ELECTIONS The little-noticed change that could boost Biden and hurt Bernie in 2020

[JoeOtterbein]

(Disclaimer: the following article is written by the DU poster's daughter)

Several states are ditching caucuses, which tend to benefit candidates with smaller but more fervent bases of support.

By HOLLY OTTERBEIN 01/03/2019 05:07 AM EST

Bernie Sanders’ surprise performance against Hillary Clinton in 2016 was fueled by his dominance in a slate of states that voted by caucus, a format that allowed the Vermont senator to capitalize on his smaller but more fervent base of supporters.

In 2020, Sanders will lose some of that edge.

Several states that caucused in 2016 will hold primaries instead in 2020, potentially dealing a blow to Sanders and other Democratic hopefuls with zealous followings.

snip

Sanders’ allies aren’t buying that it will be hurt his chances if he runs for president again, though.

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager, said “the practical effect on a Bernie Sanders 2020 run is — I don’t think there is any.”

Weaver agrees with the premise that passionate voters can have an outsized effect in low-turnout caucuses: “If you have a dedicated group of folks, because the number of people at caucuses is generally lower, they can have a bigger impact.”

But there’s a flip side, he said: It’s easier to persuade infrequent voters to show up to a primary than a caucus — and “Bernie Sanders and other progressive candidates will disproportionately get the votes of people who are not consistent voters.”

Read More:

[link:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/03/2020-elections-caucuses-democrats-primaries-bernie-sanders-1078031|

[Sherman A1]

1. As long as the process is fair to all

I see no problem with changes to it. The candidates need make their case to the voters and let the chips fall where they may.

[Blue_true]

6. Agree. nt

[Power 2 the People]

29. +1000

[Hortensis]

33. It needs to be both fair AND protective of the will of the people.

I'm guessing the authoritarian state that Trump and the white nationalists are now much closer to imposing on us isn't one of the chips any of us are prepared to let fall as they may, nor our democracy.

Caucuses average about 3% participation and are easily the best chance for someone who could not get him or herself elected by a real majority to get around the little problem of the will of the people. Note that at 3% the only people these stealth candidates need to make their case to are small numbers of supporters, who stay quiet and then swarm in. An intensely bad way of running an election.

Most of the time, of course, the subversion isn't by some outside menace but by local power players who make sure they control the process. Great for protecting embedded local corruption. Which is a major reason for doing it this way, cheaper also of course.

[Land Shark]

2. Sanders has highest approval rate for a U.S. politician "small but more fervent"???

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Well, I heard some states will make tax returns a requirement to run.

[More_Cowbell]

7. CA passed that in 2017 and Jerry Brown vetoed it

I hope the legislature tries again with Gavin Newsome. It's obvious that voters need to know if a candidate beholden to someone.

[crazycatlady]

13. I know NY tried to pass it

Not sure what happened. But the state senate's about to change hands.

[Gothmog]

24. We need to do away with caucuses

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

32. +1, yes, people should not be subjected to hostility

while voting.

[ProgLibDem]

3. Primaries are the only way to go...

These elections are carried out by the state/county elections department and have more integrity.

[a kennedy]

5. Yes.....MN finally is doing primaries.....

already had our first one this last election cycle.

[msongs]

10. caucuses are anti democracy IMO, great for people with no other obligations

at caucus time. but if you are working or cannot find care for your kids its not so cool. The hawaii presidential preference caucuses were hijacked by a bunch of out of control people who practically rioted to get their way. nothing democratic about that either.

[uppityperson]

12. I've never been to a caucus that had absentee ballots. You either showed in person or didn't get a v

[uppityperson]

18. Iowa hasn't happened yet, it's not 2020. WA had affidavits that could be sent in early

"surrogate affidavits” — forms by which Democrats attest they’re unable to attend a caucus due to work schedule, illness, disability, military service or religious observance.

