Why don't we hear Bernie and supporters complaining about caucuses?

[YouDig]

We hear a lot of complaints about closed primaries and how unfair they are, but it's really caucuses that are instruments of mass voter suppression. Just look at the turnout numbers. Compared to any kind of closed primary, or restricted voting hours, or even voter ID laws, none of it comes close to a caucus in terms of making it difficult to participate and suppressing turnout.

Well, we all know why. Because the turnout suppressing effects of caucuses have helped Bernie. His supporters are fewer in number, but greater in enthusiasm, so they are more likely to be willing to show up at a specific time and spend a few hours going through the whole caucus process. When you make it easier to participate, it benefits Clinton.

Which goes to show that these concerns about "disenfranchisement" and all that are basically phony. Bernie and supporters don't favor open primaries based on some kind of principle, it's just based on wanting to win.

[Cobalt Violet]

1. How much is he paying?

[YouDig]

2. You think Bernie pays people to caucus for him? I doubt it.

[joshcryer]

3. I've always opposed caucuses forever, even as my state does them.

There are some of us out there. You confuse actual Sanders supporters for supporters, though. They'll bemoan long lines to vote in AZ just as they cheer long lines to caucus in other states or cheer state caucuses that leave lots of people out.

[Joob]

4. Oh hey, it's the guy who said it's okay if Hillary was a little corrupt.

I'm not going to personally attack you, but Election Fraud DID Occur in New York.

[YouDig]

7. All politicians are a little corrupt. It's not a black-and-white world.

And calling NY "election fraud" is not accurate. There were problems, but fraud requires intent, not just incompetence.

[Joob]

11. Really?

http://usuncut.com/politics/brooklyn-voter-purge-official-fired/

[YouDig]

14. Yes, really.

[bigwillq]

5. I have said many times on here that it's time to get rid of caucuses

I am for open primaries in every state, getting rid of caucuses, getting rid of super delegates, and letting pop vote, and pop vote only, determine the nominee, even if that benefits the established candidate.

[Skwmom]

9. I don't.I weigh the minuses against the fact that a caucus is MUCH HARDER to steal without detection

So until we can clean up our voting process, I am for holding a caucus.

[Skwmom]

6. I have complained about the NV and Iowa caucus. But overall, it is harder to steal a caucus (which

is why they will try to get rid of them).

[YouDig]

8. So only the ones that Clinton won?

[Skwmom]

12. They were the ones that seemed to have a lot of "problems."

The Iowa paper than endorsed Clinton even said something smelled in the Democratic Primary and the results should be audited. But surprise, surprise, the Democratic Party didn't think so.

[YouDig]

15. All caucuses have "problems", it goes with the territory.

[SidDithers]

10. Caucuses also reward the candidate with the most aggressive supporters...

the fact that voters have to stand up and be counted, rather than submit their vote by secret ballot, absolutely opens the system to intimidation and coercion.

Sid

[Skwmom]

18. In a caucus, you could secret ballot. Funny, that seems to have worked out for Clinton with the

casino workers in Vegas and their labor union. It was reported workers were afraid to buck the party bosses. Plus, there are those that walked in without registering...

[NurseJackie]

21. Caucuses are GREAT ....

for the the ones who have hours to spare
... and the ones who don't have to WORK during "caucus-hours"
... and the ones who aren't full-time caregivers
... and the ones who don't have mobility issues
... and the ones who aren't deployed overseas
... and the ones who don't value the tenet of secret ballot
... and the ones who enjoy a public fight
... and the ones who enjoy watching a nomination process that Rube Goldberg would enjoy.

[Arkansas Granny]

22. +1

[apcalc]

13. I think states have them because,

it saves them money. Plus it would be hard to run a primary in a state where some voters are miles away from anyone else. ( consider Alaska, Wyoming, Montana)

That said, they are undemocratic to the core.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. States with less dense populations should all be voting by mail, that makes a primary very easy

to run, it serves the rural communities very well. Oregon's is coming up shortly, you can see how it works....

[LadyHawkAZ]

16. Because your collective "we" didn't bother to read/listen

There were and are plenty of Sanders people calling for an end to the caucus system.

