Would you support caucuses for the General Election?

[MonkeyFunk]

Many here are defending caucuses. Would you like a caucus system for the General Election?

[KittyWampus]

1. Would Hillary supporters support caucuses for the primaries if she'd won more of them?

[MonkeyFunk]

3. I can't speak for all Clinton supporters

but I would not.

I think they're inherently undemocratic, and that's not a decision I arrived at this week, or even this year. I've thought that for many years.

Nice try.

[themaguffin]

108. "Nice try" indeed. Because internal party process = GE process. Yeah ok....

[joshcryer]

7. I would not.

[KittyWampus]

28. how about run-off ballots? Kind of like a caucus but on paper

[joshcryer]

33. Run off ballots are great. But they're night and day from caucusing.

It's still anonymous voting in a polling booth.

[KittyWampus]

37. well, run-offs and caucus both whittle candidates down by preference.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Is the caucus system

the only way to implement instant run-off?

[KittyWampus]

48. nope. just saying. similarity and benefit of both systems= order of preference

if Dem party gets rid of caucus, I'd want run-off type ballots. Not just pick ONE and then tally totals.

[joshcryer]

43. But caucuses are limited by their being at a certain time of the day...

...and generally public (though private balloting is available).

If caucuses were run "all day long" and people were allowed "absentee ballots" they'd still be wrong because they allow campaigning within the polls. This goes against the very core of democracy. The poll is neutral.

[KittyWampus]

49. you are right.

[musicblind]

36. I would still not support them

In fact, I do not support super-delegates... and those are helping Hillary. You can believe in an issue without it being related to your candidate.

[chascarrillo]

2. I think that's called the "Electoral College"

But seriously, it's perfectly acceptable for political parties to determine their nominees by caucus.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. No, it really has nothing to do with the electoral college

but would you support it as a voting method for the GE?

I'm not saying the party doesn't have the right to hold caucuses. I'm asking if you think they're a good idea, and would you like to see them extended to the GE.

[joshcryer]

10. The topic wasn't "would you support delegates in the GE?"

Which basically is what we have with the Electoral College. The question is whether or not you support people voting at a certain place at a certain time of the day via public or semi-private balloting where campaigning can be done right there in the room?

Primaries, and the general election, allow people to place their vote at any time of a full day of voting, anonymous, completely anonymously, without *any* influance by *any* campaign at the polling place (indeed, every year we hear these controversies at a polling place somewhere where mere *campaign buttons* are placed near a polling booth and that pisses people off!).

It's night and fucking day.

[NastyRiffraff]

4. Absolutely, positively NO!

Unworkable at best, undemocratic at worst. States have enough trouble with holding caucuses in the primaries when turnout is unexpectedly high. It'll be higher in the GE. And, a lot of people won't be able to vote.

[cboy4]

6. Sorry, but I want to vote on the way home from work and

then go home.

I don't want it turning into some long ordeal.

No.

[Redstone]

8. Oh, you got yourself BIG trouble with that question.

People, I guaranTEE you, will be responding with varous levels of bitterness and / or accusation, depending on their favored candidate, notwithstanding the fact that you asked a simple question.

My answer would be: "No, I don't think that would be a very good idea." And my answer does not include the name of any candidate. Here's hoping that you get more answers that don't include the name of a candidate.

Good luck to you.

Redstone

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Heheh

Yeah, some people just can't get over the candidate battles when discussing generic questions.

The fact is, I think caucuses are bad. I've thought that for a very long time. It has nothing to do with the outcomes of this year's caucuses.

[Redstone]

12. Caucuses are just about as antiquated and worthless as process as is the Electoral College.

Why on Earth do you suppose we still have such things?

(No, you don't have to answer; I know that we have them because "we've always had them.")

Redstone

[joshcryer]

18. Because we're a plutocracy.

Why else?

[MonkeyFunk]

22. I think it's more of a holdover

from the times when the party bosses ran everything. A caucus allowed them to bring in all their cronies, and ensure that people voted the "right" way.

[joshcryer]

25. And how many party bosses weren't rich?

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, but our government is a government of the wealthy, by and large.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. oh, ok

I see your point.

But party bosses weren't always the well-born and wealthy. They were gamers who were very good at the game. They enriched themselves often, but not always.

