If caucuses are so undemocratic

[dansolo]

I find it funny that the same people crying about how undemocratic caucuses are also the ones who want the superdelegates to give the nomination to Hillary even though Obama has the lead in pledged delegates.

[aaaaaa5a]

1. They Talk About Michigan And Florida....

But they have no problems writing off the votes and results of many smaller states.

Oops! except for West Virgina.

I forgot all small states are unimportant except West Virginia, because we all know that's where the "heart of the democratic party lives."

Clinton Math... 1+1=3

[AZ Criminal JD]

6. What small states is Clinton "writing off the votes"?

She wants every vote counted. Obama supporters are incapable of telling the truth.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Why doesn't her campaign's "popular vote" math count the IA, NV, WA, or ME caucuses?

[AZ Criminal JD]

11. The same reason Obama doesn't count them either.

Those states don't release vote totals. Yet another argument against the caucus system. Thanks for making it.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Evidence Obama "doesn't count them?" His campaign is saying, correctly, that it's all about

delegates, and he certainly does count their delegates. Do you have links to Obama referring to a popular-vote count, and leaving out those four states?

And doesn't completely discounting four states conflict with wanting to "count every vote?" Wouldn't accepting the estimates be at least better than completely ignoring every voter in those states?

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. The campaigns can't count them if they don't release the votes.

By entering the caucus Obama agreed to those rules.

[verges]

34. Kinda the same way

Clinton agreed to the rules in FL/MI?

[AZ Criminal JD]

35. Exactly the reason I put it that way.

Obama has put "rules" above reason as if these rules come down from God. People who live by "rules" may die from them.

[Occam Bandage]

36. They can't release what they don't have, which is why the popular-vote "argument" is a crock.

If you want to hold it up as a metric, you entirely disenfranchise four states.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. I can't speak for the other states, but Washington had a primary.

at least three times as many people voted in the D primary than the caucus.

[anonymous171]

22. That didn't count.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. If we're talking about the "popular vote", it sure the hell does. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Lol. I voted in both.

Which counts?

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. The caucus, because how people vote doesn't really matter.

If you believe that how they vote is relevant, then the primary.

[Occam Bandage]

40. People vote at caucuses, you know. And NV, IA, and ME didn't hold primaries. Why do you think

that their voices shouldn't matter?

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. In the absence of a primary, the best one can do to determine popular sentiment

is to extrapolate the caucus.

As the states (such as Washington) who conduct both a caucus and primary have shown, that is not a reliable metric of voter support.

[Occam Bandage]

46. So do you oppose extrapolating the caucus in ME, NV, and IA? Why, do you think, does Hillary?

Oh, and also: Comparing the primary and caucus in WA is illegitimate, as they were held at different times. Obama supporters could rest comfortably, knowing he had already won their state; Hillary supporters had a reason to go out and 'fight back' against Obama's caucus win. Hell, even comparing the primary and caucus in TX is dishonest, since Hillary put more effort into the primaries, and Obama more effort into the caucuses.

[democrattotheend]

49. A lot of people who went to the caucus did not vote in the primary

Because if they were at the caucus, they knew that the primary did not matter. And Hillary's campaign actually had people calling to whip up turnout for the meaningless beauty contest, probably to make the point you guys are trying to make. Obama's campaign did not do anything to encourage turnout for the primary because they knew it did not matter.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Right. Because the primary was after the caucus, the Hillary people had incentive to go

to the primary, while the Obama people had absolutely no incentive to do so.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Ever been to a caucus?

[Occam Bandage]

43. I have. It's time-consuming, but at the same time, it's quite rewarding. It was actually where

I got my start in the Dem party; I signed up as a delegate to the district convention, where I met a few local politicians and ran for a precinct vice-chair position. And no, I did not see (or ever hear) of any sort of intimidation tactic--nor had anyone before Hillary lost caucus states.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Everyone works together to get people what they want, has been my experience.

