Are You Happy With The Current Primary/Caucus System?

[Dinger]

I'd like a 3-day national primary (Friday-Sunday, 72 hours straight). One reason is that more people can vote.

Pros . . . Cons . . . . Discuss . . . .

Just want to see how DUers feel about this.

Thanks,


Dinger

[DevonRex]

1. We love our caucuses in Colorado. It gets people involved, allows

them to meet their neighbors who are also democrats. We vote on the state party platform and even add planks to it if we want that can be voted on at the general assembly.

Contrary to what many people think, you don't have to devote hours and hours. We don't close our doors here. You can come in late and still vote.

Even though my son and I offered babysitting services to folks who needed them, most parents of young children come in shifts. One will come in and vote and then run home so the other parent can come vote. Usually the second parent is the one who wants to stay for all the platform business or for volunteering for whatever needs to be done.

[Dinger]

4. Primaries Seem Easier Somehow

Which system is more susceptible to tampering?

[DevonRex]

14. Primaries are more subject to tampering. At caucuses we do NOT

use machines of any kind. We watch the votes being counted and the results tabulated.

We had some discussion in our precinct, where Obama supporters outnumbered Hillary supporters overwhelmingly. But only the Hillary supporters spoke up. The rest of us didn't want to pressure them in any way so we listened respectfully.

Nobody changed their minds during the process. If someone came in intending to vote for Hillary they did. If someone came in intending to vote for Obama, they did.

All in all it was a wonderful experience. My son and I took drinks and snacks so people would be more comfortable while they were there. And folks from other precincts even came to our table if they had a hungry or thirsty child.

One of my favorite things was listening to a young kid, maybe 19 years old, propose new planks to the state party platform. He was brilliant and very sincere. And again, everyone listened respectfully and then we voted on his ideas. It made me proud to be a democrat.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Plus, you tend to get a better informed voter in a caucus.

Odds are, caucus voters are less likely to believe that Obama is a Muslim who won't say the pledge and was sworn in on the Koran because the some piece of right-wing hatemail that is making the rounds.

It's a real chance to refute that.

[DevonRex]

16. That's right. And if someone asks that kind of question, they get an

informed answer.

[BklynChick]

19. 72 hours is impossible, no time for getting to know the candidates, fundraising, etc. It would end

up being a shoo-in with anyone with name recognition. I like the idea of a shorter process, though, maybe 3 months, and regionally. So they spend a 3-4 weeks in different parts of the country, raising money, campaigning, etc. I'm in a primary state and I don't really have a sense of the caucuses; the people I know in caucus states love them.

[paulk]

106. oh, bullshit

you don't speak for Colorado.

Our caucuses are a joke. They are dominated by activists and almost always give an inaccurate portrayal of where the polity is at. Our caucuses have more than once been won by a candidate who goes on to lose in the primary. Remember Mike Miles?

Every caucus I've been to here has taken two and often three hours. You can come in late and still vote? Really?

Parents come in shifts? Maybe in your fairytale precint. I personally know five people who didn't make it this year because they couldn't find (or afford) babysitters. They were all Obama supporters, btw.

[DevonRex]

107. I call bullshit on you. The doors do NOT close in Colorado. If you

don't even know that, that's pretty sad. And you do NOT have to stay for the whole thing. If you don't know that, it's pretty sad. How about getting informed. It's not rocket science.

And yep, maybe our precinct was special. I doubt it, though. Because the Obama campaign made it a point to have the precinct captains do whatever it took to get people there. Baby sitters, food, rides, whatever. And we made those things available to EVERY democrat we called.

When we made our phone calls, we educated everyone on what they could do, like come and vote and leave right afterwards. Or bring their kids if they wanted to. And that we'd have food and drinks. And that the doors don't close and they could come late if they wanted.

We told this to EVERY democrat in our precinct. Even the Hillary supporters who weren't always friendly on the phone. Some were and some weren't. But we made sure that they ALL knew how to caucus.

[paulk]

111. you have to sign in by 7 pm or you can't participate

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/cocaucuscenter

That is the rule. If your precinct is "special", it's because you broke the rules. Is that how Obama won so big here in CO?

Seriously.

[DevonRex]

113. Here are the rules. You can vote on the business being conducted

at the time you are present. As long as the precinct has NOT moved to other business before you arrive, you can vote.

http://www.coloradodems.org/docs/2006Caucus_Rules.pdf

[Bake]

123. Some folks won't trust a stranger to baby-sit.

I know I sure as hell would not.