[joshcryer]

11. I'm pleased with the poll totals so far, at least!

Don't seem to be any assinine mentioning of candidates, yet. Such comments would be off topic anyway. I expect the "ironic" or "sarcastic" comments to ensue any moment now.

[Renew Deal]

62. It's not really that controversial.

It's more interesting than anything.

[NashVegas]

13. Hello? "Brooks Brothers Riot" Ring Any Bells?

No thanks.

[joshcryer]

15. Every caucus in a GOP rich neighborhood would look like that.

Hands down. They'd all go for one candidate.

[WillyT]

14. No, But...

In an election, you are put into office within the government.

With Primaries\Caucuses, your party (National\State\Local), playing by predetermined, and agreed upon rules, is deciding who to put INTO the actual election for that office.

I'm not completely thrilled with some of the processes either, but it is what it is for this election season. All changes need to by made and ratified AFTER this year's GE is over.

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

16. I haven't heard anybody suggest

that the rules be changed this season.

But some people are rejecting all complaints about caucuses because they consider it whining by Clinton supporters because she hasn't done well in them.

I think it's possible to discuss the pluses and minuses of caucuses absent a discussion of the candidates.

[joshcryer]

19. With all due respect, MonkeyFunk...

...and I do respect you very much. You're one of the very few sane observers here on either side of the table. But with all due respect your post sort of mentions what you said you didn't want to discuss, and it is going to bring out the wasps, most assuredly.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. True

but I was explaining my reasons for starting this poll.

I honestly believe that if this question were asked 2 months ago, it would be universally "no". I doubt we'd have one person defending the caucus system.

[joshcryer]

17. I have not seen *one* person talk about fixing it *before* the election season is over.

Not *one*. It's absurd to say that! I wanted the Electoral College fixed since 2000. In fact I pushed for it for a few weeks there post-"Bush vs Gore," then became quite disillusioned in the process.

The whole freaking system needs to be revamped, I'm sorry, it does.

[sfam]

20. The purpose of a caucus is very different from the GE

The purpose of the caucus is for a community to agree on who they think the best candidate from their party to put forward. They are in essence having a conversation to agree on who they should support. This is deferent from choosing a final one from both parties.

But the REAL issue here, whether Hillary cares to admit it or not is Obama spent time and effort and expertise to organize in these states. She did not. The 68-32 totals reflect a lack of even trying by Hillary. To think that this difference is all about her "voters being stuck at work" on the weekends is farcical. Yes, a small percentage maybe, but the real issue involves interest. They just don't want to spend the time.

[joshcryer]

21. So we can't have a conversation to agree on who we support in the final round?

What makes it different? What makes this conversation unnecessary in the last round? We've "already made up our minds" or something? That seems as if the final political process is meaningless then, doesn't it?

[sfam]

Everyone at the caucus is supporting a candidate from a single party...are you...

honestly saying that people could try this with two candidates from different parties? This is a pretty poor strawman...

And again, caucuses make LOTS more sense when there are like 7 candidates. The two candidate thing isn't really where they excel.

[joshcryer]

29. Actually, I think such a conversation would be far more revealing if we had different candidates...

...with significantly different positions. We'd actually learn a lot about ourselves and our candidates, rather than discussing two of the same mould.

[Freida5]

23. self delete

[Freida5]

24. Caucuses are too much like Illinois politics, controlled by a few handlers.

Not democratic at all. The party needs to review this and go to a straight primary system

[joshcryer]

26. I think being able to campaign at a poll defeats the purpose of democracy.

You are allowed to be coerced and intimidated. There's a reason campaigning is illegal at polls in the GE.

[JVS]

27. It is a more transparent process than Diebold

[MonkeyFunk]

32. So you would support it in the GE?

And why can't whoever sends in the numbers be crooked?

[JVS]

35. You have the numbers handled the same way you do a normal election precinct now

Every time you go to a polling place, there are staff from both parties supervising it to make sure nothing is fishy. This would also be necessary in caucuses. Of course now with computerized voting machines, it doesn't matter if there are supervisors from both parties, they can't see what's going on anyway. For this reason, I'd say that caucusing is a more secure system for voting. Because caucusing doesn't require the intention of the voter to be put on a medium which cannot be asked for clarification (i.e a ballot), it would avoid situations like the 2000 FL butterfly ballot. Had it been a caucus and people accidentally gotten into the Pat Buchannon corner, they would have quickly been corrected by their less confused neighbors. Also a caucus would have provided instant run-off voting for the Nader people, or other possible 3rd parties. The benefits of being present over sending in a piece of paper, or an electronic move of the digits, allow for a much greater exercise of the franchise by an individual.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. So would you or would you not support such a system

for the GE?

