Ok Clinton supporters... make the case... why are Caucuses Un-democratic?

[mckeown1128]

I want to know. Why?

[lisa58]

1. because the campaign didn't take them seriously

[boston bean]

2. look at the results in TX and that will give you a good idea. nt

[hokies4ever]

10. Rush's Operation Chaos

didn't work too well in Texas. Guess those Republicans following Rush's orders to vote for Hillary in the primary didn't want to be seen caucusing for her.

[mckeown1128]

41. If people could vote from home on their couch...

the results might be completely different. Saying that the results are different between caucuses and primaries isn't proof the caucuses are un-democratic.

[rinsd]

88. Would it be democratic to only allow primary voting for 2 hours in the evening?

[Junkdrawer]

3. They don't count their votes electronically...

And we've been told over and over that electronic voting machines make democracy possible.

[DemVet]

4. It doesn't rely on a fair and equal process.

It's just like the saying military historians use: "The winner is he who can get there with the most."

Do you really want candidates chosen because some people can't go to an all-night meeting because of work or family duties?

I would hope not.

[MaineDem]

6. Some states allow absentee voting for a caucus

Would that make them better?

[Marrah_G]

18. Then it wouldn't be a caucus. n/t

[WeDidIt]

77. Caucuses are run exclusively by the party

Primaries are run exlusively by the state.

If the state party apparatus rents the state's voting machines and mechinisms and runs everything the same as the state would run the primary, it would still be a caucus.

See New Mexico Caucus for more information.

[bowens43]

7. So you think that Obama supporters don't work or have family duties?

Don't blame the lazieness of hillary supporters on the process.

[Tyler Durden]

9. Oh give me a break.

So are you for disenfranchising old and poor people because they don't have a GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID?

YOU give up your day's pay, OR pay for daycare/nightcare, OR try and explain it to your employer.

You just don't live on "Planet Average," as do others who make that excuse.

Vote in the primary? Stop by the polling place, wait 15, vote, get home in time to make dinner.

[americanstranger]

11. But why was there no big outcry before the primaries started?

Why were the rules not changed if this was always such a big concern?

- as

[DemVet]

23. I agreee, but...

...I still think a voter's ID is a good idea. Here in Virginia, they mail a voter's registration card when a person registers to vote. That card, a driver's license, or a state ID is all that is required for ID to vote. The voter's ID requires NO effort to obtain...it's sent automatically.

[mckeown1128]

43. ID requirements aren't unique to caucuses.

People also mis work/have to get a babysitter to vote in a primary...it isn't unique to caucuses.

Convinence/inconvinence of voting doesn't prove caucuses are un-democratic.

How do caucuses favor one candidate over the other.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. How About The Elderly And The Physically Challenged?

I thought WE were supposed to be the champions of those people

Do you know hard it is for an elderly person or a physically challenged person to make it to a caucus?

[NorthCarolina]

20. Then why did Hillary campaign in caucus states if they don't mean anything?

Shouldn't she have simply ignored them completely? Had she won in the caucus states, would she have disavowed the win?

[mckeown1128]

42. That doesn't prove the caucuses are un-democratic...

people have trouble making it to primaries too. There is no evidence that caucuses help/hinder any particular candidates.

[tabasco]

65. LOL. When they get there with the most, they have to do more than pull a lever.

Your analogy actually supports the caucus.

A caucus requires you to attend and support your candidate.

Sort of like a battle.

[bowens43]

5. Because Obama won more of them then hillary did.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

35. Exactly.

If Hillary had won the caucuses, we wouldn't be hearing a peep about how "unfair" they are.

[dcindian]

8. Because if you do I will cry and not vote!

:cry: So take them apples!

[MADem]

12. Because they disenfranchise one of the most loyal voting blocs

The ELDERLY. Old people don't caucus as much--they can't stand for long periods, they often can't get out of their nursing/rest homes and vote absentee, and they are underrepresented at caucuses.

The HOSPITALIZED, who cannot get up out of their sickbeds to caucus, but who can vote absentee.

The POOR, for whom transportation is often an issue, and who frequently fall in the shift worker category mentioned below.

They also disenfranchise SHIFT workers, who ARE the "working class, salt of the earth, preponderance of voters." Retail clerks, police, fire, other public safety types, hospital workers, security guards, cabbies, call center workers, ANYONE working that mid shift is fucked.