Bake

[DevonRex]

126. You can bring your kids WITH you to hte caucus. Just like you do

when you stand in line to vote. Except at caucuses, you have chairs and tables to sit at nice and comfortable.

[LisaM]

2. Well, I would like all primaries

I never liked caucuses before (and stated so here in 2004) but this season, I really hated them. The percentage of people who can participate is too low.

Are we ready for a national primary? I think unless we have public financing of elections (which I do support), it will favor people who can raise early money over those who can't. I guess I'd prefer some modified changes, but I definitely want control wrested away from Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. I don't like your idea for one simple reason.

A three day national primary would inevitably lead to the very populous states getting all the attention at the expense of smaller states.

Caucuses are just fine with me.

The vast majority of the whining about caucuses is from disgruntled HRC supporters who felt that caucuses must be biased because HRC didn't properly plan for them.

[KittyWampus]

7. caucuses could be tweeked to allow run-off type ballots for those who can't attend

[scarletwoman]

63. Our caucuses allow for anyone who wants to just show up, fill out a ballot, and leave.

No one is obliged to stay in order to vote.

sw

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Caucuses Are The Most Stupid Things I've Ever Seen. We Should Lobby For Them To Be Done Away With.

They're a sham, unrepresentative, farcical and an embarrassment to the Democratic process.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Ever been to one, sport?

New Jersey doesn't have a caucus as far as I know, but we do in Washington State so it's really none of your business how we select our delegates here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. That's Gotta Be One Of The Dumbest Things I've Ever Heard.

Seriously. Do you not recognize how seriously flawed and outright dumb that logic is? Wow.

[Liberal Veteran]

20. You are entitled to your own opinion no matter how wrongheaded it might be.

But I think it's fair to say that if we in Washington State like to select our delegates by caucus, it's none of your business.

Who are you to decide how we apportion our delegates when you are 3000 miles away?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Dumbest Argument I've Ever Heard.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Well then, it's a good thing you have a say in how your state picks delegates.

And that you have no say in how mine.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Hopefully In The Next 4 Years A Big Push Will Be Made Everywhere To Rid Ourselves Of Them.

Anyone who cares enough about the process should be on board with that.

[Liberal Veteran]

44. I trust my precinct captain a hell of lot more than I trust DRE.

So don't presume to lecture me on "the process".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. It's Not Because Of The Precinct Captain That Caucuses Are Plain Dumb.

Your argument is quite silly.

[Liberal Veteran]

67. Tell you what. Let's focus on getting rid of touch-screen voting and replacing it with verifiable..

..paper ballots, then and only then, we'll look into the matter of caucuses.

Oh, and also....you might want to look into another one of our little quaint traditions here in the Northwest: The majority of our voting is done by mail....no need to brave the snow in the dead of winter and wait in lines.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. Washington Caucus Results: Obama 67% Hillary 32%. Primary Results: Obama 51% Hillary 46%.

Yeah, reallllllll representative system you got there.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

God I'm amazed there are so many here naive enough to condone those pathetic things.

[Emit]

78. And caucus counts are done by hand, whereas primary results are counted by machines

...proprietary machines. Who's laughing now? Who's being naive?

edit typo

[Liberal Veteran]

81. Done a couple of weeks apart and Obama still won.

Again, caucuses tend to be more attended by informed voters.

Things like name recognition don't count for much in caucuses the way they do in primaries. Plus, the fact that many people put their ballots in the mail long before the caucuses or the primaries has an impact.

It could very well be that had we had held a primary on the day we held the caucus with no early voting, the result would have been the same as it was with the caucuses.

And people like me, who knew the primaries didn't count and had no other ballot measures to worry about didn't bother voting at all in the primary.

Your argument is nonsensical because you have left out a number of variables in your theory.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Okie Dokie Artichokie!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Liberal Veteran]

84. If you say so. Your apples and oranges argument is laughable.

[Occam Bandage]

92. So? What does that prove? Hillary supporters were more energized to go and vote in the weeks-later

primary, since they were stinging from their loss in the meaningful caucus. Obama supporters, on the other hand, could afford to sit back and relax. Spamming Mr. Rofl isn't really evidence of anything.

[Liberal Veteran]

96. Maybe it was another Mark Penn blunder and he thought we only had a primary?

That wouldn't surprise me.

