Caucuses -- good or bad, based on personal experience

[TheDoorbellRang]

Poll question: Caucuses -- good or bad, based on personal experience

There is another thread by Cant trust em discussing the value of caucuses, and I thought it might be helpful to see how personal experience (if any) with caucusing affects one's POV.

Let's see:

[skipos]

1. There are good things and bad things about them

What I find odd is the number of people (including the Clintons) complaining about them now. Why weren't they complaining about them before this primary season?

[TheDoorbellRang]

4. The same could be said about primaries, I think

There are both good things and bad things about primaries. That's why I like the mix of both.

[LisaM]

11. I complained about them in 2004!

Don't like the system.

2004 wasn't as rancourous.

[skipos]

14. Good. Did the Clintons?

Have they ever done anything get caucuses replaced with primaries? That is what I would like to know.

[LisaM]

22. Well, I don't believe that the Clintons were running a national campaign then

so I really can't answer your question.

It's the state parties who choose these things.

[skipos]

34. Well Bill did participate in caucuses to become President, right?

Have they ever SAID ANYTHING about how "unfair" caucuses are prior to 2008? I would like to know if they

1. have always had a problem with caucuses
2. only have a problem with caucuses when Hillary loses them

I am not asking you this question specifically, I'd like to hear from anyone.

State parties decide many things that national politicians have opinions about.

[livetohike]

2. Years ago, I participated in caucuses in MN - it was the first

place I ever lived that voted that way and I loved it. The dynamics of the process were interesting to a first timer and I remember thinking that this is the way it should be with people proud to say who they were voting for and why.

[TheDoorbellRang]

9. They definitely attract the dedicated voters, that's for sure

[MonkeyFunk]

24. So where's the cut-off?

Why not make it an all-day affair? You'll get the really committed voters that way.


How 'bout a three-day retreat? You'll get only the MOST committed voters!

Democrats have spent decades trying to remove obstacles to voting - now a bunch of you want to overturn that. It makes as much sense as turning your backs on working-class voters.

[TheDoorbellRang]

30. Wait -- overturn what?

I and a "bunch" of others here didn't instigate caucuses -- they've been around for decades. I agree some revamping of the processes would be in order after this season, but it's amazing to me to see the vitriole surfacing against caucuses this year when hardly a whimper was made in previous decades.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. Because there's never been

a primary race this close where the outcome of the caucuses mattered so much. It got more people thinking about them and examining them more closely.

[Lucinda]

3. I need a qualifier

I love the IDEA of a caucus and am supportive of them, PROVIDING they start making absentee/early voter options available. Anything less that that is unacceptable to me.

[TheDoorbellRang]

7. I think there are some caucus states that have that provision

Maybe that should be one of the modifications made by states who disallow that after this season is over.

[Selatius]

5. In terms of voter participation, caucuses are simply too bulky and awkward.

They are fine for a small number of people, but if everybody wanted to get involved, the system becomes hopelessly overcrowded.

A more democratic method that is scalable to include as many people as willing to participate should be found. The point should not be to disenfranchise voters but to empower as many of them as possible.

[TheDoorbellRang]

13. That's why I like the Texas two-step

The primary for everyone to have their say. Then the caucus for the people who are truly dedicated and informed about their candidates, and willing to spend some time promoting them to others.

[Ronnie]

19. As a Texan I think the two-step system is unDemocratic.

My husband and I got to vote twice. That doesn't seem either democratic or Democratic to me. I say that even though my caucus went for Sen. Clinton.

[TheDoorbellRang]

26. crispini (from Texas also) is the one who convinced me

on the benefits of the Texas two-step. First of all, I think it's important to remember that the selection of a party nominee in the primary season is distinct from voting for the president in the fall. The latter is one of our inalienable rights, the former is actually just popular input to help the political party select a viable candidate. So the two-step is more like taking two opinion polls IMO.

