Some perspective on why its time to END THE CAUCUS.

[JaneyVee]

3/26 three state caucuses
AK 10,600
HI 34,000
WA 25,000
------------------
70,000

3/15 Missouri state Primary
-------------------
670,000


Caucuses are awful bastions of voter suppression and need to end.

[DemocracyDirect]

1. Those are delegates, not votes.

[JaneyVee]

3. Um, what?

Those are popular vote totals. Your first election?

[DemocracyDirect]

4. Apparently it is your first election.

[JaneyVee]

7. So the delegate count is what?

[DemocracyDirect]

13. At caucuses delegates are elected to go onto county caucuses.

In Washington State for example:

19,159 delegates for Bernie Sanders
7,140 delegates for Hillary Clinton

Were elected across all counties to go on to county caucuses pledged to vote for their candidate in their county caucus which will elect state delegates.

The actual number of votes was above 200,000+.

[JaneyVee]

33. Ok good info. Still...

Time to go primaries in all 50 states.

[DemocracyDirect]

35. Still doesn't change the fact that I tried to help you...

... and you insulted me.

[Yavin4]

2. Your attendance figures are off, but your point is valid

Total Turnout
WA: 244,548
HI: 32,000
AK: 10,016


That's less than 100,000 people across three states. Very few people have the time to sit in a room and argue for candidates all day.

[JaneyVee]

5. WA caucus results show...

19,000 to 7000

[morningfog]

18. Those are state delegates. Washington is a big state with big cities and lots of people.

[JaneyVee]

24. Thanks for info...

Im only going by google results (Im at work and just got back to NY). So what are the full pop vote totals for all 3 states so I can update/edit.

[DemocracyDirect]

21. Interesting how your sum doesn't include all of the numbers in the states above.

Is this a one-two punch disinformation campaign?

[JaneyVee]

25. Try answering some questions I asked.

Post the pop vote totals so I can correct.

[DemocracyDirect]

31. See Response #13 and #28

I answered all your questions precisely.

[Ken Burch]

6. In Washington, 250,000 people voted in the caucuses.

That was the report from the state Democratic leadership, whose leaders are all pro-HRC.

[JaneyVee]

9. Ok then Google needs to update

Its showing 100% reporting with 25k total votes https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=akb5VvH-C6jqjgTJiLYo&q=wa+caucus&oq=wa&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.35i39j0i131j0i67j0i20j0i67.3874.4066.0.5515.4.3.1.0.0.0.287.502.2-2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..1.3.548.3.MKuPF7q6QUY#eob=m.081yw/D/2/short/m.081yw/

[kennetha]

11. Still a pathetic number

In a state where over 1.7 million voted Democrat in the last presidential election, that's a very very sad turnout. Less than 15% of the potential democratic electorate turn out. So Bernie's "landslide" represents the will of about 10%.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Washington Democratic Party says it was high turnout...why do you disagree?

"in Washington, party officials estimated more than 200,000 people participated on Saturday, close to the record set in 2008 "
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/election-results.html

Facts matter.

[kennetha]

38. for a caucus

that's like being a large ant, it's still a very small animal.

[HassleCat]

8. The best reason of all.

My candidate lost.

[JaneyVee]

10. Hey it happens...

Cant win them all. Keep your head up!

[floriduck]

32. I agree with your statement that caucuses need to go away

in every state. But it is our party leaders that allowed it to occur in states that wanted them. So we should force the National party to replace them with primaries. Not sure the National organization has that power though.

[still_one]

12. No absentee ballots, people have to be present in person

Not a secret ballot in many cases, and people trying to influence your vote

I agree, the caucus is unfair in so many ways.

[JaneyVee]

15. Not to mention tough time commitment.

If you are elderly, disabled, working, have kids, etc. I would not be able to participate. Glad NY has primaries, as ut is I have to usually vote on my lunch break.

[DemocracyDirect]

16. Really unfair that Hillary Clinton lost?

The OP is just incorrect and when you try to correct them, they double down, or try to obfuscate.

[JaneyVee]

20. Can you post the popular vote totals?

I was out of country for past week. What were the pop vote totals so I can correct/edit. Thanks.

[DemocracyDirect]

28. They don't release the popular vote totals for caucuses, only the delegates elected.

Why?

DNC policy in at least most cases.