Really. It's a mute point. Clinton's hubby did just fine in the caucuses and the only reason the majority of people are whining is because apparently HRC didn't organize well for caucus states.

[Emit]

77. Oh goodie. And replace them with unverifiable, proprietary electronic voting machines?

yay :eyes:

edit typo

[LisaM]

118. Washington state voted to have primaries and the parties shut them down

Our caucus was ridiculous. There was also no way you could get a proxy if you had to WORK.

I might also add, for all those Obama people who bleat on and on about following the rules, the rule at ours was that you had to be signed in and have chosen a candidate by 1:30 p.m. At 1:30, they did not cut anyone off - people continued to sign in (the doors opened at 1:00). The rules say you have to be signed in by 1:30. Well, clearly, this was impossible. I personally don't object to people being given extra time to sign in, but for all the rules mavens out there griping about Florida and Michigan, don't you think that Washington should have enforced its own rules and cut people off at the stated time?

I might also add that in the primaries a week or so later (counted partially for Republicans, not at all for Democrats) anyone who voted Republican stated by voting that she or he had not and would not participate in the primary or caucus of any other party (the Democratic ballot was worded slightly differently and did not include the past tense). Therefore, anyone who voted Republican but had participated in the Democratic caucus should have had both votes invalidated (it was also, according to King County Elections, a felony to do this). I called the Democratic party and King County elections to see if anyone was examining the voter rolls for both the caucus and primary to strike people who'd voted in both but for separate parties. I basically got laughed at for my pains and was told it was on the honor system. I also note that no one had to show that they were registered voters for the caucuses (we did for the primary) and I don't know if anyone checked that either.

I WAS in Washington state and I can state unequivocally that the process was a farce. Another person here (PNWmom) told a story of a Hillary supporter shouted and booed at in her caucus and not allowed to speak! It was similar in mine. The anti-Hillary sentiment was so strong that it took bravery to even speak at all. I hated it. OMC is so right. Obama people DON'T CARE.

[scarletwoman]

29. Why don't you just answer the question? Have you ever been to a caucus?

A simple yes or no will do.

sw

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. It's Irrelevant To The Context Of This Discussion.

If there's a thread asking if one has been to a caucus or not, I'll answer it there. But as far as this OP goes, I'd rather stick to context if you don't mind. And as it relates to the OP, your question is monumentally irrelevant.

[scarletwoman]

40. Bullshit. If you're going to pronouce caucuses "a farce", it is indeed relevant to know whether

you've ever participated in one. Otherwise, one might be tempted to assume that you're just talking out of your ass.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Do You Need To Have Fallen Off A High Ledge Head First To Know It Would Really Really Hurt?

My god are some of the dumbest arguments ever flyin around this thread. And no, they're not mine.

[mudesi]

55. That's because you have no arguments

Note that I'm not exactly disagreeing with your opinion, but you haven't made any arguments in this thread.

Which is typically your method of operation, OPERATIONMINDCRIME.

[scarletwoman]

61. Since all you have is an uniformed (as in ignorant) OPINION, you are hardly in a position to judge

the worthiness of others' arguments. People present arguments to support their point of view, something you appear to be incapable of doing.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. It takes some actual cerebration to present an argument, as opposed to just being an asshole. You appear to be satisfied with belonging to the latter category.

Enjoy.

[newmajority]

59. Not nearly as seriously flawed and outright dumb as trusting electro-fraud machines.

Any state that does all, or even a majority, of their voting on DIEBOLD/ESS/SEQUOIA beast from Hell machines cannot claim to have ANY legitimate elections.

I can say for a fact that every vote in my precinct caucus was recorded on paper, and verified by three different people. The appointed counter, and one person from each of the two campaigns.

Can Ed Rendell tell me where the votes in PA came from?

[LisaM]

58. Well I've been to caucuses THREE TIMES in Washington state

and I thought they were terrible each time.

This time around (I've listed the problems here many times, so won't bore anyone with the details again, except to say that it would have been quite easy for anyone to tamper with the results since we never saw the results of the second round) all the Obama people thought it was la-la-la wonderful and all the Hillary people left extremely upset. It had nothing to do with the vote counting. It had to do with the respect accorded Hillary supporters (none), the chaos, and the fact that it was a two-hour window on a Saturday that wasn't conducive to all schedules. We had to give up a couple of things ourselves, which was not a big deal to us because we think voting is more important, but the point is that we had the flexibility to do it. Not everyone did.

I've left after general elections knowing my candidate wasn't going to win, but I never left feeling as upset as I did after the caucus this year. Plus, even though we had about five times as many people as at the last caucus, the percentage turnout was still dismal. And we were at capacity in our room. There were about 219,000 people who participated in the Democratic caucuses. I don't know the percentage - I think it was around 7% - which means that if we'd even had 10% turnout, the room would not have been able to handle it due to fire code violations.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Don't Expect Them To Care.

They're too selfish to care. All they care about is that their candidate one them, rather than actually caring about more than themselves and looking at the process objectively. Those with integrity and objectivity should undoubtedly and without hesitation condemn the concept of caucuses on their face. The second I learned what they were and how they worked, prior them slanting towards ANY candidate, I immediately condemned them and couldn't believe they existed. It's a shame that some here are so selfish and sports minded in their mentalities that they'd fight so hard to keep them rather than do the right thing and admit maturely that they're ridiculous. I can't stand weak people who lack integrity, and that's what I can't help thinking about those that so passionately defend these pathetic caucuses. If it's one thing that there's no excuse for, it's a "as long as it helps my candidate I don't give a fuck about anyone else" type mentality. Such a sign of an immature and weak mind.

[paulk]

108. this might interest you

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

look at the turnout for some of Obama's caucus wins.

[cbc5g]

24. I think they are fine for democracy - they reward good organization

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. They're Completely Flawed And Unrepresentative, And In No Way Serve Their Purpose.

The purpose of the primary is for each state's political party to select the candidate that they feel would be the strongest contender in november and the one with the policies they want represented. Caucuses do not accomplish that task sufficiently by a long shot. They are a farce and should be completely done away with.

[Occam Bandage]

33. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest

that you do not actually possess evidence for that fusillade of claims.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Texas Itself Offers More Than Enough Proof.

Turnout offers more. The process itself offers even more. The second I learned what caucuses actually were huge sirens went off in my brain that they are ridiculous and I was shocked that they're part of the process. They just don't do what they're supposed to and they're just a sham.

[Occam Bandage]

48. Texas only proves the power of targeted advertising and campaigning.

Obama targeted the caucuses, believing that he could use his superior organizational skills to net more delegates per dollar-and-man-hour than in the primaries. Clinton targeted the primaries, believing that she could use her name recognition (and thus superior performance among the politically-disconnected, as primaries have higher turnouts) to net more delegates per dollar-and-man-hour than in the caucuses. We have no idea how things would have turned out if Obama had invested time and money in the primaries instead of the caucuses.

Turnout offers no good evidence. On one hand, you could make the claim that a low-turnout contest does not represent the will of the state; on the other, that hasn't actually held up under scrutiny. In previous years, caucuses followed opinion polling pretty well, and the same occurred in IA and NV--that is, where Hillary actually bothered competing. Looks to me like caucuses only suppress turnout among uninterested people voting randomly, leaving no statistical difference. Sure, Obama proved that strong GOTV effort (especially in face of a silent opponent) can pad the totals--but then again, GOTV is quite valuable for the GE, and it's certainly not the caucus system's fault that Hillary didn't fight to win in caucus states.

The process offers evidence to the contrary. Many caucuses have multiple rounds of balloting, with non-viable candidate support going to a major candidate after the first round. This allows people to confidently voice support for their true choice, and then allows their voice to be counted towards appointing which of the major candidates they like.

Do you really think it's coincidence that all these "problems with caucuses" only arose, for the first time in American electoral history, in the same year that one major candidate (the candidate you supported, no less) failed to invest any time or money in caucus states?

[scarletwoman]

36. That is also the purpose of caucuses. But not the only purpose -- caucuses also determine the state

party's platform and officers, i.e. "the policies they want represented".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. I Know It's Their Purpose. They Fail Miserably In Accomplishing It.

Elections in grade school carry more integrity than caucuses do. They're farcical.

[DevonRex]

39. Since you've never been to one, how would you know? nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Someone Else With This Dumbass Argument?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DevonRex]

57. Since you're an expert on caucuses, why don't you tell me how the

caucus system in Colorado goes - the GOTV effort, the format for the caucus itself, how we vote, how we tabulate the votes and the order of business.

And if you can't do any of that, then you might NOT be an expert on the matter.

[donheld]

104. Baby, there are few here at DU with a more dumbass argument

than you. Your arrogance blocks out a world of information. You think you know much when really you know very very little. If one could buy your intelligence for what it's worth and sell it for what you think it's worth they'd be a very very rich person.

[Beaverhausen]

60. I have attended a caucus and I say they suck, They disenfranchise a huge number of voters

not everyone can attend for the 2 hours it takes. You can't shut down a whole state for them to vote. They should be done away with.

[scarletwoman]

64. What state? In Minnesota, you can walk in the door, fill out a ballot and leave.

No one has to stay if they don't want to, everyone who shows up can vote whether they stay or not.

sw

[Beaverhausen]

65. Nevada

and yes, you can vote and leave, but if your candidate isn't viable on the first round, you have to vote again (if you want to).

My problem with it is that there are many people who can't attend due to working during the caucus (mail carriers, medical workers to name 2 groups) or older people who aren't mobile, and could vote absentee in a primary. Or things just come up (one woman I talked to couldn't attend due to a funeral being held at the same time)

I was at one of the caucuses at a casino in Las Vegas- attended mostly by the hotel workers who are unionized. I doubt a lot of those people voted for their choice (if it wasn't who the union endorsed) with their supervisor watching.

[scarletwoman]

69. Even if you just vote and leave, your vote is still counted.

And if you vote and leave, your vote is anonymous. All the reasons you cite for people being unable to attend a caucus come up for voters in a primary, too.

[Beaverhausen]

75. No- people who have to work or can't physically attend can vote absentee

if an emergency comes up the day of the primary, at least you have a 12 hour window in order to get there.

and your vote isn't counted if your candidate doesn't get 15%. It's just wasted. Of course, if you don't want to vote for anyone else, you don't have to, but your candidate doesn't get any delegates.

I thought caucuses were cool too, until I saw one in person and talked to people who wanted to vote but couldn't. I changed my mind really quickly.

[Liberal Veteran]

83. A proxy system can take care of that.

[Emit]

85. Actually, in NV, you had to stay to the end for your preference ballot to count

If you left before the final numbers were counted, then your group had to forfeit your ballot.

That being said, the caucus I attended in NV went well, with many more people participating than I expected. The fact that it was early was exciting for many, who would normally be voting in a primary where the candidates were already selected by the usual states, Iowa, NH, etc. Also, there was no bickering, bad attitudes or anything. The majority of people filed in, knowing ahead of time who they were going to support -- so it wasn't like how critics of caucuses always claim -- there weren't harsh voters calling names or pressuring voters to vote a certain way. It was all very civil.

[Emit]

90. I have a feeling that NV will change that casino caucus thingy in the future

there was a lot of criticism surrounding that whole fiasco. It was all new to us here -- having an early caucus and eliminating our primary. It took a lot of work and the party will get better for future caucuses. We need more volunteers to make it better.

Edit -- Do you live in LV or were you there to observe?

[Beaverhausen]

99. I went to Nevada to canvas door to door and phone bank for Edwards

I went on Friday and went door to door, then made phone calls that night. I can't tell you how many people I talked to who wanted to caucus but couldn't for one reason or another. In one memorable call, an 86 year old woman who really wanted to caucus had to attend a funeral starting at 12:30 - the caucus started at noon and was being held right next door to the church. I told her to try and make it, that the caucus might be over in time. One thing I know, older people really care about voting.

The caucus I attended at the Bellagio was a clusterfuck.

Again - I went there thinking how interesting and exciting it would be and I totally changed my mind about it.

[scarletwoman]

45. Says he who doesn't know shit about caucuses. (nt)

[Emit]

101. Don't you know?

OPERATIONMINDCRIME is always right.

[scarletwoman]

129. In HIS world. Thankfully, I live in the empirical world that relies upon facts and logic. (nt)

[cbc5g]

50. Theres no Operation Chaos voters in caucuses also...btw..

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Well, there CAN be. But most people don't mind lying anonymously, so primaries are more open to...

...that kind of crap from people trying to poison the well.

[cbc5g]

42. The stronger candidate may not be the one with the name recognition

They give people a chance to get to know the candidate. Also...they produce a smaller, more informed electorate. They require deliberation before making a final choice and give people a chance to make a second choice. They eliminate fringe candidates and help build the party. They favor candidates with appeal outside population centers and help build community and social capital. Also, the math is reasonable and fair and it gives ordinary voters influence over the party machinery and platform.