It usually favors "fringe" candidates.

15% for viability.
Ten at a table.
1.5 for viability.
5 for Candidate A.
3 for Candidate B.
1 for Candidate C.
1 for Candidate D.

Usual reult:

5 for A.
2 for B.
2 for C.
1 for D.

The non-viable delegates get 30% even though they had 20% representation.

Everyone works together.

[Occam Bandage]

50. That's my experience, too. It's communal, not antagonistic.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. I agree 100%.

No point in talking to you. Fuck off! :D

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Yes. '04

It was an off-putting experience.

I didn't bother this time, and from anecdotal evidence, I'm glad I didn't.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Off-putting, how?

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. No one likes to admit to being subject to peer pressure.

In 2004, we went into the caucus feeling that getting up early on a Saturday morning and finding friends to watch our kids was a worthwhile exercise and worth the sacrifice. I was excited and didn't know exactly what to expect. I thought it was a good opportunity to express my support for Dennis Kucinich, even though I knew he had little chance.

At the time, I was a city councilperson. The husband of another councilperson (a guy I like and respect) was the precinct captain. I thought it was interesting but a little sad that the basement of the city library was only about half-full, mostly of the same people I saw attend council meetings. Call it 60 people out of a town of 3600.

Like I said, despite having voted in every election, this was my first caucus. I was ignorant of how it worked. So I was immediately taken aback (being raised on the idea that a secret ballot is a core principle of elections in the US) when the precinct captain went around the table asking which candidate the person was there to support. When I said "Kucinich" the precinct captain (a Kerry supporter - I could tell by the t-shirt) looked at me with that look you get when the waitress presents you with something you didn't order. He kind of shook his head, chuckling, while asking the next participant the same question. :grr:

When I was (surprise!) the only Kucinich supporter in the room, and after back and forth electioneering, which in some cases would constitute browbeating, I decided to cast my lot in with the handful of Deaniacs (this was just a couple of days after the scream).

Unsurprisingly the guy on the precinct captain's t-shirt won the large majority of the participants.

If I recall correctly, that didn't work out so well for us.

[democrattotheend]

52. So you weren't disenfranchised?

You just did not bother. Something tells me that was the case for a lot of Hillary's voters.

I saw 2 DUers today say they took the time to caucus but did not bother filling out their primary ballot because they knew it would not count. Yet you are proposing counting the vote you cast in the meaningless beauty contest but disenfranchising the 2 DUers who took the time to caucus but did not fill out a ballot they were told would not count. How is that fair?

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Do you have any children with disabilities?

If so, then how did you get away for a half-day on a Saturday to do what you can do in most states from your kitchen table?

If not, then drop the judgmentality, because you are wholly ignorant about the nature of "not bothering".

[democrattotheend]

63. "Didn't bother" were your words

Sorry about your kids...wasn't trying to be judgmental. You were the one who used the words "didn't bother".

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. I'm sorry for snapping at you, you're right.

I'm tired and carrying on variants of this conversation on a couple of threads.

:hi:

[democrattotheend]

66. No worries

Hopefully all this animosity will die down soon. And I am really sorry if I offended you...did not know about your kids.

[roguevalley]

55. that people vote, counts, caucus or not. jeez.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. self delete - doubletap.

[Liberal Gramma]

69. And Obama won them both.

[anonymous171]

16. What about my vote in the WA state caucus? Yeah, all votes my ass.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. So you didn't return your primary ballot? n/t

[anonymous171]

20. Uh, no, because it didn't count. I already voted.

Many others did the same.

[verges]

32. It's interesting.......

when finding Obama's faults---- people tend to rely on things OTHER people say and do. Supporters, Rev Wright, Michelle.... But when finding Sen Clinton's faults---people are usually able to rely on what Sen Clinton says and does.


hmmmmmmm.

[Forkboy]

2. 99% of them had no problems with them beforehand.

