Why caucuses are bad -- because they deny participation to many.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sat Dec 9, 2017, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

ON EDIT: in my state here are the people who qualify for absentee ballots:

Anyone who can’t attend due to religious observance, military service, work schedule, disability or illness can fill out a surrogate affidavit form with the Washington State Democratic Party and have their vote counted.

That excludes everyone who gets sick after the affidavit deadline, parents and others who care for dependents, people who are out of town for personal reasons, and out of state college students -- and anyone who doesn't want to spend hours debating issues with others, or listening to them debate; anyone who doesn't consider themselves disabled but can't spend hours standing around; and anyone whose English skills are limited and just wants to vote.

[greeny2323]

1. It's obvious

No sane person would favor voter suppressing caucuses. But some are demanding it because they believe it helps Sanders. It is sickening.

[tonyt53]

2. YES, it is!

[Wwcd]

4. Ask Manafort's electioneering pal Tad Devine about their old days in the Ukraine.

They were professional election organizers and not just in the US.
They didn't come cheap mind you, but they ran the Ukraine election like the biggest scam artists of all time. And they won.

There's a reason behind the relentless push for caucaus change.
It has nothing to do with voter suppression.
But it has to do with stripping the Dem Party of its own laws to elect a candidate within their own Party.

They are free to set the laws of their process as they see fit.

The excuses otherwise are bull sh**.
Stop whining or form your own party.

[pnwmom]

7. I can't whether you are for or against caucuses. But living in a state that has them

I can tell you that the reason there's a push to shift to primaries is because caucuses are the old "smoke filled rooms" where privileged people chose the nominees - without the smoke.

They exclude many people and are a miserable experience for most of the people who attend them. I've never talked to anyone who actually preferred caucuses. In fact, the voters in my state voted to toss the caucus system, and replace it with primaries, and the R's went along with the voter preference. But the D leadership when to court to keep their damn caucuses. So we're stuck with them.

[4now]

3. Caucuses are very undemocratic

I am surprised that the Democratic party would use a system that is so unfair to disabled people.
I haven't voted in person more then once in over 20 years and I could never attend a caucus.
I am thankful that I live in a civilized state.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Part of it is the party's fault but a primary requires state law.

So unless there are enough votes to change the law. And will likely require votes from the Republican side it won't happen.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Absolutely agree

I believe you're from Washington State as I am. Bernie Sanders kicked ass in the caucuses. When the primaries came around Hillary won.

Sadly the Washington State Democrats count the delegates from the caucuses. However one has to go to the precinct, district, county and state caucuses for their vote to count.

That is not Democratic.

[oasis]

6. I've caucused in 2 states. One experience was ok, the other, terrible.

We are already asking enough of voters to get them out to the polls.

We can turnout more Democrats if we limit their encounters with frustrating experiences

Get rid of caucuses.

[dflprincess]

8. I like caucuses

I don't think Wellstone would ever have been senator if we didn't have them in Minnesota.

They bring new people into the party, encourage grassroots involvement, and allow more focus on issues. The outcomes are less apt to be influenced by how much money the candidate has. State law requires that employees be given time off to attend (though, yes, they have to use PTO or take unpaid time if their employer won't pay them) and we still have a primary later in the year.

[pnwmom]

9. So do a lot of privileged, extraverted, non-disabled people who enjoy arguing about politics

in groups full of strangers, friends, employers, and family members.

But that doesn't make them inclusive or fair.

[dflprincess]

10. I wasn't aware that we who show up at caucuses are all "privileged".

Granted, I am in the 'burbs but some of the heaviest turn out has been in areas of Minneapolis with large immigrant populations (and lower incomes) I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear they're privileged.

Disabled people do manage to make it to the caucuses - not as many as would like to I'm sure but we do hold them in accessible buildings and will help with transportation needs.

No one is forced to actively pariticpate, if an introvert wants to come and just vote on issues and candidates they are welcome to do so without first voicing an opinion to the group.