They disenfranchise the MILITARY--deployed, on duty? Screw you--no vote for YOU.

They disenfranchise anyone who DARES to leave their state during the caucus, be it for a family vacation, a celebration like a wedding, a business trip, a family emergency, you name it.

They just aren't serious or "for real," these gatherings of hyper-earnest partisans. It's one thing to pop in and vote, any time from eight in the morning till eight or nine at night.... it's another to have to dedicate an evening to the process--and maybe have to miss work, and one fifth of your weekly paycheck, in order to voice your opinion--how many people would willingly give up a fifth of their weekly pay to say what they think, when the kids need shoes and the light bill hasn't been paid??

Caucuses are a fun game for activists. They don't mean shit. Really, if they did, President Harkin (and I wouldn't have minded him, he's a swell fellow) would have had a great term.

[MaineDem]

13. But if those groups could vote by absentee wouldn't that negate you're objections?

We allow that in Maine and had a large percentage of voters take part that way.

[MADem]

17. Well, of COURSE. But what ME has is sort of like NM--more like a Fire House caucus.

I'm talking about "classic caucus" states, like IA and NV, that do NOT allow absentee representation--they are disenfranchising.

A fire house caucus where people can vote and leave throughout the day and/or one that permits absentee participation is more like a primary, and that's fine.

Most aren't like that, though.

[Marrah_G]

19. Okay- question for you

If you can vote absentee, what makes it a caucus? I thought I had a good idea of what they were, now I am not so sure.

[MaineDem]

21. We still have the meeting

And participants discuss the candidates and do the other organizing things that take place at the caucus.

The absentees votes are counted like those of the people present. The only difference is that those who vote absentee cannot change their preference if their candidate doesn't get enough votes to get delegates. (Or for any other reason that someone may change her/his vote.)

We also llow those taking part via absentee forms to indicate that they would like to be considered in the vote for delegate to the state convention.

[Marrah_G]

26. Thank you :)

[MADem]

27. The level of organization. Each state makes their own rules.

The way I understand it, caucuses (or caucusi??) are party-run, party driven exercises. In primaries, the state has more involvement--you get your Katherine Harrises and Ken Blackwells sending out the voting machines and poll workers and making the arrangements for the citizenry to vote.

[Benhurst]

22. Absentee voting for caucuses?

When I lived in caucus states, we never had the opportunity to vote our choice absentee or otherwise -- you had to attend to be counted. And I found the process to be profoundly unfair, although I wasn't all that surprised, given the reactionary nature of the states in which I was participating.

I'm not sure how I feel about Maine's system as you present it; but it certainly seems fairer than what most caucus states have.

As for individuals not protesting caucuses or any other part of primary process, how many of us were aware of the process when it was taking place? Our "leaders" certainly were, but the rank and file Democrats probably had no idea such decisions were being made.

And the Supreme Court's latest ruling on voter picture identification is a disgrace -- but a different issue and one which will have horrific consequences for the upcoming general election. Florida 2000 here we go again.

Bottom line: once the dust settles from the primary, we're going to be facing yet another stolen election, the third one in a row.

[MADem]

28. The poster making the assertion is right--Maine is different. Maine has a shitload of snowbirds.

They leave the state for warmer climates to soothe those old bones, so they'd be disenfranchised in a big way otherwise.

And hey, can you blame them? If ya don't like snow, Maine gets more than it's share!

[americanstranger]

14. I'll ask again (first time for you).

Why were these rules not changed prior to this primary season if they were such a big concern? Why no objection?

I understand about letting the elderly and workers to get to vote, it's a perfectly good reason not to have causcuses.

So why was it agreed that we would have caucuses? Why did no one object prior to the primaroes starting?

I'm not looking to give or get snark here. Just curious.

- as

[MADem]

25. IA will NEVER change. There's the whole history of the "First in the Nation" brouhaha to consider.

NH is first primary and IA is first caucus. That way, they both can be first.

It's also not universally realized by lots of folks that it's not up to "US" to change the way that STATES do business. "WE" the people have no say in how state parties conduct themselves, unless "WE" live in the state in question. "WE" -- as in The Democratic Party-- can fuck over individual states if they don't do what "WE" (as in The Party) want in terms of timeline and order (see FL and MI as examples), but "WE" don't have anything to say about how parties organize themselves within state boundaries.