And 99% of them will do nothing about them after the election.

[quantass]

3. Honestly, i keep forgetting she's even around...just days away before its official

[AZ Criminal JD]

7. Not going to be official in days.

But maybe you get different news in Canada.

[DerekJ]

4. Obama is winning with or without the caucus states.

[MGKrebs]

5. You think we got it bad...

The Georgia GOP held their state convention yesterday. Now you may remember that Huckabee won Georgia, but despite that, the convention decided to make ALL of their delegates McCain delegates. I don't think we could even do that on our side.
Ron Paul got 3% here and his people apparently were pissed too.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Why is it funny?

The argument is that the superdelegates should correct the flaws in the system, and those include undemocratic caucuses.

That's the role of the superdelegates - to make decisions based on more than just the pledged delegate count. You seem to think the pledged delegate count is automatically a reflection of the will of democratic voters, or that superdelegates somehow are obligated to go along with the pledged delegate leader. That's not the case - and that's what Clinton's arguing.

[Occam Bandage]

14. So if the argument is that superdelegates are supposed to correct the results of caucuses,

why did all parties involved with the Democratic primary agree to have caucuses? Wouldn't that be easier?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. states decide whether to have caucuses or primaries

I don't think "all parties involved" agree to them. But the fact is, they're not democratic - I hope this year will highlight some of the problems and states change their approach.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Who in the DNC challenged the legitimacy of the caucus system? I hadn't heard

a single word about anyone calling them "undemocratic" or suggesting that superdelegates ought to discount them--up until the point where Hillary realized that she'd have to find a way to discount them in order to win, that is.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. I didn't say anybody challenged them

I questioned that the parties involved "agreed" to them. I don't think the DNC and all the candidates were sent a form asking if they approved.

I find the argument odd that complaints about them aren't valid unless they were filed a long time ago. The fact is, more attention has been put on the caucuses this year than ever before, and now a lot more people understand the problems with them.

I hope that all states will switch to primaries for 2012.

[Occam Bandage]

70. And I didn't say they signed off on a form specifically asking about caucuses.

By agreeing to participate in the Democratic nomination process, they agreed to all the rules by which it is governed. And those rules include delegates chosen by caucuses. If the DNC so desired, it could announce that it would, going forward, refuse to seat any delegates which were not chosen by primaries. And if any DNC member so desired, they could make a public or private push for primaries. HRC thought caucuses were just dandy until she needed a way to invalidate the public perception of her losses.

We've had caucuses for decades. To suggest that only now, after Clinton failed to contest them (in perhaps the worst example of political judgment in years) did anyone realize their advantages and disadvantages is, frankly, laughable. I was involved in organizing my district's Minnesota caucus in 2000. And yes, even then we heard the higher-ups debating whether primaries were better, whether we should push for a change, and whether the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. And, of course, they decided to stay with the caucus format, since the 'disadvantages' were largely illusionary and the party-building advantages were undeniable.

A few states might switch to primaries, but I doubt you'll see much of a change. Hillary supporters are outraged, of course, but for most, I'm thinking that's the type of outrage that will fade along with her candidacy.

[CreekDog]

10. that's the irony: their solution is less Democratic than the caucuses

but all sense of irony was lost on this issue. it called "politics". :think:

[MonkeyFunk]

26. How so?

if the pledged delegates don't reflect the will of the voters, hwo is asking superdelegates to fix that "undemocratic"?

You guys are under the delusion that a) the pledged delegate count is the best reflection of the popular will and b) the "default" and "right" role of the superdelegates is to rubber-stamp the pledged delegate count. Both are wrong.

[Occam Bandage]

37. Because that "will of the voters" entirely ignores the voters in four states.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. I never said that

but why bother? We will never have a rational discussion about caucuses because everybody makes it about partisan politics and refuses to address the real issues.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Many of those "real issues" are simply bullshit presented as fact, like "caucuses are undemocratic."

