An endorsement of caucuses

[thoughtcrime1984]

Let the activists choose our nominee. Those who don't want to participate in such a process won't have a say. Stealth Republicans for Rush would be less likely to participate in a caucus. The one caveat is that voting locations need to be big enough to handle at least 50% of potential voters, which would be well above the highest participation ever in the primary cycle. This, along with trained volunteers and an organized system in place, would cut down on how long it takes to caucus. The caucuses should also allow the drop off of a ballot for those in a hurry, such as in Minnesota. Employers must allow for people to vote, and all caucuses should be held at a location with access for the handicapped. In the primary cycle, states could choose to not let us even have a say, so any type of vote is better than no vote at all, but I am a big proponent of the caucus system, obviously. Let's get people more involved at this level, perhaps more participation would lead to more interest in our gov't in non-election years, which would lead to more politically educated people and more accountability for the elected officials. Running in and checking a box and leaving is fine, but is much less likely to give a person an interest in deeper involvement. This is all just my personal opinion.

[skipos]

1. I am fine with letting each state decide

but the bottom line is, we shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game... regardless of which candidate it helps.

[thoughtcrime1984]

3. I am advocating for change for the 2012 cycle

Not for any change to current rules during this cycle. :)

[SoCalDem]

5. For NEXT time, I'd love to see

3 or 4 regional primaries a month apart..starting in Feb..(flip a coin for order of dates)

NO SUPER DELEGATES..

CLOSED primaries (with registration cut-offs 120 days prior) Never-voted-befores could register 60 days before..

Have an INDEPENDENT ballot with ALL names on it for BOTH parties...but it's for NO delegates and is for informational purposes ONLY..

[DJ13]

2. "Let's get people more involved at this level.........."

Thats precisely what people like the Clintons (and the DLC/GOP) dont want, and why they hate the idea of using a caucus for primaries.

They know they would lose more elections if the politically savvy grassroots had a say in the outcome.

[LisaM]

4. At my caucus, which was held in the middle of the day on Saturday,

nobody who had to work on a Saturday could participate.

There is a reason the elections are staggered, generally, over a 13-hour period of time. It's to accommodate more than one schedule shift.

Oh, and you couldn't get a proxy, either. You could if you were disabled, but not if you had to work.

[Texas Hill Country]

7. most are held on tuesday according to tradition, and lots of people work on saturdays

lots of working class people.

[SoCalDem]

9. that sucks, but the caucuses are once every 4 years, so

theoretically, 4 years is plenty of time to arrange to have that one day off, or to switch with another employee..

[LisaM]

16. Except not everyone can do that. What if you work in emergency services

or as a nurse, or take care of little kids whose mothers work that day?

What if you arrange to have a day off four years ahead of time (I can't believe I'm typing that) and then you're laid off, and have a different job?

What if you drive a bus?

What if you're a cop?

What if your business only has one employee?

What if you're self employed and can't give up a day's wages?

What if you're a truck driver?

I think the caucus system is very exclusionary, and I think the examples I gave above should indicate why. Even if it was a Tuesday night, I don't think it would change. People still need to work or be home with their kids in the evenings.

[SoCalDem]

17. I know people in EVERY line of work you listed, and EVERY one of them

have managed to be "off" for a baseball game, a rock concert, a wedding, or some other event they considered to be important:)

[LisaM]

18. OK, fine. Everyone in Seattle could have attended our two-hour caucus.

It's the most inclusive process ever!

[rinsd]

21. Which begs the question...what was the turnout rate? 10%? 15%?

[LisaM]

31. It was pitiful. It was about that, or maybe less.

At the primaries a week or so later, which didn't count, the turnout was literally twice as high. That's the Democratic turnout. Moreover, Obama's margin of victory was much, much narrower. It could be, of course, that more Clinton supporters went to the primaries, just to feel that they could vote for her again, and it could be that the Obama people skipped them because he'd already won and it wouldn't count. I don't discount that. However, I also know that two other Clinton supporters and I also dreaded going to our caucus, because we knew exactly the tone we'd find, and we were right. I thought the Dean 2004 people wanted to railroad the process, but it was nothing in comparison with the Obama 2008 people.

They gave us, at our caucus, a rough estimate of turnout rates for caucuses, which up till then had been at about 3% (versus about 19% in primaries). We might have gotten up to 9% this time.

[thoughtcrime1984]

38. Perhaps if all of the other spring elections/referendums were done

by ballot at the caucus location, the turnout would be far higher.

