Caucuses are total bullshit.

I say this as a Hillary supporter who thinks she is probably going to edge out Obama today, but I think this system has to go. It doesn't allow people to vote when it is convenient for them as it doesn't allow absentee voting and you have to attend during a specific span of time. If your candidate doesn't get 15%, you're shit out of luck, just like in Iowa. You can't vote in secret, allowing your true voice to be heard against peer pressure.

I am calling on all of us to make sure that for the next primary season the Democratic Party puts an end to the caucus system once and for all. The practice cuts against the very fabric of who we are as a party and even against who we are as a country.

Biden supporters.

There were allegations that Obama bussed in people from all over to Iowa...and that accounted for the huge turnout.

I do not think they are accurate. There is no oversight.

One candidate whining after losing a primary to another does not constitute proof.

Dem registration is way up in Nevada this year; that's going to help come November.

vote is so undemocratic it is disgusting.

I loved learning that our neighbor is supporting Mike Huckabee. See if this gay neighbor of hers ever helps mow herlawn or take in her mail again.

Are you out of your mind? If you lived in a militant Republican area like I do where I feared for the safety of my job and my social status if people discovered I was a Democrat you would not want this.

at the Dem caucus or home watching Fox.

Geez, show some backbone.

h. christ, there is a reason why secret voting is usually the norm - because when there is so much power at stake, some people/groups will stop at nothing to make sure they win.

it's just as well you stay home. The primaries are NOT public elections. They are for the parties to decide who will represent them in the General. People with no other interest in the party, and without the commitment to stand and be counted should not participate.

arm-twisting by self-appointed people with 'balls,' probably is not the best way to choose a GE nominee.

it's not a system that I had known a lot about until this election cycle, but it doesn't seem to me to be a very fair way for people to vote - it's inconvenient and it isn't private. I think more people would get involved if it were a regular voting system. (And, as someone who usually has to vote absentee, I'd be pretty upset if my state had a caucus.)

People who are committed to the party get there.

In many respects, a caucus is like instant runoff voting in terms of first and second choices.

It is a fascinating process to see people have to defend their candidate in front of their peers. They have to know the issues. They have to be involved. They have to show up at a particular time or get assistance getting there to vote. It feels even more "democratic" than just going to a poll and voting to me.

If you can stand tall for your candidate, you won't need to feel intimidated by others. Some things in life take conviction and courage.

As others have pointed out, Diebold machines can't steal your vote. There is a clear paper trail and people who can back up what happened.

My hometown voted 75% for Bush in 2004. If I had to stand up and be counted and face the ridicule of all my friends and neighbors my life would be miserable. Instead, I voted in secret and nobody I know has any idea how I voted in my hometown.

The Repugs would have theirs at the Denny's. You'd have yours at the new cool cafe.

Supporters of different candidates have varying levels of support in different areas. For example, here in Madison I would not be comfortable supporting Hillary knowing all my friends support Obama.

In a general election, a caucus would only serve to reduce turnout. Setting aside just one hour of the day so people could vote? 15% of the electorate might be able to vote and that would be it.

They'd be in a different room.

Besides, what do you care? You can slink into a voting booth, quietly mark your ballot, slink back out, and run home. All without your scary neighbors knowing. So, what happens in Iowa or Nevada is none of your business.

it's kinda hard to steal a caucus when you can see how everyone in a room is voting.

especially when unions are involved, because people fear for their livelihoods.

It's a really corrupt system.

The unions are not powerful enough - at least in Iowa - to control their members. Hillary had the AFSCME endorsement, but a majority of the AFSCME members voted for someone other than Hillary. Your accusations don't carry water in Iowa.

phenomenon.

Voter intimidation and fairness are my primary concerns. Setting aside just one hour for people to vote is horribly undemocratic. Seeing how your friends, neighbors, and co-workers vote is horribly undemocratic.

Besides, it's a meeting of the party, not a public event. Parties, like all organizations, hold meetings at set times and places. People who care attend. people who don't, don't.

I think it's absurd that people get all outraged about privacy issues, and the one thing they should get upset about, having to vote in public, they condone.

Unreal.

I wouldn't have a problem with switching.

But until that happens, I'd be more than happy to raise my hand in a room full of people.

People are counted for real. No tricks.

Do you want it for the general election too? Imagine being a Republican in Detroit or a Democrat in rural Texas. Yeah, no thanks.

The caucus is a party exercise. The general elections are for election to an office and are governed by the constitution and federal law.

Stop looking at the issue so narrowly.

That is real impressive! Any other false assumptions you want to throw in to attempt to make a valid point?

