I suppose it works, but there's less incentive for average party members to show up.

[rinsd]

69. You can do all that at regular party meetings which is where that stuff is usually done.

Every 4 years is not the way to "build" a party.

[Zynx]

137. Most people are far too busy to be involved in all of that.

There are separate functions for what you describe. The party's candidate should be chosen by the largest number of voters possible. Organizational issues can be handled separately. We do that just fine here in Wisconsin.

[Undercurrent]

29. I'd like to second justgamma's points.

Representative democracy was set up to be a participatory process, and you have the opportunity to be involved from the ground up through a caucus.


I would, however like to see the caucus in my state spread out over a couple of days so shift, and weekend workers have a better chance to participate. But I love the caucus.

[newmajority]

33. Until we can guarantee that a primary ballot is legitimate (i.e.no electro-fraud machines)

Caucuses are the ONLY useful method for determining our nominee.

I guarantee you that no Mush Limpdick fans were at my caucus, and the rules and procedures used would make cheating next to impossible. I trust the Hillary supporter who chaired that caucus a lot more than I do Ted Strickland or Ed Rendell, specifically for that reason.

[MonkeyFunk]

126. Nonsense

there's no reason to believe caucuses are any more legitimate than voting.

IF you want to discuss voting machines, then start a thread. But the two topics are not linked together.

[crankychatter]

35. absolutely - 100 people vote and select delegates proportionately

just like the state level... assume 65% roughly for one candidate and 35% for another...

they get ten delegates... six for one - four for the other... or seven for one, three for the other

it's imperfect but perfectly Democratic and it is truly representative

Delegate counts ARE voter counts

Caucuses are a Democratic tradition

Until Clinton started losing no one ever cared...

I still don't care

[paulk]

104. "Until Clinton started losing no one ever cared..."

that is simply not true. As another poster pointed out, and I have posted numerous times on this board - the party has been steadily moving away from caucuses and toward primaries for many years now - and the reason is exactly because people cared that caucuses were a lousy way to choose a candidate.

Read up on our party history - the internet is a wonderful thing.

[RoadRage]

40. Frankly - No.

And i'll fully admit i'm a huge Obama supporter.. but I do not think they're very democratic.

We had our first caucus here in NE this year back in Feb. Obama won by a landslide.. so i'm happy about that. But, there was no "debating" or talking about why Obama was better then Clinton or vice-versa. It was show up... line up on opposite sides of the gym, and wait to be counted. With over 800 people at our caucus site- there was no one who "switched sides"... just us gloating because we had 600 of the 800 people on our side.

If nice political discussion could have been had, and the groups small (50 or less) perhaps it would make some sense. But in the fashion that we did it - it was controlled chaos.

My husband & I were at the caucus site for 3 hours... when I voted in our states primary yesterday - It took less then 2 minutes... and it was on my own schedule.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. No. They're Worthless, Completely Unrepresentative, Skewed And Should Be Totally Done Away With

by the next cycle.

In my opinion they have no place in any legitimate process and are laughable in concept.

[otohara]

45. And If A State Doesn't Have The Bucks

then what do you propose?

Do you know why caucuses are held vs primary?

[paulk]

47. why did our state have a caucus instead of a primary this time

around?

[otohara]

78. Money & Low Turnout

Colorado had a primary system in 1992, 1996, and 2000. In 2003 Gov. Bill Owens signed a law eliminating the primary to save money. Caucuses are run by the parties and do not cost the state any money, while primaries can be very expensive for state budgets. Primaries are still held for state-level and congressional offices.

another factoid:

1. The 2008 caucuses in Colorado will be the earliest in state history. It will be the first time in recent memory party members can participate in the presidential selection process before the nominees have already been decided.

[paulk]

83. what I don't understand is - if primaries are still being held

for state offices - how could it cost more money to put the Presidential race on the ticket? And having the Presidential race on the ticket would certainly increase turnout for the primary, I would think.