Some states do caucuses instead of primaries because they're CHEAPER. You can do them in Joe Blow's living room out in the rural areas, and "the state" has less of a role (and less expenditure) in making them work. At a big site, the state might provide the school gym and the cop to direct traffic, and that's that. There's no need for poll workers because there are no polls, no going to the warehouse, loading up, delivering and setting up voting machines, guarding them, getting some DIEBOLD nitwit to get them to work, and the parties (and their activists) do the cat herding and paperwork.


In the early contests, like IA, the whole caucus thing is HYPE. IA makes many, many millions of dollars off of that whole caucus bullshit--it is a big piece of the state economy. All of that breakfast diner grip and grinning, sitting on the hay bale talking about pork futures, Harkin's steak fry--all that BS campaigning--it's Big Business for IA. Same deal in first primary NH--it's factored into their economy. IA will never change their system without massive arm twisting. They love the attention, but more than that, they love the CASH. And NH will fight like hell to stay first, because it is worth many millions every four years.

[americanstranger]

29. I agree with that.

Having been in NH during the primaries in '04, I could see how much money was being dropped by the media alone.

And even though I support Obama, I really am not against taking people's votes away. You'll have to trust me on that. :)

As Democrats, we should make this a priority to at least standardize the caucuses. It might be a little late in the game for this cycle, but I agree that it should most definitely be addressed.

- as

[MADem]

30. If they could run them more like Maine does, it would be fine--a nice tradition.

Absentee balloting would completely solve the problem.

Back in the old days, when there wasn't a 24 hour economy, those evening caucuses made more sense. NOW, though, it's kind of unfair to the poor, the shift workers, and so on--to say nothing of the older and the sick. Allowing them to vote absentee would be a step in the right direction.

[americanstranger]

31. Shall we start mobilizing for a standard for all caucuses?

I think absentee voting would go a long way - it would surely open up the process to a lot of people, and I'm all for that.

Might give us all something to do after this mess is settled. :D

- as

[MADem]

34. We can't. It's up to each state. The DNC doesn't run the state contests.

They can tell them WHEN, but not how.

We could try using the old "moral authority" but we have no force as a party to compel 'votes for all.'

[americanstranger]

49. Damn. Thanks anyway for the info.

Hey, a civil exchange! Wasn't as hard as I thought! :toast:

- as

[MADem]

51. Cheers, backatcha! nt

[MaineDem]

33. Remember, we still have Town Meetings as well

One single time when the townspeople come together to vote on articles relating to town business. We elect our Board of Selectmen/women at Town Meeting with no absentees allowed. Kind of the same thing as a caucus. But Town Meetings are a tradition going back to before 1820 when Maine finally became a state.

Not an argument for or against, just a comment.

[MADem]

36. We have them too, in MA, and I fucking HATE them. It's the same old busybodies

making decisions for poor bastards who are still stuck in the city working.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. At least we put big expenditures on the ballot, as well as selectmen/school committee, but half the time, they hold those elections on oddball days, and turnout is a small fraction of the population.

VERY disenfranchising, those things, too.

I really think having a mayor rather than a hired manager is the ticket--you've got someone you can yell at, hold accountable, and recall. I hate this antiquated New England system--people think it's Norman Rockwell Cute, but it sucks.

[DemVet]

24. Well said...good points.

[PassingFair]

32. C-R-A-P

We had a caucus here in Michigan in '04.

You could vote by mail or ELECTRONICALLY.

You could WALK IN AND VOTE.

The ONLY difference was that people were
allowed inside of the 100 yard rule to
pass out literature and talk to voters.

No muss, no fuss.

[MADem]

37. Well, aren't YOU special!!! Try reading the WHOLE thread before you

prance in here with your See Are Ayyy Pee drama, whydoncha?

Pay attention to the discussion about firehouse caucuses, which MI runs, and how Maine does business.


Pssst--it ain't ALL ABOUT YOU, ya know. There are other states that don't do it the way yours does, like IA and NV, for STARTERS.

Grow up.

[PassingFair]

55. I did read the thread. I read your post, too. This is what you said:

"Caucuses are a fun game for activists. They don't mean shit."

Seems pretty straight forward.

You could use a little maturity yourself....

[MADem]

56. I made more than ONE post on the topic before you chimed in.

Read them all. Or don't. I don't really care.

