Contrary to the Clinton media manipulation caucuses are democratic

[NMMatt]

The fact of the matter is that any registered Democrat has the right to show up at a Caucus and make his or her intentions known. The fact that many people chose not to attend does not make them anti-democratic. The purpose of caucuses is that they are less expensive, can be run by the state party on their own terms, and they can serve as community building events for Democrats. They also serve to find out who the most informed voters support because uninformed casual voters rarely Caucus.

Because Clinton supporters chose not to attend the Caucus simply means that her support in Texas was lukewarm. Many of her voters probably have a fond memory of her husband but really don't care too much either way, or at least not enough to spend an evening on. They are likely less informed about the candidates and what it takes to win elections in general. The fact that Obama supporters in Texas did Caucus in higher numbers simply shows that they are motivated to be involved with their campaign and ultimately their government.

[anonymous171]

1. I think Caucuses are good for primaries.

They help to set up networks for candidates that can be useful in the GE.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. So folks deserve extra representation for their individual enthusiasm? How very democratic.

Why not just have a poll tax? See who REALLY wants to vote.

[Lisa0825]

5. Active participants in the local party can participate,

regardless of which candidate they represent. It is NOT less fair to either candidate. It's only less fair because the Clinton campaign has failed to do well on them.... you know.... nothing that's doesn't go there way counts, right?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. That is insufficient

Our civil rights laws don't buy that kind of argument, so why should we? Caucuses would be struck down in a general election (in the 21st century), so the only reason we have them is that parties are not legally required to be democratic in their nominating contests.

But, in equity terms, voting should be as easy as practically possible.

Any unusual barrier is presumed to have a disproportionate impact.

My citing the Poll Tax is not frivolous. Money, time, distance... all have disparate impacts.

Voting cannot be perfectly easy, but there's little argument, from a democracy perspective, for any method that is more burdensome than necessary.

The only valid argument I can think of for caucuses is a state party not being able to afford a primary.

I hope everyone realizes that caucuses exist for the same reason as super-delegates. They are designed to limit participation to party die-hards.

[Recursion]

17. Part of the problem is that you can't take care of party business in a primary

At least in DC, back when we had a caucus, we did a whole lot of party business and, oh yeah, who do you guys want to be the nominee?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. It's valid, legal and proper. Just not "democratic" as the OP suggests.

[Recursion]

23. The ancient Greeks (who invented this "democracy" stuff, after all) essentially caucused

Maybe we're just playing semantics here; I'm taking "democracy" to mean the authority of government is derived from the consent of the people. Primaries are one way of determining that consent; caucuses another. Both are imperfect.

[msallied]

25. I think people are easily confused on the word democracy

For instance, the people who are upset over losing suddenly wish we were a direct "democracy." But we are a republic, and things are set up the way they are for a good reason. I'm thankful for the system of delegates. The founding fathers didn't trust direct democracy because of the problem of factions. this is a good way to keep things on an even keel, and even though it's a pain in the butt at the moment, the proportional awarding of delegates has gone a long way toward making people's votes more meaningful and thereby getting people more involved and increasing turnout.

[Recursion]

27. "Democracy" and "Republic" are not exclusive

A republic is a state whose head of state is not a monarch.

There are democratic republics (USA), non-democratic republics (Egypt), democratic non-republics (UK), and non-democratic non-republics (Nepal).

[msallied]

33. We agree

I was trying to make a stipulation between direct democracy and representative democracy such as we have here in the US.

[roguevalley]

31. get up and go to one. that's how its done up here. its open and its

advertised. if you don't go, don't complain. its like not voting and bitching.

[goodgd_yall]

3. As has been pointed out:

Caucuses, when there are no absentee ballot provisions (which is the case in most caucus states) discriminate against the disabled and those who cannot take time off from work to attend.

[Bread and Circus]

4. I actually like the idea of caucuses. I loathe the fact that people ignorant of the basic facts

are allowed to vote. Caucuses address that to a degree.

I'd prefer a totally different system than what we have now, and even then caucuses are the LEAST of our worries.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Ignorant people don't vote any worse than anyone else

I would have thought all Dems were past this kind of thinking.

The average Rush Limbaugh listener knows a lot more about the issues than the average single mother.

[IDemo]

8. "Ignorant people don't vote any worse than anyone else"

That statement is positively worthy of a Bushism, and that kind of voter gave us G. W. Bush. Congratulations!

:rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. You don't even realize it's grammatically correct, do you, you pathetic clod?

