2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMore people voted for Hillary in the Nebraska Primary than participated in the Nebraska Caucus.
Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)
With 100% in, 41,829 people voted for Hillary in todays primary. 33,460 people voted in the entire Nebraska caucus.
Hillary is winning the non-binding primary 54-46. Bernie won the binding caucus 57-43.
This proves once again how undemocratic most caucuses are.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NE-D
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_county/NE_Page_0510.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS
msongs
(67,401 posts)retired people, students, indigents, younger people who don't work
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)My grandmother went to her caucus in Washington state, and called me afterwards totally appalled at what she had seen.
She said that people were calling out individuals by their addresses, as if to say 'we know where you live'. They were yelling at the Hillary supporters saying that they were not true Democrats and there were chants of 'go home Hillbots'.
Luckily my grandma is a plucky woman who stayed and stood up for Hillary, but she saw many people give in just to avoid conflict.
oasis
(49,380 posts)throughout this election period. Bad scene.
panader0
(25,816 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Cool story, bro.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)We are screwed then!
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)d ANYONE WHO WANTED TO CAUCUS COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED JUST AS IN SOME PRIMARY! THE WHOLE THING WAS PROPAGANDA TO DEFLECT FROM A BERNIE WIN... TO GIVE MEDIA FODDER TO CONSTRUCT A MEME THAT SOMEHOW BERNIE'S EARLIER WIN WAS NOT MEANINGFUL.... THEY PUT THE BS RESULTS UP TO FEED THE BULL TO "CONFUSE" THOSE WHO DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS WHAT...
AND TO TRY AND COUNTER THE VERRRRRYYYYY BAD OPTICS OF THE SO CALLED ANOINTED ONE FROM DAY ONE LOSING ANOTHER ONE... BIG! LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SHE LIMPS IN TO PHILLY AFTER TAKING NUMEROUS LOSSES FROM THE ONLY AUTHENTIC CANDIDATE IN THE RACE WHO STANDS FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE CORPORATION /OLIGARCHY....
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)God the hypocrisy is stunning.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Bernie dominated the one that counted.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)When more people show up to a Democratic process where everyone can vote, Bernie loses.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Must be physically present during caucus time to vote. Must have several hours free to arrive, register, and participate. Must be willing to vote publicly in front of neighbors. And there's some other stuff. But this is the bulk of it.
I love the process, but it isn't really democratic.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)abso-fucking-lutely undemocratic.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)the entire system of voting is undemocratic, considering the same issues apply with primaries and general elections. Do away with electronic voting machines, and open the primaries to independents and I might agree with you.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)they want a say in choosing our candidate. Switch back the next day for all I care, but if you can't be bothered to RSVP, don't be surprised when the menu items are chosen for you.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)We have a de facto two-party system and citizens have a right to not affiliate with either. They also have a right to vote, and should be able to choose whichever candidate, of any party, represents their interests. Independents make up more than a third of the electorate. Not allowing them access to primaries and caucuses is certainly not supportive of an open, democratic process.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)That's how stuff works.
Again. Everyone is invited to the party, but if you can't be bothered to RSVP, then I guess you didn't really give a shit enough about what you get at the party to begin with. Don't be surprised when the menu items are chosen for you.
mythology
(9,527 posts)A regular election doesn't inherently mean having to be there are a specific time with the ability to stay there for hours on end. No the entire system of voting isn't undemocratic. That's just revisionist nonsense because Sanders struggles in primary elections (whether closed or open) unless the demographics line up in his favor. It's one of the reasons why Sanders winning states like Indiana and West Virginia is effectively useless. He isn't building momentum as he's never managed to consistently do well with black or Hispanic voters.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Caucuses automatically disenfranchise thousands of voters, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)There are any number of explanations for the discrepancy that do not include "caucuses are undemocratic."
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)wails of "they cheated!" predate machines and paper ballots can be "miscounted" too. There have always been WAY more accusations of fraud than actual fraud, mostly because all elections feature a sizeable number of emotionally invested people who will not win.
It's a self-comforting measure to imagine that you were right all along, Everyone loved your candidate, just like you, but the evil other candidate cheated.
All this having been said; I have no objection to paper ballots or machine ballots. I think all states should have vote-by-mail available to all.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)As for paper ballots. They can certainly be miscounted but it's much harder to flip votes and there's always a paper trail in case of a contested election. Private companies involved in counting ballots is never a good thing, regardless of who's side you are on.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)I can't have a conversation with you if you will insist on absolutes and fantastical assumptions. I prefer logic and reason.
Again, I have no problem with eliminating electronic voting machines. Really.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)because real elections are secret ballots.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,189 posts).
But it worked so well to controll so many state elections.
.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)those of Bernie's supporters who voted in the caucus to vote in the primary since they knew their candidate had already won the caucus.
Why didn't Hillary's voters bother to vote in the caucus if that was the vote that counted? Not a very well organized bunch I would say.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)But there is a difference between being able to vote for 10 minutes out of 10 hours and having to spend hours in one place at the same time as everyone else to participate. It's shameful to defend a process where FEWER people get to participate.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)with the primary process as far as allocation of delegates goes. In the meantime, as you Hillary people often point out, Bernie and his supporters must deal with the Dem processes and rules whether we like them or not. Bernie won the NE caucuses. The caucuses count, not the primary. Large numbers of people don't vote in the useless primary, especially supporters of the candidate who won the caucus.
Hillary should have gotten her supporters out for the process that mattered: the caucus vote. This is just sour grapes now.
annavictorious
(934 posts)for down ticket candidates, but a Sanders supporter says that it's OK that his people didn't vote because there was nothing in it for Bernie.
Now that's exemplary citizenship.