If Bill Owens signed the bill, I would automatically suspect that somehow this was done to benefit Republicans. Colorado has an increasingly large profile in national politics -surely we want to maximize voter turnout... Are we that poor that we can't afford primaries? The state party can afford to have the national convention here, but we can't afford primaries?

[otohara]

85. After 2008 Turnout - Primary

might return - depends on the budget.

Republican's had caucuses right along with democrats this year. So no, it's a matter of money - plain and simple. In regards to the convention, they are behind in fund-raising. This was the first year Colorado had a say so in the primary - used to be wrapped up by the time we had our primary. We were part of Super Tuesday this year.


The 2000 primary cost the state $5 million - 2004/2008 $0

[paulk]

46. I don't like caucuses

and I didn't like them before this current round of controversy vis a vis Hillary/Obama.

Caucuses can give a very distorted view of a candidate's strength in the general election. It's a given that they exclude people and the people who do show up are usually not an accurate reflection of that state's party voters, much less the population at large. It's too easy to forget that the whole point of this process is winning the general election - we should use a system that more accurately reflects the general election. We need to get people to the polls to find out what they think - and caucuses not only don't do that, they actively exclude people.

One of my main concerns with Obama's candidacy is that his lead has been built largely on caucus victories - victories that I don't believe are a real reflection of how that state's Democrats feel, and certainly not a good measure of how that state will vote in the GE.

The results of Nebraska's primary last night illustrate this - Obama won that state's caucus by 68-32. He won the primary by 51-49, with a voter turnout five times larger than the caucus turnout. Quite a difference when more people participate. We can also look at Texas and Nevada, where Hillary won the popular vote by a good margin, but Obama got more delegates through the caucus system. How is that an accurate reflection of the will of the voters? Same goes for Washington State, where Obama won the caucus by a 2 to 1 majority but won the primary by only 4 points. Clearly, the caucus results weren't an accurate portrayal of Obama's support in that state.

Obama won my caucus (CO) by a more than 2-1 tally - but I don't see how anyone, even the most rabid partisan, can honestly say that this state's Democrats support Obama over Hillary by a more than 2 to 1 margin. Obama picked up 14 delegates in Colorado - more than the number Hillary picked up in winning PA - yet Hillary won Pennsylvania by more votes - a lot more - than showed up for our entire caucus ! How is that fair? How is that an accurate reflection of a candidate's strengths and weaknesses?

Obviously we have to play by the rules in place - but if those rules give us a candidate who can't win the GE (and I'm worried about Obama's chances, obviously) then the party needs to take a serious look at our nomination procedures and adjust them. We need to focus on the general election as the reason for this whole process. Winning the nomination by gaming the system only to lose in the GE gains you nothing.

[Cant trust em]

51. You make some good points.

Would you mind recommending this thread so we can get the topic on the greatest page?

Thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Hillary said that Iowa caucus was great!

But then, she also said that Michigan didn't count, and that 2025 was the magic number to win the nomination.

[mystieus]

49. Caucuses were fine until Obama got into the race.

[stillcool]

110. Ain't that the truth...

so funny the things that 'matter' since Obama started winning. The Iowa Caucus..undemocratic...who would have thunk?

[MonkeyFunk]

128. No, it's not the truth

caucuses vs. primaries has been a hot topic for a long time. Turning this discussion into a partisan bicker is just stupid.

[stillcool]

131. I understand the argument

for states choosing either system to choose their nominee, but I have never seen Democratic Officials arguing that the Iowa Caucus was undemocratic. Just like I've never seen so many variations of what 'matters', and to whom. I am curious as to what the people in the states that use the caucus system think, rather than those that are upset that their candidate didn't win in those states. Who gets to choose?

[WeDidIt]

50. First, some definitions

A Caucus is an electoral event sponsored exclusively by the party. A primary is an electoral event sponsored byt the state.

