So we are apparently going to have two of our first four contests

[dsc]

be contests in which overseas military can't participate, college students attending colleges out of state or out of their county can't participate, people who work 2nd shift can't participate, disabled and unwell people can't participate and we are calling them fair. I have no idea if this helps Pete or not. I don't care if it helps Pete or not. I do care that all of the categories I listed above are basically non citizens for the purpose of these caucuses. We had not one, not two, not three, but four long years to fix this problem. Shame on us for not doing so.

[highplainsdem]

1. I agree. Well past time to get rid of the caucuses and just have closed primaries,

so we can find out which candidates most registered Democrats who are willing to vote want as their nominee.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Changing from a caucus to a primary has to be done by the state.

So it isn't a matter of shame on us; it's shame on those states. My formerly-caucus state switched to primaries for the next election for the reasons you list, but nothing can be done about any other state unless the state wants to do it.

[dsc]

3. actually we could call it a caucus and run it like a primary

that is exactly and precisely what the GOP did in 2016. People came and voted (I don't recall how many hours they had in which to do so) and were able to leave immediately afterward just like with a primary. Michigan in 2004 did this. It would likely be somewhat less convenient than a state paid for primary as it wouldn't have early voting but there is no reason Iowa and Nevada couldn't have poll sites with ballots that were open for 8 or 12 hours and have voting plus have absentee.

[DURHAM D]

5. Exactly this. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. That was the kind of caucus MN had for a few election cycles

until we switched back to primaries last year. You could show up and vote instead of the old system that took hours and hours while each precinct conducted party business and divided into factions and people made speeches. Nevertheless, the process excluded people who couldn't show up to vote during the few hours allocated during the evening, and the lines were very long. It wasn't a good process for people who worked evenings or couldn't get a babysitter or couldn't stand in a long line, and there was no early voting.

[question everything]

9. But you still have to be there at a specific date and time.

Primaries you have all day to vote so you can do it even if you have sick kids at home. Or have to work in the evening. And, of course, there are the absentee votes.

[dawg day]

4. I agree-- caucuses are anti-Democratic and anti-democratic

Caucuses are also weather-dependent-- and in Iowa in the winter, not everyone is willing to drive -- or has an SUV- 20 miles to caucus in the evening. Especially the elderly, and people who don't have reliable cars, will be unable to participate.

And families with small children? Boy, i remember how hard (and expensive) it was to get a babysitter even for a once-a-month "romantic" marital date.

Who ends up being able to participate in caucuses?

[SidDithers]

6. DU rec...

Caucuses are inherently undemocratic. They should all be eliminated.

Sid

[exboyfil]

7. I agree

When I moved to Iowa, it was the most confusing thing about it (that and why the stupid corn had to be detassled).

[question everything]

10. Except, as I posted here earlier, as a caucus state Iowa can be first

as a primary one it has to move behind NH..

Where are the adults in the room?

[rurallib]

11. When anyone has tried to fix this mess they have run into buzz saws

It has to be the same for both parties. You try to move a state from its top spot and it is the only time you will see both parties truly work together.

Sometime after the next election someone will make proposal to change the system and it is like a declaration of war against these states.

I live in Iowa and totally agree that our system sucks badly. I may be the only one in this state to say that.