Should The Caucus Format Be Abandoned?

[SoFlaJet]

I'm curious how we all feel and if some think it favors one candidate over another and if it does, should we do away with it?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. absolutely

[SoFlaJet]

6. why?

is it because Clinton doesn't do as well in that format or is it because it's "undemocratic"?

[Rock_Garden]

2. Yes, yes, yes.

[ingac70]

3. No. n/t.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Yes. Let people vote at any time of day.

Theoretically, they could have enough caucus locations to make everyone voting-at-once OK.

In practice, they don't have enough locations. My caucus location was too crowded.

[Andy823]

5. YES

[SoFlaJet]

10. Kind of reminds me of

how during the run-up to the 2000 election how the GOP wanted to do away with the electoral college when it looked like by their numbers that Bush might win the popular vote and Gore the EC-turned out just the opposite. Sounds very...republican to THIS democrat

[boston bean]

YES!

[sandnsea]

7. They used to guarantee Party Activists

elected the candidate. If they were going in Hillary's favor, she wouldn't be concocting arguments against them.

I think states should make up their own minds. There are pros and cons to every voting method.

[DJ13]

8. No.

In fact it should be expanded to all 50 states for their primaries.

No electronic trickery, no disenfranchisement of those who go to vote, no hanging chads.

[paulk]

31. that's how it used to be, back in the days of the smoke filled

back room.

There are reasons why the party has steadily gone from caucuses to primaries.

[NJObamaWoman]

9. Nah I kind of like it. I like the fact that people are out in the open

I honestly wish that everyones vote was out in the open to see.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

11. yes, and so should early voting

its ridiculous that people cast votes two months before the election. your ballot should have to be postmarked within one week of the election day to be valid.

[BluegrassDem]

12. No one complained about it until Hillary lost Iowa

how ironic....

[SoFlaJet]

16. yea I noticed that

no surprise how they now all feel it's very undemocratic-one side does anyway...

[juajen]

28. The problem with caucuses is that they let anyone in, whether

a registered voter, a dem, of age, it's absolutely ridiculous. Obama bussed in college student for the Iowa caucuses. They did not have to have ID, they could have lived in Washington, let alone Illinois. I am not talking about college students that are eligible to vote. All were welcomed. Indies and pugs alike. There is simply too much at risk to let money or pugs select our nominee. Come on people. What are you thinking?

I am pleased to tell you that even though we certainly have problems as to who is counting the vote, in Louisiana today it is a closed primary. Only dems get to vote for dems. Independents cannot vote today because there is no independent candidate. ID, of course, at the door.

So, how in the Hell can you trust a caucus?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

13. Yes, it disenfranchises too many people, and there's

too much opportunity for intimidation.

[samrock]

14. YES!

Its not a fair way of doing it.. Ya only get a couples hours.. Ya can/t vote absentee. Ya can't just walk in and vote ya have to stick around the whole time.. it is very archaic and should be done away with..

[Stand and Fight]

15. Absolutely.

It's no different than people being able to walk into the voting booth with you and try to intimidate you -- through words -- to change your vote.
Not to mention the fact that it cuts many people out of the "voting" process. I know plenty friends -- about 20 -- who wanted to participate here in Nevada, but they could not because they had to work at that time. It's simply not a fair system.

[Captain Hilts]

17. It does not accurately replicate voter turnout, preferences or turnout patterns. nt

[557188]

18. Yes and

The whole nomination system should be abolished!

Single day 50 state primary should be the way to do it.

[musicblind]

37. That's what my mother thinks

and I kind of agree!

[Zynx]

19. For the purpose of choosing candidates, yes.

It has the party platform and organization benefits, but for deciding candidates, a primary should be the way to go.

[Bitwit1234]

20. They made sure you didn't vote for Hillary in MN

they combined the caucus...people didn't know where to go and most seniors did not have transportation to the caucus....which they moved in most case outside cities, 50 miles away....good show MN...very democratic.

And how in the devil can you really qualify when you raise your hand and yeah...where's the secure results. How do we know they got the count correct.

[donheld]

21. Up until Tuesday past, I would have said a loud YES. but now

I say a loud NO. I had never been to a caucus before and thought they were a stupid way of doing things. After attending my caucus (Colorado) this past Tuesday I changed my mind. I feel like the caucus gives you more of a chance to really be involved. It also lets you get together with others in your party, in your neighborhoods and see what others think and believe.

[flyarm]

22. it is not fair for these reasons..

1. reason...takes away military vote..unless they just happen to be home..but most can;t vote to represent themselves.

people can come in and vote who legally don't live where the caucus is taking place..( many saw this in Iowa!)