It seems to me you're talking about the benefits of a caucus system over a primary, without weighing the negatives of a caucus, or the benefits of a primary.

Isn't it possible to eliminate the problems you describe with primaries short of switching to caucuses?

Which do you prefer for the GE?

[JVS]

41. I'm fine with either system.

The benefit of a caucus remains the same whether it is a primary or a GE, and that benefit is that you have actual thinking human beings present to engage in decision making, rather than a note (paper) or a tally of results (computerized). Having the individual present will always allow the voter to engage more fully in the process. It's like an oral exam vs. a multiple choice test.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. And you think it's fair

to require voters to be in a particular place, at a particular time, and cast their vote publicly?

[JVS]

46. Sure. It's an acceptable system. In fact it is much closer to the original democracy of Greece...

to have people publicly participate in the politics rather than stripping them of identity in a booth. I suppose if you had to be confidential they could allow caucusers to don a cloak and hood if they so desired to hide their identities. The same way you vote behind a curtain. Even if they didn't have voters disguise themselves, it could work out better. Maybe voters wouldn't vote for some of the nastier ballot proposals or politicians that they choose if things were in the open.

[joshcryer]

52. Polls should be neutral, anonymous, without coercion. Campaigning is allowed in caucuses.

In fact, that's the point of a caucus, certain sides jump around campaigning for their candidate. They're not anonymous, and because of that they're very coercive.

[JVS]

66. A few things: Polling staffs in the GE are not run by neutral people, they're run by opposing groups

Ever since I was a kid, I saw my mom sitting there as one of the Democratic poll supervisors and Mrs. K as a Republican supervisor. There wasn't neutrality, there was only the knowledge that if one party tried funny business the other party would be all over them. This is not neutrality, this is an oppositional system, not unlike the court system, And the minute you start hearing people claim they are neutral and thus can self-supervise, run away! So even your own preferred method doesn't have neutrality, it depends on oppositionality which would be the same in a caucus.

Coercion? No. Caucuses don't coerce. They may have persuasion, but nobody is allowed to force a caucuser to do anything. If a caucuser still fears coercion, it is possible to leave a written ballot. Thus nobody knows who it is or how they voted, but they lose the ability to engage in on the floor decision making, which optimizes their political enfranchisement. They don't end up any worse off than a standard lever-puller in a machine state though.

Once again, referring to polling places, when I go in everyone sees that I am going to the Democratic table to check in with the registry. Where is my anonymity there? Why is it even necessary. Perhaps if people had to face the community when voting, some of the more odious ballot measures wouldn't make it through. Do you want participative democracy, or do you want to hide behind a curtain while your votes get "lost" by Diebold? But if privacy is still such an issue, there is always sending in the paper form.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. So shift-workers couldn't vote

people who couldn't afford baby sitters wouldn't vote.

You think Greek democracy was ideal? Did women vote? Did slaves? Did the poor?

I don't think I'd go back a few thousand years for exemplars of democracy.

[JVS]

68. You would think that the campaigns would care enough about their constitutents to work for..

daycare solutions. A day off with different precincts caucusing at different times would help. These are solvable issues. As far as women and slaves go, you're grasping at straws now, and I won't respond any further. You know damned well that we won't be going back to that. So to conclude our discussion I'll just say that the voting Greek citizen had a lot more influence on the life of the Polis than we modern lever-pullers do, and I would welcome a return to a system that restores such influence into the hands of all the people.

Good night.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

80. What are you so mad about. We were having a civil discussion. Is it because your candidate keeps..

losing?

[MonkeyFunk]

81. I'm mad

that you thought you could bring up Greek democracy, and when I pointed out the problems with it, you started acting like a dick.

My points were reasonable and thought-out, and you dismissed them entirely on stupid grounds.

