Nebraska, Bernie, and moral consistency.
Last night, we got to see a clean and incontrovertible example of how caucuses are voter suppression. Despite losing the Nebraska causes by 14 points, Hillary won the non-binding primary over Bernie, when the turnout jumped. That's right, more people showed up for a vanity vote that was not actually a part of the process, than did for the actual caucus. So many more people showed up that it's hard to deny something is strikingly wrong with caucuses.
It also drives a stake through Bernie's argument that he wins when voter turnout is high, but that is not the point here.
Bernie has been talking for a month now, at every opportunity, about the need to open our process. He called New York's voting laws 'voter suppression', and has been calling for a platform change to make all contests open to Republicans and independents as well.
After last night, I would like to know how Bernie can continue to make those arguments without putting caucuses as the top of the list of needed changes. We have seen before, and now Bernie has seen with his own eyes, that caucuses are the single hardest way to vote, and ensures the lowest turnout. Bernie talks about wanting fairness, but he has yet to speak out about the unfair way that he has won a large number of his delegates.
It's easy to complain about the things that you feel slight you. It's hard to complain about the advantages you have. With the tone Bernie has struck recently, he owes it to us to come out against caucuses. Today.
= new reply since forum marked as read