And you'll notice how silly it is when Hillary Clinton herself keeps talking about how she's winning the popular vote...

... when she doesn't even know the popular vote ...

... nobody does ...

She only knows the votes from primaries, and not caucuses.

Is that dishonest?

You've heard her say it dozens of times right?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. I'm not a caucus fan but I am also not a bullshit fan. Those are delegate counts, not voter turnout

numbers. You are not even the first to make this 'mistake' or to attempt this ploy. Your own common sense should tell you those are not voter totals. It should be obvious to you.

I thought you were a UPM? Numbers should not confuse you so much.

[JaneyVee]

17. Explain....

What do you mean delegate count?

[Bluenorthwest]

23. You really don't know? I'm not going to spoon feed you, your pay rates suggest you can read and

count.
"in Washington, party officials estimated more than 200,000 people participated on Saturday, close to the record set in 2008."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/election-results.html

Your OP says 25,000 people. The Democratic Party says over 200,000. Caucuses and primaries both elect delegates who go to convention and vote accordingly. 25,000 delegates produced by over 200,000 voters, they are near or past the 2008 turnout record. It's not low turnout, it's high turnout.

You seriously run productions with this sort of lack of intellectual rigor?

[JaneyVee]

27. Like I said upthread...

I was going by google results.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Garbage in, garbage out. Google assumes readers have common sense.

nt

[John Poet]

19. Primaries and caucuses are created by the individual states, not national parties.

The only roles that national parties generally play is to allocate the number of delegates the state primary or caucus may elect, and set guidelines on the date-timeframe in which they should be held.

For a state to have a presidential primary, they have to have passed a law creating one and allocating money to pay for holding it. Elections aren't free.

Caucuses are generally only held by parties in states where this has not been done, or where specifics about the primary created by the state are unacceptable to one or the other of the national parties for some reason. (This happened with Michigan for several cycles, which is why we had Democratic presidential caucuses in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and possibly a couple other instances).

In some cases, state laws creating a primary expire after the current presidential election, so that they have to pass a new law to hold a presidential primary in the next cycle.

In the case of Iowa, the caucus has become a rather long-standing tradition.

[JaneyVee]

22. Interesting.

I keep seeing articles saying "chaos at the polls" and that people were turned away even in Hawaii. I think the chaos is because we have 50 different states with 50 different rules. I think we need streamlined voting, every state with the same rules, make access to voting easier. Arent these caucuses like a 4 hour window?

[Bluenorthwest]

26. That's not Constitutional, the States run their own elections by law. You might want to know that

Washington has a caucus because the Democratic Party sued the State to be allowed to caucus instead of holding a primary. Why do they caucus? Because OUR Party wanted it that way. Complaints about their choice should go to the Democratic Party of Washington, not to other States or to DC nor to the State of Washington. It's the Party's choice, very much so.

[JaneyVee]

29. Im not blaming the state...

Im blaming the process. Seems ridiculous and outdated. Its 2016, expand access to voting. This caucus crap seems like straight out of the 1800s.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. My point is that the process in WA was selected by the Democratic Party, not the State.

The process you do not like was put in place by the Democratic Party of Washington. The Nevada Caucus, by the way is also new, 2008 was the first Nevada caucus and they also made that choice. Outdated but still being initiated. It's not out of the 1800's either, we had no caucus or primary system at all back then.

The financing is an aspect that causes States to pick a caucus. Parties pay for and control a caucus, an election is paid for by the State and run according to State law not Party rules.

I'm in Oregon, we vote for Bernie by mail!

[John Poet]

37. Standardization would be nice, but really isn't possible

with every state in control of their own elections.

There would have to be a federal law passed (obviously very unlikely in the near future), and then such a law would likely face constitutional challenges.

I suppose national parties could give recommendations to the individual states on standardizing election laws, but the parties would likely work in opposite directions...


The timeframe of caucus voting is up to the individual state parties. I think the last time we held them here, voting was from something like 10 am to 4 pm on a Saturday.... Many may be shorter. Then you have someplace like Iowa where they start at a set time when you must be there to participate... but then most 'caucuses' aren't like Iowa. Most are more like a primary with voting by ballot, except that the state doesn't run them or pay for them, and voting sites are much more limited.

[Yavin4]

39. Hillary won 5 times the WA vote in Florida alone

Yet, Bernie has all of this momentum.