Why Does Obama Do Better in Caucuses?

[Bonn1997]

and Hillary better in primaries? Are votes counted differently in caucuses? (I'm wondering if there's less room for fraud in the caucuses.) I'm a bit of a newbie to election reform.

[onehandle]

1. Caucuses are uncomfortable situations with people all around you applying pressure.

I prefer a straight vote where my vote Counts.

[mirrera]

4. Bull... there is no pressure. You raise your hand, each side gets to make a speech.

Pretty Democratic actually. No software or hidden code.

[onehandle]

9. Democratic is one person, one vote.

In caucuses you might as well flip a coin.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Oh, come now. You could say the same thing about voluntary primaries.

If people aren't motivated to vote, it doesn't matter if you have a caucus system or primary.

[9119495]

18. Yeah...or get counted, add up the numbers...

in a *gasp* one person, one vote way.

[mirrera]

27. That is not true.

If you think about the Parties as clubs, and the convention as a meeting and the delegates as standing in as spokesmen for their group. It does not matter if it is a primary or a caucus, the delegates don't represent one vote. They represent groups of votes because millions of people can't fit in the convention. I am a delegate to the Maine State convention and I represent about 15 or 20 Obama supporters. If I as a delegate had been chosen through the primary vote I would still represent 15-25 Obama people. The only Delegates that represent ONE vote are Super delegates. That is why people have been saying things like their votes are worth more than mine. My vote has been divided by how many people showed up and how many delegates our town was allowed based on our democratic votes in the last Governors election. If our town had a primary instead of a caucus, the only difference would be my vote would be private and someone other than my neighbors would decide who the delegates were going to be. I am not sure how that works because maine is a caucus state. It sounds like what you don't like is the delegate system in general. On that we agree. I wish it were one person one vote, except i do not like the voting machines so the caucus feels great. It is so transparent.

The rules however were well known to all the candidates who chose to run under the umbrella of the Democratic Club. Rules are often changed at the convention for the next election. The people that are new to the process can fight reality all they want, but the way to change it is to become a delegate and have the fight at the convention when they deal with party business.

[tyne]

6. I've never viewed any

"pressure". Debate? Yes. Pressure...no.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Our caucus, though passionate, was not at all confrontational.

Everyone was given the chance to speak their opinion.

[Peregrine Took]

10. I would never participate in one.

[9119495]

17. Jesus. What caucus were you at? Are you sure it wasn't

an NFL game? Perhaps a cult meeting?

Most caucuses I've been to separate people into groups right away so this pressure thing is not an issue.

But people always stay stupid uninformed shit without any proof or links on DU.

[onehandle]

20. At caucuses, many folks who are not prone to speaking up and are less outgoing are likely to...

..."go along with the crowd." So if your group has an overbearing foreman, your vote is in effect negated.

This is common knowledge. I am Far from the first person to bring it up.

Voting should be secret and private so that you can make your own decision and follow your conscious.

[9119495]

23. You're right. You're not the first person to bring it up

but that just makes you as inaccurate as all the others. People that post things about "pressure" at the caucuses have in almost every case never been to a caucus. The media makes some mention of that pressure, but then again they also made mention of WMDs and Orange alerts.

Caucuses are neighborhood meetings and even in this very contentious year, our caucus was about solidarity...not divisiveness.

And I follow my conscience every time I caucus. If people are that unsure about where the candidates stand, maybe they shouldn't be voting in the first place. Maybe they should spend some time learning about the issues and the candidates. At no caucus are you even forced to speak. You can literally stand mute if you wish. Finally, caucuses build the party. I became an activist in part because of the welcoming feel from the people in the room...and my experience is typical, the norm.

[LiberalFighter]

19. I agree... Caucuses are out in the open instead of by secret ballot

[polichick]

2. From what I've heard, it's because caucuses are attended by...

...very dedicated and/or more educated voters.

[onehandle]

12. So there are whole states that just happen to be "very dedicated and/or more educated?"

Unlikely.

[polichick]

16. Actually, that doesn't mean the whole state is very dedicated...

and/or more educated ~ it means the ones who go out to caucus are.

[FogerRox]

44. It is indeed not just likely, it is a fact. When you have volunteer organizers

in state, organizing in the summer of 2007, for a caucus or primary in feb '08, boots on the ground trump money. This is how Carol Shea Porter won NH-1 in '06. She was outspent 5 to 1, but on the strength of her 700 volunteers working not from rented offices but from garages, knocking on doors and making phone calls starting in August '06.... she upset an incumbent republican.

