Reply #7: I agree, to a point

[chiefofclarinet]

I'm happy to see some of Clinton's supporters do the right thing: lobby to the DNC about revising the system. Clinton's supporters are getting a bad name, with PUMA and the similar groups attacking the process from the outside rather than confront it from the inside.

However, wanting to remove caucuses is the WRONG idea. As an Iowan, I may be a bit thin-skinned about this issue, but I think the caucus system works. It works because we voters in Iowa are passionate about this. We did our best job vetting them for the rest of the process, asking the right questions, and giving them feedback about what is working on the small scale. And yes, caucuses take time. But, isn't it worth the time to see grass-roots campaigning in action? That, and the ones that care the most will make time to go.

The way I think about it is this. Iowa's caucus is like a small-scale experiment. Using a "small" amount of money, resources, etc., candidates can see which strategies in advertising, speech content, and ideas work and which issues is America concerned about. It also lets the lesser funded candidates have a chance, even if it never worked. (like Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc.) After a couple more small experiments, (NH, NV, SC) then the best strategies will be used for the large scale. (Super Tuesday and beyond)

Is the system we have now perfect? No. Can it be fixed? Yes. Will removing caucuses fix the system? No.