[shaniqua6392]

38. I work seven days a week.

If I don't work, I don't get paid. I have no paid days off in my line of work. Caucuses would definitely disenfranchise me and most of the people I know. If they really want our votes, they should have a primary whereas we can vote online/in person/and by mail. Caucus states do not really want to be democratic. It is a flawed and fixed system. Your post laid it all out in a perfect way. I am sure Obama supporters who are happy he won caucuses in so many states will not agree with you though. They do not want to see. But I am also sure that if it were Clinton who won in caucus states, they would be crying foul in a heartbeat.

[mckeown1128]

46. People have trouble getting to the polls to vote in primaries..

so I guess that means primaries are un-democratic huh?

So, please provide proof to your claim that caucuses are undemocratic.

(your last sentence proves that you guys/gals are only claiming fowl because Hillary lost a lot of caucus states)

[MADem]

57. ABSENTEE ballots. You haven't provided that list of states where absentee ballots are not allowed

in primaries. I'd be interested in seeing that.

Pssst--it would be FOUL, not FOWL. Unless we're having chicken for supper.

[mckeown1128]

60. Some caucuses have absentee ballots...

Half the states require an excuse before a person can use an absentee ballot. Inconvinence doesn't count as an excuse.

Regardless having to show up to vote doesn't make caucuses un-democratic. It makes them a pain in the ass... but not undemocratic.

[MADem]

62. Yes, like Maine, as discussed elsewhere in this very thread.

You are retracting your assertion, though, that there are primary states that don't allow absentee ballots.

An "excuse" can be "Have to work." I know airline employees who use that "excuse" every election. Another good excuse is "bedridden" or "limited mobility."

Who's talking about "inconvenience?" Unless you're wealthy, "working" isn't "inconvenience."

Sorry, you've lost this argument. They ARE undemocratic. What, you want every cop and fireman and doctor and nurse to abandon their duties to go caucus for three hours? Will we have to import migrant workers to "mind the store" during that time?

What a swell time for crooks, arsonists, and grim reaper serial killers to have some fun, eh?

Come on. You're stretching this beyond the breaking point. Average, working people ARE disenfranchised by caucuses, especially ones that are run like IA.

[mckeown1128]

66. You are acting like people don' t know that the primaries are coming up.

The schedules are listed months in advance...

I'm sorry but I don't buy having to show up to vote as being UNDEMOCRATIC.

Give me a break. (ohh how did Democracy exist before the mail in ballot)

[MADem]

70. Excuse me? Have you taken leave of your senses?

Excuse me, boss, but all of us in the National Guard Unit can't go to Iraq, because ... the PRIMARY is coming up. mckeown1128 says we HAVE to show up in person!

Excuse me, boss, but all of us in the FIREHOUSE on the TWENTY FOUR HOUR SHIFT will need the day off to vote--get some out-of-state people to do our job, because mckeown1128 doesn't 'buy' us not having to show up. Same goes for the cops who work a regular shift, but are dumb enough to ARREST someone, and get stuck having to come back at the end of their shift to do the paperwork, so they can't get to vote, either.

Excuse me boss, but all of us nurses working doubleshifts because of shortages, well, we aren't going to come to work because we have to vote in person, because someone called mckeown1128 says we're just playing at being "inconvenienced" if we don't. And, oh, never mind that nurses who refuse to work get in trouble with the powers that be and could be fined and lose their licenses!

Oh, gee, Grandma is in a coma and on her deathbed, and here we are, stuck out of state, helping grampa cope and trying to be as supportive as we can. We know we'll be here for a month or more, but we're either gonna have to fly home to vote and come back here, or just skip it, because we're not "allowed" to send for an absentee ballot--mckeown1128 sez so!!!


Wow, our son Edgar is marrying Betty Sue, a Marine about to be deployed to Afghanistan, out at her base out of state on PRIMARY DAY! It's the only day she could get the chapel, and she ships out the next day! We'll have to leave several days ahead of time in order to make it to the wedding on time--guess we'll have to ask for absentee ballots, only that mckeown1128 says we're BAD people if we do....

Don't you realize that some people actually don't have their work schedule "months in advance?" I know people who don't know if they're working days/swing/graveyard more than a week in advance.

You're coming off as the classic "latte liberal" with that kind of argument. Totally out of touch with the challenges of workers day-to-day.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaniqua6392]

81. Polls are open for 13 hours during a primary and....

you can vote absentee ballot if you are unable to get to the polling place due to illness, if you are infirm, or in the military serving out of your district. I am not a Clinton supporter, by the way. So I would appreciate it if you, as an obvious Obama supporter, would not categorize me as such. Every time you don't like what someone has to say about precious Obama, you throw a dart of disgust at the poster. I have learned one thing about Obama supporters on DU....You all paint with a VERY broad brush. How very undemocratic of you!! You must be so proud.