Using social networking sites on the net is the new thing, its happened just over the last 4 years, a revolution in campaign field operations. In the last 3 years I have worked in:

2004 Kerry Edwards in Broward county FL, I live in NJ, spent Oct in FL.
2005 I organized the Essex County Task Force on Voting to combat the purchase of Sequoia voting machines in my county
2006 Tom Wyka for Congress, NJ-11
2006 Bob Menendez for US Senate.
2007 School Board race, a 4 candidate slate, 3 out of 4 won.
2007 Gina Genovese for NJ State Senate.
2008 Tom Wyka for Congress.

[Bonn1997]

22. That's the MSM's Interpretation but...

I'm wondering if that's really the case or if there's less room for fraudulent vote counting in caucuses and if the caucuses are actually just a more valid indicator of voters' preferences.

[polichick]

24. Well, I think it's pretty clear that more dedicated voters will bother with caucusing...

...since it requires more time and effort ~ but the "more educated" thing is less clear.

The caucus situation is interesting ~ as you say, less room for fraudulent vote counting, but more room to influence voters.

[Bonn1997]

25. but...

"Well, I think it's pretty clear that more dedicated voters will bother with caucusing"
But it's unclear whether that is *the reason* why Obama does better at Caucuses. There could be other reasons (as I mentioned earlier) and differences in voter dedication would just be a coincidence.

[polichick]

26. Obama supporters have been so fired up...

...makes sense that more of them would show up to caucus.

[FogerRox]

45. THe new Rolling Stone has a very article on this.

[tyne]

3. Organization

Plus, his supporters are more dedicated and willing to spend the time. Yes WE can vs. Yes SHE can....if you get my drift.

[pstans]

5. Obama has a better campaign organization

A caucus is about getting your people to the neighborhood location. Obama's organization in Iowa was amazing.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. More motivated partisans?

Isn't that what we really want, though: a leader who will inspire people to take the time to really do something more than just fill in a dot?

[tyne]

11. Of course it is.

It's the ONLY way to change this nation for the better.

[onehandle]

13. Yeah, that worked out great for Soviet Russia.

I don't want my vote dictated to me.

[stillcool]

14. so participating...

really participating in the choice of a Presidential Candidate by a community is "dictating"? I would think it would be just a tad more informative than filling in a dot.

[FogerRox]

47. USSR comparision is BS, you & I both know its small "d" democracy in action

[Melissa G]

21. Different caucuses are likely different in different states.

I'm from Texas. You show up and sign in for someone. No pressure overtly and I've been to many caucuses. You can sign up for anyone and your neighbors will just smile and sign you up. (I signed in for Paul Simon way back when...)

The problem can be strategically internal. If you're a hard core activist and want to go as a delegate on the the next caucus round (and go hang out with all your activist buddies), it behooves you to go with a candidate that at least has some chance of having a delegate.

For instance... I might be inclined to vote for someone like Biden or Edwards. However, I know that there is no chance of even 1 Edwards or Biden delegate likely, in the 8 delegates that our 411 registered voter precinct has. If I want to participate further, (have a chance of going as a delegate to the senatorial district caucus and have a shot at going to state or national convention) it would behoove me to sign up for Obama or Clinton, who I knew would each have sizable amounts of folks showing up. This is where candidate organization comes in. Usually we only have 8 folks who even consider showing up to caucus.

[AtomicKitten]

28. The Obama campaign has a far superior ground game with their grassroots organization.

[Bonn1997]

29. but only in states with caucuses?

I don't get how your statement can explain the *discrepancy* between results in caucuses and primaries

[AtomicKitten]

30. Obama is an advocate of and practices Dean's 50-state strategy.

The "discrepancy" is that Hillary doesn't give a sh*t about the smaller states; she has said that they don't matter. The caucus process is not for the faint of heart. It takes stamina, passion, and perseverance, and some citizens are reaching deep within themselves in response to a candidate that moves them.

And, back to my original point, Obama's grassroots organizational skills have galvanized and harvested that movement. He has come from behind making up 30+ point spreads in most states, a lead Hillary inherited because of name recognition, a pile of cash, and party backing.

Obama actually won Texas just like he did Nevada, walking away with more delegates.

What Obama has accomplished in this campaign is really quite extraordinary, but one has to step back from the din of the ClintonCo's nonstop denigration on him to see it.

[tiptoe]

31. "He does better in caucuses where votes are counted in full view than in the primaries..." ( TIA )

March 11, 2008 Update (link to formatted Primary and Caucus Results data below):

Obama leads Clinton in the Recorded Vote in Primary and Caucus states

This analysis will show that Obama is winning the primaries by more than the recorded margin. This is not unexpected: the progressive candidate always does better in the polls than in the vote count. Here is a major red flag: he does better in caucuses where votes are counted in full view than in the primaries where they are mostly counted in secret. A good example is Texas, where Barack had 49% in the primary and 56% in the caucus.