What some people object to is not necessarily a caucus, but the form that some caucuses take.

That said,. the form whereby one must commit one or more hours in support of a specific candidate is useful. Whereas pure primaries measure how wide a level of support a candidate obtains, the most common form of caucus measures how deep that support runs.

This is important when considering a general election as a candidate will require enthusiastic volunteer support, and if the candidate cannot get a majority of people who are willing to give up one or more hours on an evening or a weekend, that candidate will ahve a difficult time building a strong base of volunteers for the general election.

That said, roughly 25% of delegates should be chosen in the classic caucus format.

[MGKrebs]

103. I disagree with your definitions, and who "sponsors" (or counts the votes)

isn't really a distinguishing characteristic either way.
Caucuses could be organized and managed by the state OR the party, and primary votes could be organized and managed by the state OR the party, with no discernible difference in functionality or result. The difference is public voting vs. private voting.

It's interesting that primaries actually outlaw campaigning within a certain number of feet of the polling location, whereas caucuses are designed to encourage campaigning within the polling location. Go figure.

[indimuse]

52. 38,571 caucuse Democrats Vs. 93,757 Democrats in the Nebraska preference primary?

indimuse (1000+ posts) Wed May-14-08 01:05 PM
Original message
All about the NUMBERS!
Edited on Wed May-14-08 01:07 PM by indimuse
The short summary of these rules is that the Democratic Party of the United States A.) wants the delegate selection process to be open to all persons who wish to be known as Democrats; and B.) expressly prohibits the scheduling of delegate selection meetings that would "significantly reduce participation in the delegate selection process."

Now you tell me...with 38,571 Democrats participating in the Nebraska presidential caucuses and 93,757 Democrats participating in the Nebraska presidential preference primary, which method A.) opens the process to all persons wishing to be known as Democrats; B.) encourages the participation of all Democrats; and C.) does not significantly reduce participation in the delegate selection process.

Now I know what the 20,000 screaming Obama-maniacs would say. They'd say that rules are rules and Sen. Obama won the Nebraska caucuses.

But I would suggest that when more people participate in a so-called "meaningless" primary that doesn't count than participated in caucuses that did count, we know which process encourages the participation of all Democrats and which process allows a candidate to "game the system" in his favor. ((Which is WHY she will take this AAALLLL the way to the convention...REAL NUMBERS!!!)))

http://mydd.com / more about :::Nebraska Caucuses Violate the "Spirit" of DNC Rules http://mydd.com /

[Cant trust em]

53. Good points. Would you mind giving this a rec so we can put this on the greatest page?

Thanks.

[indimuse]

65. I already did!

I'll keep you kicked!

Good luck with this. :hi:

[Cant trust em]

89. I'm proud of DU with this thread. It's been remarkably flame-free.

You rec my world.

[Marrah_G]

54. I dislike them

I prefer regular voting methods. I know if I lived in a caucus state I probably could not have participated.

Unless people are given the day off- the whole day off- then they will never be fair. Even then if you require a person to be there for a long time it is not fair to many elderly or parents with small children. Anytime where people are able to bully each other into voting for someone it is unfair.

I would love to see this method gone in the future.

[MGKrebs]

76. I wouldn't like it, but I can play that game.

We recently elected our district level convention delegates. That process is similar to a caucus. People who don't ever show up to Dem party meetings or events and didn't do squat for a candidate can show up to this election with a busload of their church members and get elected to be a delegate. They have a voter registration drive at the church about a month before the election and then cater in a chicken dinner at the election for their people. Frustrating.

[lastliberalintexas]

55. Not really

They do give us a very biased election and are not necessarily accurate reflections of actual support, only the most committed support. But at the same time, we don't have great participation rates in primaries, either. They just tend to be better barometers of actual support.

And btw, I don't support either of the 2 remaining candidates, so I don't have a dog in this fight. That's just been my opinion of caucuses and primaries for some time, given the unique situation we have in Texas.

