Were Caucuses Always Unfair and Undemocratic to All Parties in All Years, or just 2008?

[peoli]

Because I don't remember a year ever where this was even an issue brought up by anyone from either party. Somehow this year caucuses are unfair and undemocratic. But are they? Are they more unfair than 'open primaries'? Are they more unfair than having votes being counted with hackable machines?
If someone can remember from years past when a candidate threw a fit about caucuses please let me know or link something, because I cant find a damn thing.

[NightWatcher]

1. just in 2008 and just to the loser of said caucus...Hillary

[K Gardner]

2. They'd be fine if Hillary were winning them. No candidate that I know of has

ever complained about caucuses. But I hope Hillary supporters will correct me, because I'm certain Hillary wouldn't just be a sore loser, would she?

[antigop]

12. If you check some of the other threads in GD-P, you'll find supporters of both candidates

who don't like caucuses (for a myriad of reasons.)

There are legitimate concerns being brought up by both sides.

[K Gardner]

3. dupe

[cosmik debris]

4. Nope, It wasn't a problem until

the anointed one lost.

[dsc]

5. We largely didn't care before

In most years, it didn't matter since the races were over so soon. This year it matters.

[antigop]

7. Yes, that is a valid point. And I'm NOT a Hillary supporter. Never have been.n/t

[ctaylors6]

21. It also hasn't been this close in a while. Any voting issues stand out more

when a race is close. Even hanging chads wouldn't have been an issue if the vote difference had been 300,000.

Totally agree about it lasting long too. I can't remember TX mattering (I'm in TX). The primary was barely on the radar, so the caucuses certainly weren't. I know lots of regular party supporters who'd never caucused before for that reason.

[antigop]

29. Exactly! n/t

[neverforget]

6. If one side can mobilze more voters to show up for the caucus, then that

side wins. I don't hear the Hillary campaign or their supporters trashing Nevada for their win there.:shrug:

[Medusa]

8. Never heard a peep about how "unfair" they were until this year

:eyes:

[Catch22Dem]

9. Bush complained about them a LOT in 2000

Hey, another way Bush and Hillary are similar!

[antigop]

10. Up until now a lot of people really didn't understand how it worked.

Now that they do, they are speaking up about how they don't like the system.

And again, I say this as a poster who has NEVER supported HRC.

<edit> The people I have spoken to find the whole process ridiculous and would prefer ONE primary on the SAME day with NO caucuses.

[Skittles]

11. in most years the nominee is a done deal before voting gets anywhere NEAR ME

yes they have ALWAYS BEEN UNFAIR AND UNDEMOCRATIC

[antigop]

13. Thank you, Skittles. That is exactly what some of us have been trying to say. n/t

[scheming daemons]

Caucuses were just fine with the Hill-folk up through Nevada.....

...it was only AFTER that they became evil forms of voter disenfranchisement.

[antigop]

15. Please check some of the other discussions in GD-P. Both sides are raising issues. n/t

[scheming daemons]

14. Caucuses were just fine with the Hill-folk up through Nevada.....

...it was only AFTER that they became evil forms of voter disenfranchisement.

[Yes We Did]

16. Just in '08, and just in the states Hillary lost. n/t

[SoCalDem]

17. Bill Clinton didn't complain about the when he won twice n/t

[depakid]

18. Sure they were

Perhaps even more so- because turnout tended to be in the single digits, and tend to exclude whole categories of people.

Whether you remember anyone throwing a "fit" is irrelevant, since the nominations for the past 20 years have pretty well been sewn up without even having to look to the caucuses.

[depakid]

19. Sure they were

Perhaps even more so- because turnout tended to be in the single digits, and tend to exclude whole categories of people.

Whether you remember anyone throwing a "fit" is irrelevant, since the nominations for the past 20 years have pretty well been sewn up without even having to look to the caucuses.

[AtomicKitten]

20. It's a sales campaign for possible future litigation - kinda like their push on Florida and Michigan

[pingzing58]

22. I had never heard of the Texas Two Step until now. My parents have never been aware of the caucus

after the vote until this year and they are octogenarians. I heard a precinct captain say that at the caucus they usually have about five show up in past years and sometimes fewer. So there you have it. The Dem Leaders of Texas have been controlling the election for quite some time. But, as we can see the popular vote went for Hillary but Obama was able to inspire more excitment about going to the caucuses. I believe that we have been deceived for all of these years and am very dissapointed with this Dem Leader treachery.

[cosmik debris]

26. You blame others for your own ignorance?

If you had taken the time and put out the effort to learn the rules You would have no one but yourself to blame. But since you didn't learn how the system works you blame the leadership.

So who elects the leadership? You do.

Who is responsible for the actions of their elected leaders? You are.

Quit playing the blame game and do your part.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport.

[pingzing58]

34. snark. are you finished?

[cosmik debris]

37. I'm a participant, not a spectator

Those of us who actually participate in Party Politics are never finished.

Those of you who sit in the bleachers and point fingers are finished before the game even starts.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[antigop]

33. The Texas Two Step? Oh, that's good. n/t

[TheZug]

23. Just this year, when Hillary's running.

Gee, I can't seem to recall Bill whining about them before.

http://iwillwalkaway.blogspot.com

[MagsDem]

24. They are complete bullshit

They are getting more attention this year because the vote is so close. Case in point -- in WA state Obama won the caucus, and thus the delegates by 30%. In the primary, several weeks later, where no delegates were awarded he won by only 3%, which would have split the delegates 50/50. Caucuses have NEVER been a democratic way of giving the people a voice in their nominee for the presidential election. And they never will be. Obama would not be ahead by ANY delegates if we actually had a democratic process.

[antigop]

28. I agree with the "bullshit" tag. And I am NOT an HRC supporter. n/t

[Umbram]

30. Why do I have a feeling...

that no process whatsoever would be fair in some people's mind unless it happened to also be the same process that caused their preferred candidate to win the nomination?

I find it fairly telling that it's easy to predict who supports caucuses and who doesn't by which of the two candidates a person supports. Then again, critical thinking and partisan politicking are mutually exclusive skill sets, so it doesn't come as much of a surprise.

[antigop]

32. ARGGGH! BOTH sides are questioning. Not just HRC supporters. n/t

[NEDem]

25. Nope, just this year, because Hillary lost.

[antigop]

31. No, there are supporters from BOTH sides raising legitimate concerns.

It's not just the Hillary supporters.

[UTUSN]

27. they ALWAYS suck!1 It's a CULT thing!1 n/t

[Mooney]

35. Just 2008

I have never heard a single complaint about them, ever, until Hillary started losing them.

On the upside though, the characterization of caucuses as violent thugocracies where helpless old ladies cower in fear from rambunctious evildoers has made me laugh out loud a few times.

[CitizenLeft]

36. finally, somebody said it

Thank you.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. Always. 100%. Not a two-sided issue. They've always been anti-democratic

[Stephanie]

40. In 1992 they were just fine.

They were good in 1996 too. In 2000 and 2004 they didn't matter. Like Vermont.