Obama currently leads Clinton by 560,000 votes in 31 primaries (51.1 – 48.9%) and by 66.3 – 33.7% in 11 caucuses.
If unadjusted exit polls reflect the true vote, he is leading the primaries by 1.6 million votes (53.2 – 46.8%).

Obama won the New Hampshire hand-counted precincts by 5.90% but lost the machine-counts by the same margin.
He won the final 10 NH pre-election polls by an average of 9%.
On Super Tuesday, his exit poll share exceeded his vote share in 14 of 16 states (see table below).

The 2008 primary and caucus results just confirm the obvious:

• When votes are counted in full view (as in caucuses) you can be confident that they will be counted accurately.
  
• When ballots are hand-counted, you can be confident that they will be counted accurately.
  
• When voters are exit-polled, you can be confident that the results will be close to the True Vote.
  
• When ballots cannot be audited or there is no chain of custody or no hand-counted recount, you cannot be confident that the recorded vote is accurate.
  

Barack Obama is leading in the True Vote by 1 million more than the Recorded vote. Election fraud has cost him the popular vote and electors in virtually all the primaries. But the media won’t tell you that. They want the “horserace” to continue.

...
<state and territories Primary and Caucus Results (formatted here thru Mar 9)>

[Bonn1997]

33. That's what I was assuming

Can't say I'm surprised. Diebold picks our "elected" officials.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. what is?

Three of TIA's "obvious" conclusions:

"When votes are counted in full view (as in caucuses) you can be confident that they will be counted accurately."

Unless you define "caucuses" very carefully, you can't even be confident that the votes will be counted in full view.

Regardless, if people don't have time to participate in the caucuses, or aren't motivated enough to show up, or if they are intimidated, or if they are locked out, then their views won't be represented. There is no reason to expect primaries and caucuses to yield the same results.

TIA may believe that Obama's 80% share in the Idaho caucuses means that Obama would have won 80% of the vote in an Idaho primary, but that's a stretch.

TIA may prefer Obama's 56% share in the Texas caucuses to his 49% share in the Texas primary, but Obama's primary share dovetails much better with pre-election polls.

"When ballots are hand-counted, you can be confident that they will be counted accurately."

This is asinine, whether one favors hand counts or not. There is a long, proud history of election fraud employing hand-counted ballots. In the controversy over the 2006 Mexican election, I don't think a single DUer said: "It's impossible that Lopez Obrador won, because the ballots were hand-counted!"

"When voters are exit-polled, you can be confident that the results will be close to the True Vote."

That's exit poll fundamentalism, pure and simple. It has no warrant, and apparently needs none.

[Bonn1997]

36. How do you explain this?

"In New York, over 80 precincts, many in black areas, recorded ZERO votes for Obama."

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. welcome to DU

First of all, are you suggesting that massive vote miscount in black precincts in New York City accounts for the exit poll discrepancy in New York state? If so, have you looked for supporting evidence? Have you tried a back-of-the-envelope estimate of how many votes could be affected in that manner?

Second, may I assume that you found the NYC Board of Elections' official statement on this matter? Or perhaps this statement from a member of the state board?

More generally, have you given me any reason to believe that you actually care about allegations of massive fraud in my home state, beyond the frisson of alleging them?

[Bonn1997]

38. So you have no explanation

and you just want to make the discussion about *me*. I tried to get a serious discussion going. Oh well.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. no, you didn't

If you were interested in a serious discussion -- or even a serious inquiry -- you would have read the link I gave you, you would have found the statement on the NYC Board of Elections, and you would know an explanation. Conceivably not the right one, but certainly an explanation.

I think my state deserves that effort, but if you don't, that's your choice.

ETA: Or I should have said: if you did, you have a strange way of showing it.

[Bonn1997]

40. That link doesn't explain the NY vote in the 80 precincts

All that link establishes is that there's plenty of room for typographical errors, which I agree with. I see no explanation for the finding I asked for an explanation for: "in New York, over 80 precincts, many in black areas, recorded ZERO votes for Obama"

Now, can YOU explain this voting in the 80 precincts? I'm not looking for a bunch of links with views you don't even agree with. I'm looking for YOUR explanation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. I think this is sort of obvious...

The unofficial results showed 82 precincts with zero votes for Obama. That's immaterial, inasmuch as they are the unofficial results. So, your "finding" is inoperative.

The city BoE reports, "The Board’s investigation revealed that there were 35 instances of inspector error where the results were written incorrectly on the Return of Canvass sheets, 20 instances of NYPD error entering the data to its computer system, and 27 instances where the reported results were correct." Some of those 27 instances could be cases of machine malfunction or rigging. Given that there are 6102 election districts in the city of New York (alone), the maximum possible impact on Obama's vote share is minimal.