I couldn't believe people had to vote that way. If your first choice doesn't get enough in that room then you have to change your vote. That's not right. Maybe at another site your guy got counted but your vote couldn't help him/her. I'll take my 1-man 1-vote. Don't TRY to take my vote away from me.

not if you have a predetermined magic fucking 'viability' number. Now if ALL of the votes counted for a candidate, with NO viability factor, I'd have less of a problem with them.

It's total bullshit that they can just say a candidate is 'non-viable'. Total bullshit. Every candidate should get the ORIGINAL vote people walked in the door to register. No realignment, not cajoling. Period.

Each district has a certain number of delegates and those delegates are assigned based on the vote in those districts. Each state sets its own percentage level, but I believe all are 15% for the Democratic primary.

The vote is by secret ballot and people can vote all day. So a primary has those advantages. But, just like in a caucus, candidate who don't make the "predetermined magic fucking viability number" in your district don't get any delegates. You just don't know it in time to make a second choice.

People understand the process, because they see it at work. Obviously, th OP and others complaining about the viability rule don't even understand how their own primaries work. They would, if they had caucuses.

I've always lived in primary states, but I know how the process works because I go to party meetings.

I wouldn't mind if my state moved to a caucus system, although I'm not crazy about the idea of same day registration.

don't fucking patronize me. I would NEVER, I repeat, NEVER move to a state, where they hold caucuses. IT's antiquated, lacks privacy, and is un-democratic. PERIOD.

The candidate isn't immediately 'inviable' DURING a primary. They also have a better chance of going on to more states. Unlike the ass-backwards caucus states who choose candidates for the rest of the country!!!

I want MY vote for a candidate ON RECORD. I want it on PUBLIC RECORD, not hidden away in some bogus fucking file that the public NEVER has access to, like in IOWA.


You can defend them all you want, and I will FIGHT them like there is no tomorrow.

A caucus is moronic.

It's sickening and wildly ironic that the Republicans have a more democratic caucus system than Democrats.

but what's even more sickening, is that some of these democrats see nothing wrong with it.

How is it different in choosing primary delegates? If you need 15% of the vote or 8% of the statewide vote to get a delegate ... what does it matter if you voted for Joe and he got 3% statewide and didnt win any delegates. Does that really make you feel better?

They are virtually IDENTICAL in the way they function. Caucuses are NOT just about elections: they are about taking care of party business, building a platform, AND building a local party infrastructure. Caucuses get people involved in building a grassroots party.

You don't get that by going into a booth and pulling a lever.

It is supposed to be for party members to endorse their candidates-- NOT elect public officials.

A caucus is probably better for endorsement purposes, because it means that party members have to dedicate an hour once a year to BUILDING the party. You can't build your party by going into a booth and doing "drive-by" candidate selection.

I was never more involved in my party than when I lived in a caucus state. I participated in the caucus, where I was elected to the county convention. I was nominated to the state convention, but had to decline because of a conflict.

I have no idea when my party leadership meets here, or who they are. It all happens behind closed doors. Give me caucuses any day!!

It's not just about a candidate, it's about building up the party and winning elections on EVERY level.

This year, we've got not just the presidential race, but a very important four-way endorsement for US Senate race (for the seat Wellstone used to hold). Not to mention a possible endorsement fight for a state leg seat, too.

That's one of the things I've learned to like about the caucuses. You get to meet the neighbors and party leaders, talk politics, and organize for the fall. For some reason I don't see that happening in a state where the primaries decide everything.

And I'm suspicious of people who don't support grassroots democracy.

in recent history - which id why probably no one brought it up. But you're right.

its not just about a candidate you also actually talk about the platform and then you can get elected to the county convention and the stated convention. Although some states may differ. When it works right it gives the party a consultative nature. True with the money and advertisements now it has changed it used to be alot of fun.

That is where you get party building in my state. That is where we have gotten people to volunteer and begin organizing.
Local caucuses are useful for party building without the drawbacks of depriving people of votes in what really should be a statewide contest.
The trouble with caucuses for presidential candidate endorsment selection\delegate allotment is that the entire state is affected and the entire country is watching.
There is too much at stake to leave it to a system where so few people have a real opportunity to participate. I am also very much in favor of a secret ballot. I think it is important to maximize participation in every election. Make no mistake, the primary season and candidate selection is an "election." Voters are making choices the choices that lead to delegate allotment.

Sorry the system is not as convenient as ordering a latte, but it works. It is not a simple vote. It is a party building exercise, not just a vote. There are many reforms that could be made - such as scrapping the 15% rule, allowing absentee preference votes for night or overseas workers. Scrapping what has worked for decades in caucus states is short-sighted and pompous - coming from an outsider.

