To be fair, I'm against Clinton, but understand the criticism of caucuses

[JackRiddler]

Caucuses are dubious. I like the idea of citizen meetings formulating policy - wish that existed on a federal level! - but it's the wrong way to choose representatives. A caucus favors party wonks and cronies, those who are better organized, people who can take a day off and be loud and forceful, and schemers in general. And alpha male bullies, obviously (yes, there are also alpha female bullies, but probably not as many). It's inherently undemocratic. If you're not well-spoken, you're at an immediate disadvantage. Furthermore, I'm in a primary state so I've never been to a caucus but based on reports, the caucuses as arranged today are boring procedural nightmares drained of passion.

[Levgreee]

1. Most people have a decision before-hand and stick with it

[fenriswolf]

2. from some of the pictures i have seen

I would think an overbundance of passion was the problem that and not everyone can attend them (school, work, other oblegations).

[Cha]

3. So maybe hilary should have gone

about changing the way primaries are done if she hadn't been so busy supporting bush policies.

[Hutzpa]

4. Zzzzzzzzz la-la-la-la-la

anything Obama has achieve must be put down.

Carry on Hillary, see how many votes you get, without cheating.


bwahahahaha!!



:rofl:

[anigbrowl]

5. Which is it?

You say 'people who can <...> be loud and forceful, and schemers in general. And alpha male bullies, obviously', then in your next sentence you say 'the caucuses as arranged today are boring procedural nightmares drained of passion.'

Make up your mind.

[JackRiddler]

8. No contradiction...

Loud and forceful need have nothing to do with passion, and can easily go together with wonky procedural nightmares.

[MADem]

6. They disciminate against the aged, the disabled, those on active duty, and

shift workers, and the poor to lower middle class wage earner, who can't get time off or can't afford to lose a day at work.

It's up to the states to fix it, though. They've got to be motivated.

IA never will--they make billions off of it every four years.

Some states call their contests a caucus, but it's actually a "firehouse primary."

I like absentee ballot availability for those who cannot be present to vote, and some caucus contests don't provide for that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

20. That is so true. I was able to attend because I'd researched the location, went to a training

session which date and location I literally stumbled upon in the CO DU forum and made arrangements at work that allowed me to attend. But, even at the training session, there were maybe 30 people, even though it was supposedly open to the public.

After the caucuses, I talked to several people who couldn't attend because of work/child care obligations, or who went and couldn't find parking or the lines were prohibitively long, finally turning around and going home, because they were too late to vote.

Many, many voters disenfranchised, and very disappointed.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. yes they are antiquated ...amybe at one time when the population was lower it worked but not today.

[Egnever]

9. Try one sometime

They are fun. You walk away feeling like your community is worth fighting for. Obama lost my precinct but it was very friendly. people really seemed to enjoy it. I know I did.

I understand the arguments against it. However theres a lot of pluses that come with them also.

[goodgd_yall]

16. Being "fun" isn't enough to keep it as an election process

As posted above, caucuses tend to disenfranchise the disabled and workers who are unable to meet caucus schedules. THe scheduling is not flexible enough for many workers. Many caucuses do not use absentee ballots. Absentee ballot usage could remedy some of the problems.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. They could have clowns and pony rides

but it still doesn't make it easier for people to actually attend them.

Some people work. Some people can't afford baby sitters. Some people have other obligations at the specific time the caucus is held.

They're simply undemocratic. Yes, they may be great fun, but only if you can actually attend.

[Eric J in MN]

10. I want to get rid of caucuses, and the main reason is that they're too crowded.

The planners don't want to add a lot of locations, because that is a lot more work.

It would be easier to convince them to have a full day of voting (a primary) at the same number of locations.

(I mean get rid of caucuses for presidential races, not for other races.)

[dailykoff]

11. Kerry and Obama won in Iowa by being nice.

There goes your theory.

[JackRiddler]

13. That would be bullshit, too, wouldn't it?

The point is that primaries allow all of the people who are qualified to vote as they wish, in secret, without having to deal with harrassment (whether "nice" or "bullying") from a bunch of campaign operatives, wonks and loudmouths telling them what to do.

This is not my "theory" but a fact, as a comparison of the numbers of people voting in primaries compared to caucuses immediately makes obvious.

[dailykoff]

17. Talk to somebody from Iowa.

There's a precinct captain who posts here as TwoSparkles. Ask her.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I prefer regular secret ballot, even though I participated in my caucus

and had fun. But, most people don't say a word. They sit or stand on their preferred side of the room, suffer through some idiots who feel the need to speak, and then line up to be counted. THAT'S IT. Only the "uncommitteds" are really targeted for a sales pitch, and they show up wanting that anyway. It really wasn't a big deal. You'd have to be pretty weak-minded to be intimidated by the process.

[JackRiddler]

15. Even if you're strong minded, it doesn't help if you have to work that day, does it?

[TwilightGardener]

24. No, that's why they're usually held on Saturdays. And if you have to work

on Saturday, I suppose it makes it tough for you to arrange a way to go caucus for Obama.

[juno jones]

14. I agree.

There is something inherently undemocratic with caucuses as they currently function. I understand there are some pretty good reasons to have them, one of them being the current untrustworthiness of our voting system, but I think they should be spread out more, perhaps staggered in times through out a day, so more people can participate. I held down the fort so others from my restaurant could vote, but I ultimately feel I was cheated out of participation in what is ultimately going to be the more important decision of the year. It is never a good thing to discourage people from participating in democracy. If our voices truly matter, then we overlooked shift workers should get our chance to speak out as well.

And the overbearing strong-arm stuff I keep hearing about...so very off-putting. That's just juvenile and needs to stop.

[tritsofme]

19. I believe the secret ballot to be sacrosanct.

Caucuses have never made any sense to me.

[dailykoff]

22. Easier to blackball, easier to rig.

I don't see any metaphysical benefit to secrecy.

[JackRiddler]

25. Harder to intimidate the voter, you will admit.

[high density]

21. I hate the idea of a caucus

But I caucused yesterday and there was no intimidation going on. Some of the speeches on behalf of candidates were dubious, but they were limited in time and number. I didn't say a word during the entire event after registration. The worst part is that it was tiring. It took 4.5 hours to cast a vote, which is just a far too inefficient use of time in my opinion. Points of the process were full of passion, but towards the end, during the actual voting, it was clear everybody was ready to go home a couple of hours earlier.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Thank you Jack

My own misgivings about the wide spread use of caucuses to pick our candidates is not because of the candidate I back right now, they just are flawed in a fundemental way to me. Nothing is really black and white, and there are aspects of caucuses that I find positive, but those aspects are outweighed by their limitations for me, limitations that ultimately make them less democratic on whole than primaries.

Having said that I fully understand and accept that this is the system in place in many states for this nominating process. I fully accept the validity of the results that come out of each caucus, and I do not in the slightest begrudge any candidate managing to operate effectively inside of that system. It is as level a playing field as any other, just not the best field in my opinion on which to make these types of decisions.