[mckeown1128]

44. convenience of voting does not prove caucuses are undemocratic.

The hospitalized, the old, and shift workers have trouble getting to primary polling booths too. How does that favor one candidate over another?

[MADem]

45. They don't have trouble getting an ABSENTEE BALLOT. That was my POINT. NT

[mckeown1128]

52. I agree caucuses AND primaries should have absentee ballot.

People use that as a case against caucuses... which doesn't work because it applies to primaries too. Some primaries and caucuses have absentee's and some don't.

[MADem]

53. I don't know any primaries where one doesn't get an absentee ballot.

That's not to say they might not exist, but I don't of any. Which states are in that category?

[mckeown1128]

58. I can't find any info on it...

I could have sworn that somebody said their was not absentee voting in their state.


Regardless about have the states require excuses for absentee balloting (inconvenient is probably not one of them)


Some states don't have mail in voter registration... does that mean elections in those states are un-democratic??

[MADem]

61. It was probably a caucus state.

You're going a little far afield with the mail-in voter registration, there. That's too much of a stretch, since it applies to EVERY voter in the state, not just a disenfranchised sector.

MANY places, the first time you register, you have to turn up in person, with an ID and a proof of address.

[mckeown1128]

67. So you admit that people have to show up to register to vote...

so by your own logic registering to vote is undemocratic...


Sorry, but in democracy sometimes you actually have to show up.

[MADem]

71. ONCE. Many, many, many DECADES ago, I showed up to register to vote.

I haven't done it since.

I used absentee ballots for decades. It's what people in the military DO, you see.

Sorry

but "in democracy" you DON'T always "have to" show up.

You can SEND for an absentee ballot, like I did--from hellholes all over the world.

WTF are you talking about? EVERY ONE has to register to vote--not just a select subset. That's not "disenfranchising" to register, when it is a prerequisite for participation. What are you, dull of comprehension?

Good grief--how obtuse ARE you?

That was the most clueless post I've ever seen from you.

Astounding.

[mckeown1128]

84. Did you even read what you wrote...

you say that it isn't disenfranchising that EVERY ONE has to show up to register to vote.... but you think it is disenfranchising that EVERY ONE has to show up to caucus. You have yet to show what the f*cking problem with caucuses are. All you have is that it is a big pain in the ass to go "vote" for an hour. Give me a break.

Who does that harm? as you put it, anythings fair as long as "EVERY ONE" has to do it. Well, in caucus states EVERY ONE has to show up to vote...just like EVERY ONE has to show up to register.

[MADem]

87. Your arguments are moronic! Is that deliberate? If it isn't, I feel VERY sorry for you.

Showing up ONCE to register, in order to vote again and again and again, year after year after year, either ABSENTEE or in person, isn't the same as showing up every fucking time a caucus happens.

You're not too swift, are ya, Skippy? Why is that so hard for you to grasp? The lady in the nursing home can, from her wheelchair, fill out the form, give it to the health worker to mail, and get her absentee ballot, WITHOUT ever leaving her skilled care facility. Once she registered, and lets assume she did forty or fifty years prior, she NEVER HAS TO REGISTER AGAIN.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

79. When turnout is 25% and called a record, it is.

There are about 700K Democrats in Iowa and 750K more voters registered with no party.

220,000 people voted in the Dem Iowa caucuses.

Its not about favoring one candidate or another. Its about people having their ability to participate limited by a limited time frame.

Should primary voting be held for 2 hours then stop?

[aquarius dawning]

15. Because the votes of a few thousand are weighted equally to the votes of hundreds of thousands

in terms of deleagte aportionment. How is it Democratic for five thousand caucus goers to have political power equal to 500,000 primary voters? Make your case.

[mckeown1128]

48. Invalid argument...

the delegate proportions change wildly from state to state depending on the state rules

(for example: Texas for example this year weighted the predominately black areas because of their high turnout in the last election)

By your logic the Texas primary is undemocratic.

You are making the case against the Democratic nominations system.... not the caucus system.

