No Matter WHO wins today, we need to end the Caucus system.

[musicblind]

I am supporting Edwards and Hillary. Many people on here think Hillary will win tonight. I personally have no idea and think Obama has a great shot and if he wins he deserves it. HOWEVER, I wanted to say this before the results came in. That way no one can say that I feel this way out of sour grapes.

After this presidential election, we need to reform the election system. We need to make every vote a private vote. We need to get rid of the caucus. No matter how much someone may say "If you can't stand by your vote"... well to be honest a lot of people CAN'T stand by their vote. My mother gave money to Edwards yesterday, but did so in secret so that my father would not find out because my father is a hardcore republican and thinks my mother is as well.


I know, it seems silly, but in real life, there are people who would not attend a caucus because they do not want people to see their votes. Of course the caucus seems like no big deal to the people who attend them. The reason for that is because the people it DOES bother did not attend (Meaning that their vote will never be counted).


All of this on top of the fact that the timing difficulties and many people being unable to attend during the two hours the caucus takes place.

Regardless of your candidate, you have to step back and take a look...

[sunonmars]

1. agreed it needs to go

[Critters2]

2. People who wouldn't attend a caucus shouldn't attend a caucus.

A caucus is not an election. It's a party meeting. People who care and are committed to the party will go and participate. People who want to stand on the sidelines, and claim they secretly support a candidate shouldn't be there. The caucus is for conducting party business, including naming delegates to the party's convention. It's not the business of people who don't otherwise participate in the party.

[nickinSTL]

3. then the caucus shouldn't be used as a method of

selecting a presidential candidate.

I personally despise the entire electoral college/delegate system.

There should be a direct vote OF THE PEOPLE for President.

[Critters2]

7. You're confusing the general election with the process

of choosing the party delegates and candidates. Choosing the candidates is the business of the parties and people who participate in them. People who care are acative in their parties and would attend caucuses. If you don't like that, start your own party, or run yourself.

[tabasco]

14. There are more options than "start your own party or run yourself."

Work within the party to eliminate the caucuses, for example.

[Critters2]

16. Work within the caucus system to get your candidate's delegates

sent to the convention. Or accept your loss graciously.

[tabasco]

27. That's not the topic we were discussing.

You suggested the only options if you do not like the caucus system were to "start your own party or run yourself."

I corrected you. How is your last post relevant to this discussion?

[Critters2]

33. I was offering two more options. nt

[tabasco]

43. No you didn't.

The topic was changing the caucus system.

Keeping the same system is not an option in that discussion and your "accept your loss" comment is irrelevant as well.

Accept whose loss? WTF are you even talking about?

[enlightenment]

10. As long as we have a reductionist two-party system,

we need to have a more viable way for people to participate in the ENTIRE process.

The two-party system in America is de facto, not encoded in law.

I can be a liberal without being a party-line Democrat. According to your argument, though, I have NO RIGHT to expect to be enfranchised in the system unless I capitulate to the whims of the party. Their rules, arbitrary and exclusive.

I went to vote for MY PREFERRED CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY today. The only option open to me, in order to do that, was to go to my precinct caucus.

I was disenfranchised. My candidate didn't pull enough supporters to be "viable." So my VOTE did not count.

A caucus IS AN ELECTION. It is the method chosen in the state for VOTERS to VOTE for their candidate in the PRIMARY ELECTION.

The entire primary election process is intrinsically flawed - the caucus system only aggravates the flaws.

[Critters2]

11. You voted. Your candidate lost. You were NOT disenfranchised. nt

[Critters2]

12. It's a party meeting for the party to choose delegates to its convention.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[fenriswolf]

4. runoff balloting.

[pmbryant]

5. Have to agree completely

Caucuses are set up so that a small group of people can have an extremely large say in party nominess and thus in how everyone else is allowed to vote in the general election. They are not far removed from the storied "smoke-filled rooms" of previous eras.

Primaries should be the way to go, as most states, thankfully, recognize.

--Peter

[Critters2]

8. Their completely the opposite of the smoke-filled rooms!!

Any citizen and resident of a precinct can vote. The meeting times are posted and advertised, and voting is completely transparent. My precinct and county orgs don't publicize their activities, and it's a pain in the ass to find out who they are and when they meet. Give me caucuses over that!!

[CTLawGuy]

18. you can go

if you can get off work for the 2 hours it takes to vote, and if you are comfortable with making your choice public (which many people are not), if you are not infirm, not out of the country, can get a babysitter for the night, etc.

[Critters2]

30. Which is still better than a party organization that doesn't hold public meetings. nt

[pmbryant]

23. Degree of participation

Example after example shows that primaries allow far more people to participate than do caucuses, for reasons that have been elucidated many times. Caucuses thus restrict participation - not to the degree that 'smoke-filled rooms' did, of course, but the effect is similar, if smaller.

What is the motivation for excluding these people?

--Peter

[Critters2]

24. Why doesn't my party org tell me when it meets? nt

[pmbryant]

29. I don't understand the relevance of this question (n/t)

[Critters2]

32. People are complaining about caucuses not being democratic.

My precinct and county orgs don't hold public caucuses. I have no idea when or how they meet. If we had caucuses, I'd be involved in a way I can't if meetings aren't publicized.

[pmbryant]

39. That's interesting, but irrelevant...

as not I nor anyone else I am aware of is advocating eliminating caucuses in order to replace them with private meetings.

--Peter

(edit: minor phrasing)

[Critters2]

40. Private meetings is what you have in primary states.

When do you get to present platform planks? I don't have any opportunity to do that. I get to walk in, mark my ballot, walk out. Platform work and other party business is not done in public, as it is in caucus states. Whether you like it or not, there's more to the party than choosing a candidate. And that work is done in private meetings. Unless you live in a caucus state.