[JVS]

82. I think they were stupid grounds because the greeks mistreated women and slaves..

regardless of political system. Greek democracy didn't mistreat women and slaves because of how the organization of voting took place, it mistreated women and slaves because the society didn't consider them full people. I thought you knew this and were just trying to delegitimize the organizational system through ad hominem. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[MonkeyFunk]

84. You pointed to a thousands-year old system

of democracy as an example of what we should aspire to.

It entirely ignored the fact that it was an extremely flawed system, and I thought it was reasonable to point that out. The people who voted in ancient Greece weren't worried about getting time off from work, or whether they could get childcare, or whether they could get to the polls.

My objection to your point was rational and reasonable. Your response to my objection was dickish.

[JVS]

87. I want to hear your argument for how caucus type voting causes slavery and inequality for women.

Greek society was far from perfect, but that doesn't mean that everything they did is wrong. Do you reject the pythagorean theorem on such grounds?

Come on. Tell me how the Democratic governance of the Greek polis cannot be made into a system that allows women to vote and doesn't have slaves.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. I never claimed

caucus voting causes slavery and inequality for women.

Don't be daft. Try to keep up with the actual discussion.

And I thought you were going to bed?

[JVS]

89. Well, you personally attacked me, so I got interested again.

Besides, we seem to have isolated the strands of conversation to a manageable distinction between Greek problems and their Ideas of democracy. Similar to how US society is able to separate Jefferson the Fouding Father from Jefferson the slave-raper. Just because I like the idea of greater involvement by the citizens in their governance, does not mean I condone slavery or the disenfranchisement of women. But for some reason, when discussing Greek democracy, you deemed it necessary to bring up these issues as though they were essential to the discussion of the comparative systems. Why is that?

[MonkeyFunk]

90. The answer is simple

you thought Greek Democracy was something to aspire to. I disagree vehemently.

[joshcryer]

44. Yes, we need a simple universial ballot that all states adhere to, a universial voting machine...

...a universial method to track votes (Bruce Schnider's voting scheme), and so on.

[nonconformist]

30. Heck no. Caucuses suck.

It's an outdated system that needs to be eliminated. And I've ALWAYS thought that.

[nam78_two]

40. Most certainly not.nt

[stillcool]

45. If we all had the day off...

I would. Especially if Diebold wasn't involved.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. How does that work?

One day where police don't work? Firemen? Every store is closed? No mail, no garbage pickup?

No, there's no such thing as a day where nobody works.

[stillcool]

63. Las Vegas style caucuses?

you're right it's impossible. It would be a nightmare, but then again our voting systems already are. People are way too busy to communicate with each other, exchange information and ideas. I guess the current system is as good as it gets.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. We can make it better, can't we?

How about the chance to vote from Friday to Sunday (with Friday being a national holiday)? How about making sure that every polling place can handle the demand? How about paper ballots with a trail? How about required audits?

[JI7]

47. caucuses are allowed because it's considered Party Business

not the case in a General Election.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. That's not the question

[McCamy Taylor]

95. Exactly. Caucuses are not a substitute for one vote per person.

It is way to easy to hijack a caucus.

[gmudem]

50. Caucuses are not a good system.

But there wouldn't be nearly as much whining about them if Clinton was at least semi-competitive in more than 1 of them.

[Alexander]

51. No. But the rules stated they'd be used in the primaries, and Obama did well in them.

I prefer to adhere to the rules. When you throw the agreed-upon rules out the door, everything else goes to shit.

That also applies to the Florida-Michigan delegate situation.

[joshcryer]

53. I like rules too.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

58. That's not the question

[Alexander]

70. I already answered the question. No. What more do you want?

[MonkeyFunk]

72. Where did you answer the question?

I can't see who votes for what in a poll.

The question is would you support a caucus system for the General Election.

The post to which I replied was your first post in this thread, and you didn't answer the question.

[Alexander]

77. It's the very first word in the headline of post #51. "No." Can't you see it?

I answered it here:

"No. But the rules stated they'd be used in the primaries, and Obama did well in them."

That was the headline of my post, post #51. The one you replied to, and are referring to when you say this:

"The post to which I replied was your first post in this thread, and you didn't answer the question."

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I assume it was an honest mistake.

On edit: I also voted "No" in the poll, FWIW.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. I apologize

I misread the thread and thought you were replying to something other than the OP.

