As we all take a deep breath and regroup, let's consider the primary election process

[TheDoorbellRang]

The system each state uses to apportion delegates has come under scrutiny this year like never before. We have folks crying "unfair" "that's a sham" etc. after every race. So what are the pros and cons of caucuses vs. primaries; open vs. closed primaries, or some combination of both?

Open Primaries: Perhaps the most "democratic" selection process. Pro is that everyone's voice is heard. Low information* voters welcome. Con is that opposing party can "game" the results.

Closed Primaries: Pro is that opposing party has more difficulty infiltrating to game the system. Low information* voters welcome. Con is that independents who make up the swing vote in most elections are excluded and therefore may not choose to participate in the general election.

Caucuses Pro is that high information voters and/or party activists have the most input in the choice. Con is that the main body of voters do not have the time or inclination to participate.

Primary/Caucus "Two-step": Pro is that it promotes the partication of all voters including low info voters and balances that with the smaller but more dedicated and educated input of the party activists. Con is...um...I can't think of any.

I know there's a few other variables, but I figured this was enough to start with. What say all of you?


*Low information voter examples: "I'm voting for McClain" "I'm voting for that woman" "I'm voting for the dreamy Muslim"

[here_is_to_hope]

1. I say turn'em all loose in a field, first one to the other side

gets shot first as they were too ambitious...

[TheDoorbellRang]

2. LOL

I can't believe I didn't think to include that option.:spray:

[frogcycle]

3. three-legged race balancing an egg on a spoon

or maybe closed, instant runoff

[TheDoorbellRang]

4. I'll bet Dean would love us to attend the next meeting where this gets hashed out

:rofl:

[El Supremo]

5. Where is closed caucus?

True Democrats who care enough to go to the caucus should be the selectors.

[TheDoorbellRang]

8. Is there such a designation?

I don't live in a caucus state but I guess I don't remember seeing any caucus described as open or closed, like I've heard with primaries. Do the caucus systems differ that way, too?

[newmajority]

6. The only contests which should be acceptable at all

Are either caucuses or a primary which is using verifiable paper ballots.

Any state using electro-fraud machines should not count, period.

[readmoreoften]

7. Primary/Caucus skews towards wealthy, young voters with few outside commitments.

For example, in Texas I was expected to show up twice and, mind you, this was on a work day: once to vote, once to caucus. Then, because of the ensuing confusion, I was mailed a just postal notice saying that I had to return for a run-off. This notice was slipped into garbage circulars and I discovered it after the run-off.

I know elderly people who could not stand long enough, working people who couldn't take off from work to return to caucus at a *specific time* (7:45pm sharp), and people new to the voting process who had no idea what a caucus was. I also know people who thought it was illegal to vote twice and others who had no interest in publicizing their vote to their neighbors--believing that voting is a private matter. I also know people in rural areas who lived far from their polling place. Combine rural older or sick people with commitments and you're making it difficult for many voters.

I also know people who voted for one person, then caucused for another based on peer-pressure. The primary/caucus system is a disaster because instead of creating more accurate results, it creates conflicting results that are hard to explain to the public and create the illusion of tampering when there was none. Of course, by extension, it will also create an excuse for tampering if it should occur.

I support more extensive GOTV earlier in the season and closed primaries with a very long waiting period: one should have to be a Democrat for at least a year to vote in the primary.

I don't see the merit of all these Republicans getting to come in and game our results. Even those who switched parties at the last moment, maybe they should take a back seat to the party's base.

Primary/Caucus=confusing, complicated disaster.

[papau]

9. After PA Popular Vote (w/FL & MI) 14,993,348 47.4% 15,116,076 47.8% lead held by Clinton +122,728 +

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[frogcycle]

10. go back to your own lame thread

we're having a serious discussion here

[TheDoorbellRang]

12. Did you wander into the wrong thread?

Need some coffee? :hangover:

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I'll admit Texas' system was absurd, but we need independents to vote for our nominee...

Why should we not allow them to have a choice in selecting him/her? Having the Democratic base pick the nominee is a recipe for disaster because we actually vote on issues and not based on stupid criteria like "Who would you rather have a beer with". But like it or not, the rest of the country votes on that kind of criteria and having Democrats only picking the nominee makes it more likely that we will pick a candidate that can't appeal to the rest of the country.

[crispini]

11. Primary / Caucus rocks teh house!

Just have to get the balance right between the two to make everyone happy. But boy, there's nothing like a caucus to get your blood going. And the primary makes sure everyone who wants to vote is still heard.

[TheDoorbellRang]

13. Yup. It was your defense of the Texas two-step that convinced me

But I get a kick out of everyone from the other states that thought it was just too much. I thought it was a perfect balance. :hi:

[crispini]

14. Hee. Thanks!

It is a lot of work, but if you can't make the caucus, you've still got the primary to express yourself in. :hi: