In Defense of Caucuses or Next time lets just let have American Idol handle the Primaries

[grantcart]

In Defense of Caucuses

There has been over the last few months severe criticism of the caucuses. Since the results of the caucuses overwhelmingly favored one candidate all of the discussions for or against were inevitably colored by which candidate you supported. Perhaps now we can have a more objective discussion of them.

1) Caucuses are not undemocratic.

People consistently tried to make the case that caucuses are undemocratic because they are more difficult to commit to, take more time, require a schedule change.

The word for that is inconvenient. Caucuses are inconvenient but as they do not preclude anybody from admission they cannot be termed undemocratic.

2) It is argued that caucuses are biased against the elderly. People who say this have not been to a caucus.



Grey has been the dominant color of the hair at caucuses for decades - this year was a change.

3) Primaries are to Democracy as "Big Macs are to Cuisine"

Caucuses allow neighbors to get together and converse about their government. Somebody can get up and talk about the environment and the next person talk about health care and the next person speak to their concern about the national debt. A key element to democracy is listening and talking. From the caucuses delegates are chosen to the County then the State and National Conventions.

One of the things that caucuses do is to select a Presidential Candidate. But if your in a caucus and your neighbor is picked and supports another candidate you can say "I will support you and your candidate if you will make sure that they vote on securing funding for X for the Party Platform". Try and do that at the primary. Tell that to the person that takes your primary ballot. Caucuses give feed back on platform issues and help build the direction of the party.

Primaries are convenient and so are Big Macs.

4) Each State owns the Primary, each state party organization owns the Caucus.

This is particularly true with rural states that have less need for interim elections for ballot measures. State primaries are normally held later as they serve as the primary for other offices. Many states would be pushed to the end of the schedule (normally eliminating their voice)if they relied on a primary where if they conduct their own caucus can do it any day they want.

5) Meeting together with like minded people in a caucus helps to build enthusiasm for the party - especially in red states.

This short little video explains this point better than I could

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fwJEWLUv8

6) Caucus Proxy for those who cannot attend

For those that cannot come to the caucus at the scheduled time there could be a write in ballot or proxy. This would solve the problem for the infirmed, those that work during these hours (and cannot get excused - but I favor a law that requires employers to give workers time off for any scheduled caucus) or others with a valid excuse.



7) Who said that Democracy should be convenient at every step?

There is something to be said for giving additional weight to the voices of those who are willing to commit extra time and effort to their Party when deciding the leadership of the party. The General Election still remains the domain of the easiest voting method with the highest degree of inclusion.


8) Caucuses favor perspiration and Primaries favor media buys.

Caucuses can be built on people calling their friends while primaries are going to be more a magnet for big money media buys. When there is an uneven field favoring the candidates with the biggest budgets caucuses help reduce the advantage that well heeled candidates have.


Caucuses are more democratic because they are multi-dimensional and involve a conversation and not just a simple mark on a ballot or touch screen. They are more democratic because candidates with ideas but no money have a better chance to compete than those with just money. Caucuses are more inconvenient - but who said democracy should be too easy?

If primaries are preferred because they are more democratic and are more convenient then by logical extension American Idol is more democratic than a state primary. We should simply subcontract it out to AI so that they can arrange it so that everybody votes without actually getting off their sofa.

ON EDIT

FOR SOME PEOPLE THAT CANNOT ATTEND IN PERSON BECAUSE OF CHILD CARE OR OTHER PHYSICAL REASONS - IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THEY CANNOT PARTICPATE THROUGH AN INTERNET CONNECTION?.

[cliffordu]

1. Caucus by textmessage!! Democratic flashmobbing!!

[roguevalley]

50. thank you for defending caucuses. my state has been dissed all

this season. Pisses me off royally too.

[cliffordu]

53. I live in washington - we caucused, too.... I like it...

[roguevalley]

74. I do too. its intimate, powerful and builds the network for the GE.

[JeffR]

2. Your point #6 is a brilliant idea.

But as to your overarching point, yes, democracy isn't necessarily convenient. Neither is raking leaves or cleaning out the cat box. But they still have to be done.

Yet another great post, grantcart. Bravo.

[Eric J in MN]

6. The voting aspect of democracy should be convenient,

...even if donating and volunteering involves hardship.

[JeffR]

13. Didn't mean to imply that it shouldn't

especially in an era where the miracle Bush economy has people working two jobs, no childcare, and so many other inequities. But I do think the caucus system, with all its quirks, is a relic from a bygone era that reflects American democracy at its best. And participation in democracy should require some effort. The fact that it does helps explain why voter participation rates in our elections are way our of line compared to many other nations. Some of us have gone soft, while others have gone desperate and disillusioned, and others are just flat out too busy trying to survive.