BTW when I was young, I would take the night off from work without pay to attend, so I wasn't "privileged" when I first got involved, but I did think participating was a responsibility.

[pnwmom]

11. You are more privileged than those who have obstacles that prevent them from participating.

You are more privileged than people who don't speak enough English to feel they'll be able to gain or contribute anything.

You are more privileged than people who have children or disabled dependents and nobody to leave them with.

You are more privileged than people who can't take off 4 hours or 6 hours to vote (or longer, depending on how far you have to drive.)

[dflprincess]

26. My point was that no one is forced to get up and speak if they are not comfortable doing so

it's not like we go around the room making everyone tell us what they think whether they want to or not. We also do our best to follow Robert's Rules and no one is allowed to dominate a discussion. Often times rules are adopted by those in attendance that will limit discussion of an issue to 3 to 5 in favor and the same number opposed and the individual's time is usually a couple minutes. It helps move things along which makes everyone happy. And after a few speakers people start repeating points; again people are happy not to listen to the same point of view several times. (Rules can be suspended if there is a particularly hot issue and the body votes to suspend them...I can't remember that happening in years.)

Our caucuses are not run the same way you saw on TV during the Iowa caucus.

Caucuses are neighborhood events, you may live in the same precinct as one of your employees but I bet you don't. Just wondering if your employees feel free to put a bumper sticker on their car for a candidate you don't support? If not, you may be doing something wrong. I once worked for a small business and the owner was a Republican (a normal one back when there was such a thing) we used to have great discussions and he didn't mind if I stayed late to do some DFL work, including using the copier. He just thought it was great I was involved. I hope you have the same attitude with your employees and make it clear to them that you do.

It helps to speak English in many aspects of American life - even when reading campaign literature or listening to a candidates debate before a primary. However, there are areas where the caucuses are conducted in more than one language if the need is there. To be honest, in my area it is not, though we have had American Sign Language translators present.

Minnesota law requires that an employee be given time off to caucus. Forty years ago I would take an unpaid evening off to attend and it was not money I could afford to lose at the time but I figured if my dad could spend three years in the Pacific I had a duty to participate in the process and could use a few hours every couple years to do so.

Caucuses also make it easier to push someone the party establishment doesn't approve of through the endorsement process. Wellstone being a shining example of this. They cost less money, depend on grassroots activism and the winner isn't decided by who can afford the slickest ad campaign.

If it comforts you at all, the way it works in Minnesota, the caucus merely helps push someone toward being the party's endorsed candidate. There is still a primary and those who didn't get the endorsement can challenge the endorsed candidate in the primary and sometimes the challenger wins and more often than not the party will give that challenger its blessing. This is actually the route Dayton took on the road to becoming governor, though he chose not to go through the caucus system at all. It also led to the odd situation where those of us who are active in the party finding ourselves not voting for the endorsed candidate.

And I believe we are going to just a primary for 2020 presidential vote.

[GulfCoast66]

27. Sounds like you guys turn it into a friendly get together

And in the end the person who gets the most votes in an actual election. Cool with that.

But we know that there are states where the will of the majority of Democratic Voters did not pick the winner. That has to change.

[dflprincess]

28. I can't tell you what happens all over the state but at least in my area we do try to keep it

friendly - we want people to come back and, even better, get involved with the local party unit on a more regular basis (at least the local unit if they want to move on to the Congressional District or State levels, so much the better.) I think we try to keep the precinct caucus more like the Town Hall meetings they have (used to have?) in New England. The senate district conventions can get a bit more dry but they are larger groups and Robert's Rules are really needed at those.

To be honest, most the time the endorsed candidate wins the primary but the possibility of a challenge is there and people do get to vote (though for a state that usually has great turn out in the general election our primary turnout is dismal even when there is a hot race.)

[pnwmom]

30. I'm not talking about Iowa caucuses on TV. I'm talking about Washington caucuses I've attended.

You're not forced to speak but you're forced to spend hours listening to other people speak just so you can vote.

