Primary or Caucus which do you think is more democratic?

[Little Star]

~snip~
A primary:
is an election among supporters of the same party to choose that party's nominees to run in the general election. Depending on the laws of the state, voters may cast ballots for a party's presidential candidates themselves, or indirectly for convention delegates who are "pledged" to those candidates.~snip~

~snip
A caucus process:
partisans who live within a relatively small geographic area — a local precinct — get together and vote for delegates who are pledged to support specific candidates. Those delegates, in turn, represent their precinct at a county convention, which chooses delegates to attend the state convention. And the delegates to the state convention select delegates to represent the state at the national convention. Although this system involves several months, the candidate preferences are essentially determined in the first round of voting.~snip~


Which one disenfranchises more voters from helping select our presidential nominee?

I know this link is from 2004, but the premise between the two have not changed.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/nominate.htm

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Primary, by far...

We caucused, and I can't tell you how many people got discouraged by the crowds and had to turn away. There was no parking, traffic was backed up for miles. If we had had a primary running all day, I'm sure more people would have gotten a say. And I could have voted for John Edwards without being marginalized by the Obama/Clinton partisans.

[LisaM]

2. Primaries. Because you aren't forced into a tiny window of time.

Here in Washington, you could get a proxy for several things, but actually going to work was not one of them. So plenty of people couldn't go at all.

Further, this is designed to pick who's going to represent the parties. Nothing precludes people from holding caucuses or primaries to elect independent candidates.

[donheld]

3. Is it right to vote one way or the other if you haven't participated in both?

A little real experience goes a long ways.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. I have.

We use primaries for selecting our candidates for House and Senate. It works out much, much better.

[Strawman]

5. Primary

Primaries are associated with higher turnout. That's just a fact. They're much more democratic as long as all the candidates are listed on the ballot.

[cloudythescribbler]

6. Clearly primaries are more democratic. But many states don't want to spend the MONEY ...

One thing is that the very political conditions (popular apathy about the voting process) that enables state governments to be satisfied with caucuses only are the very thing that make the process so weird. People are not caucusing together with their 'communities' but typically largely with people they don't know. It is like the commonplace occurrence in activist groups that anyone who shows up to a meeting gets a vote; those who get tired leave early so at the end a few 'spartan asses' can get proposals passed with only a handful of people; all that kind of problem.

One problem is that the VAST majority of Americans have so little experience with serious grassroots involvement in an electoral politics, or with any kind of autonomous grassroots political mobilization (especially authentically progressive), such as forming a union or participating actively in the ORGANIZING & MEETING aspect of the peace movement, or any number of other activities, that the very understanding of and appreciation of what democracy is about becomes generally attenuated.

The notions of criticism, debate and advocacy under those conditions are often dismissed as 'negativity' and bickering, or 'telling people how to vote' etc. The lack of making any distinction between vigorous content debate (in which some excesses are inevitable) and just trashing someone plays into the hands of the wide net of inauthentic political forces operating at the astroturf roots level of US politics.

[bluescribbler]

7. Primaries have a secret ballot, caucuses don't

That in itself makes primaries more democratic.

[ctaylors6]

14. I agree! I also think the time restrictions of caucuses keep many from being able to vote

[Little Star]

8. Why do we remain silent and let the states undermine our votes?

It is our tax dollars after all. So many are being disenfranchised by caucus states we need to speak up about this.

[MadBadger]

9. Primaries, but rules are rules and everybody knew about them

[Little Star]

10. huh? I'm talking about future primary seasons. Sorry if I confused you.

[Zookeeper]

11. I certainly would have preferred a primary this year...

I had a family-crisis type commitment that couldn't be changed, so I wasn't able to vote since I wasn't available between 7:00 and 8:30 pm. And with the record-breaking turnout this year, who knows if I would have been able to park and get a ballot anyway.

I have been a delegate to the county convention in the past and the national candidates had already been decided. Let the precinct caucuses decide the party platform and choose local candidates and hold a primary that will allow more citizens the opportunity to vote.

[PATRICK]

12. A complex mess

if we were to discuss either the ideal process of either or the present cons of both. In caucuses you still have a plus for activism and group passion that is more than, but not absent from voting booths. Our voting booths today and the counting is compromised. The caucuses were not uniformly well set up. Both processes have different views about crossovers, independents that itself has pros and cons. The old argument about pressure, convenience, secret ballots, disenfranchisement are all there everywhere, still superior to the outright fraud wherever the GOP taints the system.