We have to turn this around somehow, and if leveraging technology - as I think you're alluding to - helps ensure better participation rates, I'm all for that, and grantcart's idea about proxy participation in caucus processes is a big step in that direction, IMHO.

[AZBlue]

3. We have to listen to them sing???

Ok, but only if they don't do any country western songs.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Voting should be convenient.

People who want to vote shouldn't face traffic jams and hundreds of people crammed near the front door.

I hope Minnesota switches from a caucus to a primary so that voting will be convenient.

Regarding people discussing candidates at caucuses: they have already made up their minds by that time, anyway. (And the way we do it in Minnesota doesn't involve people discussing candidates.)

[bvar22]

67. I disagree.

I participated in the Minnesota Caucus in 2004 (St Paul).
I found it enlightening and inspiring.
Keep The Caucus.

I have also voted in open and closed Primaries.
Keep the Caucus.

The Presidential Caucus is only ONCE every FOUR YEARS.
It is no more difficult than going out to a movie.
If you care, you'll be there.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[MarjorieG]

5. Caucuses are the most democratic and transparent. Unlike electronic voting and secret vote counting.

We need citizens observing.

[newmajority]

7. American Idol.... DIEBOLD....... Same difference

Corporate rigged voting either way.

[grantcart]

9. You can't diebold a caucus

[newmajority]

24. Exactly my point.

Camp Hillary was screaming about how caucuses shouldn't count, and a couple of them were trying to tell me lies about what happened in my own state (WA), but the fact remains that I can account for every single vote made in my precinct caucus, or any statewide if I had time to look it up.

Ed Rendell can't prove who voted for whom in PA. And what's really sickening is that he likes it that way.

[joshcryer]

8. Do caucuses represent a statistical sample of the population? Yes/no?

If you answer this honestly you will see why they are undemocratic.

[anonymous171]

11. Does any form of voting? It all depends on who shows up.

[joshcryer]

16. Direct voting does. 100%.

It's why the caucus 'exit polls' were so wildly off. They simply didn't sample the population at all.

[grantcart]

12. caucuses are meant to represent the party and not the general population

Let us take one issue: The question of moving articles of impeachment against the administration.

How do you give that input in a primary election unless you become a single issue voter and there is one candidate who is running on that one issue.


There is nothing to prevent everyone going to a caucus.

But to follow your logic - American Idol voting techniques are even more accessible than primaries.



Since caucuses allow people to express them on issues to be included in the platform and not simply the question of which candidate they support they offer a more accurate and three dimensional view of the population.

[joshcryer]

18. Then don't say it's democratic, say it's representative.

There's a very distinct difference here.

[grantcart]

32. I agree that they are more representative and that they are not undemocratic

Explain to me how a primary election represents the populations opinion on anything besides the candidate;

global warming

impeachment

role of the united nations

etc.


If you think that democracy means soley in picking a candidate then you would have a case that primaries are more democratic, but I don't know many people that would agree with that premise.

Caucuses are more democratic because they allow participation beyond simply picking the candidate.

[joshcryer]

35. In a representitive democratic republic picking the candidate is the most signifiant power!

Are you kidding me? We don't have a direct democracy, so our power lies in chosing who we vote for above all else. Sure we get the option to vote on issues every now and again, but generally it is our candidates who do the deciding for us.

That's where it starts in our democracy, and to sully the process by a system that disenfranchises 90% of the population (going on the numbers in Minn. only 10% of the people who showed up for the previous years state elections showed up), and that's with *record numbers* of turnout to the point where fire codes were almost violated and people were *not allowed in the cacusus*, where caucuses were filled, doors were closed and people were left outside to stand in the rain!

C'mon!

[grantcart]

41. When I was 18 some 35 years ago a couple of black kids had been shot

when running away from cops when they were caught robbing an empty home.

I organized a couple of fellows to join me on introducing a resolution to be added to the County Convention that the City Police and the County Sheriff be instructed on use of lethal force and be provided training and equipment for non lethal persuit and arrest.

I was a delegate to the County convention and it was added to the platform and ultimately adopted by the City and the County.

Now how does voting for a presidential candidate help me get that done.

The thing is if you actually participated in a caucus you would be enthusiastic for it.