No, it is not "really caucuses that are instruments of mass voter suppression". Deliberately removing voters from the rolls and eliminating polling stations *IS* mass voter suppression and surprise! it only benefitted one candidate and that candidate wasn't Sanders.

Cute post though. Is this the social media "correction" they're spending so much money on? Needs work.

[YouDig]

23. I've heard Sanders dismiss the voters in the South, and dismiss the results of New York

because it was a closed primary. I haven't heard him or any of his supporters dismiss the results of Washington based on how undemocratic caucuses are.

Also, with regards to the irregularities in New York, it is likely they hurt Hillary more than Bernie, since they occurred in areas which were pro-Hillary.

[LadyHawkAZ]

33. That's an interesting "correction" because plenty of his supporters have in fact said that

And if you have some proof of deliberate voter suppression in Washington other than "I just don't like caucuses" (as there has been in other states, all benefitting Clinton) we're all dying to see it.

Yes, I've heard the new story about how the suppressed voters would have voted Clinton, which replaced the story about how they were all independents who hadn't registered, and directly preceded the story about how it was all the fault of the sneaky Republican. If that's the case why are you not calling for their votes to be counted?

[YouDig]

37. There's no proof of deliberate voters suppression anywhere.

[litlbilly]

46. How much do you get paid from Brock? Just wondering. Is it per post? How do I sign up for that?

I could use the money.

[LadyHawkAZ]

48. HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHA
*gasp*
Oh my. *This* is the social media "correction"???
A million in new investment and the best they can do is Winston Smith? With investigations pending in multiple states and one person already on suspension?
Oh myyyyyy...

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

35. If anything caucuses tend to favor insider candidates...

Because MOST voters simply won't caucus, leaving it mostly to the party regulars.

Bernie (and Obama) are inspirational candidates, that break through that inertia.

My WA LD April meeting featured a "caucus vs. primary" debate Wed., and as far as I can tell the division is evenly divided among supporters of both candidates.

I'd prefer using a primary, and I was a precinct level Bernie delegate.

[YouDig]

38. I agree, but as you pointed out, even more than that they favor

"inspirational" candidates like Bernie and Obama. Bernie would not have gotten the big margins in WA and a few other states if they were primaries.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

17. I prefer primaries over caucuses, but

the main thing is that ALL voting in America should be done by paper ballot. Period. It's slower, but very necessary to put an end to oligarchy in America.

Voter suppression and electoral suppression is rampant in our banana republic. I do not favor the death penalty, but I am in favor of life sentences for thugs like David Brock and Jon Podesta who engage in electoral fraud, etc. I'm serious. Podesta, Hillary and Brock need to do hard time.

[apcalc]

19. Yes, I favor paper ballots.

Too easy to rig machines, manual or electronic.

[LWolf]

20. Because

I've never lived in a caucus state, I've never participated in a caucus, and while I get the mechanics, I don't feel like I've got enough background to do so.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. The Caucuses exist because the Democratic Party wanted them. Washington Democrats sued the State

to be allowed to Caucus. Nevada just started their caucus in 2008, eager to 'go earlier in the cycle'. Harry Reid pushed harder than hell for that caucus. Hillary Clinton is the only human who has taken part in every Nevada Democratic Caucus in history. She actually won every Nevada caucus in the history of that caucus.

So it is very odd to present the Caucus as being Bernie's to answer for. What about the many Democrats who have strongly insisted upon holding caucuses, such as Reid or the entire State of Washington? What about Hillary who has now taken part in two caucus filled cycles without balking about the process and without even saying a word to Harry Reid about the process?

[YouDig]

26. This is true. The same goes for closed primaries, and everything else.

Bernie doesn't have to answer for anything, nor does Hillary. She won fair and square, by the rules that were decided on before the contest.

But if people (Bernie) are going to be complaining about undemocratic aspects of the process, the caucuses are the place to start.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. This post contradicts your OP which lays it all on Bernie. Face it, you had no idea WA sued to

retain the caucus nor that Nevada set theirs up just in time for Hillary to win it in 2008, just as she did in 2016. She won fair and square, but your OP suggests that there is no such thing as 'fair and square' in a caucus when Bernie wins it.

You in the OP: " Because the turnout suppressing effects of caucuses have helped Bernie."

