The Nevada caucuses are a corrupt spectacle

[Zorro]

Unlike in Iowa, it did not take long to declare a winner in Saturday’s Nevada Democratic caucuses. That doesn’t mean the system worked well — it didn’t. Nevada looked orderly only because Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s victory was so lopsided, the networks could call the race with hardly any results.

Some 18 hours after the caucuses wrapped up, results were in from only about half of the state’s precincts — the consequence of cumbersome rules, a jammed reporting hotline and extensive data collection requirements. This mess is what happens when parties insist on running their own private caucuses rather than allowing states to hold primary elections. Indeed, even if the caucuses had worked more smoothly, they would still have been an embarrassing spectacle. They are a terrible way to choose a presidential nominee.

“The process I don’t like at all,” said Paul Anthony, a food server attending a caucus Saturday at the Bellagio resort. “I think sometimes this room might intimidate people into not wanting to come vote.”

The Nevada Democratic Party might be surprised at Anthony’s dissatisfaction, given that it tried hard this year to fix its caucus system, offering people more ways to participate. But the party instead proved that the caucus system is fundamentally flawed. One major reason: Peer pressure should have no place in voting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/23/nevada-caucuses-are-corrupt-spectacle/

[Cha]

1. KR!!!

[musette_sf]

2. K&R

[dalton99a]

3. Another clusterfuck.

[NurseJackie]

4. Caucuses are undemocratic. Caucuses disenfranchise. Without a secret ballot...

Caucuses are undemocratic. Caucuses disenfranchise. Without a secret ballot it lends itself to peer pressure and intimidation from aggressive supporters of certain candidates who attract them. Caregivers and people who aren't able to be off work during the caucus events are left out of the process. They leave themselves open for all sorts of malfeasance, incompetence, and manipulation and other hanky-panky from outside agitators and other disloyal actors and foreign adversaries.

They're as obsolete as the Electoral College. What a backward way of doing things. I'd be embarrassed.

#EndCaucusesNow
#EndTheCaucus
#NoMoreCaucuses

[madinmaryland]

5. Peer pressure should have no place in voting.

That sums up the whole caucus thing to me. It seems like an antiquated way of selecting a candidate.

[NurseJackie]

17. More than mere peer pressure the, um, "enthusiastic" bullies intimidate others as well...

More than mere peer pressure the, um, "enthusiastic" bullies intimidate others as well... particularly if the candidate they ACTUALLY support ends up having a smaller group.

Caucuses are disgusting.

[oasis]

6. Which campaign would encourage its backers to employ such tactics?

[dalton99a]

7. The great campaign of the great man

with the best ideas EVER

[hlthe2b]

8. "Peer pressure should have no place in voting"-- Indeed

While I think the caucuses I've attended in the past were fairly genteel, there was pressure exerted and these are your neighbors, friends, even work colleagues. It isn't anonymous. It isn't private. And, yes, there are some who BULLY.

[Perseus]

9. I know, I understand, if your chosen candidate had been the winner you would not have posted this

Only when they other candidate wins things are rigged, things are a mess, etc., etc., etc.

This is a lost cause at DU, to try to make people understand that the goal is to:
1. Defeat trump
2. To make sure the General elections are not rigged by republicans and Russia
3. Defeat trump
4. To make sure the General elections are not rigged by republicans and Russia
5. continue repeating 1 through 4.

And who cares if any of our high qualified candidates win? Lets support who ever wins and stop the bickering.

[Zorro]

10. No you don't understand

I think caucuses are not the fairest way to vote in a primary, and have thought so for decades now.

[octoberlib]

20. This has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders, caucuses are undemocratic. Only about 10%

of Iowans show up for them every 4 years. It should be one person, one vote. Everybody deserves a voice without being bullied.

[Perseus]

31. I don't like them either but it is what we have and because we don't like them we need to start

yelling for change, the same with the Electoral College.

And one thing that should be doing is to wake people up, if they don't like the winner then they need to make sure the show up to the upcoming ones and decide for a new winner.

I see your point. Thank you.

[James48]

11. I'm for BERNIE

And I think caucuses stink.


I’m all for banning caucuses, and requiring primaries with open voting- allowing any registered voter to come and vote.

[Firebrand Gary]

12. K&R

[paleotn]

13. We need to boot the caucus thing completely.

I agree. Even if run properly, it's not democratic by definition.

[iluvtennis]

14. Yes, the way the Nevada caucus was run is very unfair. From what I read on the process, the early

voters choices weren't factored in until after the first choice and realignment had been done by those in person caucus folks.

This means those who were in person at the caucus could drive what candidate was #1 viable candidate no matter if the early voter tallies for the precinct had a different #1 viable candidate.

In my opinion the NV caucus process is un democratic. Why should people in person at the caucus have more voting power than the early voters. It's not right.

Below excerpt is from this article - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-do-nevada-caucuses-work-n1138216

How does the caucus work?

Democrats in Nevada caucus in much the same way as Democrats in Iowa. Caucus goers move around the caucus site, gathering in groups corresponding to the candidate that they support.

