Caucuses: Yea or Nay?

I am creating this poll to measure support here for caucuses since my thread on the subject created an uproar.

QUESTION:
Should we keep the caucus system?

Pros:
-Count is fair and accurate
-Voters can actually discuss issues rather than blind voting
-Caucuses serve as party building mechanisms for platforms and such

Cons:
-The idea that you can see how friends and neighbors vote is undemocratic
-Set times for caucuses reduce turnout(1 hour to vote)
-The 15% runoff rule hurts lesser known candidates

but I think, since it's a FEDERAL election, it should be mandated, and goverened by the FED, not each state.

Fuck this state 'party building' shit. They need to figure out another way to build their parties, but not in a presidential election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDfqqKurwv8

I just cast my absentee vote.

I wouldn't be able to vote as I wouldn't be able to physically tolerate being at a caucus for that length of time, if it was one of my bad pain days I wouldn't even be able to get to the bus stop.

Not allowing those is just not right.

They could at least allow you to file those and have a representative to caucus for the absentees.

during a caucus I couldn't go. I know that much. I sympathize immensely.

As long as the building is accessible it is open to disabled and seniors. In fact, the MN DFL goes out of its way to make sure that caucuses are held in accessible buildings and that reasonable accomodation (per ADA) can be made for caucusgoers.

out the Greeks in Athens. They didn't have hackable voting machines.

15% cut off is a good thing. It's like instant run off voting. For example, it allows someone to vote their choices for lesser known candidates, but still have a voice in the outcome.

For me, I would vote: Kucinich, Edwards, Obama. If neither Kucinich or Edwards can carry the day, then my third choice is the one that gets counted.

Instant runoff votings allows lesser known candidates to run.

Think about it.

the lesser known candidates got squat, because they didn't resonate with the caucus goers. That's not a problem of instant runoff voting.

Just because you lose an election it doesn't make the election "undemocratic". The Presidency is a "winner-take-all" race. You don't get to be a fraction of president if you don't win.

I think you need to look up "undemocratic" in the dictionary.

to vote for who you want rather than holding your nose while you do. (Except for me in 2008. There one person that I'll never vote for.)

If you're electing a fraction of something, proportional representation is the way to go. However, you don't elect a fraction of a president, or a fraction of a senator, or a fraction of a congressperson.

IRV works well for selecting one candidate.

At least in the caucus supporters of less-popular candidates get to have "instant runoff caucusing" by joining other groups. In a primary election, they're essentially throwing their votes away if they don't result in delegates.

The Founders made a huge mistake letting the states run elections for President and Vice-President.

State elections for picking US Congress members must be standard and equal also.

don't get to vote. And the lack of privacy matters to me as well.

I've never been to a caucus.

Ask me again after Feb 5; I may have a different answer...

* the 15% rule is not universal: it's actually a fairly recent adoption that some states have used to simplify things. Usually the "viability" number is determined by ratio of delegates to caucusgoers: i.e., if there are 50 caucusgoers and ten delegates, then you get one delegate for every five members of your subcaucus-- i.e. viability is 10%.

* the "set times" are also arbitrary: subcaucusing doesn't necessarily have to take that long. For example, if during the first round of subcaucusing each one of your subcaucuses are viable, you could have your delegates elected within a few minutes.

* There's nothing "undemocratic" about your neighbors seeing whom you support for endorsement. It's "undemocratic" if you have your vote taken away from you, or if your vote does not get counted. "Unsecret", yet, but not "undemocratic"


And here's a couple of the PROS you've left off:


* The caucus system is the easiest way for somebody to become active in their local party. You can literally walk into your first caucus and walk out as an officer of your precinct. You do NOT have to be active in a specific candidate's campaign-- you just have to be willing to work for the good of your party at the most grassroots level.

* It is possible to go from being an attendee at a precinct caucus to a delegate to a national convention. I have gone to my state convention as a delegate three times by just showing up to my caucus (my first time in 1988 I had NO previous political epxerience). In 1988, I lived in a precinct where we had TWO college kids without any previous party experience (but lots of motivation) go to the national convention (one of them is now the Speaker of the MN State Legislature). Try to do that in a state where national delegates are chosen via primary.


Most of the people who trash the caucus system usually have never attended one, and/or base their criticisms on things that are not universal to all caucuses.

-The 15% rule exists in both Nevada and Iowa. It is a garbage rule.

-I meant that there is a set time that you have to be there in which does not work for the majority of people. Many people have evening shifts in Iowa, day shifts in Nevada, may be on vacation, have other plans, etc. It depresses turnout without question. You cannot possibly argue that it doesn't.

-It is undemocratic to be pressured by friends and neighbors. I trust the counting of the votes in this country more than I trust peer pressure.

Seriously, I've been going to caucuses for 20 years (been a delegate to three state conventions, too), and I NEVER felt pressure from a friend and/or neighbor for caucusing for somebody I didn't support. In fact, I've actually attended county and state conventions with delegates for other candidates that came from my same precinct.

I think you overexaggerate the "pressure" somebody is subjected to at a caucus. Which again makes me think you've never actually attended a precinct caucus before.

It's not always possible for people to vote in an election, either. Polling places aren't always open at convenient times, or located at convenient places, either. But you have to make choices. If endorsing a presidential candidate for your party is that important, you do it.

Also, some states (like mine) allow you to send a signed letter to the caucus with somebody else, offering to be a county convention delegate. So it is even possible for you to not even attend the caucus yet still go on to the county convention as a delegate or alternate. I've seen that happen a number of times, especially in years where our number of delegates awarded to our precinct were greater than the number of caucusgoers.

In fact, that even happened in my precinct in 2004. We had more county delegate spots than we had precinct caucus attendeed. Everybody who showed up on caucus night got to go to the county convention. Which means we didn't even caucus for delegates-- we took a straw poll instead.

Seriously, don't knock it 'til you've tried it. Caucuses are very effective ways to build parties and select candidates. If you're willing to take a little time to choose, people are more invested in the process-- it's more than just pulling a lever in a booth.

I'd rather keep the caucus. Though I would prefer if there were a way to keep 'pukes out. Fortunately there aren't a lot of Republicans in my neighborhood to begin with, but other parts of the state aren't so lucky.