Except where Hillary won them. Same as in 2008 when Obama won most but she won some. So the fact that you excuse them while characterizing the caucuses as tools of suppression for which Bernie is responsible suggests bias on your part.

[YouDig]

32. Bernie is going around complaining about New York's closed primary. If he hadn't

done that, then you'd have a point. But if there's any aspect of the nomination process that should be singled out as undemocratic, it's not closed primaries, it's caucuses. He doesn't complain about those, because there th undemocratic-ness benefits him. Which goes to show that it's not about principle, it's about winning.

You are right, I have no idea how WA or any of the states decided on the specific rules for their primary/caucus.

As to the "fair and square" comment, we have a flawed system for sure, but the rules were put in place before hand, and they were followed. And Hillary won, fair and square.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. And now you admit again you are hanging on Bernie that which belongs to the PARTY as a whole and

to the specific State Parties that have insisted upon the caucus system.

Just as you don't comprehend the history of caucuses you also do not understand that NY has massive election problems that are not about the Primary being closed but about the details and restrictions NY has on voting that other States do not have. NY has some of the lowest turnout in the US, year after year, in all types of elections. Not just Primaries.
NY's outlandishly early deadline for changing affiliation is worthy of criticism indeed. So are many of the other bits of suppression NY deals in that cause them to have abysmal turnout.

I live in Oregon. We have a closed Primary and huge turnout. Our Primary being closed it not a big problem because it is closed in a timely fashion. PA is closed, but you can switch Party 30 days out. NY is 6 months. Supressive, excessive and bad for the people.

You are the one complaing about entire elections because Hillary lost them. We are the people saying NY's crappy 29% turnouts are symptomatic of systemic electoral rot that needs to be addressed. You are saying NY elections are super good because Hllary won. It's so bogus.

Get your facts in order then come talke to me about the facts.

[Bjornsdotter]

27. Because you choose to ignore

...those of us who say we think the caucus system is crap.

This has been my opinion since the mid-70's and it is my opinion today.

[Marrah_G]

28. Awww you are cute

[Bettie]

29. I'm a Sanders supporter

and I have said over and over, in this election cycle and previous ones that I don't like caucuses. They make it too hard for the majority of people to participate in the process.

I've seen this said by many, many Sanders supporters as well.

I live in Iowa (yes, I know, mostly white flyover state so it doesn't count) now, but have lived (since I was old enough to vote) in Wisconsin and Illinois, where there are primaries and I do believe that a primary is a better tool for finding out who the preferred candidate is.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Are you kidding? The whining is endless. It started in Iowa, and did not stop there:

IOWA: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/clinton-iowa-caucus-exposed-caught-commiting-voter-fraud/
WYOMING: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/09/bernie-sanders-wins-wyoming-western-caucus-state-dominance-continues.html
COLORADO:

Endless whining.

[Plug1]

34. A Blast From The Past

[Fuddnik]

36. You're hard of hearing?

I've always thought caucuses were a dumb idea. If they had them in Ohio, I most likely would have never been able to attend them, due to the fact that I spent a lot of time on 2nd and 3rd shift.

The best system is same day registration.

One of these days Democrazy will come to America.

[stone space]

39. Iowa has a closed caucus, and I remember complaints about it.

Lots of silliness about coins and stuff.

[RedCappedBandit]

40. I've said many times here caucuses are anti democratic.

You're probably not looking very hard.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. What the OP is saying is caucuses won by Bernie are very bad, those won by Hillary just fine....

Nevada and Iowa were super righteous inclusive. But not Washington or Utah.

[Lans]

42. Most Sanders supporters would prefer Open Primaries and Automatic Voter Registration

so it's a bit of a funny critique

[Lizzie Poppet]

43. The only possible reason would be you're not listening.

And I take back my compliment in a previous thread. This is basically ratfucking. Welcome to Ignore.

[NV Whino]

45. You haven't been listening.

[morningfog]

47. I'll forgive you since you act like you are new here. We have been complaining about caucuses.

They are undemocratic and contrary to fundamental principles of voting.

Are you new or are you just back again?

[IamMab]

49. You forget: anything is allowed, all ethics are subjective, no morals apply, 'in nomine Bernie.'

If you're expecting leftist activists to actually live by the standards they demand others live by, don't hold your breath.