Roberts Rules? Time limits? Hah! In our precinct, one dad brought his 10 year old son and he stood up for seven interminable minutes and gave a speech. Non-voters aren't allowed to speak in caucuses, but who wanted to stop a kid? But the worst part was when they passed around envelopes and asked us to PAY for the caucuses that MOST of us had voted NOT to have! Talk about rubbing salt into the wound. If they want to save money they should switch to the primary, which is paid for by the state and wouldn't cost them a dime.

There were no translators for my precinct and no indication in the information we were provided that they would be available. Since more than 60 languages are spoken in our city's schools, I don't see a practical solution to that problem.

The primary ballots we had took five minutes to fill out -- but thanks to our party's lawsuit against our state, all the delegates are decided by the caucuses. Years ago, our states' voters strongly approved a referendum to switch to primaries, but the party is still shoving the caucuses down our throats.

The R's listened to the state's voters, and they use the primary.

And no, it isn't a comfort to Washington voters to hear that in Minnesota, the primary voters' preference might matter to the party. Our primary voters chose Hillary and the much smaller number of caucus voters chose Bernie. Bernie got 100% of the state delegates. Does that sound fair to you?

[LiberalFighter]

17. Campaigns bring new people into the party.

And the party is the county party that should be open to them. The county party is where everything is usually happening.

[dflprincess]

23. And campaigns get people to the caucuses

as do issues. It's much easier to push discuss issues and raise awareness through caucuses than it is through primaries. People can subcaucus over a combination of candidate and issue or even choose an "uncommitted"/<whatever issue> subcaucus.

[pnwmom]

29. Campaigns get healthy, less busy, articulate and confident people to the caucuses.

They have less success getting parents who need babysitters, people who don't have the energy to stand around for hours, people who have busy weekends and don't have several hours to devote to caucusing, people who don't speak English well enough to want to attend a caucus, out-of-state college students, and people who get sick after the deadline for filing for an absentee ballot due to illness.

[aikoaiko]

12. We should get rid of caucuses AND superdelegates

Superdelelates can swing the vote by 15%.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Super Delegates are not the problem.

They would not had changed the outcome of the 2016 primary.

[aikoaiko]

20. Well, when 400 made their declaration before the first primary, I think that had an effect.

The message was clear, the majority of superdelegates were going to vote for HRC regardless of what the people wanted.

It was a big problem.

[LiberalFighter]

32. Bullshit

The people got what they wanted. And they wanted Hillary. Voters in primaries are not for the most part going to consider who Super Delegates support especially when most of them didn't identify their support until after their state primary was over.

[mcar]

13. K&R

[PatsFan87]

14. There was an absentee option ahead of my caucus last year.

That would address the accessibility/availability problems.

[pnwmom]

15. There wasn't in my state, except in limited circumstances. And I would have had to lie

about the reason and I didn't want to, so I went to the caucus.

But what if something came up at the last minute? You wouldn't be able to vote. With a primary, you have all day to vote (or in my state, 3 weeks to vote by mail).

[dflprincess]

24. There is at Minnesota caucuses as well nt

[PatsFan87]

19. That's a good point.

I do think the absentee option addresses a lot of the concerns the woman on twitter has in the original post (harasser, being queer/trans, opioid history, abusive family members, etc.). I think if I were unsure if I'd be able to get time off of work to go or if I'd be able to find a babysitter, I'd just be safe and go the absentee route. I see where unexpected changes would suck though.

My first caucus was last year and my least favorite thing was having to sit through speeches, electing party positions, etc. They saved the presidential voting until last (after 2 hours) so everyone had to sit through things they had no interest in. They should have the presidential voting first so people can leave afterward if they wish.

[pnwmom]

22. There is no absentee option in my state except in very limited circumstances. By contrast,

in our primary we vote by mail and have 3 weeks. Guess which event had far greater participation? (Even though all our delegates are chosen by the caucus only.)

[UTUSN]

21. Big k r

[Awsi Dooger]

31. Because Obama might be president right now if they didn't exist

Hillary '08 followed by Obama '16