[Bettie]

56. I live in Iowa now

I moved here from Wisconsin by way of Illinois, so I've always lived in primary states before.

Caucus is kind of strange to me and I think a primary would be more representative of the will of the people of the state at large.

There is something kind of cool about the debating and the interaction between the different groups as each tries to make the case for his or her candidate, but in the end, a primary would probably be better.

Of course, so many people don't think Iowa matters at all, being a 'flyover state', that I'll just shut up now!

[Bill McBlueState]

58. Construct a system that preserves the best elements of primaries & caucuses

I like your explanation of why caucuses are a good thing: They get voters to "come together and talk about issues instead of being driven solely by the media."

But I also value the privacy of the secret ballot and also that primary voters can participate without having to appear in a specific place for a set length of time.

I wonder how this would work: Have the polls open all day, and allow people to vote absentee. All ballots are secret. However, if you're so inclined, you can come to an open meeting at 7 pm in your precinct and discuss the candidates with other voters. You can only attend the meeting if you haven't yet voted and intend to immediately afterwards. That would be much like a caucus without being as exclusionary.

For the GE, stick with ballot-box voting. Citizens are choosing their leader, which is different from party members choosing their nominee. It should be an individual decision rather than a group consensus.

[Cant trust em]

60. How do you write italics in your post?

Every time I try to do the usual Control+I, some other menu comes up. I hate having to type in caps because it feels like I'm yelling at someone.

[Bill McBlueState]

67. how to do it:

Surround your text with [i] and [/i].

If I hadn't checked the plain-text box for this post, the word
"and" in my first sentence would have appeared in
italics.

[Cant trust em]

88. Thanks for the tip.

Here's how I'm not yelling at you.

[MGKrebs]

107. I would introduce Instant Runoff Voting to the process too.

One of the attractions of the caucus system is that everyone gets the chance to have their vote counted. If your first choice candidate loses, you can pick a new one for the second round. But everybody gets to vote every round. I would just make them secret ballots. In a way it happens in a primary too, but we have to organize a whole 'nother election.

[PassingFair]

127. "Fire House" Caucus....

We had a caucus in 04 here in Michigan.

Voters could vote in person, by absentee ballot
AND on-line.

Your vote was private.

Only difference was that supporters could be
WITHIN the 100 yard limit from the voting site.

I didn't hear anyone screaming about how
"unfair" and "undemocratic" caucuses (caucii?)
were when Dean went down....

I think they are valuable in states where
puglicans can undermine our party's determination
of who WE want.

[RichardRay]

61. The Wyoming 'Caucus'

is probably more of a 'county convention'.

The event served a population of 17,000 people in a county the size of some states. The sessions were scheduled on Saturday and lasted for four hours. Speechs were made for the first hour, then the balloting began. After the voting started we dealt with party business, platform discussions, etc. Participants could cast their ballots any time during the event. There were vans and private vehicles out circulating through the county getting anybody who was interested to the site of the event. I know a whole bunch of people from the hospital who came down in the afternoon and cast their ballots and left; ditto firefighters and other emergency workers. The Elder Care Center's van also circulated to pick up those with disabilities who wanted to participate.

But, that's not an election - there was no certification process, no state or federal election officials involved, and if there were a problem there would be no recourse to anything outside the party. Those things are all the same in a 'primary', too.

Folks who want to turn the nominee selection process into a nominating version of the general election need to look a lot more closely at just what they're proposing. I know that in some states the nominating process has become enmeshed in events that actually are state elections - that failure on the part of the state parties to keep their houses straight is the only reason the Florida folks have a complaint.

So, one way or the other, keep the nominating process completely isolated from the actual state or federal process - they don't belong together. I sure don't want a state or federal government controlled by a rival political party running my party's candidate selection process.