[pmbryant]

45. This is not correct

As you see in post #42 below.

[Critters2]

46. To which I responded in post 44.

Illinois doesn't do this. And if Massachusetts does, it started doing so since I lived there.

[Kucinich4America]

6. First step is destroying all the electro-fraud machines

Until that's done, don't talk to me about giving up the caucus.

[Critters2]

9. Thank you. nt

[musicblind]

20. yes

Oh I agree that we need to fix the problems we are having with these machines. Anyone who has ever owned a computer can tell you that they are nothing more than elaborate f**k up machines. :(

Though I think all the need to do is have the machine spit out a reciept saying who you voted for, you verify the reciept and put it in a ballot box as a back up... and then we'd be fine. Don't you think?

[Critters2]

47. What about other party business that's conducted at caucuses?

How and when would that be done?

[cascadiance]

48. In addition we need to fix the media as well...

In addition to the rest of the election process to have public campaign financing. If the rest of the process gets fixed so that voters can exercise their right to vote in private, but at the same time feel its being counted properly AND they feel properly informed about everyone, THEN I think its time to say goodbye to the caucus for primaries. Caucuses might still be useful in other contexts when its about neighborhood campaigning for other propositions, etc. You still need to get something LIKE a presidential primary or find other ways to keep a lot of active community involvement in it.

Before we throw it out, you have to look at it in the big picture of things and fix other parts of the process before just throwing it out for one recongizable flaw (it's privacy of the vote, which IS a flaw, I will acknowledge).

Comparably, we shouldn't just "throw out" affirmative action without a good addressing of the other issues it addresses just because it itself practices some degree of discrimination, albeit well-meaning discrimination. That's too often what the right tries to do with Affrirmative Action, which sets genders and races, etc. back years if it isn't done so thoughtfully with alternative means of serving its purpose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. "If you can't stand by your vote"

That literally rewards the strongest and most powerful in society....

Who is more likely to stand by their vote?

A diswasher who is dependent on his union or an attorney , physician, or engineer who isn't dependent on anybody...

[Critters2]

15. Again with the scary, coercive union theory.

What bullshit.

[CTLawGuy]

17. I agree

the DNC should make a rule that delegates must be selected by secret ballot, in person voting must be open for at least 12 hours, absentee voting must be allowed. In short it should ban what goes on in IA and NV.

[BuelahWitch]

19. I agree, some people can't attend caucus'

whether because of work or some other time constraint, so their voice isn't heard. At least with a primary you do an absentee ballot if you absolutely can't attend. Barring that, if you can get to the polls sometime within a 12 hour period, you may still cast a vote.

[Critters2]

34. Even if you never show any other interest in the Democratic Party.

I'd rather have delegates chosen by active, committed Democrats.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. I'm torn about the caucus system

On the one hand, I'd LOVE to participate in a caucus (we don't have 'em in Maryland). But then, I'm outspoken and committed. I'm not easily "intimidated."

For many people, their very livelihoods rest on pleasing their bosses, or their unions. The problem with caucuses is that your "vote" is there for all to see. And that can, and often does, lead to intimidation, no matter who's involved. The secret ballot system is central to "one man one vote" (okay, before anyone says it, that's sexist.)

Then, as Nevada brought to the forefront, there's the issue of easy participation. When you have a narrow window of time for people to participate, you're limiting participation, not only to the "committed" but to people who may want to caucus, but can't.

[Critters2]

26. I've participated in caucuses and NEVER seen anyone intimidate anyone else.

So, I'm curious how people in non-caucus states can say "that can, and often does, lead to intimidation". No, it doesn't. Caucuses are gatherings of neighbors who belong to the same party to do party business. Nothing more, nothing less.

[grantcart]

36. Not only that caucuses I attended

had meaningful talk about platform issues, like stopping the war, that were more meaningful than the candidates. Then you could elected to the county convention and even the state convention. It was alot of fun and brought neighbors together

[Critters2]

37. Yep. The caucuses I observed voted on platform planks.

As I did four years ago. No such opportunity with a primary.

[Orangepeel]

22. Why do we have primaries at all? Let's have 100 people run and then a runoff for the top two.

Or, maybe not.

The purpose of primaries/caucuses are for the parties to pick a nominee. Or, more accurately, to figure out how many pledged delegates a candidate gets to send to the convention. As such, there's nothing wrong with restricting the process to people who are/can be/want to be involved with the party.

I don't like open primaries (e.g., where non party members can vote) and I don't like same day registration for a primary/caucus. But, regardless of what I like, each state determines how they want to do it and if they want to choose an open primary or a closed caucus that's their lookout.

The general election should be an open process where any citizen can vote for anybody running by secret ballot. But a candidate running in that election under the "Democratic Party" banner should be chosen by democrats.

[Critters2]

28. Thank you. nt

[robbedvoter]

25. Hear!Hear! Totally F*ed up!

[David Zephyr]

31. It was a shameful circus. If it was a real election, John Edwards would have been right at the top.

This Nevada circus means nothing.

[chascarrillo]

35. I take it you've never attended a caucus. nt

[Critters2]

38. Caucus goers get to bring, discuss and vote on platform planks. q

Who does that in primary states?

[pmbryant]

42. Texas has a primary for deciding nominees, caucus for platform planks

The caucus is held at the polling place after the polls close.

There is no reason why you must use a caucus to determine nominees just so you can also determine the party's platform planks.

--Peter


(edit: spelling)

[Critters2]

44. I've lived in two primary states. Neither did this.

I prefer a caucus.

[AngryAmish]

41. Amen