If voter not having as high of a turnout is a determining factor for whether or not a voting system is fair... where do you draw the line? Because if people could vote from their couch on superbowl sunday then their would be a surge in voting.

You haven't proved any type of bias in the system.

[aquarius dawning]

59. The ND caucus yielded a total of 13 delegates for about 18,573 votes.

The Delaware primary, on the other hand, yielded 15 delegates for about 95,000 votes. that being the case, the votes of caucus voters in ND weighed as much as about 4-5 Delaware primary votes. This undermines the principle of one man/one vote which is the very foundation of Democracy (don't even get me started on super delegates).


"You haven't proved any type of bias in the system."
I wasn't asked to prove any kind of bias, I was asked to describe how Caucus voting is less Democratic than Primary voting and I have done that. 18,573 North Dakota caucus voters wielded nearly the same power as 95,979 Delware voters. what is particularly alarming about this scenario is that North Dakota is a red state and Delaware is true blue; therefore, 18,573 voters from a red state exerted approximately 3-4 times the influence over our eventual nomination as 95,979 voters from a true blue state. I guess I'm the only person who has a problem with that.

[MADem]

63. My, that certainly is an interesting piece of "math," isn't it?

And FWIW, you are NOT the only person who finds that alarming.

[mckeown1128]

64. You were asked to prove why caucuses are undemocratic...

and you haven't done that.

Your red state blue state argument doesn't apply because it is a Democratic election not GE. So, it is Democratic voters/democratic learners voting in these states.

And your complaining about the delegate allocation. That has nothing to do with the caucuses. You are making a fine case against the Democratic Party nomination system... but you aren't making the case against the caucuses.

Also, turnout isn't a valid argument. There would be much higher turnout if people could vote from their couches. To participate in Democracy you must show some effort. States use caucuses because they want to make sure people show some effort and want to support their candidate... that is not undemocratic.

So please explain the bias in caucusing to me... why does it favor one candidate over the other?

[MADem]

72. That post DID do it. You're the one who apparently is having trouble with the

definition of "undemocratic." It's the same problem you're having with the word "disenfranchising."

When one person's vote is worth more than one person's vote, that's "undemocratic."

There's no REQUIREMENT that people must "show effort" across the land. That's YOUR halfassed idea. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

[aquarius dawning]

73. Thank you for saying it better than I would have.

:toast:

[MADem]

78. I'm stunned by the complete absence of logic in this guy's argument.

Everyone should be like him, able to plan their lives months in advance, working is an "inconvenience"--not the difference between paying the mortgage and being homeless.

Classic "latte liberal" talk--and the Obama camp gets angry at that designation, but here it is. No understanding of the plight of the working stiff.

[aquarius dawning]

82. The force is strong with you today MADem.

:yourock:

[MADem]

83. Merci mille fois, and all that! NT

[Yossariant]

16. According to wiki:

Despite a rule in the Democratic Party that delegates are to be allocated proportionally rather than winner take all, some individual caucus groups decide for themselves how to allocate their group's delegates — for instance, by using a majority vote to determine which of the two methods to select. Discussion of party rules is not necessarily part of the caucus experience, and few rules govern the actual process. And, in the winner-take-all scenario, a group's delegate allocation may be reported as unanimous, with the minority votes ignored. The caucus system does not allow voters to cast secret ballots. Voters' personal information, as noted on a public sign-in sheet, including date of birth (required) and other demographic information such as sexual orientation (optional), is visible for everyone. Voters have the option to draft resolutions to make changes to the election process, and those are introduced by delegates at later divisional caucuses or conventions.

[mckeown1128]

50. That is a good point (and the first original point made)

but is a moot point unless a state awards all their delegates to a single candidate (so far ALL caucus results are proportioned)


Regardless, you are arguing as to whether Caucuses fit in the Democratic Party nomination system...

That has nothing to do with whether or not they are democratic.(which is the argument people are making)

[Bensthename]

39. Because the votes came from outer space aliens not humans. It is that simple..

If they came from people then of course if would be democratic.

[zulchzulu]

40. Having attended a few in Iowa, I find caucuses VERY democratic

I find that people who criticize the caucus format have NEVER actually attended one to see how they work. Serious voters caucus. There is plenty of time for people to take time off to vote. Allegations that there is voter intimidation fall flat when you realize that if someone really likes a candidate, they should have the personal conviction to be able to stand in their candidate's corner with others.

[ecstatic]

47. I think they would have accepted the presumed nominee with ease if s/he were a white

person.

