Educate me. Why are caucuses "undemocratic"?

[Generic Brad]

When I attended my caucus in Minnesota we privately voted first, counted the votes, then moved on to to other business. Is Minnesota an oddity in how the caucuses were conducted there? Since the voting was private and multiple people counted the votes there was no opportunity I saw to influence the votes before they were cast or when they were counted.

Are caucuses run differently in other states? The one I attended sure seemed democratic to me.

[anonymous171]

1. Because Obama supporters have no jobs, children, and never get sick.

:sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

46. LMAO

[Emit]

2. I thiink ours was very democratic in that regard

and because we hand counted the votes

Did you use a hand count or a machine count?

[Generic Brad]

5. Hand counted

And Obama won by more than a 2 to 1 margin.

[Emit]

17. Ours too was hand counted

and Obama received more delegates than Clinton, as well.

[lligrd]

3. Because You Have To Get There

And Hillary's voters seem to be unable to find their way.

[BzaDem]

4. Because not everyone can caucus.

Caucuses are held during a set time, usually on a weekday at night, and require about 2 hours of your time. This precludes anyone who is out of the state at the time (who would be able to vote absentee otherwise), including those on active duty. It also makes it very difficult for those with multiple jobs, second shifts, single mothers with children to take care of, the disabled, and the elderly.

Voting, on the other hand, is all day, requires a few minutes, and allows for absentee ballots. Democracy is not supposed to place unnecessary limitations on the right to vote.

If you look at any American Government textbook, they will say how undemocratic the caucus system is.

[EmilyAnne]

6. LOL. American Government textbooks don't criticize our election process. Good grief. n/t

[BzaDem]

9. Do you really think I made that up? Guess you just hate facts.

Go pick up a copy of The New American Democracy. Turn to the chapter on nominating presidential candidates. Read all about the problems with caucuses. It specifically says how they are less democratic.

[Generic Brad]

12. So it is a fact because someone wrote it in a book?

Ann Coulter writes things in books too and I don't take her seriously. Do I now have to research the credentials of all the authors of the book or should I just take your word for it because they wrote it down and sounded authoritative?

[amborin]

20. you sound like a typical denier

what else do you deny

evolution

global warming

[BzaDem]

23. This is a political science textbook used at Yale.

[Generic Brad]

30. Yale credentials give automatic credibility?

Bush went to Yale too. I don't think anyone here considers him prestigious.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Written by a senior Hoover Institute fellow.

It's republican and neo-con to its core. (kind of puts the lie to the "liberal academia")

[New Dawn]

49. Thanks for pointing that out!

And yes, there are a ton of right-wingers in the social-sciences. Even college level political science text books are usually jammed full of propaganda.

[BzaDem]

51. Lol

First a poster says no such book exists. Then when it turns out the book does exist, they say "you can't believe everything you read." Then when it is pointed out that it is used as a textbook in a basic intro American Government course, they say it can't be trusted because some of its 4 authors come from the Hoover institution.

Seriously, what's next? If I were to point out that there were liberal scholars who wrote that book too, would you try to find relatives that belonged to the DLC, and use that to discredit it?

If you've read the book or learned about caucuses from a political science perspective through other sources, feel free to comment. Otherwise, this conversation is useless.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Fiorino is listed as the primary author - it is HIS text. Whatever

input the other authors have goes through HIS filter. That's the way textbooks are written.

The caucus system is nothing more than an extrapolation of New England meeting hall votes - coming to consensus through repeated votes that winnow out the fringe candidates and issues, with public votes which may be challanged or defended by open debate. It's called "democracy".

And I learned about caucuses from a more practical perspective than biased academic sources - I voted in them in Missouri for years.

[provis99]

54. well that seals it. Yale is the right winger's Ivy League school.

[billyoc]

37. "The New American Democracy", for the new american century.

:eyes:

[Generic Brad]

7. Hmmm. Voting in the caucus only took a few minutes

Some of chose to stay until the end. But the majority of people voted and left.

[BzaDem]

10. That's not how it is in most states.

Texas is an outlier, but in the case of Texas, some people were still in line at 12 in the morning. They started at 7:15 at night.