Thanks.

[Alexander]

85. No problem.

I make mistakes like that too. It happens.

At least we're civil about it. :-)

[Mezzo]

55. That *sounds* like a good idea...

except some people would rather not have their boss determine who they vote for. And if you're standing out in the open whilst Larry Lockjaw motions for you to come over to his camp (whatever side of the aisle) I bet you'd be a wee bit more inclined to not be the one with the pink slip on Monday.

Why can't you vote in private? If I have to advertise my vote, can I sell it? Are people really that interested in those kinda strong arm tactics?

Verrrrry undemocratic, if you ask me.

[Renew Deal]

59. They're not practical.

General elections have multiple races going on. The group would have to reconfigure for each seat. It's not practical.

[MonkeyFunk]

60. But beyond the practicality of multiple elections

would you support it?

My primary ballot has multiple races on it, too.

[Renew Deal]

61. In general, yes.

I think it's a very pure form of Democracy. Also, it's a terrific social event. There's Democrats all over the country that now know they're not alone.

There's problems, but they can be resolved.

[MonkeyFunk]

67. How?

How do you make sure everyone can be in certain places at certain times? You make sure NOBODY in the country works for a certain 3-hour period? You provide babysitters (who themselves couldn't vote)?

And secret ballots aren't important? You think everybody should make their preference known to their family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and bosses?

[Renew Deal]

74. Allow absentee voting.

That's the #1 best way. Possibly allow a 1st choice and second choice. More locations, etc. There's ways to make it workable, but like I said, I don't think it would work in a GE.

[fujiyama]

64. No way, I believe the caucuses are inherently limited in their reach

There is one potentially positive side to caucuses. They do encourage some community political discussion and public civic debate. That is sorely lacking in the US.
However, they are way too restrictive in the time and place you meet and exclude many people from the process. Those who must work, are ill, that serve in the military, or for whatever reason can't give up several hours at a particular given time do not have their voice heard.

I likewise believe the concept of superdelegates is bullshit.

[Beacool]

69. I have always despised caucuses,

no matter who was running!!!!!!!! It's an archaic system that does disenfranchise those who do not have the 1-2 hours needed to stand in a room as if we were in some 19th century village. I further dislike open primaries. It's not fair for the members of a party who support a candidate, and even work very hard to get that candidate elected, to have the "independents" show up and tilt the primary in a particular way. Either declare party affiliation or wait to vote in the GE!!!!!!

[Eric J in MN]

71. Polls should be open all day to vote for president during both the primary season and the general...

...to reduce crowds.

[HughMoran]

73. We have 11 people who think caucuses are acceptible for a General Election?

Holy fucking shit, I've seen it all now :spank:

[MonkeyFunk]

92. It's at least 12 now

who don't understand the basis of democracy.

[krabigirl]

76. Not just no but HELL NO.

[Lucinda]

78. I choose the HELL NO option.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. Generally speaking, no. But I think Dems would fare better in them.

I don't necessarily buy into the theory of the "reluctant Bush supporter" in the 2004 exit polls, but I do have a nagging suspicion that there were voters who, in the privacy of the voting booth, pulled the R lever because of the constant fearmongering the GOP did during the election cycle. Their heads and hearts may have been with Kerry, but on a gut level they went with their fear instinct. Doesn't have to be about terrorism. The Republicans will use racism, scapegoating, or whatever they need to get to that visceral response.

However, I support the concept of anonymous voting. I think it's important for a democracy so, no, I don't think we should caucus in the general. As for primaries, that's for individual states to decide. If a state has a caucus and people don't like it, they should get involved and do something to change it rather than complaining.

[D-Sooner]

86. Hell no!

I watched the Iowa caucuses on C-Span. It looked like a huge elementary school Valentine's party; i.e., total chaos. The ones in charge could barely even come up with a reliable way of counting everyone supporting a specific candidate. Hardly anyone knew what the rules were.

[unapatriciated]

91. No....

It's my vote, not my boss, neighbor or anyone else who thinks I can not make an informed decision.