[joshcryer]

44. Your presidential candidate is able to change conditions on that local level.

By inacting policies to reduce poverty so that poor guy wouldn't have felt the need to rob someone. By inacting policies to help stem drug addictions, and so on.

I find it amusing that you deminish the power of a presidential candidate in favor of local party politics when it clearly disenfranchises a lot of people.

[bvar22]

69. Nobody is "disenfranchized" at a Caucus.

EVERYBODY is invited to attend.
It is no more difficult than going out to a movie, but the Caucus is FREE.

If 90% can't be bothered to participate in their democracy, that does NOT equal "disenfranchisement". It equals LAZY for the most part.

Keep the Caucus.
It is only ONCE every FOUR YEARS.
If you care, you'll be there.

[BeeBoppinLula]

55. well, the "general population" votes in the GE, so if dems want to win, they better find out who the

general population wants to be the nominee.

[CoffeeCat]

19. YES, they do...

I was a precinct captain at my Iowa caucus. The Demographics at the caucus certainly
reflected real life.

Why wouldn't they?

I'm also a delegate, and have spent a great deal of time with other precinct captains--and the general
consensus was that the caucuses were an overwhelming success--with people participating from
all walks of life--rich, poor, young, old.

Our caucus participation increased 100 percent from 2004, and 2004 was a record year.

People came out in droves.

No candidate ever complained about how the caucuses were run--until Hillary lost Iowa. Many
politicians have lost the Iowa caucuses, but not one of them launched a publicity attack against
the process.

It's disgraceful, as far as I'm concerned. Do you know how hard the Dem party faithful work
to make the caucuses fair, legitimate and highly attended? We drive people to the caucuses, we
call them in the days leading to the caucus. One of my duties was to check off attendees, and
call people who said they would attend--but didn't arrive yet, as a reminder. It's incredibly
insulting to have one candidate blast these false talking points and see this nonsense disseminated
as truth.

I know the truth. I was there. What Hillary has propagated is lies.

Hillary's campaign has now admitted that they were unprepared for the caucus states. They
are admitting that Penn thought the system was "winner take all" and they wrote off the caucus states
because they were "small." They didn't even try.

To cover up their failures, they decided to bash the caucuses--which have been running smoothly for
100 years in my state.

Please stop this nonsense. Hillary has admitted that her campaign screwed up when it came to the
caucuses. You can stop perpetuating the myth now.

And one last thing...Caucus votes are HAND COUNTED, OUT IN THE OPEN. When I needed a count of the
Obama votes in my precinct, I had everyone raise their hands. I went around the room and had everyone
fire off their number. We did this twice to ensure accuracy. Then, when we tallied the numbers in the
room--I took a digital picture of the counts. I then called the numbers in to a central office. After
the caucus--the results from each precinct were published. I double checked with the numbers I had.

Please take the time to understand how fair, honest and democratic the caucus process truly is.

[joshcryer]

23. Please spare me a rant. A caucus cannot possibly represent the population at large.

Simply because there are classes of people who cannot attend to be represented in the sample.

[CoffeeCat]

26. You don't know what you are talking about...

Have you ever been to a caucus?

Just exactly WHAT are you talking about????

What "classes of people" cannot attend?

You are perpetuating myths that Hillary has even stopped perpetuating.

What you are saying is simply untrue.

Anyone who wants to attend a caucus can.

All caucus sites are handicap accessible. If you don't have a ride, one is provided for you.
In my state, you are entitled to paid time off for the caucuses. Citizens in my state know
about the caucuses months in advance. People plan to attend for months and weeks. Most
caucuses are finished in about 30 minutes. You can sit the entire time.

What are you talking about?

Your assertions do not match with the reality that I have seen for myself--as a caucus precinct captain.

[joshcryer]

30. So when you closed the doors were you sure that everyone outside was represented?

How about the people who were working at the time? Or the people who had children and had to take care of them?

Please don't be offended by my characterization, I think you're being far too sensitive.

[CoffeeCat]

38. I all ready explained it all to you...

...obviously, you aren't interested in a first-hand account from someone who
attended the caucuses.

Like I said--in my state, people are entitled to take 2 hours off for the caucus
and that time off is PAID. It's the law in our state.

Are you actually suggesting that every single person who wanted to caucus, but
works the night shift-----WAS NOT THERE?

Also--child care is provided at most caucus locations. In fact, most of the candidates
provided childcare ON SITE. Furthermore, there were children at our caucuses. We
had moms with babies in their arms and toddlers walking around. I saw plenty of children
in the hallway, when everyone was leaving.