[Emit]

62. As opposed to unverifiable, proprietary electronic voting machines?

[SanchoPanza]

116. Caucuses have their benefits

Cheaper to organize and run. They don't require state machinery, and as such are usually not subject to state election laws (with Iowa being the only exception I know of off hand). They are controlled exclusively by the state party, allowing better compliance with the national party's delegate selection plan and schedule.

Much of the drawbacks to caucuses could be settled with basic groundrules established by the DNC. Require absentee ballot access, same-day registration, etc. I know Maine and Iowa do absentee ballots for their caucuses, not sure about the other caucus states without scouring The Google. And you can do all this within the confines of the state party, without having to worry about the GOP throwing a monkey wrench into the process.

[sniffa]

6. I'm happy with it

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Many states can't afford primaries.

Caucuses are cheaper, plus they have more of a direct-democracy feel to them.

Primaries have their advantages as well, obviously, but they are subject to tampering, to list one con.

[Occam Bandage]

10. I like caucuses. So did everyone else, before Hillary took a pass on caucus states this go-around.

[DevonRex]

23. Odd, that. Wonder why... nt

[musicblind]

11. Now that this is over, once we have won in Nov, I'd like to focus on reworking our primary system

I think we should all vote in a uniform method. I would prefer it each state used primaries to keep it uniformed. I would prefer if we changed up, each year, which states got to go first. I'd also like to see superdelegates become much less influential.

:)

[tnlurker]

13. I am happy with it except

I would like them to occur in a regional fashion. Four to six regions with each of the dates about 1 month apart.

[Blarch]

17. I am fine with it.

The caucuses allow the campaigns to show how organized they are. It does mean something.

[PM7nj]

18. I understand the arguments against caucuses...

...but I still think it would be really fun to participate in one. We have regular primaries here and there is no excitement involved. My favorite part of this whole primary season was watching the Iowa caucus on CSpan.

[cbc5g]

21. Many states would be ignored in that system - the system we have now is fine

It gives us a chance to get to know the candidates instead of just choosing the one with the name recognition. It also rewards better organization which is a must in the GE.

[Zenmaster]

22. I think it takes too long.

I have no issues with the way we vote, but I definitely wish it wasn't such a long, drawn out process.

[scarletwoman]

26. The only way you can grab my caucus system is out of my cold dead hands.

As the poster above stated, caucusing involves a LOT more than just voting for a candidate. It gives every citizen an opportunity to impact their state party's platform, as well as having a say in the election of the state party officers, and the makeup of the various party committees.

It's a community event that gives you the opportunity to meet other politically motivated people in your precinct and discuss the issues that are important to them and you. It's a learning experience and a very empowering experience. The caucus systems gives you a place where you can present your case to your fellow voters, and use your powers of persuasion. At a causcus you KNOW your vote counts.

I have made friends for life by attending my precinct caucus -- people I would have never met otherwise. For me, a caucus is SO much more politically meaningful than just anomymously showing up to punch a button in a voting booth.

I think we'd all be a lot better off as a party that actually responds to the people if ALL states had caucuses instead of primaries.

sw

[KingFlorez]

27. I think the system should be left like it is

If the primaries were all in one swoop, then the candidates would only focus on bigger states and somewhat ignore the smaller ones.

[ampad]

30. We like the caucus system in WA

And wondering why out of all these years they are now being questioned? Gee I wonder why?

[Liberal Veteran]

35. Yep. It's odd how suddenly caucuses are hideous undemocratic constructs...

...that seem to be hated primarily (no pun intended), by people who don't live in caucus states and tend to be people who backed a candidate that didn't fare well in caucuses.

[thoughtcrime1984]

41. 3 days would be great for a well known candidate

I prefer the current system, maybe shortened by 4-6 weeks. I think caucuses are great, and wish Wisconsin had them.

[highplainsdem]

43. No. A national primary would be much better.

[bicentennial_baby]

46. Caucuses are party builders

I wish we had them here.

[scarletwoman]

66. Just think -- if Florida had a caucus system, run by the state Dem party instead of the legislature,

they could have thumbed their noses at the Repugs and run their election the way they wanted instead of having to make a devil's bargain.

sw

[Undercurrent]

47. I love the caucus here in Washington state.

They are a wonderful way to meet with your neighbors, and organize all the way from the grass roots up to the top of the party. It's an American tradition in line with the real town hall meetings of our historical beginnings.

It's up to us in each state to decide how we wish to select our delegates.

[Liberal Veteran]

49. Isn't it fascinating how the people who seem to hate caucuses the most are those don't have them?

I've done both and I like caucuses.