Somehow, I don't think these same Clinton supporters were demanding that Dean (or Clark or Edwards) become the nominee in place of Kerry (who had the most pledged delegates).

Something tells me they accepted the process and the results. It's only now that somehow they feel that the standard of winning that was used in the past is no longer acceptable.

[dbmk]

54. I just want to know

..why caucuses are so bad, but one man caucuses aka SDs are perfectly fine.

[gal]

68. I like the idea of them.

I know the Clinton campaign doesn't like them now as she doesn't get a good showing. But these are the same Caucuses in the same states as when Bill Clinton won them isn't it?

I don't remember Hillary complaining about the Caucuses then? Does anyone know if she did and I missed it?

[aquarius dawning]

74. Bill did terribly in the caucuses too actually.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. The Secret Ballot

Yes I know that some caucuses use Secret Ballots, but most don't. The secret ballot has been the gold standard of free elections around the world for centuries. There is not a single nation on earth that uses elections in which typical citizens are allowed to vote that officailly forces those voters to openly reveal their preference in order to register their choice.

This is so basic that it amazes me that it even needs to be mentioned. Do you remember the controversy in Nevada over whether union members caucusing at their work place might feel intimidated to back the candidate endorsed by their union with Union reps watching how they lined up? Fair or unfair, that type of potential controversy is eliminated by secret ballots. What about married couples where one partner is domineering and would make life hell for their spouse if their spouse voted to cancell out the donimeering partner's vote? In a caucus system the domineering partner could say let's go to the caucus and virutally force their spouse to back the same candidate openly or face endless grief. Or what happens if an employee works for a boss with very strong political alliegences, and that employee is up for a possible promotion in competition with another worker? In a primary election with a secret ballot there is no problem, with a caucus system with open lobbying intimidation can come into play.

Then there is that nonsense about viability thresholds that facillitates live open horse trading on the caucus floor, where supporters of candidate C who has 12% of the vote in that caucus, insufficient to be considered, throw their support to candidate B to keep candidate A from picking up delegates, even if they don't really like candidate B.

[candelovsky]

75. The USA Today told us in February why caucuses are undemocratic

* Turnout is much lower at caucuses than at primaries.

The caucuses in Washington state on Saturday drew fewer than 50,000 people. That's about 1.3% of the state's registered voters.

This isn't just a Washington phenomenon. In the more than 20 Super Tuesday contests, average turnout at caucuses was only about 6% of eligible voters, while primaries averaged about 29%, nearly five times as many, according to the U.S. Elections Project at George Mason University.


* Caucuses disenfranchise some voters.

Attending a caucus can be prohibitively difficult. Caucuses are typically held for a limited time on a specific day — an hour or two on a Thursday evening in Iowa, for example. Though some states make provisions for those who can't show up, caucuses usually exclude people who are working, out of town or serving in the military overseas. By contrast, primaries allow voting from early morning until the evening, and provide ample opportunities for absentee ballots.

* Caucuses violate the tradition of the secret ballot.
Though some caucuses allow a private ballot, others require participants to publicly "vote" — by standing in a designated part of the room in Iowa's caucuses, for example. For anyone worried about pressure or retribution from spouses, friends or colleagues — or, more ominously, from bosses or government officials — it's a significant disincentive. Former president Bill Clinton claimed he witnessed union officials pressuring workers before Nevada's caucuses last month, threatening to change their work schedules so they couldn't attend the caucuses unless they promised to vote for Barack Obama.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/our-view-on-pre.html

[rinsd]

76. Because the time frame is extremely limited resulting in pitiful turnout?

We rightfully call for polls to stay open for primaries because we feel everyone should have a chance to vote and long lines should not be an issue.

With a caucus, you have to be there on time and stay for an undetermined period.

[suston96]

80. Undemocratic? Yeah, the same reason that town meetings have been mostly abandoned -

- not enough voter participation.

Look at the participation in the caucuses in Texas as compared to the actual primary elections. That should answer your question.

Then there is that little matter of a secret ballot. Specifically, can you see a black person standing up to vote against Barack Obama in a caucus?

[Secret_Society]

85. It disenfranchises many voters

It is undemocratic to require votes to be cast a a specific time. Also, voting should not be a public spectacle. Finally, voting should not takie an our. This is the same issue minority neighborhoods have in the GE when they are not provided with enough machines.