I really don't understand why we need caucuses?

[neoteric lefty]

viability thresholds, realignments, electioneering periods??? Call me old fashioned, but I prefer just going into a booth and voting. Use as much time as you need before election day (and during) to persuade, work, and fight for a candidate, but take a moment on your own and vote.

Well, let me have it :)

[scheming daemons]

1. So work to change it for 2012.... can't change the rules for 2008......

....

[neoteric lefty]

3. never said I wanted to

my opinion was about the institution itself, not of the candidates, this election, or anyone else.

[ClassWarrior]

13. I agree. I think caucuses AND super delegates should be eliminated...

...and I hope everyone who voices the same opinion here will work to make that happen for 2012.

NGU.

[DemVet]

43. Bingo....agreed. n/t

[skipos]

2. In Hillary's 35 years of experience, surely she has heard of caucuses?!?

Why is she only complaining about them now?

[neoteric lefty]

4. huh?

she may be complaining about them, but I don't really care what she thinks.

[pdxmom]

5. You might get some changed, but caucuses have been around in some

of these states for over a hundred years. Iowa isn't going to let go of that caucus system very easily.

[neoteric lefty]

7. it just seems like the sleezy backroom politcs of nominations

of the past but with the veneer of the common man.

[frazzled]

19. no--the sleazy back rooms exist in the Machine states ...

where the common man or woman doesn't have a chance of penetrating.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. I agree. New England Town Hall meetings are a caucus format, and they've been around since

pre-revolutionary days.

[bhikkhu]

31. The last record I can find of a candidate complaining of the caucus system

was Andrew Jackson, who apparently initiated some reforms (though I haven't found any state-by-state details).

But my point would be - if it worked out ok for Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc, should things be changed because Hillary can't seem to win a caucus?



edit -sp

[John Q. Citizen]

36. I think Hill's problem is her support is very shallow. Not many interested in

going to any effort for her.

Obama's support is a lot deeper.

So what was A. Jackson's complaint?

[bhikkhu]

37. Its in a post a little farther down, but

what I could find was that at the time the caucus system was elitist and exclusionary, where the powers in the state would gather over some good cigars and chose their nominee, probably from amongst themselves or "their kind". Keeping in mind that "their kind" included all of the founding fathers and every previous president. And keeping in mind that travel and communications were rudimentary and sometimes barely possible, depending on the weather. Popular elections were massive undertakings, while the educated and qualified were a very small and closely knit group.

But by Jackson's time the population and territory had expanded to the point that the old British-style elitism was outweighed by new money and a rapidly growing population that expected equality and opportunity. Jackson was much more a commoner on the outside than one who was "born to power", and so his rise was quite difficult. Caucuses were a harder nut for him to crack than open elections, but he succeeded and apparently was able to effectively reform things in two terms of government.

I have been unable to find his own complaints repeated later so I can only assume there was something of a sea-change. There is no reason an open caucus is not an entirely fair and practical method of selecting a candidate.

The greatest modern criticism I have heard amounts to little more than "you have to show up".


edit: sp and grammar, as per usual

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Interesting. That's how the Repos here in Montana ran their caucus. It was closed,

people were selected by the party to caucus and no other Repos were welcome to join in.

It pissed off a hell of a lot of rank and file Repos.

[bhikkhu]

39. So the old traditions do live on...I hadn't looked state by state

I would have thought Montana could do better. I listened to an interview with the governor the other day about the new "real ID" thing homeland security is requiring and how he has told them with calm assertiveness where to shove it...admirable candor, in my book.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Schwitzer is a very smart and well liked Dem politician. We Dems have our primary on june 3rd,

The Repos had their closed caucus on Super tuesday.

Depending on how the supers declare between now and our primary, it's possible that Monatana could put Obama over the top.

[TheDonkey]

30. It's actually not the backrooms it's "in the room" politics

I actually think they are more fair than Diebold machines and mystery machines we slip our pieces of paper into and never know what is going on behind the scenes with those counters.

[question everything]

9. But we can move to rotating regional primaries that include Iowa and New Hampshire

and their anti-democratic, disenfranchising system will not longer matter.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Let people vote from at least 7AM to 8PM.

Don't tell thousands of people to show up at the same place at the same time, which is a recipe for traffic jams.

[MagsDem]

8. Caucuses are designed to reward those that spend the most

In my precinct I could count at least 15 Obama supporters that don't live in my precinct, but they were still allowed to vote for him. Look at Obama's spending -- he has set a world record for money spent on "temps" which is often who shows up to vote in caucuses.