[chascarrillo]

48. Everyone in Seattle could have dropped by the caucus, marked their preference, and left immediately.

:shrug:

[stillcool]

30. Not everyone can stand in line..

8 hours to vote either. I have no problem with Iowa Democrats keeping their time honored tradition...if the people of that state want their primary run that way. I don't want a Democratic Primary Election Day. I want these candidates to appear in every state. I would love to have a caucus system in my state. Anything that gets people talking to each other is a good thing...to me.

[thoughtcrime1984]

39. I agree with you, I'd love to have caucuses in WI, my home state. nt

[doyourealize1]

22. not everyone has that flexibility

I find it offensive that you assume that everyone has the capacity to take a day off to do a caucus.

So much for those wage workers, or those single parents, huh?

[DemVet]

45. Nope. Not in a lot of jobs.

[thoughtcrime1984]

12. Perhaps and AM and a PM caucus for each voting district

I am not talking about making it hard to vote, I am talking about requiring just a slight bit more participation to vote at this level. My plans in the OP would make it feasible to do. This isn't about disenfranchisement, it is about inclusion, but at a deeper level. Whatever we can do to create more interest and participation in the happenings of gov't at any level is a good thing, IMO. I have mixed feelings about closed vs. open. With open contests, it seems like we can grow the party a bit, which is always a good thing, but of course it leaves the door open for Rush's butt-monkeys to do damage.

[Secret_Society]

6. I beleive if we let activists decide the nomination...

we may very well get the most progressive candidate, but not necessarily the best candidate for the party, the one that can win in the GE. In addition, it is difficult for many that would like to be more active to participate. A lot of workers simply do not have an hour to spare. As the Democratic party we should create the system that allows the most Democrats to participate, not just those with spare time. In fact, that was the primary reason super delegates were created. Also, primaries should be absolutely closed. No republicans or independents should be picking the Democratic nominee.

[MattBaggins]

8. Have more caucuses

Petition your local Dem chairs to have meetings and discussion panels throughout the year. Get to know your neighbors and listen to them. Hold caucuses in every state.

Then hold primaries for the actual vote counts and let people decide in private and go at the time of day they choose.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Caucuses are an insult to our time-honored traditions

One Man = One Vote

&

Secret Ballot

[Coexist]

13. um... time honored tradition?

from the Founding Fathers:

... he members of the General Convention ... did indulge the hope by apportioning, limiting, and confining the Electors within their respective States, and by the guarded manner of giving and transmitting the ballots of the Electors to the Seat of Government, that intrigue, combination, and corruption, would be effectually shut out, and a free and pure election of the President of the United States made perpetual.

[PBS Poll-435]

14. Did you even read that?

What does the Founder's purpose of isolating each state have to do with One Man/One Vote?

[Coexist]

47. it wants an electoral college, to avoid one man/one vote

not to mention, half the population was not allowed to vote.

[Avalux]

11. Caucuses are wonderful.

I participated this year and found it to be a wonderful experience - there were a few hundred in attendance and we got along fine. Obama and Hillary supporters alike. It takes dedication to spend several hours of an evening to come together and actually discuss issues; certainly makes one feel part of the process.

If Hillary had done well in the caucuses, there wouldn't be any controversy. Bill never complained when he ran for president; they benefited him.

[Zynx]

27. The vast majority of voters don't have the chance to participate.

Fundamentally, either our party primary process should produce a nominee representative of the will of the party.

[NashVegas]

15. The Party Needs to Choose ONE And Stick With It

On one hand, you've got casual voters who are lightly involved, but marketed to up the ying-yang.

On the other, you've got party activists that advertising isn't going to have *that* much affect on, but who will run over anyone who stands in their way at caucus.

Send a casual voter to a caucus and before they even know what's hit them, they've been separated from their vote by someone who knows what it's all about and plays the game. Isn't that what happened in Texas?

[VotesForWomen]

19. you're kidding right? screw that. government is for *everybody,* not just the activists.

[rinsd]

20. Sorry I find caucuses to be incredibly undemocratic.

Candidates are deemed not viable and people are forced to vote for someone they did not intend to.

Its one thing to not have one's candidate win an election, its quite another to have your vote ignored and applied to another candidate.

The peer pressure involved in a caucus vs being able to vote as one wishes via secret ballot. (ie: Did my boss support another candidate? Did my pastor?)

The limited time frame for participation. Primaries polls open early in the morning and close in the evening. Even if someone works a 12 hour shift they may be able vote that day.

Look at the participation rates for primaries vs caucus. Even this year with the huge turnbouts, the biggest caucus was Iowa with perhaps 25% of the electorate participating (both GOP & Dem). That is pathetic.

