In 2008 WA state had both a caucus and a preference primary

[book_worm]

The caucus went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama 68-31 percent. It is the caucus that awards the delegates. Ten days later there was a presidential preference primary and the results were much narrower. Obama still won but by only 51-46 percent. It was only a "beauty pageant" and awarded no delegates. But still nearly 700,000 people voted in that primary compared to about 250,000 who participated in the caucus.

This is one reason why I think caucuses are not very democratic. Many people just can't make it to a caucus but can manage to vote before or after work or for many other reasons.

[Lucinda]

1. Yep. The only caucus I can support is one with early/absentee voting too.

Anything else disenfranchises.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. + a million! eom

[LiberalFighter]

2. If they are a caucus it is up to the party to decide how it is conducted.

The party expends the finances to conduct them. Taxpayers don't pay.

[Cha]

4. The point of the OP.. is this..

"This is one reason why I think caucuses are not very democratic. Many people just can't make it to a caucus but can manage to vote before or after work or for many other reasons."

[Thinkingabout]

3. Exactly, caucuses result in voter suppression, many are unable to participate

Because of mobility and transportation at caucus time. I hope this is resolve before 2020.

[Dawson Leery]

6. The caucus system is the greatest disenfranchisor of the vote.