As I wrote in my letter to Joe the day after the Iowa caucus;

Joe,

I'll tell you who lost last night. The United States of America. When the most qualified person to be president in this country, can't even get 1%, it's a sad day in this country. Previously, I had no opinion of the Iowa Caucuses, but I now believe that Caucuses are the most antiquated voting system in this country. Iowans didn't vote for who they wanted. Many settled for their second choice. I watched as they were easily swayed to their "second choice" and they folded like flimsy lawn chairs. That's no way to hold an election. Every state needs to have a uniform voting system, and primaries need to be held on the same day. I find it ironic that Iowa sent a message about wanting "change" last night, but they have had no desire to "change" the way the hold their primaries. Kind of a contradiction if you ask me.

I witnessed it first hand, on CSPAN, and was astonished at how seemingly meaningless it was to most of the people. I don't know how Iowa can feel good about their votes, because for a lot of people, the way it is now, their true vote, didn't count at all. The person they went to Caucus for, they didn't vote for in the end. How is that Democratic? It would be the same as if I walked into my polling place, and went to vote for Joe Biden, and they said, sorry, the Joe Biden button is broken, you'll have to choose another. That's not Democratic. If I had been there last night, and I was caucusing for you,(which I would have been) and you weren't viable, I would have left uncommitted.

That would have been the right message to send. Not give in and vote for one of the others. Iowans say; "we wanted our vote to count". What good is that, if they don't actually get to vote for the one they really wanted? By giving in, they just reduced their vote to a number, not a vote for their ideology, or what was important to them when they walked in. Their votes were nothing more than protest to keep another candidate from winning. It's been reduced to a vote for the "lesser of the evils". I want my vote to speak for what I believe in. I want my vote to send a message specific about my candidate, his platform, and what's important to me. If my candidate loses in the end, then so be it, but I want my vote on record, for the right reasons, and because I have that fundamental right.


In a nutshell;
" It would be the same as if I walked into my polling place, and went to vote for Joe Biden, and they said, sorry, the Joe Biden button is broken, you'll have to choose another."

THAT, is what caucus does.

Presidential endorsement is a "winner-take-all" race: only ONE candidate gets endorsed. And like it or not, that endorsement is done via a plurality vote.

You can't partially endorse a candidate, just like you can't partially elect a president. It's not a job-share situation. You either win, or you don't win.

In the first round of the caucus, you get to make your first choice. THAT is your vote. You have effectively voted for Joe Biden. If the Biden subcaucus is not viable, then you have a choice: either join another, or go home.

However, you still got your vote in the first round. You were NEVER disenfranchised.

inane overview. There should be ONE count. That count, should COUNT. PERIOD. It's not just about Joe Biden. It's about all past, and future votes.

And, I say, fuck all the states who can't step into this century. The candidates should ignore them.

ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, ONE TIME.

It was not convoluted-- it was pretty straightforward. I don't think you need it re-spelled out for you.

In a caucus, you GET a vote. ONE VOTE. Just because you lose doesn't mean your vote doesn't count. It just means that another candidate got more votes than your candidate.

It's that simple.

stupid bullshit system. And, by the way, I watched them on CSPAN, and it was just like being there. I saw how people were trying to not change their votes, and were coerced into doing it. Guilt tripped, in fact, and made it seem like if they didn't change, their vote would not matter.

It's wrong.

Just like watching "Grey's Anatomy" does not make you a surgeon.

And you don't have to change your vote, no matter how "guilt tripped" you get. Trust me, I've been cajoled, browbeaten, etc. and have stayed with my original choice. And as a precinct captain (and floor leader at the county convention) I've done my share of persuasive talking to try and get people to join my subcaucus. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

And that's all it is. Talking. We don't bring hired goons to kneecap people if they don't join our subcaucus.

And don't believe everything you see on TV. Chances are it's (as you say) "bullshit".

who gives a shit.

It's not private, and your first choice may not count!! How the FUCK you can even argue that, is beyond me!!!!!!!

Go talk to your 'critters'. They'll buy your bullshit. I don't.

Florida! Home of the hanging chad!

FYI

It works fine in Iowa.

how the fuck do you know what happened there?

Slip across the state line to vote for John??

Iowa is my home, and I'll be returning there one day.

The process is so open, that I got to sit in the back, munching on kringla and watching it happen. Do you get kringla where you vote?


Thought not.

:eyes:

I have run out of time for stupidity today.

If you wanted to vote for Joe, you certainly could. However, in selecting delegates, Joe didn't have the votes to win a delegate. So, to select a delegate you could continue to vote for Joe and not show up as committed to a candidate winning a delegate, or go with your second choice. In that respect, it is more democratic. If your candidate does so poorly that he or she does not win a delegate, you can support another candidate in the second round who is viable.