It also ignores the popular absentee voter/vote by mail options.

I think the idea of getting more people involved and being politically educated would be more town halls and better civic education vs once every 4 years being held "hostage" by activist who consider it their time to shine.

[thoughtcrime1984]

34. One could leave a ballot if they wished to, like MN, as I stated

There are different rules for different states' caucuses. I would support one where you could leave a ballot if you wished to, with first and second choices. And I said upthread, we could have AM and PM caucuses in each district perhaps.

[rinsd]

41. So what would the point be then?

If your point is to make the process more involved, you've just removed that and turned it back into a primary (albeit with a runoff).

Again, more town halls and better civics education would be far more helpful in a creating a politically aware electorate than a once every 4 year yuk fest

[thoughtcrime1984]

43. The point would be that those who want to participate, even just to see what it is all about, can

Those who don't have the time or desire to caucus, well, than it'd be more like a primary. I agree with your comment on town halls, and I know Obama has mentioned wanting to do some of those and would require members of his administration to do them on occasion.

[doyourealize1]

23. a government chosen by, and run by, the elites is NOT a good government

[Zynx]

29. Exactly. That never turns out well in the end.

[thoughtcrime1984]

32. Elites?

People like me who happen to give a shit to do more than mark a ballot and run, are hardly elites. I think participating in a caucus would give many people that didn't care much some invigoration towards feeling that they can be an active part of their government.

[doyourealize1]

35. yeah, except when...

my immigrant parents, who work on wages, don't speak english, and have to worry about feeding a family, as well as my disabled grandparents, can't show up to do caucus.

Too bad for them, huh! I wish they gave a shit!

[thoughtcrime1984]

37. Like I said before

Have the caucuses at sites with handicapped access, have an AM and PM caucus, and allow ballots with first and second choices for those who cannot stay. Sheesh. It wouldn't be that hard to do.

[KSinTX]

46. In Texas, when we caucused

We had PLENTY of "immigrant parents, who work on wages, don't speak english, and have to worry about feeding a family" present and accounted for. It was an amazing thing to behold. I don't, therefore, believe the hype.

[paulk]

24. activists are the worst people to choose a nominee

they rarely are a reflection of the general population and it's the general population that votes in the general election.

winning the GE is the point of all this.

[thoughtcrime1984]

33. I am saying we could grow the "activist" group by holding caucuses in every state

many more people would be involved, and feel relevant.

[chascarrillo]

49. So you're saying that activists shouldn't have a vote in a primary?

Or are you saying that the only people who bother to show up at caucuses are activists?

[paulk]

50. the latter

[chascarrillo]

53. I see you've never been to a caucus. And I'm sure as hell not an activist,

Doh!

[paulk]

55. you don't know what you're talking about

when are some of you pissants going to grow up?

I mean, really.

I'm just sick to fucking death of this shit.

It's like DU has been invaded by a bunch of ten year olds whose argumentative ability extends no further than "my dad can beat up your dad".

[chascarrillo]

59. "when are some of you pissants going to grow up?"

:rofl:

My point was that there were a hell of a lot of non-activists at my caucus. Including myself. How you got "my dad can beat up your dad" out of that, I have no idea. How you got so bitter about that point, I have even less of an idea.

[highplainsdem]

54. Activists shouldn't have more say than anyone else.

And that's what the caucus system gives them.

I agree with the person who said more town hall discussions would be a good idea. Then the usual primary with secret ballots.

[Zynx]

25. No. It gives certain classes of voter a greater say than others.

Also, as the nomination process is fundamentally about choosing a candidate best suited to win the general election at the end of the day, not making a statement to the activists, primaries are better reflective of a candidate's ability to win. Even in this case, Obama proved he could get more votes in the primaries than Hillary and this would be reflected in the delegate count anyway. Caucuses are only one step removed from just letting the party bosses decide matters.

[4themind]

26. I think the biggest issue is state funding

There are some pretty big capital costs to running a primary vs. a caucus, that may be easier for states with larger taxpayer bases to pay for than e smaller states (even with smaller populations) so my understanding was that it was a concession made to these states, to encourage their participation in the democratic party, without mandating or taking on costs that may be seen either as unreasonable or prohibitive. So if you want them to do one style vs. another either convince them to pay for it, find a way to pay for it, or bar them from playing any role in selecting the nominee, I guess what is picked will depend upon what they value.

[rug]

28. I agree, but only if all caucusgoers are armed.

[thoughtcrime1984]

36. I figured support for this would divide right along Obama/Hillary lines

and I was right. I think folks being encouraged to participate further than checking a box is a great thing. Also, the doubt created by wayward voting machines would not be a factor, at least in the primary season. There is nothing undemocratic about a caucus, it is just that many people do not care enough to participate. Not even close to party bosses deciding. It is thousands of normal citizens deciding, and having healthy political discussions with fellow Democrats. I wear my support for Obama on my sleeve, and do not care what my bosses, neighbors, friends, or family think about it. I'd caucus ten times for him. That it is not a secret ballot shouldn't mean squat if you believe in your candidate and your own good judgment. And, for the third time, I will repeat I like MN's way of allowing a ballot for those who need to leave immediately. Employers must allow you to vote.

[paulk]

42. that's a convenient simplification

I may support Hillary, but I have always felt that caucuses were a poor way to choose a nominee. If Colorado had selected it's Senatorial candidate through only the caucus rather than a caucus/primary process, then Mike Miles would have been our candidate in 2004 - and Pete Coors would be our Republican Senator. The "activists" showed up, and with a 3% overall turnout, were able to push Miles to a 51-49 caucus victory. Of course, in the primary, Ken Salazar beat him by 75-25 and went on to be elected Senator.

Same thing goes for our Presidential caucus this time around. No one, not even the most rabid supporter can honestly believe that Obama would have won a primary in this state by the more than two to one margin he won our caucus by. Even the 10-12% caucus turnout this year doesn't compare to the 40% that come out for a primary. Caucuses and the activists who go to them run the very real risk of overstating a candidate's support for the general election.

You simply can't say that "There is nothing undemocratic about a caucus". They are undemocratic by their very nature - in that they exclude people from participating. I know personally five people who were unable to attend the Colorado caucus - btw, if it interests you - they were all Obama supporters.

[thoughtcrime1984]

44. I had mentioned AM/PM caucuses twice upthread and one could leave a ballot

with two choices if they could not stay, like MN allows. If you can't make either caucus or drop a ballot off, then you didn't have time to vote in a primary, either. I am not proposing caucuses in their "pure form", but rather a caucus/primary hybrid that would try to encourage more participation in the election process. I guess I just believe in the people actually getting involved in a gov't that in theory, belongs to them, and may, in a matter of months, make them feel some ownership once again.

[lastliberalintexas]

60. I don't support either, and I think caucuses are horrible

The primary process in Texas is actually one thing we do correctly, but then we screw it up with an additional caucus. In this state we have 2 weeks of early voting with various polling locations throughout each county. On election day, the polls are open from 7 am to 7 pm for those who still like to vote the old fashioned way rather than early. There is more than enough opportunity for people of all situations to have a chance to cast their ballot, in secret as it should be available.


Just like the IA/NH stranglehold on the nomination process, the issues surrounding caucuses go beyond the candidates we happen to have this year.

[msallied]

40. EAch state should choose what they feel is best for their constituency...

That being said, I think there are advantages to both systems. In WA we had a caucus AND a primary, but Democrats only had their delegates allocated by the caucus. Caucusing is distinctly different and it's fun. You can bring your kids, make your say, and it is a really tangible way of participating in the process. I also like that it gives an opportunity to get referendums for state laws put on the table. It's not just about the candidates, but about other state issues important to people. It gives people a real sense of power over the whole political process. And the thing is, the more people who get an opportunity to experience that, the less cynical and more optimistic they feel.

The main distinction I sense between Clinton/Obama supporters is one of hope and cynicism. Cynics hate caucuses.

[JCMach1]

52. States used the same arguments to support Jim Crow

[msallied]

57. Wow, your argument couldn't have possibly been more illogical.

Equating caucuses with black segregation? Wow. Just wow.

[JCMach1]

61. No just the State's Rights BS when it comes to elections... States have done their

best to screw things up for the rest of us. Or, have you forgotten black boxes and hanging chads...

Give me primaries with paper ballots any day.

[JCMach1]

51. In that case why not just throw up a poll on moveon.org?

Answer: It's not really democracy...

[Lisa0825]

56. I like the way Texas does it.

We were not ready for the huge number of people this time, but I think having a primary with a caucus afterwards is great. That way everyone can vote - including a 2 week early voting period plus absentee votes - but the party activists get to particiapte for a portion of the delagates. I think it is appropriate that those of us who make the effort to go door to door and work at events, etc, should have the opportunity to caucus.

For the record, not every place in Texas had problems with the volume of voters. Only the bad ones made the news. My caucus went very well and was an orderly event.

[thoughtcrime1984]

58. I think I DO like the Texas Two-step

It has some similarities to what I am proposing. I would happily participate in such a format.