When everyone votes in a primary, the party gets input from everyone, including the low information voter (and opposition party-poopers). When a caucus is held, there is participation by the party activists -- the ones who are very up on their candidate's issues and who are dedicated and passionate about democracy. The way Texas has it set up, the first group gets over twice as many delegates as the second group, but they get a better overall picture when all is said and done.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. ah

well if voting is just a suggestion to the party on who to choose, and "high information voters" are more important than us regular folk, why not just let superdelegates decide the whole thing? They're probably the highest information voters.

If they choose Clinton, I presume nobody will object then.

[TheDoorbellRang]

42. The primary votes get over twice the delegates as the caucus votes

as I had said, so the "regular" folk have over twice the voice of the party activists. Their opinion has to be taken into account -- even the ones who say "I'm for the woman ... what's her name again?" or "I heard he's a muslim and has a crazy Christian preacher." Sadly, you can't just count on the thinking voters in a general election, you need a majority.

[newmajority]

6. You need another option on this poll

"Did you disapprove of caucuses BEFORE Hillary Clinton started losing them?"

[TheDoorbellRang]

8. LOL

Hey, I'm trying to be objective here. :D

[MonkeyFunk]

12. I did

I've always opposed anything that's a barrier to voting. Democrats traditionally have.

I don't see how we can fight for decades to make voting easier for people, then defend such a burdensome process. It makes no sense at all. Would people support requiring people to be at a particular place at a particular time for a few hours for the general election?

[TheDoorbellRang]

15. Hmmm.

Would people support requiring people to be at a particular place at a particular time for a few hours for the general election?

Well, there's never been a loud objection by the people to the voters in some inner cities waiting in line for several hours to vote in a general election.;(

But back to your point. I do understand that caucuses may be hard for all to attend. OTOH, I've read several posts by caucus goers on how invigorating and affirming caucuses can be. I personally like having a mix of both primaries and caucuses, and would actually prefer to see a Texas two-step done in every state.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. There certainly HAS been loud objection!!

Of course we objected to long lines at polling places! How can you think otherwise?

But why would you want the Texas system done everywhere? If the goal is to measure the will of the voters, Texas clearly failed. When voting was easy for everyone to do, they voted one way. When the more restrictive caucuses were used, they voted differently.

The goal ought to be gauging the will of the electorate. If you want a positive, affirming experience, get a massage.

[newmajority]

33. Well, it's "easy" for people to vote on a Diebold machine

But does that mean we should do so?

The bottom line is an accurate process. As I said in another thread, even though the precinct officer in charge of my caucus was a Hillary supporter, I had no worries about the integrity of the process, as the rules in place ensured a fair and unbiased counting of the votes.

Can you guarantee me that the results in Ohio or PA were accurate? You can't because they were counted on Diebold machines, and there's no real record of a vote. Just numbers in the cell of a spreadsheet, which could have easily been altered after the fact. Or even during the fact, depending on what kind of code was uploaded to the machine.

Should voting be easy as possible? Sure. But never at the expense of accuracy.

Mathematically, its impossible for Chimp Bush to have won the 2004 election. He lost in 2000, by over 500,000 votes. Between 2000 and 2004, he had people dropping off from just about every sub-group of conservatism. And the new voters in 2004 were not signing up to vote for the incumbent. So if you start off behind by a half million, and then you lose even one percent of your base (and it had to be more than that) it's impossible to win the next election.

Forget Ohio. I say that if an accurate count of the nationwide 2004 vote existed, Kerry would have won in a landslide. It's simply not possible for any other result to be legitimate.

Yet it can't be proven. And the only way we'll beat that scam this year, is with a massive turnout, with Democrats winning the down ballot races all over. Fortunately, the down ballot races are already happening. And I hope we can do something SERIOUS about this electoral bullshit with President Obama and a REAL majority in both houses next year.

Until then, they'll have to pry my ....... nah, I'm not walking into that double entendre :evilgrin:

[MonkeyFunk]

38. what?