[blogslut]

15. That's because of high voter turnout

You're speaking of precincts in very large cities. The caucuses started late all over Texas. In big cities, doubly late. In turn, there were record numbers of people at the caucuses. Each caucus goer signs in and declares their candidate. When you've got a couple of hundred or close to a thousand in a precinct, it takes a long damned time to check each person's name against a voter roll. My precinct only had 43 people and it took a good twenty minutes for everyone to get their name chacked and their signing in done.

The point is, with the Texas caucus, your sign-in is your vote. That is how the number of delegates awarded to each candidate is decided. A caucus attendee can go home after they sign in. Staying to run for chair or delegate or to introduce a resolution is optional.

In summary, the sign-ins ran late because of massive voter turnout for the primary. The caucus could not begin until the last primary voter was finished.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. There ya go. REAL democracy

is convenient, non-intrusive, and can be squeezed in between the store and picking up the kids from soccer.

Just the way the founding fathers wanted it.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. ...

:thumbsup:

[Generic Brad]

26. I'm not trying to start a flame war but...

Where was that specified by the founding fathers? When I studied American history I thought the founding fathers favored voting rights for only white male landowners (which seems extremely undemocratic to me). They did not seem to be concerned with how soccer practice and running to the store affected an eligible voter's ability to vote.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Taking Fiorino's neo-con propaganda as "any text"

is disingenuous at best.

He's a senior fellow with the Hoover Institute, which gives you a clue about his leanings.

You need to examine your sources more carefully.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Hillary can't win them ergo in HillaryWorld they are "undemocratic."

Caucuses are mean to Hillary and make her sad. :(

[amborin]

11. the Iowa caucus is undemocratic at least, because you don't have a private ballot

you are not able to cast your vote in private, and you are subject to arm=twisting by others

from Wikipedia:

"Democratic Party process
The process used by the Democrats is more complex than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a preference group). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are viable. Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the viability threshold can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to realign: the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This realignment is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's second candidate of choice can help a candidate.

snip

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Where is it written democarcy depends upon a...

secret ballot?

New England town meetings are not democracy at work? Legislatures and boards meeting and voting openly are perhaps problematic?

Seems to me that the interaction between citizens at a caucus fits most requirements of democracy quite nicely.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Bullshit.

There is nothing "undemocratic" about a public vote. Raised hand votes have been the standard for literally thousands of years. The caucus system simply asks that you defend your vote. If you believe strongly, you won't change it. If you don't, then maybe your candidate hasn't been doing his job.

Sure, we were taught in third grade about the "secret ballot" but in the real world secret ballots are rare and generally unnecessary, from city council votes to jury votes to presidential votes. I, for one, don't give a crap who knows who I vote for. In fact, it's a point of pride for me. It seems pretty silly to insist on a secret ballot, then walk out to my car which is plastered with bumper stickers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Because Hillary isn't winning them. nt

[Lucinda]

16. Because not everyone can participate. I don't know why any Dem would

support a system which prevents everyone from voting.

[PseudoIntellect]

18. What's more democratic?

Caucuses or superdelegates?

[amborin]

21. popular vote, through secret/private ballot, that's democratic

[TreasonousBastard]

22. They are only undemocratic when the "wrong" candidate wins.

[Bullet1987]

25. Caucuses have been around for decades...it's not until

Clinton ran for President and began losing them that they all became "undemocratic."

[amborin]

31. so many deniers of history and facts

the caucuses have long possessed a tarnished history in US politics

[Generic Brad]

34. Do you have examples?

I never encountered this argument until this election year. I'm curious.

[spag68]

44. This has nothing to do

with whether you are right or wrong in your premise. You will never convince the Obama supporters, as they see it as an attack on their man. I see and generally agree with you. However it is true IMO that caucuses can work in small numbers like the New England town hall meetings. they break down when the numbers get larger,and as a vet I resent the fact that we do not get to participate in them. Making it clear that I personally will vote for either of our candidates, I still can't understand why those states always go first and think there should be a better way. this year is not the time to figure it out, we have to hope for the best. If we can win Fat Hastert's seat we can win it all, and finally get something done in DC Instead of bickering,please work to elect large majority's in the house and senate, the Pres race will take care of itself as long as we give McClaim enough tv time to screw himself up. so get with it and get out and hustle those votes bitchin and fighting time is almost over.

[Zhade]

29. Because Clinton can't win them, and it's harder to cheat with them?

NT!

[NMMatt]

32. Because the Clinton campaign lives in an Orwellian opposite world:

Michigan primary: much like in Russia or Cuba had one candidate, but in Clinton world it is un-democratic to "silence those votes" for her.

Wyoming caucus: every Democrat on a Saturday afternoon is invited to publically declare their support for their favorite of two candidates - but in Clinton world that's un-democratic.

In Clinton world the nomination should be chosen by a select group of states, those essential ones that line the Appalachian mountains or have enough people that it is impossible for a candidate to make direct appeals or states that only have her on the ballot. See in a Clinton democracy, the results are what dictate what counts after the fact. Caucuses would count if they were still run by the party machines, you see, that's democracy. Millions of college students crashing the party is anti-democratic.

[usregimechange]

35. Because Hillary tends to lose them?

[Raine]

36. Cause Hillary can't win them

therefore they are undemocratic. :eyes:

[Emit]

38. A caucus is kind of like an instant run-off in a way

If you cast a vote in a primary for someone who isn't viable (has "no chance"), you do not necessarily know that at the time, and your vote may not count for much. But, in a caucus, you have a chance to vote for your second choice.

[Extend a Hand]

39. Even if a caucus is somehow "less democratic"

than a primary, why would it be fair to penalize the voters in caucus states after the fact?

Clearly the system the democratic party uses to select a nominee needs to be addressed, but you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[BzaDem]

42. Superdelegates taking this into account isn't "changing the rules"

[Extend a Hand]

43. huh? I didn't make any comment on superdelegates

[BzaDem]

45. Nor did I make a comment on "changing the rules."

I'm just saying these problems with caucuses can affect this nomination, and it won't be because the rules were changed.

[Extend a Hand]

47. my comment was addressed to the OP

I really don't understand your reply to my first post. You said Superdelegates taking this into account don't change the rules. I don't understand what that has to do with my comment or the OP post.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. "these problems with caucuses"

Only, there ARE no problems with caucuses, except the ones Hillary is making up.

If she was winning them, she wouldn't be bitching about them.

[WCGreen]

40. Because it disenfranchises a whole mess of people who don't have

the time to participate...

Even on Election day, you have 13 hours to vote...

And more and more states are allowing early voting or absentee voting for those of us who just aren't available or can't get to the polls because they are disabled or shut-in or just can't get the day off work...

So yea, I would say if a process to elect a presidential nominee excludes even one voter from the process, then it is time to change the way caucus states vote...

[JackRiddler]

41. They aren't insofar as they are meetings on business and issues...

They are insofar as they are votes for representatives that require hours and allow shepherding tactics and hierarchies to play out.

The caucus or town hall is a democratic way of creating a platform - not electing a political leader.

[New Dawn]

48. What is "undemocratic" about having a brief debate before voting?

We had a debate at our caucus... the lone undecided became convinced to support Obama after watching the two sides debate each other.

[Catherina]

50. Caucuses have a specific purpose Clinton supporters overlook in their anger

Caucuses aren't an election and neither are the primaries.

The whole point of the primaries is so the party can select the most electable candidate. This is where the rich guys in power give the people a choice in the illusion that we have a say in who's running this country by letting us weigh in on who we think is the least objectionable.

The purpose of a caucus to so the activists who really give a shit about the issues can determine the results instead of uninformed people who were swayed by a gimmicky commercial or two. Is is so unfair to allow the DNC a chance to get a clear picture of what's really happening on the ground so they can adjust things in time for November?

By combining primaries and caucuses, the DNC gets a pretty good picture on how far they can go in pushing the candidates the corporations prefer and which candidate will give them more bang for the buck in the General Election. ANYONE can go to a caucus so the whining is sour grapes.

[annie1]

53. I think Texas was a good example. One person won the vote, and...

the other person won the caucus. A vote shouldn't take 2 hours and happen in a 2hour window, but caucusing does and it does not represent fairly the will of the population.