[IDemo]

16. It is an utterly nonsensical statement

It may be correct grammatically but it is still ridiculously, laughably wrong.

Idiot.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. You really don't get it...

Republicans win the college educated year in, year out.

Democrats win people with post-graduate degrees and also VAST numbers of woefully uninformed, uneducated people.

People who can't tell you how many Senators there are or who the Vice President is are all that stand between us and the abyss. The least informed are the only reason Bush didn't win 45 states in 2004.

If you think voting for Bush is the opposite of "worse" you're on firm ground. Otherwise, can the smug, elitist blather.

[IDemo]

34. You're saying Democrats are helpless without the woefully uninformed and uneducated?

An informed voter, Republican or Democrat, is always preferable to an ignorant one. I would prefer to see college educated or simply well informed Repubs going to the polls than those of either party who need no further input than a bumper sticker. That is my definition of "voting worse", and I see more than my share of it here. I'm surrounded by people who still believe Saddam coordinated 9/11 and that Bush is a hero.

Rather than simply relying so much on the Woefully Uninformed for supporting our numbers, maybe a better idea would be making an effort to engage and inform whenever possible. That could actually have benefits beyond the next election. The campaigns could help out by leaving out the sleeping children at 3:00am crap and discussing the issues in detail, but they would rather pander to fear and suspicion.

[Seeker30]

9. You loathe the fact that people are allowed to vote?

Lemme guess, you support Obama.

[Growler]

26. I hate caucuses

AND I'm a huge Obama supporter. I even dragged myself to the WA state caucus this year, and I hated the experience, but I did it any way because it was important to cast a vote for the only candidate capable of winning the GE in November.

So yeah... I hate caucuses AND I support Obama. Did your head just explode??

[MattBaggins]

30. Another against the caucus system

I am on only mildly in the Obama camp; but I also think that the DNC should require primaries for electing our leaders.

[joeprogressive]

10. It is really quite simple, the party activists and the more educated

participate in caucuses. That is why Obama does well in the caucuses. It seems perfectly fair to me. HRC gets the less educated, blind follower vote and Obama gets the people that are more intellectually sophisticated. The latter should negate the aforementioned.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Unless you're joking, you are a really bad person.

[joeprogressive]

18. No, I am a highly educated person that is brutally honest.

I work with many uneducated hispanics that flat out told me they would not vote for Obama because he is black. They said that is the general sentiment in their community. If my caucus vote can negate them, then that seems fair. I guess you don't have any problem with racism deciding the election?

[kiva]

11. People who choose not to attend...you mean like

1. shift workers who have to work?
2. members of the military who are serving away from their homes?
3. people with physical handicaps or other conditions that restrict their movements?
4. couples with children and those caring for elderly or ill family members who can't be left alone?
5. people who are out of town on the day of the caucus?

[Altair]

12. They have their place. Enthusiastic supporters are the ones

who actually volunteer in the general election instead of just voting. I think both caucuses and primaries have their place.

[NMMatt]

19. True - primacaucuses for every state! -nt

[msallied]

24. there are pluses and minuses to both

The caucus is great for all of the reason you described, but if that is the only way that the state apportions delegates, then it can be unfair. Not everyone CAN make it to a caucus. It's not an "in an out" sort of thing and it inhibits participation for everyone. BUT they are great for grassroots campaigns and create a more informative citizenry. They also welcome the opportunity for the introduction of voter resolutions and allow the people to participating in the law-making process, at least in certain states. I like the Texas system specifically because it allows for people to caucus or vote in the primary. If it weren't so expensive, it would be great for all of the states to have such a system.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Caucuses are mean to Hillary and make her sad.

:(

[Cha]

22. If hilaryland hadn't counted on SuperTues

to hand them the nom would they have paid more attention to the whole process in all the states instead of whining?

[Beregond2]

28. Caucases

Absolutely. I wonder if the people who are so down on caucuses have ever been to one.

[Growler]

29. I've been

I've been to caucuses AND I hate them. The are the essence of UNdemocracy. But that's the system we have here in WA state, so that's the game I played.

[suston96]

32. Caucuses are not democratic because of their limited participation.

All citizens have the right to participate in their self-governance. Caucuses are designed specifically to limit or define who and how many participate. When you have to move a caucus from a room to an outside parking lot you know their is a problem with the management of that method of election.

And by the way, there is never a paper trail. Ever consider how there would be a recount in a caucus?