[Marrah_G]

100. My hometown in Mass still governs by town meetings

Settled in 1659, incorporated in 1724.

[Barack_America]

56. No. I wish I had a caucus instead of a primary. nt

[sandnsea]

68. We need a 3 month system, no more than 5 each week

Anybody who supports one day primaries or even this week-end stuff, doesn't understand the power of money and the media in our campaigns.

[Carrieyazel]

70. Hell no. The Democratic Primary process is an unmitigated disaster.

Dean needs to revamp this failed system drastically and finish it before the next contested presidential election.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

71. no caucuses are chaos

[scarletwoman]

74. How so? Have you ever attended a caucus?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

76. yes in vegas

[Emit]

88. Do you live in Vegas?

I'm in Reno. It was a new process here in NV. I wouldn't base all your judgment of caucuses on the recent NV caucuses, as they were new and in many ways it was a transitioning learning process. In the future, it will only get better, provided that we have enough volunteers to help -- which, as I understand, is one of the reasons things got chaotic in certain precincts NV.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

95. no I live in upstate NY I was visiting my mother and went with my brother to caucus

it was insane and it made me really appreciate my NY Primary and our lever booths :D

[Emit]

97. Like I said, it was our first early caucus

and while we had caucuses in the past for platforms and such, it wasn't attended by all Dem voters, very few, in fact. Most registered Democrats across the state didn't even know what a caucus was, and the party had to do a great deal of educating. And, we were short volunteers. We needed more.

What was insane about the caucus, btw? Just a lot of people? Lack of organization? I saw some videos from LV, but the one I saw was in a gym -- they didn't have an audio system, which would've really helped.

[texas_indy]

73. And how would you get this implemented since each state/territory decides for themselves

the process they will follow. No small or medium state would go for this since the candidates will be going for the states with the numbers and ignoring the small/medium states.

This has as much of a chance of being changed as is getting rid of the electoral college.
The electoral college will NEVER be done away with.
The only way to get rid of that is for the small and medium states to vote to change it, and they NEVER WILL do that.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

79. I'm in favor of a system were the precieved front runner wins by default

And whoever starts with the most name recognition and money is the nominee by default.

[QC]

86. That's what we have right now. Wonderful, isn't it? n/t

[dsomuah]

80. National Primaries are undemocratic ...

National Priamries are not a good idea, they favour candidates with money and name recognition.


The staggered primaries give the people more time to get to know the candidates, they give the candidates time to travel the country and get to know the candidates.

[hokies4ever]

87. Pro, it kept the corporate Dem from winning

and made an example of people running on Iraq War votes and PAC/lobbyist money. The proof is in the pudding. :rofl:

[Liberal Veteran]

89. Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. +1

:yourock:

[Emit]

91. No kidding

:rofl:

[fadedrose]

93. I'm tickled pink with Michigan's primary system,

Wouldn't change a thing....





:sarcasm:

[harun]

94. Trim the Super's from 800 to 400. Move all the dates closer together

not spread out so much. I.e. get the whole thing over within 4-8 weeks. Super's have to commit within 1 week after the end of Primary season.

Get Michigan to stop the blame game with their politicians always trying to move their Primary dates. Offer voters in states who get the delegates voided because of moving their data a way to vote on the Internet on the right day.

[mystieus]

102. Bill Clinton had no problem with Caucus... Only when you're losing it becomes a problem.

[onetwo]

103. This is why you DON'T do away with caucuses...

You end up with someone like John McCain as your nominee.

Republican caucus voters voted overwhelmingly for Romney and Huckabee. It makes a lot of sense that the most knowledgable non-insider party supporters have a greater say in determining the best candidate for November. Eventually, the masses will jump on the bandwagon once the GE revs up and the introduction of the candidate to America begins.

By letting too many low-information voters choose your guy or gal (as they do in primaries), you run the risk of being stuck with a guy who looks good on paper but can't survive the 6+ month onslaught (McCain?). The more-informed caucus voter sees these potentially fatal flaws (as well as killer benefits) in the condidates before they are exposed to the wider public and votes accordingly.

I'd say the current system is just about right.

[On the Road]

105. I'm Reasonably Happy with the Current System

The most important thing is that there be a set of small states first. I don't care about geography as much as the need for candidates to conduct retail politics.