Caucuses lower turnout. Everyone knows this. Caucuses historically favor the elderly and longtime party activists. Everyone knows this. This year, Obama proved caucuses could also include the young and energetic. Everyone knows this, too. There is no reason to believe that the process favored one candidate over the other. Caucuses also provide great opportunities to increase the ranks of the party, to recruit activists, to bring attention/funding/manpower to House and local races, and to allow the party to bring the laity into the planning process. If we went 100% caucuses nationwide (so long as the vote was at the beginning, was on a paper ballot, and people could leave afterwards, such as in Minnesota--and if there was an absentee process, such as in Maine), I would not mind a bit.

Hillary did not invest much time or money in caucus states. Obama did. That is the primary reason why caucuses were skewed so heavily Obama. In states where both candidates contested the caucuses--IA and NV--the final results were in line with pre-caucus polling.

[BklynChick]

12. good point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Of course, the reverse is also true.

"To be credible, the superdelegates must validate the votes of the select group of voters who participated through caucuses."

They both suck. The caucuses are designed to keep control as close as possible. If even that aristrocratic process yields another McGovern, the superdelegates are empowered to pick anyone they damn well choose.

[bhikkhu]

18. Caucuses pre-date the Revolution

And were used to select the members of the Continental Congress and as a big part of the process of electing every president we have ever had.

Not that everything is perfect, but to suddenly say caucuses are unfair and undemocratic and inherently flawed? Its a bit ridiculous, and the sort of argument that only serves to cast doubt for a time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. The anonymous vote predates this country. n/t

[bhikkhu]

27. But no one is questioning the anonymous vote. (Are they?)

[mcctatas]

28. Doh...

looks like someone is...

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Have you *been* to a caucus?

Here in Washington, it's anything but anonymous. All of your neighbors gather 'round to browbeat you about supporting the wrong candidate. Fun.

http://www.theseattletraveler.com/washington-state-caucus-primer/

[Occam Bandage]

41. I have. I've never seen any "browbeating." And I haven't heard of any evidence of such,

save unsupported anecdotes from people with agendas.

[bhikkhu]

56. There are advantages and disadvantages either way.

I've never been to a caucus myself, but I don't recall ever hearing that the process was unfair in the past thirty years or so.

I take it as the loser not liking the result, so finding fault with the process. Fair enough, but there are states with 200 year traditions that positively will not change to satisfy outside discontent. And from there the situation becomes an "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the fire" thing, a complaint without solution.

[bvar22]

61. The Minnesota Caucus 2004....

...was done with anonymous paper ballots, hand counted.

The Hillary Campaign has pronounced Caucuses "Undemocratic" as if they suddenly just discovered that such a thing exists.


I have voted in both Caucuses and Closed Primaries.
I prefer Caucuses.
If you care, you'll be there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. If you care, and you don't work saturday morning, and you don't have small kids...

... or anyone at home with a disability or any sort of illness or other reason for voting absentee, and if you are available at exactly 8:30 am.

This "if you care you'll be there" shit is wearing thin. The party I joined up with is the party opposed to poll taxes. It is opposed to caging lists. It is the party that championed motor voter. It is the party which opposes proof of citizenship at the polling place. It is the party which opposes literacy tests.

... unless we're talking about caucuses. The higher the hurdle to participation, the better. As a parent of a child who will never be able to be left alone, either my wife or I are disenfranchised.

The reasons for Washington having a primary are eminently valid
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/pdf/2008PP/PP%20MFQ%20Updated%20August%202007%20Final.pdf

Q: Why does Washington have a Presidential Primary?
In 1988, more than 200,000 Washington voters signed an Initiative to the Legislature proposing that a Presidential
Primary be held. The Legislature adopted the initiative in 1989, and it is authorized in Chapter 29A.56 of the
Revised Code of Washington. The law states:
The…presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily
restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm,
women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and
therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in
our democratic system of government.
The Legislature further emphasized that the presidential selection process must be more open and representative of
the will of the people.
A Presidential Primary allows each Washington voter to participate in the nomination process, not just political
party insiders who participate in the caucuses.