It only takes 30 minutes to caucus. You make it sound like some kind of treacherous, all-day
obstacle course where you have to swim through shark-infested waters to get in the building!

You're perpetuating myths. I think it's disingenuous.

Pardon me, if I won't shut up and be silent as you misinform.

[joshcryer]

39. Hard for me to 'perpetuate myths' when you won't answer my question.

Did you close doors with people outside wanting to get in?

Be honest. Did you close doors with people outside wanting to get in?

[CoffeeCat]

40. Hello no!

There was no one waiting outside.

What are you talking about?????

[joshcryer]

43. I find that hard to believe.

[CoffeeCat]

45. I don't know what you're insinuating...

...or what you've got in your head.

All I can tell you is that we didn't close the door and leave people out in the hall.

We registered people. Greeted them at the door. Everyone filed in.

As far as I know, the hallway was empty.

I'm not sure where you're going with this...but why would any precinct captain
leave anyone out?

[joshcryer]

46. Because the clock ticks down and things start moving, and the doors get closed.

This was a record turnout season. Many many caucus reports noted that people had to be turned away. Many.

So I just don't believe you that there wasn't someone out there in the hallway.

[CoffeeCat]

47. When we close the doors...

...there was no one out in the hallway, begging to get in.

However, the caucuses do have to start on time. This isn't a buffet at the Golden Corral.
You can't just come and go as you please. This is a caucus!

Yes, the doors have to be closed at a certain time.

You can't have people coming in and going out all night, when you have to get accurate vote counts.

That's certainly no reason to suggest that the caucuses are unfair, or whatever negative talking
point you're trying to suggest!

Geez. Polling stations close at certain time too. :eyes:

[Political Heretic]

56. There was in Idaho. Hundreds of people couldn't get in. But we still got to cast a vote.

[bvar22]

70. Then the problem is with the local venue, not with Caucuses.

!

[ISUGRADIA]

31. Take a look at turnout

Iowa 200,000

NH 270,000

So if IA had a primary the turnout would have likely been much, much higher

[ExPatLeftist]

73. That assumes that the difference between caucus/primary is causal of this difference in turnout

and there are many differences between the states and their contests, so we cannot make that assumption.

[eridani]

28. No, and so what? They are Democrats, which is the way it should be

Why in bloody hell to Repubs and Independents have the right to select our candidates?

[LeftyMom]

10. Inconvenience discourages participation, especially for the underclasses

If you can't afford a sitter for a couple of hours, or a few hours off of work (assuming your boss would grant them) a caucus system disenfranchises you. If you're balancing school and work, carving a few hours out of your day may not be possible.

I don't live in a caucus state, thank goodness. I'm a single parent, I work, I go to school, I have a small child, I'm young. I'm pretty much the model of a non-participant in the process, but I have never missed an election, including primaries and special elections. Why? Because we use a regular election system, and I'm permanent absentee, so if the only time I have to fill in a ballot is at three AM on a friday, I still get to participate.

[grantcart]

14. How do you vote for more government support for day care in a primary?

In a caucus you could speak to that issue and demand that it be addressed in the state platform. Accomodations for child care could be made or if you really cannot attend a proxy could be developed which again would allow you to have input on more than just the candidate but also the issue you want the party to concentrate on.

[LeftyMom]

36. Child care alone wouldn't be enough- many people have work, school, elder care, etc.

A regular election with a vote-by-mail option or an exclusively vote-by-mail system is the only way to ensure anything like equal access.

[grantcart]

21. On edit I raise the question why not allow people in your situation to participate

via internet.


And that is also an example of the kind of give and take discussion that is possible with caucuses and not with a primary.

[eridani]

29. Good God NO!! Too easy to fuck with the process

Universal absentee caucusing, period.

[LeftyMom]

37. A lot of low income people don't have internet access,

especially older people.

That's before one even gets into security issues, etc.

And frankly, a lot of working people and students just don't have hours to spare for a caucus, whether in-person or online. It takes only a few minutes to bubble in one's selections on a ballot, and in a absentee/vote-by/mail system, that can be scheduled around other responsibilities.

If people have to drop everything and reschedule their lives to participate, many simply won't have the option.

[RNdaSilva]

61. Caucuses are also likely to preclude and/or discourage:

* Rush Limbaugh chaos type voters

* The information-deficient voters

* The...better stop here.

Caucuses are great...

[Emit]

52. We had lots of kids at our caucus

of all ages

[Kindigger]

15. That's too bad

"Regarding people discussing candidates at caucuses: they have already made up their minds by that time, anyway. (And the way we do it in Minnesota doesn't involve people discussing candidates.)"