The decision to have caucuses is based on what? Expense? Activism and rewarding pasisonate party emmeber choice or the attraction of Independents with a view to the fall? At least it entails, still with an advantage to the money establishment, enthused large organization that money alone cannot make succeeed.
At least it isn't based on ads, media intervention, widespread pre-formed inclinations no campaign can pierce much less intimate and democtraticc arousal of groups to flood the voting booths.

The variety and the chance for ALL states to have a significant sat has made the system "work". At least that much is satisfying, these 50 snapshots of the party and people. Is it elegant? Is is fair in the aggregate or in the principles or in the character of each state?

Decisions to reform or change the system are practically based on the particular complaints of various campaigns and obvious flaws. I suggest they come around, as both media and voting critics have, to the need for a more universal view of overall reform. I don't think many people have a grasp of what the party, a party, wants and needs in democratic participation in choice of candidates. Those theat have have given us this conglomeration for a whole host of needs, many, too many, based on the evils of money in the whole system. So the one major thing that is not reformed creates to a large extent the groaning mess we have in voting systems and primaries. Rather than pick away at the scabs, let's go for the whole thing, easy, revolutionary and direct.

As to which is best, some states have both or some wierd combos. I would prefer state caucuses everywhere to nominate a SLATE of candidates and then a national RUNOFF election with at least two ballots and a cutoff plurality. The presentation of candidates has to be such that it meets the need to overcome name recognition or dense population favorites, whether by debates, intense mailings(presenting the whole slate) and whatever. This is off the cuff and open to any contrary views and common sense that I have unintentionally left out.

[Little Star]

13. I must agree, complex mess. No matter though, the bottom line

a caucus disenfranchises voters. I thought we were against all forms of disenfranchisement?

[PATRICK]

15. Lip service so far.

If the Ohio review was any indication. Dean's efforts are commendable but overall the whole party is hardly stepping up fast to prevent wholesale DOJ and SCOTUS supported voter ID scams from going ahead and failing to protect the voters next fall.

We need caucuses to get people out from under their isolation to discuss candidacies- not merely vote people off the island with a few thousand enthusiasts from the hinterland(or bused in helpers). That should include more participation in local candidates. That would enfranchise more choice in principle according to how it is earned from a wider selection of active party members. THEN the voter would have a representative, wider choice and something to be enfranchise for. All processes have pluses and minuses. All those factors can be used for political ends regardless or principles. As now. Voting booths are mathematically fairer now for sure and some caucuses are forced to be just a more difficult way to cast a ballot. Runoff elections in many cases would serve exactly the same purpose in today's setup, but locals speaking on behalf of candidates during the process is something of potential great worth.

The madness of playing a handwrenching game of survivor with dwindling campaign funds should force them to rethink this entire system, especially when it doesn't perfomr as crudely expected. Instead it was rigged and pushed to favor an early "decision" by as few states(and cheap microcosms) as possible and excluded too quickly more candidates than states instead. If it wasn't for the show, and some parallel media publicity, that nonethless excludes dozens of states from being any more than rubber stamps, the whole intent would have been to have the candidacy decided by focus groups and superdelegates.

[Little Star]

27. Did you ever hear of the internet, newspapers, debates, retail

politics, etc.??? People are not politically isolated in this day and age.

Besides disenfranchisement, my problem with a caucus is:
partisans who live within a relatively small geographic area — a local precinct — get together and vote for delegates who are pledged to support specific candidates. What the heck about the rest of the voters who do not have that close proximity or that certain time frame available to them?

[HeraldSquare212]

20. There's never 100% turnout for primaries.

Do you consider the people who didn't vote 'disenfrachised' and if so, what is your alternative voting method to fix that?

[calico1]

16. Primary, but I think all primaries should be

closed. Why allow a Republican or an Independent to have a say in who any of our candidates will be? Only people registered with a party should vote for that party's candidates.

[bicentennial_baby]

17. Some Independents always vote Dem...

Would you rather forego our votes?

[calico1]

22. No, but I think if you are Independent

you should not participate in primaries. Doesn't mean they can't vote for the nominee in Nov. If a person is a true Democrat then why not register as one? I know that there are a lot of registered Democrats or Republicans that don't vote for their own candidates but I think closed primaries cut down on Independents and Republicans messing with our primary results.