[TheDoorbellRang]

64. I think it would be more interesting to have a poll

in which you ask if folks are for or against caucuses, based on whether their own state holds them. I see more support for caucuses from folks who have participated in them, with one or two who had bad experiences. I wonder how many who are against caucuses live in primary states.

Maybe I'll do that.:)

[TheDoorbellRang]

68. I just started a poll on this

Over here. Be happy to see y'all give some input. :hi:

[Dinger]

71. I Agree On #2

We should have the same standard. I wonder why some states have caucuses and some have primaries? I don't know. Anybody else?

[Cant trust em]

87. States choose what process they want for themselves.

I suspect that some of it has to do with tradition.

[RichardRay]

102. Cost is one issue.

Trying to run a full scale state wide primary for Democrats in Wyoming would pretty definitely not happen. At least not if all the ideas on access and availability have any importance.

[theboss]

75. I think the first thing is to figure out exactly what our objective is with the nomination process

Look. The easiest thing in the world to do is to have a national primary on the first Tuesday in May and have the entire thing decided in one day. Boom. On Wednesday, both nominees begin the November campaign. You can even pass party rules that say no fundraising or campaigning until January First. Or something. I'm not quite sure how you would enforce that, but it's an idea.

However, if you want a drawn out "conversation" with starts and stops and a connection to history, I don't see what problem there is with caucuses.

50 years ago, Mayor Daley decided who would run for President. I think the current system is better than that.

[VotesForWomen]

91. they suck just like a 6 month long primary. nt

[sniffa]

94. Yes, they are

[galledgoblin]

95. no, makes things much too complicated (n/t)

[Condem]

101. I can't believe that no one has mentioned Diebold

I assure you, they're not at the caucuses.

[MGKrebs]

108. And there is NO ONE at the caucuses trying to manipulate the voting.

One would think that voting rights advocates would be the LAST people to support caucuses. You've got some old lady hobbling around from room to room and the back porch at someones house counting raised hands and writing it all down on a yellow legal pad (maybe) to be added up by her nephew and his girlfriend.

Bulletproof.

[Condem]

113. Have you been to one, MG?

[MGKrebs]

123. You mean one for the presidential delegate selection?

Well, in my state, we use a primary to determine the number of delegates awarded to each candidate, but then we have a caucus to elect who those delegates actually are. A caucus in the sense of a meeting at which there was discussion, speeches, and campaigning before the vote, but ultimately, the vote was conducted by secret ballot. And yes I have been there and even helped out.

[Zynx]

138. Quite frankly, against the undemocratic nature of caucuses, I'm willing to take the risk.

[Seabiscuit]

111. They're an undemocratic farce, an engine driven by big money.

Whichever candidate has the most money to put the most feet on the ground to drive people to the caucus wins.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Condem]

116. I'll bet you 90% who posted here hasn't been to one

[quakerboy]

117. On #2

We also allow repugs to vote in the GE. Should we all do open primaries? Or better yet, we can let the repugs vote in our primaries and theirs. That way we pick the absolute best GE candidate, as we will have just duplicated the GE even more precicely.

Actually, if it comes to that, why not just skip the whole primary proscess. Go straight to the GE. The GE is a much better predictor of the GE than anything else. Unless you are using electronic machines, of course. Then the republican Sec of States numbers will be the best predictor of the best GE Candidate.


As to #1: Pretty much every state is unfair to everyone, as it stands. If you are going to bag the Caucus, bag the primaries as well. Vote by mail is your only real choice. Very very few people are unable to go to their mailbox.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

132. Nah

Caucuses cut out people who can't take hours out of their day and are easy to manipulate.

[CreekDog]

133. they are more useful than having superdelegates decide

more useful than elections where people were told "it would not count"

more useful than pledged delegates who change from whom they were elected to support to someone else.

for 2008, i think the above are the only valid comparisons --no others are valid in this cycle.

for the future, i kind of prefer primaries everywhere, but there is something to be said for having caucuses where people have to stand up for their candidate, so they aren't completely negative.