2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumShould our party get rid of caucuses?
Our party is squarely against laws requiring photo ids to vote on the grounds that it makes it hard for voters to vote. We support things like early voting to make it easier to vote. Caucuses make it much harder to vote. No absentee voting. No early voting. The process takes hours. Yet several states use this method to select our Presidential nominee. Unlike most issues related to 2016, this is the right time to discuss this issue. These types of changes need to be made before candidates announce so the rules can be made without worrying about which candidate will be helped and which candidate won't be helped.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)dsc
(52,152 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)2008 primary season. I hated the process and by the time it was finished I wanted to vaporize everyone in the building - and I'm not a violent person.
brooklynite
(94,363 posts)My wife and I ran a Caucus outside Las Vegas for Hillary Clinton. We thought it was a hoot.
dsc
(52,152 posts)Or if you were too ill to travel for some reason?
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)you're running it - but as a "guest" I found it to be the most objectionable voting process I have ever experienced. I won't do it again - and if that means no longer voting in primaries, so be it.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)in the caucus process, the Party itself and the volunteers running it assume the financial burden. In the other, the State pays for another election.
dsc
(52,152 posts)it is a function of the state to help choose the leaders. Now I do realize that makes for less flexibility as to dates but thems the breaks.
SharonAnn
(13,771 posts)I don't think it's something that should be forced.
I prefer having primaries and think that's a better way, but the political parties decide how they're going to do things. Not the general public.
So, you'll have to work within the party to get it changed.
I'm not wiling to say one or the other is better. My state has a primary.
For those overseas (even military) they can opt to vote in the Democrats Abroad primary which does give delegates to candidates. They just can't vote in both DA and their state.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Hispanics or Asians! That's just crazy.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)My dude. You're obsessed! Let it go.
dsc
(52,152 posts)the fact is I think more people voting is better than fewer. The fact is my preferred candidate in 16 is Martin O'Malley who I have no idea if he will run, if he did run which he would do better in. I think, regardless of who runs primaries are preferrable to caucuses. I think it is nothing short of scandalous that people who serve us over seas who are from Iowa have no say, none as to who are nominee will be. IF that makes me obsessive then so be it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I don't recall the OP being obsessed, but a number of DUers were angry with the caucus system because they helped Obama quite a bit. Obama supporters were much more passionate and waited around to make their voices heard in the caucus. This didn't sit well with many Hillary supporters who felt she was entitled to the Presidency.
There was a lot of arguing about the caucuses in 2008.
Ahhh....memories.
dsc
(52,152 posts)the fact is caucuses were likely the only prayer my original candidate in 08 had (I was originally a Richardson supporter) but I still think it is a major problem that our nomination process has a large role for contests which discriminate against among other people active military.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)They are deliberately screening out everyone who doesn't have the 3 or 4 hours to spend debating on party platforms, etc.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)Something tells me you have participated in a caucus or you wouldn't be making this claim.
dsc
(52,152 posts)and there are some good things about them but I think the bad outweighs the good. The inability to vote absentee is a humungous problem. It keeps out active duty military serving out of state, it keeps out the ill, it keeps out those who work odd hours.