People who work may not be able to caucus and there for they don't get a vote...that is not democratic!

people who are old or ill and can not get to the caucus place do not get a vote. therefore their causes are neglected.( i met one such man who was a Vietnam vet who has cancer but he can not go out because he can not be exposed to others because he has no immunities..so he could not caucus ..but desperately wanted to have his vote heard)

I also met a woman who had a mentally ill child..severely..who was going to caucus, but her husband would not be, so he could stay home with their child, so she could go caucus...now if she could have gone and voted..her hubby could have stayed home and she could have voted and gone home and he could have then gone and voted. The system does not represent "we the people"..it represents who can go and spend a couple hours there .. only.

people who travel for work are eliminated unless they just happen to be home when the caucs takes place. thereby eliminating people who may want to vote but can not.

this is not a fair system.

this is not a real democratic system

oh and i do not like it that independants can vote in it for democratic candidates..after all who does the DNC call when they need money?..Who does your local DNC call when they need a new roof on their building or new paint for the building..who do they call to support local candidates with $$$$

and who does your local DEC call when they need to raise funds..or buy election material or new computers..

so why should anyone but dems get to decide our candidates are in a caucus?

fly

[Sulawesi]

23. From what I read here, only if Hillary does poorly in them.

[flyarm]

26. they are wide open to cheating..of which many of us Edwards people saw take place in Iowa.

and both standing candidates took part in that!

eom

[stahbrett]

32. how do people cheat in a caucus? (n/t)

[paulk]

35. that is the sort of shallow reasoning

I have increasingly come to expect from the anti Hillary camp.

So, these anti-caucus arguments make no impression? you recognize that not all of the people saying "yes" are Hillary supporters?

[OmahaBlueDog]

24. Yes, it needs to go away

Having only done one caucus, I will say:

1. Poorly controlled and regulated
2. Erodes the democratic cornerstone of a secret ballot
3. Does not allow for quick easy voting, and disenfranchises those who cannot be at the caucus location during a narrow window

In 2012, I favor moving toward a National Primary on a weekend in March. Two days of voting; party members only; no day-of switchovers. Sorry, Iowa and New Hampshire -- your quaint we-go-first tradition needs to end.

[lurky]

25. Yes.

The secret ballot is essential to democracy. If your vote is public, as in caucuses, then you can face retaliation from employers, neighbors, wingnuts, etc.

Additionally, as many Clinton supporters have pointed out, caucuses require a significant time commitment, so they will be skewed towards retirees and wealthy people, and skewed against young people, blue-collar workers, people raising children, etc. And because of low participation, the results of the caucus don't necessarily represent the desires of the majority of citizens/party members. It becomes a turnout game for the candidates involved.

I'm for primaries and for making election day a holiday, or at least for holding all votes on the weekend when more people are not working.

[otohara]

27. Yes

it disenfranchises.

[paulk]

29. yes, I have felt this way for many years

by there very nature they are exclusive in that not everyone can participate. They exclude anyone working at the time the caucus is held, they exclude anyone who can't take three hours out of an evening, who can't find or afford a babysitter, etc. They are open to manipulation either by the party itself or by relatively small but organized groups, which may ultimately give a result that is not a reflection of the will of the party members.

Over the last fifty years our party has steadily been moving away from caucuses and toward primaries for exactly this reason.

[Fabio]

30. For the states to decide IMHO

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. how about getting rid of superdelegates and even delegates?

let the ordinary registered Democratic Party voters decide on popular vote?

[Fresh_Start]

34. yes, because caucus limits the number of people that can

participate.

with a ballot
people can vote absentee, by mail
with a caucus, you need to have several hours at a time even though people are stressed for time

and speaking for myself, I would never caucus
I don't want to be in a room with lots of shouting people I don't know

[TexasObserver]

36. Caucuses are much harder to steal than elections.

They require real, live people to show up and participate.

Elections allow every person to vote at their leisure, and they are easily subjected to cheating, as in New Mexico recently.

Caucuses reveal the truth of who is motivating workers and who isn't. Hillary cannot motivate people to get out. They'll vote, but miss Lawrence Welk? Now you're talking crazy.

[Guava Jelly]

38. no

.

[musicblind]

39. To the people claiming this was not an issue until Hillary lost ...

that is just not true. I remember reading on DU about a father who threatened to ground his daughter if she voted for Howard Dean... this was posted BEFORE the 2008 Iowa election. I remember then thinking how wrong that system was.

I am also in favor of eliminating ALL superdelegates. I say this as a Hillary supporter and know that eliminating superdelegates would hurt her big time... I don't care! This is about democracy being served, not about who wins this one particular election.

A lot of people on DU seem to forget that.

[scheming daemons]

40. Caucuses can't be Diebolded... that's why Hillary hates them...

...