So you could plan your illness 8 days ahead. Being out of town on vacation or for a school study program wouldn't work. Needing to stay home to care for your children or demented parent and no sitter available Orr affordable? Too bad.

[pnwmom]

21. And if you just didn't feel like spending 3-4 hours voting, too bad. You're not good enough. n/t

[pnwmom]

20. "what amounts to" an absentee ballot in WA state is NOT the same as an absentee ballot.

No matter what the Seattle Times might think.

There was no legal category that applied to my son, for example, who was an out-of-state college student.

Here are the limited categories that allow voters to apply for absentee ballots: illness, disability, work schedule, religious observance, or military service.

There was no absentee ballot for someone who didn't want to spend three or four HOURS voting. Or someone who didn't want to drive as far as they'd have to. Or someone who didn't want to have to PUBLICLY debate his choices alongside his boss, for example -- who simply wanted to vote in PRIVACY.

All of these people could have voted in a primary, or on an absentee ballot in a primary. But our caucuses did NOT accommodate them.

[uppityperson]

22. Exactly. If you wanted your vote to be private, or didn't fit one of those few specific categories

you had to spend 3-6 hours in a group of people, waiting.

[Adrahil]

14. Prepare to be shocked!

Most caucuses do not use absentee ballots. In particular, the Iowa caucuses have never used them, though there is a proposal to change that. But up to this point, if you had to work, or were sick, or disabled, or couldn't get child care, etc., you were screwed. Yeah... that's GREAT for democracy.

[pnwmom]

19. Prepare to be shocked. In WA we have caucuses but they don't issue many absentee ballots.

There are very limited circumstances that allow for them. My out of state student couldn't qualify without lying. I attended mine and there was a disproportionate number of young, white males.

Caucuses are elitist, because they require the participants to have the free time to spend hours (sometimes on your feet) debating politics on at least one Saturday (unless you are elected to be a delegate to subsequent events). Some caucus sites are more than an hour from where voters live. And not everyone has the available time OR the eagerness to debate politics with impassioned people -- whereas a primary ballot can be filled out at the kitchen table and mailed in.

That's why the participation is much higher in our primaries. Unfortunately, our party voted to ignore the will of the people -- expressed in a voter-approved referendum to switch to a primary -- and so chooses all its electors in the caucuses, rather than in the primary. (Our primary is called a "beauty contest."

The Republicans agreed to go with the primary system the voters approved -- but the Dems didn't. So in 2016 WA Democrats gave all its electors to the caucus winner, the LOSER of the primary campaign, Bernie Sanders.

What a travesty.

[Quixote1818]

15. With Elizabeth Warren now running, I would prefer Sanders not run

because they are just going to split the progressive vote.

[pnwmom]

17. Washington State is the proof that Jeff Weaver is dreaming.

Bernie won the small, elitist caucuses, but Hillary killed it in the much larger, more diverse primary.

[Gothmog]

23. We need to get rid of caucuses

[ehrnst]

31. Yes - they are the way a party could hand-pick a candidate.

Because they are run and paid for by political parties - that would be the way they could suppress support for a candidate they didn't want.

Whereas the primaries use the democratic method of selecting a candidate - each person gets a vote. They are a MUCH better indicator of the party bases' support of a candidate.

[Scurrilous]

25. ...

[tazkcmo]

26. As it should be.

I agree with Sen Sanders on most issues but he either commits to being a Democrat or he commits to being an Independent. No more half assing it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. We need to do away wih all caucuses, and close all primaries. /nt

[dlk]

28. Caucuses are Anachronistic and Not the Most Democratic

They come from a time long ago when white males were the preferred voters and have outlived their usefulness. If examined closely, caucuses are actually discriminatory.

[ehrnst]

30. Caucuses are run and paid for by the party. Primaries are run and paid for by states.

One would think that if a party was going to suppress a candidate, caucuses would be the way to do it.

Probably all for the best that they go away.