The whole idea of a caucus is to convince others to join your group/candidate. I caucused for Joe with two other guys. We were the center of attraction for half an hour or more. I remember how we all lined up against the wall, arms crossed, shaking our heads back and forth in unison.

All the pressure came from Hillary's peeps, but it had a lot to do with the kind of people in her group. They had a female former Sec. of State, the county attorney, every lawyer in town.

If I had gotten any attention from the Obama people ie. if any of them verbalized a good reason why I should join them, I probably would have. In their case it was probably true that their minds couldn't be changed, and I bet if I'd asked them why, they wouldn't have had an answer, which is kind of sad. Their group was definitely running on the "bandwagon effect".

It was fun though having the county attorney in my face, and being able to tell him NO without being cuffed.
:P

[phrigndumass]

17. Here's a futuristic idea ...

"We should simply subcontract it out to AI so that they can arrange it so that everybody votes without actually getting off their sofa."

If they want it that easy, then yes, make it as easy as selecting a channel to watch on the television, if they can't dial a phone. Or maybe an application that automatically downloads onto your computer and refuses to let you do anything on your computer until you vote on the internet.

But that would require no thought. Britney Spears would win in a landslide.

Caucuses are good for America.

[Vattel]

20. caucuses are unfair

because not everyone has a realistic opportunity to participate.

[BzaDem]

22. This is a little misleading.

For 1), caucuses do preclude people in practice (even if they don't by statute). People who have jobs who can't miss them for risk of being fired are precluded in practice. Many single mothers are precluded in practice. Anyone who would normally need an absentee ballot is precluded in practice (except in very few states), including active duty soldiers.

For 2), you cannot debunk the charge that caucuses are biased against the elderly with a single picture of one low-turnout caucus precinct.


And for all the points about how caucuses are great because people get together and talk about issues and all of that, that is not the problem with caucuses. The problem is that is how our nominee gets decided. If people want organized events to talk about and vote on issues and the party platform, they can still do that without selecting our nominee.

In reality, many people simply don't have time in life to pay attention to politics like many of us here. They will not spend hours to vote. But should these people have less of a say? I favor a method of voting that gets as close to 100% turnout as possible. Caucuses almost always have 1-5% turnout. I think that is a disgrace to democracy. You can argue that these are the people that should be making the decisions, but I am very skeptical of any of those types of arguments that proclaim who should have a say and who shouldn't (by political involvement, race, money, or anything else).

[grantcart]

27. After you posted I also added the question of allowing people who

are unable to attend in person to attend via the internet.


The picture is very representative - elderly have dominated caucuses for years - ask people who go to them. This is the first year that younger folks were brought in.


You are arguing against your own case because you are arguing for more access including money and caucuses allow low budget candidates a much better chance to have an impact than primaries where media buys have a much greater impact.

[BzaDem]

49. I am arguing for more access for the voters, not more access by the candidates.

I want it as convenient as possible, so that we can have as close to 100% turnout as possible (and not 1-5% turnout making decisions for 100% of the population). I understand the problem of having smaller contests to aid the candidates (so it doesn't become solely based upon a media buy), but I think having the early states (and having most of them be smaller states) solves that problem adequately, without making them have caucuses instead of primaries. Regardless, having higher turnout is more important than having easier access by candidates (in my opinion).

[joshcryer]

34. Don't forget campainging at the polls. At a regular poll this is *illegal*.

There's a reason you can't even put a *button* of a candidate near a polling machine. It's considered coercive and undemocratic. Yet caucuses encourage this behavior.

[eridani]

25. Re #6--Maine already does that

Absentee caucusing for any Democrat for any reason, including "I just don't feel like it." With pre-registration and modern databases, there is no conceivable reason not to have the sign-in process be way less hassle.

I am pushing this option for Washington, and have convinced an old-timer with influence to take the lead. I think it is really doable.

[mopinko]

33. people can't seem to hold complex ideas in their heads anymore.

people can't seem to understand anything but a simple- one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me. the idea of these party building exercises seems to hurt their brains.
people also do not seem to really grasp the difference between a primary and a ge.
soundbite reality. sad.

[grantcart]

42. hence the American Idol analogy lol

[mopinko]

65. yup

i fear the lasting damage of this race will not be to our nominee, but to this process. and that will be a shame. i hate to think that the only type of democratic process left will be a secret ballot, counted in secret, left vulnerable to tampering on purpose.
sad.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Caucuses have been around for a long time.