Don't blame the process because your candidate was not a viable candidate in the delegate selection process. You make it sound as if you were not allowed to vote your preference. That is BS and you know it. It is no different in a primary system. If your candidate does not get enough votes, he or she does not win delegates.

Sore losers need to work harder for their candidate, not tear down a great system.

And I think you find in many states with caucuses that the party itself is a much stronger, more active entity than in other states.

I agree about the 15% rule-- it's largely crap. They should have just left it proportional, but I suppose it does speed things up a bit, especially in years with big turnout.

Hell, the only reason I ever got involved in politics was because of precinct caucuses, and how easy it was to attend and get active locally.

You get your choice the first round. Your vote is still counted.

Just because your candidate doesn't have enough support to win doesn't mean your vote doesn't count. It just means another candidate had more support.

And for the record, I'm supporting Kucinich, so I'm well aware of what I'll be facing at my Feb 5 caucus.

They are certainly disenfranchised if they can't make the specific time and place of the caucus. Personally, I would be really pissed off at this system. Plus, the sanctity of the privacy of the vote is wholly violated.

In MN, we have a provision where a person can send a letter (either before the caucus, or send it along with another caucusgoer) requesting to be a delegate to the county convention.

I have seen this happen a couple times, and have seen these people go on as county delegates-- most recently in 2004, which was a year with record turnout in my state (MN).

Not everybody can always make it to a polling place during the day, either. If it's a priority, you make it there.

ballot on Feb 5, we will not have a presidential caucus procedure. The caucus will be about electing precinct officials and delegates to the next level convention (for me that is the MN Senate District).

We will walk in on Feb 5, fill out a paper ballot for our presidential preference (starting at 6:30) and then if people don't want to stay for the caucus (starting at 7 pm), they can go home, knowing that their vote counted.

There will be no viability number or any walking caucuses at the precinct level.

In 2004, we didn't even need to elect delegates to county-unit, as we had more delegate slots than we had attendees.

But I've moved since then, and this is the first caucus at the new place. Should be interesting.

ON EDIT: I assume we'll still be subcaucusing for US Senate, though-- that's a four-way race.

Not... "I'm sorry, you're in 'Group E'. You're too small of a Group. You're going to have to join one of the bigger groups."

....but I don't want to join those groups.

"Well then, I have to count your vote as being 'uncommitted'."

.... but I'm not uncommitted... I want to vote for Candidate E!

"You can't. Those are the rules."

One Person - One Vote
:patriot:

a caucus or primary. It is totally up to the state. The DNC can lobby a state for it's preference. How can we ever fix a problem if we don't understand the process or constitution.

I would like to see all states switch to a primary sytem.

How to do that. a) List all states with a caucus system b)build a movement in each of those states. c) elect state rep who will support a primary d)elect a Governor who will not veto a change e) move to one of those states if not a current resident f) get a life.

I despise caucuses. I loathe caucuses.

He wanted to consolidate his power. Blech I say.

Are aware that the same 15% rule holds true for primaries. Alright, if your candidate gets 4 or 5 percent of the vote, that gets recorded as the popularity contest part of the primary---but it results in zero delegates, which is what the whole process is about. At least people in caucus states may have a little wheeling and dealing leverage in choosing which group to join if their first choice is non-viable.

People who vote in primaries have no idea how the process works after they drop their ballot in the box, or push the button, or pull the lever. The caucus process is transparent.

It takes a helluva lot of work just to find out what the party is doing here. So they hold a primary where anyone can vote on a secret ballot. The rest of the party's business is done in secret behind closed doors. THAT is primitive, undemocratic and wrong.

I'd rather all party business were done in well-publicized caucuses!!

It's a quaint system; I like the idea of the interaction. But, really, to expect people to be at their home district at a particular time of the day is a hardship. Are there laws in any of the caucus states that makes it illegal to prevent someone from attending a caucus. That is, if someone were to tell their boss they needed time off to caucus, is the boss required to give time off? If this is not the case, then I don't see how the system can be justified.

Primary contests are closer to general elections. Remember what happened in Florida and Ohio. So, do we scrap primary elections?

Something needs to be done about this antiquated way of holding elections.
K&R

To hurt the large population vegas.

was not fucked up.

Caucuses beat the bejeezuz out of big money lying consultants. Hint: Carville and the other parasites aren't particularly democratic. Primaries are just name recognition money driven bullshit fests, where anybody not living in swing state is automatically disenfranchised.

That said, I would be glad to go from all caucus to part caucus/part primary, if and ONLY IF, primary states went the other way. Best of all worlds if you add rotating regional primary/caucus dates.