[bicentennial_baby]

23. Wow, thanks...

Shouldn't be able to vote in primaries? Jeebus.

I'm an Independent b/c I don't consider my beliefs to be fully in line with the Democratic party's platform in its current form. Were we to have a multi-party system, I would most likely be able to register for a party that I actually felt represented my beliefs more fully. Since I cannot, I will remain an Independent, and I'm glad that you don't make the rules.

[calico1]

28. No I don't make the rules.

I was also an Independent, or actually a "non affiliated" which is what it is here in CT. I had voted for all Democrats since 1992 but never bothered to register because I didn't really think it important. Then Lamont challenged Lieberman and it became important. I registered as a Democrat to help get him the Democratic nomination.

I have yet to meet any Democrat (or any Republican) that believes 100% in everything the candidates from their party do. But I think it is fair that if you mostly believe in a party's platform and want to participate in choosing the candidates, then you should register with that party. It isn't that I want to "disenfranchise" you. It's that I believe the results of a primary are more accurate if only members of the party participate. Unfortunatly, not all people who are not registered with a party have good intentions when participating in a primary for that party.

[Debi]

32. Here in Iowa we have same-day registration Bi-Baby

You can be a non-party voter 364 days out of the year and a Democrat on Primary/Caucus day :hi:

(Of course you'd have to move to Iowa.....:shrug:)

[bicentennial_baby]

33. Well, Sniffa *does* want to move to a caucus state!

:rofl:

[KAZ]

29. Part of the purpose of a primary is party building.

Kind of hard to do that with your plan.

[Johnny__Motown]

18. Looking for an excuse for all the loses? good luck with that, she loses primaries badly too

[KittyWampus]

19. Primary but ONLY if it uses instant run-off ballots.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. a CLOSED Primary

[Little Star]

24. Now that would be the real pure way for Dem's to select their

nominee!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. it's how NY does it.

[mckeown1128]

26. Open primary...

How are you going to get new voters locked in. My wife is Republican but voted for Obama down here in GA. She plans on voting for him in Novemver. Should she be excluded.


What about states like NH with large amounts of indies?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. a "limited" Primary then with allowance of only indies to vote in our race

[UALRBSofL]

25. primary

[southern_dem]

30. I have no preference

each state should pick whichever they want. I don't really see one as better than the other, they both have advantages and disadvantages.

[southern_dem]

31. PS

Also no registered Republicans in our primaries! I don't have a problem with Independents if they've been that way for at least 30-60 days.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

35. Caucus, definately caucus

for many reasons, but my favorite is, no voting machines!


You can't steal votes when you're counting bodies.

[Tashca]

36. I've done both.

Which is more democratic???...I guess that could be a different view from person to person. I question how democratic this whole system has been.....but that is another story.

I far and away prefer participating in a caucus. To me a primary is sort of ho-hum like a general election. A caucus a so much more social. I get very excited the closer the time gets to participate. I can see why they are intimidating to someone who has never participated before. I would guess the next time they caucus they will be ready to join the fun.
The problem this year has not been the caucus process.....but instead the overwhelming turnout. Most people that organize these events are volunteers and run them based on past experience. The numbers have been overwhelming for these people. My guess is that in the future there will be many more sites and smaller groups. I have been doing them since 1980....I haven't participated every time, but would absolutely hate changing to a primary.....I like to know my vote counted.

[VotesForWomen]

37. one day national primary. nt

[Beaverhausen]

39. I observed a caucus and usually vote in Primaries - caucuses disenfranchise some voters

Anyone who has to work or can't physically attend a caucus at the specific time is disenfranchised. A primary lasts 12 hours and usually there is an absentee voting option.

[bigwillq]

40. Dupe

[bigwillq]

41. Dupe

[bigwillq]

42. Primaries

At least this way you can vote for the candidate you really want to.

[no name no slogan]

43. A mix of both is best. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses

Primaries are admittedly easier to vote in. However, they also promote "drive-by" activism, where people with little or no stake in the outcome get to choose the candidate for the party.

Caucuses are good because you have no choice but to be involved in the process. It takes a commitment to caucus. Unfortunately, that can also prohibit participation by many groups who would be effectively shut out of the process.

The current mix is pretty good, IMHO: we get a wide swath of participiation with primaries, but we also get serious activists who have a geniune will to work for/in the party with the caucuses.