The reasons for the Washington State Democrats to circumvent the will of the voters of Washington are not.

[bvar22]

73. Just can't get it done?

Nominating the Party represenative for the Presidential election is one your MOST IMPORTANT duties as a citizen of a democracy.....but if you can't find a couple of hours every 4 years.....

Your excuses sound pathetic and whiney.

STAND UP!
Make the EFFORT!

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. Kiss my fuzzy ass.

I spent 12 years doing my civic duty as an elected official, unless I miss my guess, you have absolutely no clue what kind of time dedication that requires.

It is time that my party walk that "inclusionary" talk.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[quaker bill]

54. A critical element of democracy

Is to have elections by procedures that are set and known by all parties in advance with a known standard to assess who won. Again and in short, known procedures for collecting and counting the votes and a set goalpost to determine the winner.

Now if the standard to assess the winner had been to win all the blue states, win all the states with the worn "new" in their name, win all the states with a population over 20 million, or whatever, then the candidates would have managed their campaigns according to those rules. Resources and staffing would have been assigned accordingly. As long as the mechanism and stardards are set in advance, then the challenge is putatively fair.

However, in less democratic states, some might say rogue states, the standards are not fixed for counting the votes, and perhap a ruling junta adjusts the results or the standard for an outcome that they see as favorable. This, when practiced elsewhere, is seen as undemocratic.

The rules, as decided in advance, included a mixture of plebicites and caucuses, and the standard was obtaining the majority of convention delegates as allocated in accordance with established rules based on proportional representation. Delegates were assigned to districts in accordance with the number of democratic party votes received in the districts during the 2004 and 2006 elections. These were the fixed rules and known standard, any change in the mechanism after the votes have been cast is precisely undemocratic.

[Prophet 451]

57. It's irrelevant anyway

The simple fact is that both candidates knew and agreed to the current system. If caucuses are undemocratic (and I'm unconvinced there) then they should be changed, either before or after a race, not during it. If the Democratic party wants to do a massive overhaul of it's primary system after this race is done, good for them, there's obviously some flaws that need looking at.

Besides, we all know that if Clinton had swept the caucuses, her campaign wouldn't give a shit about how "undemocratic" they were.

[jgraz]

67. Here's the explanation: It's all bullshit

Hillary says caucuses are undemocratic? Bullshit.

Hillary says she's winning the popular vote? Bullshit.

Hillary says Michigan and Florida were real elections? Bullshit.

Hillary says she won the states that matter? Bullshit.

Hillary says she can win the hard working white vote? Bullshit.


And finally...

Hillary says she'll support Obama if he's the nominee? Double Bullshit.


This is all about 2012 and giving the Clintons a cover story to keep destroying Obama.

[ima_sinnic]

68. if caucuses are so undemocratic, why weren't hillary whiners working to change the system before?

gee, I wonder exactly how many of the crybabies actually did something like even a simple letter to the editor, or writing to the state party, or, going further, actually involving themselves in a drive to replace caucuses with primary elections?

slavish devotion to The Queen extends only as far as whining and crying when she loses -- changing the system back when it should have been changed would have been Hard Work -- too hard for baby losers.

[Occam Bandage]

72. Their argument is that nobody realized anything about caucuses before this year.

Which is absolutely ridiculous on its face. They're saying that the Democratic party--including the motherfucking Clintons--did not notice anything about the nomination process until Hillary started to lose.

[iamthebandfanman]

75. they wouldnt be saying that either

if they had won more of them too ;)

[FlaGranny]

76. Whatever you think about caucases,

they make perfect sense in a representative democracy, and that's what we are. Pure democracy we are not, although I guess most of us, including me, think that would be a good thing.