Odd that it has just now been discovered not to be "as good" as primaries.

I find those arguing against caucuses to be desingenious, and most of them have never been to one, and do not know the rules. It is all about posing due to the fact that caucuses were largely key to our nominee, who lacked name recognition but understood well organization.

[bhikkhu]

51. "Each state owns the primary" - that's what I found

doing some research on this topic, as I have never thought about the pros and cons of caucusing before and wished to know.

On the east coast, in particular, some of the traditions go back to before the revolution. As in: the methods they use to select their primary delegates now are the same as were used to select their continental congress representatives then.

Needless to say, there is a great deal of local pride and tradition involved, and forcing homogeneity upon a diverse assortment of state traditions would be a difficult, painful, and ultimately destructive thing.

[grantcart]

72. And why some states like Washington still choose caucuses even though

primaries are provided by law.

[BeeBoppinLula]

54. give it up; caucuses are a joke. let me know when the GE becomes a caucus. nt

[Liberal Veteran]

66. Welcome back!

Would you care for some of our delicious pizza to go with your sour grape whine?

[rug]

57. All of those are reasons to join your local Democratic party, not to hold elections.

The type of political bartering you allege takes place in caucuses is precisely the type of politicking that is supposed to be happening in local clubs prior to an election. Meeting a partisan group of strangers at a local firehouse is not conducive to articulating either policies or candidates.

Aside from what you call inconvenience (others may call it deterrence), in an election caucusgoers carry a weight greatly disproportionate to primary voters. This misty eyed town hall model that is descibed is more suited to Norman Rockwell than an urban, industrialized representative democracy of more than three hundred million people.

Jettison the caucuses, join your local Democratic club and get out the vote.

[Skidmore]

58. Thank you! This Iowan loves our caucus process.

I love the give and take and the civility with which people discuss issues. It is fun to get together and decide on the issues that are important to your community and state. The process of caucusing determines not only the candidate but the platform to be put forward by the party.

The one thing I will grant is that I believe that businesses should be forced to take a one day hit every 4 years in the form of a holiday so that people can participate in their caucuses or primaries.

[Peacetrain]

62. Iowa here also

I thought our state caucuses were great.. and all ages were there.. Parents holding babies.. My hubby and I as Obama supporters.. My son a Biden precinct captain.. all the neighbors..wonderful.and we work on more than just voting for a candidate.. :)

[fight4my3sons]

59. k&r from someone who attended her first caucus this past Feb

It was terribly inconvenient with three kids in tow and my husband went to work in the morning and had to arrange to leave early to attend, but we made it. We later found out that could have voted by absentee ballot. oh well, it was a great experience for us anyway. Everyone was patient with us and our kids. It was fun to listen to people speak about their candidates. Our caucus came down to a coin toss for the last delegate. What an experience!

[grantcart]

60. thanks

[Peacetrain]

64. Caucus are meant for the party to pick their candidate

This is not a general election process.. The open primary, I have never understood.. you get too many people playing around in our pool trying to choose our candidate, closed primary okay, ..A caucus is choosing the candidate.. the ge is about the secret ballot..one person one vote.. but the party picking its candidate should be limited to party people.. imho

[Zynx]

63. I wouldn't be opposed to caucuses as much if we had a secret ballot like the Republicans.

That's one thing they did right in Iowa. I believe that the votes should always be secret.

[sfam]

68. The problem isn't that caucuses are undemocratic, its that Hillary didn't spend time there...

And thus, used the "caucuses are undemocratic" meme as a defense. Had Hillary devoted serious time and energy there, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and most likely, Hillary would be the presumptive nominee right now.

Bottom line, our Super Delegate system needs SERIOUS reworking (read - trashing), but the states should decide whether they want a caucus or primary.

I do agree that the state should probably choose just one. The whole Texas thing for instance was a fiasco.

[tritsofme]

71. The secret ballot is very important to me.

Who I vote for should only be between me and God.

[thevoiceofreason]

75. I love the Buddhists for Obama tag

You did not stress the best thing about caucuses. When you participate, you sign in. When you sign in, you give your current phone number, address, and e-mail address. Instantly, the local level (in Texas, the precinct) has the information needed to build an active organization. This cannot be matched any other way. Plus, hanging out for 18 hours with activists from your precinct at a district convention is painful, but you get to know them, and get to know skills they may have (like the Hillary supporter at our senate convention who is an internet p.r. person -- let me think, could I use her this fall in the general?).

Caucuses rock!