Witness the WA state caucuses that he won by 30% compared to the open primary held 2 weeks later where he won by only 3%. Caucuses exist for people that want to buy them, and Obama has done just that.

[scheming daemons]

12. How do you know those 15 Obama supporters don't live in your precinct...

...seriously..

Did you get their addresses?

[MagsDem]

15. For three reasons

1) My partner was the precinct committee chair here

2) I have knocked every door in this precinct for dem candidates consistently in each election. In fact I have pdf scans of the voter lists.

3) My son goes to the high school, and I know the 18 yr kids that live in my neighborhood, and those kids do not live here.

[alteredstate]

41. Please provide proof of the hiring of "temps".

[wileedog]

10. I don't understand why we need voting

Just let the Superdelegates decide and we can all get back to American Idol.

[neoteric lefty]

14. your sarcasm, sadly, added nothing to this discussion

have a great evening.

edit: typing without contacts in is fun

[wileedog]

18. I'm sorry

I was complaining about the current system and wondering why it made any sense in a democratic process. Especially considering it is the only way my candidate can currently lose.

What were you doing?

[neoteric lefty]

22. I was adressing a concern I had to other folks here on DU

personally removed reply... I snapped and shouldn't of done that,

[napi21]

11. I'm REALLY GLAD we don't have them here! I was telling my

husband about them on Sunday, and he said "I'd sure NEVER go to something like THAT" I have a hard enough time getting him to go to our polling place!

[frazzled]

16. Going into a booth is the minimal level of democratic participation

and it is the absolute minimum of participation you can have in the Party.

Caucuses exist not just for presidential primaries but for state business as well, including gubernatorial and senate nominee choices in some cases, and platform planks. In caucuses you get to choose the delegates you will send to the state and national party conventions to represent you, not only on a presidential choice but on a host of important issues.

I've participated in caucuses in two different states, and I've been suckered into becoming a delegate to the State Democratic Convention--and I'm not sorry I was, because I learned a lot and got a better sense of how the party in my state was run. And it got me involved in working to reform the party, and to deal with some important issues regarding housing, taxes, and healthcare.

Where I live now I have no chance to have that kind of participation--because it is a strong Democratic Machine state. I just get to go to the union hall and fill out a ballot. And there's a lot of stuff on those ballots I know no one has a freaking clue about. I've spent two days looking up judicial records so I can vote for the district court subsection 12 candidate and know what the fuck I'm doing, but I doubt many people have. Caucuses are places for people to share information--it's not just the hooplah of the enormous turnouts at this year's presidential caucuses.

Another reason there are caucuses is that they are an excellent means of party-building. And this is, after all, about the Democratic Party--not your personal predilection in a single candidate race.

Thank you for listening.

[frazzled]

17. I meant to add ...

If you are happy to cede party business to a claque of insiders and just show up every so often to vote, that is your choice. But participation in caucuses is a good way to have a larger hand in the party's business ... instead of complaining about it.

If you've never participated in a caucus, it's hard to make this understood.

[MagsDem]

21. Sorry, they are still bullshit

There are no checks on the system to ensure voters are registered or even live in the precinct they are voting in, and they disenfrachise workers that can't take a day off to spend at a caucus to make sure their voices are heard.

WA state is a perfect example.... Obama won the caucuses by 30% but the primary, which counted for zero delegates, by only 3%. Your post gives no good reason why 27% of voters should not have a say in who their presidential nominee is.

[neoteric lefty]

24. excellent post

Glad to hear someone who feels different, that doesn't need to bring the current mess we have going on with HRC and BO. You made some fantastic points.

[woolldog]

20. I'd actually like to see more caucuses.

Has anybody thought about why certain states have caucuses and some don't? It seems like rural areas/states tend to have caucuses, probably becuase people lived so far away from each other at one point in time and it didn't make sense to travel long distances vote in secret and go home, it's almost anti-social to do that, people wanted some meaningful interaction with each other.

[MagsDem]

23. Caucuses disenfranchise voters. Period

They don't allow workers to vote. 200K people voted in WA state caucuses while 600K voted for the same race in the primary. The caucuses counted for delegates, but the WA primary counted for NO delegates. That is 400K dem voters who voted but where ignored. There is no good case to be made for that kind of system. None.

[woolldog]

26. Sure they do.

And there are things you can do to fix the way the system works without doing away with it. For example you could have "rolling caucuses"; you could hold caucuses on Sat or Sun...and so on

What I like about caucuses is that they encourages informed participation, make it more likely that those doing the voting are a subset of more informed voters, allows for some dialogue on the issues. They are a good example of participatory democracy.

Maine allows absentees in their caucus so your argument is bogus.

[MagsDem]

27. Bullshit -- let EVERY VOTER VOTE

And the only system that does that is the primary system. Period. There is nothing 'democratic' about caucuses. Hell, they don't even check to make sure you live in the precinct you are voting in, and I can tell you at least 15 people voted for Obama in my precinct that DO NOT LIVE HERE.

[ContinentalOp]

34. There are two simple solutions to that problem.

1. Get rid of caucuses completely.
2. Check to see if voters live in the precinct.

I think solution #2 makes a little more sense.

[Strelnikov_]

42. "2. Check to see if voters live in the precinct." Done

Had to present an ID, was checked against voter roles.

Someone could register on the night of the caucus. Thing is, if they were gaming the system (lying about their address, for example, on the registration document), they are committing voter fraud, punishable by law.

[woolldog]

35. should every voter vote?

I don't know. I want every informed voter to vote. The other ones I could care less about.

I think caucuses weed those people out.

[NMMatt]

28. Take that up with Bill Clinton who helped get the Texas caucus in place -nt

[bhikkhu]

29. Caucus History - I did a little reading

Apparently Andrew Jackson had a big problem with caucuses which led to a reform movement, getting into the news a bit. So easily accessible information online seems to begin with him, at Wikipedia, etc.

As he was the seventh president and the caucus system was established and prevalent enough to need reform, I would imagine that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc, were all selected to stand for their parties at least partly by caucus. If it was good enough for them, can we say it is inherently bad?

Realistically, back then travel and communications could be very difficult and inclusive elections were likely a huge undertaking. As there was in fact a fairly small population of elite and qualified individuals, state caucuses seem to have arisen as meetings of party insiders to select a candidate. Practical at one time, but by Jackson's time unnecessarily "elitist" and exclusive. Jackson's reform campaign seems to have led to more open and inclusive caucuses as well as a tendency to open primary elections.

In our time, travel and communications are unimaginably better, to the point that I think both the inclusive caucuses we have and standard open or closed primaries serve the purpose well. In short, my opinion would be to let the people of the states decide for themselves how they would like to chose their candidate. I am against telling a state with a two hundred year tradition that they don't know what they are doing. I am against imposing a one-size-fits-all method upon a diverse collection of states. I am suspicious of a candidate who calls one method seriously flawed just because his or her organization cannot seem to get a handle on it.

I was unable to find any record of complaints by Washington or Jefferson or any other "founding fathers". Perhaps Hillary has more resources for such research.

[TheDonkey]

32. Great post. Thank you

can I ad that I like caucuses a little bit more knowing that Andrew Jackson did not like them (and he was a creep).

[bhikkhu]

33. Agreed about Jackson

I could never get past his Indian-killer rep.

But then again, in reading of his campaign he seemed to represent a big and conscious break from the British-style elitism of large property owners and family dynasties being the entitled powers-that-be. In the states at that time there was simply too much new money and expansion for such an aristocracy to stabilize and take root, and Jackson was like a final breaking point away from British style government to what we have today. My 5 minute analysis, for what it is worth.

[Gore1FL]

40. I can't callyou old fashioned for like primaries

Caucuses are old fashioned and have been around since John Adams.

I'd like to see all states have primaries,and I'd like them to all be on one day.

[moondust]

44. Primaries are for the uncommitted.

Including voters who are not so involved, not so politically knowledgeable, single issue nuts who don't really care, those who've "heard the name a lot," and on primary day had a few minutes to "get in on the action," etc.

Caucuses are inclined to attract the opposite: activists, voters who know and feel strongly about the issues and the candidates, more committed to the process, etc. These are the best people to have separating the wheat from the chaff and deciding who the candidates will be.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Democracy is so frickin' messy, isn't it? Primaries AREN'T "for the uncommitted."

Primaries are for broad citizen participation, and that includes "the uncommitted" - as frustrating as that may be.

They did name our party the "Democratic" Party, didn't they?

NGU.

[moondust]

47. The GE is for broad participation.

Competently deciding who to put on your party's ballot in the GE is a finer process that requires more knowledge of the issues and the candidates. Primaries don't do anything to discourage the ignorant, the flippant, the indifferent, and the dirty tricksters from "getting in on the action" and screwing up that most important decision.