The benefit of having IA and NH always first is that voters by and large take their privilege seriously and become more astute over time. For fairness it would be acceptable to rotate the front states, but only among small states. Next time it could be DC, HI, AK, WY, and RI for all I care. But it has to be decided by handshaking and town hall meetings rather than name recognition, TV ads, and war chests. NY or CA should never go first.

After the first few small primaries, there should be a progression of states every few days, not a SuperDuper Tuesday. This provides a chance for candidacies to develop and voters to form an opinion.

The best candidate often comes out of nowhere and would get buried in a national primary or an accelerated system.

[philkd]

124. excellent points

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

109. I have an issue with Iowa and New Hampshire.

I think Florida and Michigan have a point, even if they picked the wrong way of making that point. There ought to be a rotation. I don't buy "tradition" being an important enough reason to preserve IA and NH's status. I would like to see a more representative cross-section, of ethnicity, size of state, economics, etc. getting to go early.

Aside from that, I'm fairly happy. Primaries serve more than one purpose. They're not just to select the nominee for President. They decide who leads the Party, and they act as tools for expanding organization. I think folding everything into a "national primary" would really diminish those aspects of the process.

[MattNC]

117. ditto n/t

[demokatgurrl]

110. Not at all happy with it

First of all, I think the Friday/Saturday/Sunday schedule should be in place for ALL elections, not just primaries. Most other countries (maybe even all) vote on weekends. Making it on Friday and the weekend would remove one more barrier to voting- we need to make it as easy as possible. Having three days to do it would help. Also, early voting by mail and/or online should be allowed for ALL elections. I bet so many more people would vote.

I cannot even begin to comment on caucuses because I don't even understand them but I do think it would make sense for every state to vote the same way, just to make sure every vote counts the same. I mean, the way they vote in Texas it SEEMS (and again, I don't know nothing about it) that some votes get counted twice.

[JVS]

112. I think caucuses should be encouraged.

Primaries duplicate the method for selection that a general election does. I can't help but sense that some of the same divisiveness of a GE is encouraged by adopting such a process. There are also a lot of local races about which it is hard to be informed about when going into a voting booth. A caucus could allow explanations of who the people are and what the issues are and help the party members to use their say more effectively.

[grantcart]

114. Did the system work - yes: The timing should be moved back and shortened

no national primary for the obvious reasons that it helps the candidate with the most money.

[Dinger]

115. The Candidate With The Most Money Already Has A Huge Advantage

How much more of an advantage in a national primary is hard to say.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

120. High name recognition tends to correlate with high funding.

So a national primary like the one you're proposing would heavily favor the richest, best-known candidate.

[Lisa0825]

119. I'd like a 4 month primary, with blocks of states voting the same day each month.

And they should rotate every 4 years so different states are first. I think the state parties should be free to choose whether to do a primary or caucus. Personally I like how we do it in Texas with both.

[HeraldSquare212]

121. That would favor the well-know and well-funded.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

122. Not really.

Primaries are fine, except I would like to do away with the whole delegate process and just use the popular vote as the determining tool. Then you would truly get the whole one person one vote outcome.

Cacuses are a fascinating process, no doubt, but way too time intensive for the ordinary voter. I would rather just see a straight primary.

I'd also like to see a rotating order of primaries (and possibly a regionalization) so that we don't have to get into any more silly arguments about which states should go first.

[philkd]

125. Open vs Party Declared Only primary voting?

Open seems more likely to reflect the true strengths of a candidate's appeal but is subject to strategic game play as seen in Indiana. This is the reason I hesitate to endorse an all primary method. There are no consequences for people not voting their true choice.

[PresidentObama]

127. I don't like the 3-day primary idea, but I like the idea of all primaries.

[NeedleCast]

128. I'm Happy as Long as the States are Happy

People in the individual states should have a right to determine what sort of primary they want. Seems to me that the states that have caucus or hybrid elections want them that way, and that's fine with me.

Some good arguments have been made by both sides. The cons being that yes, caucuses can be harder for some people to attend than others. I sort of look at that in the light of "if you really want to do something, you'll find a way to do it" but I can understand the argument. The pro's are many and have been listed many times so I'm not going to re-hash them.

At the end of the day though, each state has been given the right to determine whether they'll have a primary vote or a caucus. That's how it should be.

I do find it interesting that there's been little if any discussion of the caucus process on DU prior to this primary season and that it is, in general, only Hillary supporters who have an issue with caucuses (an issue that none of them brought up until Hillary lost most of the caucus states).