[Bonobo]

93. Do you think caucuses favor Obama unfairly? If so, why do think it is the case? nt

[McCamy Taylor]

96. Actually, yes. Caucuses discourage working class people, because they can not miss work to vote for

hours. Obama has a larger proportion of college educated white collar voters--the kind who can say "I am taking a half day off" and their job says sure thing. Women who work at Wal-Mart and Kroger and iin textile mills and who live paycheck to paycheck do not have that option. They show up or they do not get paid. Even if the caucuses are on Saturday, lots of working class work two jobs now to make ends meet. The white collar mostly works weekdays. And the college kids that are for Obama can get to caucuses, too.

So, caucuses obviously favor Obama and put anyone with a large number of working class supporters at a disadvantage. I am surprised that labor unions tolerate them.

[MonkeyFunk]

97. Why would you ask that?

The question had nothing to do with your candidate.

[Bonobo]

98. My best guess is that you and other Hillary supporters feel that way. Am I wrong?

[MonkeyFunk]

99. The question

is whether you think caucuses are a good way to determine the will of the people, and if you'd support that system for the GE.

[Bonobo]

100. Caucuses are not held in every state, so it is moot. But underlying your question,

is your belief, I suspect, that the process has favored Obama. I am curious as to why you think that may be so.

[MonkeyFunk]

101. OK

you don't want to discuss the actual topic, and want to make it personal.

No thanks.

[joshcryer]

110. Well played. The attempts to take you off topic have failed miserably.

[McCamy Taylor]

94. Caucuses favor people who do not have to work for a living.

Rich people. People who have to be at their jobs to get a paycheck (like Democrats) would be at a disadvantage, because they can not take off hours to be at a caucus.

We would have Republican rule from now until forever.

Are you guys crazy? The extremely wealthy GOPers could hire actors to go to the caucuses to sway the Independents and undecideds who showed up to vote Republicans. They would have all the money, since caucuses would allow them to control the whole government. They could hire goons to intimidate voters. And the local police who would be there to keep order would also intimidate voters. It would be one big farce.

There is a reason we have one vote per person and a secret ballot.

[electron_blue]

104. And it favors people w/o childcare responsibilities.

[newmajority]

109. Several people brought their kids to the caucus I attended.

They couldn't vote, but they weren't interfering in the process any, apart from one crying baby. Actually, I would encourage bringing older children, just so they could learn how the caucus system works.

Now of course, these are all side issues from the original question. Caucuses in the General Election? Over DIEBOLD machines, yes. Over a verifiable paper ballot, probably not. And it's for one reason only... a GE caucus would require Democrats and Republicans to be in the same room and there might be very little actual voting going on. :evilgrin:

[electron_blue]

111. Of course you saw children. My point is that single parents were preferentially

excluded. I had a hard time with this issue myself and know someone else who was going to go, but their childcare fell through so they missed it. Not everyone can bring their kids.

The caucus I was at was chaos and many people were excluded from voting - for lack of parking if nothing else! The time constraint is the worst part to me, of the caucus. Only 90 minutes and only at night.

Give me back the regular way of voting (paper ballots) that we have in the ge's where you have the whole day to do it.

[murbley40]

102. No,

I am against caucuses for primaries as well. They, imo, exclude far to many folks from being able to cast a vote for their choice.

[murbley40]

103. No,

I am against caucuses for primaries as well. They, imo, exclude far to many folks from being able to cast a vote for their choice.

[insanity]

105. No, but that is irrelevant to the primary

Few seem to understand the primaries are public elections held largely by private entities. When figuring out who the party wants to field for the general, the caucus draws out the base (the people who are probably going to be doing a lot of the footwork in the GE) and lets them have their say. I support closed primaries and caucuses, it should be only the members of the party who pick their candidate.

Primary Season- Figuring out which memeber of a private organization is going to lead.

General- Open to all qualified citizens to figure out who is going to become President.

[Hoof Hearted]

106. No. Even though I had a BLAST at my first ever caucus, it wasn't fair to those who had to work.

Some people can't just take a day off, and there are too many working poor in the service industry that have to work on Saturdays and Sundays to make the process fair and democratic.

I think all day elections combined with a national holiday where only essential goods and services like health services and law enforcement were open would be the ideal. If we can't get the national holiday at least we should have all day, old fashioned, secret ballot elections.

[boricua79]

107. I'd like one person, one vote

same day primaries, and national election holiday (paid).

No advantages for anybody, and no excuses not to vote. No electoral college and no party shenanigans.