At most locations, candidates must have support from at least 15 percent of caucus goers in each precinct to be considered viable. Once all the attendees finish their first alignments, those with candidates who have reached viability are locked and cannot change their preferences. Those who are with nonviable groups (either a candidate or uncommitted) can realign with a viable group on a second alignment.

With those results, a formula awards delegates to viable candidates by precinct.

What about early voting?

There was an early voting window from Feb. 15 through Feb. 18. To vote early, a voter had to travel to one of the 82 early-vote locations, provided it was in the county in which they were registered. There was also one 24-hour early-vote site (at the Bellagio Hotel on the Las Vegas Strip) and several late-night locations for those who work odd hours in the Strip area. Read more about them here.

Early voters marked their first choice and at least two additional choices (up to four additional on top of their first choice) so their votes can be realigned if their top choices are not viable.

Early votes will be routed to the voter's home precinct on Caucus Day, so voters will be counted alongside their neighbors. That's different from Iowa, where the results of the "satellite caucuses" were counted as separate events.

*** Note the bold text *** The caucus goers set the viable candidate choices. The early voter choices (over 80,000 early voters) aren't reflected until the caucus goers set the viable candidate groupings.

[MrModerate]

15. Primaries with ranked voting. I wouldn't mind ranked voting for the general, either. n/t

[Amishman]

34. Ranked preference voting is a great idea and a way to get more ideological diversity

Adding that flexibility will make it easier for outdated husks like the Republican party die off and for something more functional to rise in its place.

[MrModerate]

35. In the best-of-all-possible-worlds...

It could lead to a breakup of the two-party system.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Washington had both a caucus and a primary in 2016.

The caucus determined the delegates. The primary had different results.

[NurseJackie]

18. Only when all party members have a chance to participate is it a fair exercise.

Regular voting hours, secret ballot, no intimidation, no bullying, no peer pressure.

Caucuses are antique turn of the century (1900's) and third-world shit.

[SunSeeker]

24. Exactly. nt

[reACTIONary]

29. +10 nt

[B Stieg]

19. I thought 80,000 people voted early!

Where in the heck are those votes? Is that the outstanding 50%?

[Wounded Bear]

21. Caucuses work in small communities and small groups...

not really appropriate for large populated states. All states should go to elections.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Caucus rules were agreed to by all prior to the election

You know, like the primary rules that so many here proclaim that Bernie must win the required number of delegates. You can’t call one process corrupt and the other not. The rules were well understood and accepted by all. I only see some complaining that they aren’t fair now.

[reACTIONary]

30. It's not any particular set of rules that is the problem, it's ...

.... the caucus system itself , under any set of rules.

At least in NV they had an alternative ranked choice primary option. Although that still didn't fix the problem:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=569645

They should go with the ranked choice primary and dispense with the caucus entirely.

[SunSeeker]

23. Closed primaries only! Enough with the ratfucking and vote suppressing chaos!

[PatrickforO]

25. You're right about caucuses.

Primaries are better.

[dlk]

26. Caucuses have long outlived their usefulness and relevance

They are a biased and outdated anachronism. They are also not representative of the actual will of the voters. Time to relegate them to history.

[Kurt V.]

27. the pressure on caucuses to report in the whirlwind news cycle is part of the problem

[Me.]

28. I Certainly Don't Trust Them

[mike507]

32. Take a deep breath -- There are some redeeming values to the Caucus process

I live in Nevada, I have participated and worked on three Caucuses; I spent pretty much all of yesterday volunteering at the Nevada Caucus. They may be a bit of a spectacle, they may be an anachronism; but they are not corrupt and I think the Nevada Democratic party made a great effort to give Nevadans a fair platform for having their votes counted.

The strongest criticism of the Caucus process - that they are undemocratic - because they require people to show up at specific time and place and spend several hours to complete the process is fair, however having four days of early voting I think was a reasonable solution. There was an adequate number of polling locations. As to rural voters, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but the realities of life in rural Nevada is: you can be 2+ hours from the nearest supper market, and a frightfully long way from medical care, if you live there, you are used to dealing with inconvenience.

I was a Precinct Chair. After checking people in, I went to my precinct and found the close to 40 people present had rearranged the chairs into a circle and were occupying themselves having a civilized and polite discussion of the candidates and getting to know each other.

The early voting results were added to the votes of the caucus participants before determining viability. During the realignment each group viable or not, was given the opportunity to make the case for their candidate. Only one speaker had any negative comments aimed at other candidates. And no, it was not the Bernie supporter. Nonviable groups knew how many people they need for viability and could have joined together to form a viable group.

During realignment, the preferences from early voting were added to the caucus total. Out of approximately 70 early votes in my precinct 5 ballets had no viable candidates chosen.

Several campaigns had observers in the room and were able to monitor and record the results.

So at the end of the day, groups of neighbors were able to work together to complete a common task.

Given my choice, I would have preferred a primary, but it was not a bad way to spend the day.

[scipan]

33. Thanks for your helpful report. Was anonymity preserved

For the early votes? Or at least preserved except for the counter?