Why are you conflating the two issues?

Get rid of the machines.

Get rid of the caucuses.

They're two separate issues - I don't see how the existence of machines argues for caucuses.

[onehandle]

10. I'm not a Hillary supporter and I say caucuses and open primaries make the results skeptical.

There are no solid numbers to enforce reality in a caucus.

And I don't want Republicans and Looneytarians picking my Democratic candidates.

If we had straight Democratic primary elections, this primary would have been over a while back.

[TheDoorbellRang]

16. One problem with democratic closed primaries only

is the exclusion of independent voters. Independents make up about one third of the electorate and are the real swing voters in a general election. Inviting their input in primaries better reflects how the general election may go in the fall.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Then we should encourage them to become democrats

Democrats ought to pick the democratic candidate.

[TheDoorbellRang]

35. We encourage them to become democrats by inviting them into the system

via primaries. I'm an Independent who has voted straight democratic ballots since 2002. But I still consider myself an Independent. And there are as many of us out there as there are Democrats or Republicans. About the only thing Independents have in common is that we are candidate oriented instead of political party oriented. I would imagine the DNC is quite happy to see indys choosing their candidate this year.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Sorry

I just disagree. IF you want to help decide the democratic nominee, become a democrat.

I don't get to vote for the head of the Teamsters union because I'm not a teamster - but I don't expect them to let me vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Yes

Clinton likely would've wrapped it up already if we'd had closed, democratic primaries.

[Lisa0825]

17. Texas Two Step

I have particiapted in 2004 and 2008, and I think it's a great system - gives people a primary vote and those who are motiovated activists cane come back and make a difference for additional delegates.

[Ronnie]

23. I hate to repeat myself, but

As a Texan, I think the two-step system is unDemocratic.
My husband and I got to vote twice. That doesn't seem either democratic or Democratic to me. I say that even though my caucus, a very civilized affair, went for Sen. Clinton.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Why is that desirable?

Is the goal not to measure the will of the electorate? Why should people who have the luxury of attending a caucus have a larger voice than other people?

The fact that the caucus results differed so much from the primary results shows that caucuses are a lousy way to gauge the will of the electorate.

[Swamp Rat]

25. I like to vote

:)

[Writer]

28. Back when information wasn't at our fingertips, they made sense.

Because the caucus goers could share information and debate with one another, so that everyone can make better informed decisions. Today? They're bogus because nearly everyone attends with their minds already made up, and they permit local party bosses to pack the houses and steer an election in the way they wish. Also, they disenfranchise working voters or voters who simply cannot make the caucus itself.

They're undemocratic. They're antiquated. They need to GO.

BTW: Yes, I attended mine here in CO. There was virtually no discussion, and we had to rush through every part of it in order to make the time deadline to report back to the state.

[Creideiki]

29. Big fan of closed primaries

If you're a fence-sitter, then talk to your party-member friends, but, well, sit out the decision-making.

As for primaries themselves, if we accept the argument that participation is good for the process and that primaries have higher turnout across the board than caucuses, then primaries are clearly better.

[Writer]

31. Much agreed.

I especially like the idea of CLOSED primaries. That way Republicans cannot influence state votes.

[Creideiki]

32. Yup

I don't want Republicans attempting to throw things toward Hillary (or any other candidate for that matter.)

[MonkeyFunk]

40. If every state had closed primaries

it would benefit Clinton. She does better with party members than with primary voters overall.

[Creideiki]

41. I don't care who would benefit

Although honestly, I think it would have benefited Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards more.

The Democratic nominee should be the nominee of the Democratic Party. As long as we allow centrists to vote in our primary, we'll continue to get pulled further to the Right. Screw that. Let the Democratic Party go back to being the party of honest-to-God liberals (or progressives if you prefer--I use the terms interchangeably (and I'm really more liberal than, well, damn near everyone alive)).

Having just been through my first caucus after years of primaries, have to say, not a fan.