[Bonn1997]

42. ?

Do those errors correspond to the 80 precincts in the finding I cited? (all 80?) Those errors may be just coincidental--none, some, many, or even ALL of them might be in other precincts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. sigh

See, the thing is, I really have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't already know the answers to these questions if you wanted to. Maybe we're just getting off on the wrong foot.

http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/UnofficalElectionStatementvvr.pdf

[Bonn1997]

48. That doesn't even mention the 80 precincts

Poll workers are overpaid underworked. I knew that already. Can you actually speak for yourself instead of sending me five page links to to every question? I'm interested in election reform but not enough to spend half an hour reading a story for every question, especially if the story is irrelevant to my question. I mean, these are question that you can give a 2 sentence answer to. Can't you just speak for yourself? Imagine how poor the discussion would be on a discussion forum if no one ever wrote their own views and put things in their own words but instead just pasted link after link.

All I got from the first paragraph is that poll workers are overpaid and underworked. That's the case in many precincts though and you still don't get 0 votes for Obama in them. You'd need more than just being overworked to have a result that is that distorted. Working 24 hours in a day wouldn't be enough hours to reach a result that is that distorted. I give you credit for being able to post links but you lose points for not being able to write in your own words.

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. ?!

What on earth is wrong with you?

The sentence I already quoted is the answer to your question. I posted the link (to a several-paragraph letter) so you can read it in context and verify this point. It's a hell of a lot shorter than Freeman's book. (Did you read Freeman's book? Or were you just trying to dust me?)

There is no point in my expressing an 'opinion' about what happened in NYC when I can direct you to the evidence available to me.

[BeFree]

50. Welcome to DU, Bonn1997

I see you've met our resident contrarian.

Even as you suggested, in statistical reasonings, when it all goes one way, ie, when all the anomalies are slanted toward the existing established powers that be, there still seems to be a reason Mr. Hand cozies up to idea that there is nothing to worry about....

Same as it ever was with the professor at a small college somewhere in the backwaters of NY.

Let go get those *ush bastards!

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. nonsense

I worry about all sorts of things -- including getting facts right.

I got pretty snarky at Bonn, but I still don't think it's too much to ask someone to locate a quotation in context. Failing that, he could refrain from asserting that the release "doesn't even mention" something if what he really means is that he didn't have time to look at 17 sentences so he settled for skimming the first four, and then writing at some length about what he thinks they meant.

I take election fraud seriously. I want other people to take it seriously too. :shrug:

[BeFree]

52. Seriously...?

You have fooled me, then.

Heck, its rare that you even acknowledge the possibilities. Even when all the anomalies fall to *ushco you strive to invent reasons why we shouldn't worry.

Have you ever started a thread relating to a problem discovered, resolved or predicted as relates to fraud? No. All I've ever seen of you is hanging on the edges just waiting to pounce on anyone who does.

Too bad. You could have been useful to the cause but seriously, all you've been is a wet rag.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. have you ever shown one sign of caring about my state?

Not now, I think not ever. You're just trying to incite a flame war. Thanks ever so much.

[BeFree]

54. NY?

The levers? Ask Bill Bored if I ever paid attention to NY.

And about how NY is going thru a process of trying, because of HAVA, to adopt another form of vote counting but has smartly decided not to adopt the type of machines that always seem to favor bushco. So NY is still up in the air as to what will be used.

And how 'bout the bad, bad, terribly bad, first numbers which came from NYC just recently wherein Obama didn't get votes from some Harlem precincts?

Oh, I pay attention to your state.

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. not enough to read the posts, evidently

Fine, your choice. We will figure it out without you.

[Bonn1997]

56. Yes, it's quite simple

If a measure is unreliable, it cannot reliably favor one candidate or party. And if a measure reliably favors one side, it is reliable.

[BeFree]

59. Eh?

I take it you mean *unreliable* when a system reliably favors one side.

Buy Mr. Hand doesn't get that, it seems. It seems he believes one-sided outcomes/results/glitches don't give anyone a reason to doubt the reliability, or that there is anything to worry about.

[Bonn1997]

60. It would be reliable, just not valid

I think this is just getting into a technical definition of the terms reliability and validity, though. Reliability is nothing more than consistency of measurement across time or situations. E-Voting machines are reliable--they reliably (consistently) favor the Republicans, and in primaries, reliably favor the least electable Democrat.

[BeFree]

61. Indeed

That's what I thought you were saying. The machines reliably favor their masters.

Yet we still have educated folks here saying we should have faith because the machined numbers, after being sliced, diced, and cooked by the masters, don't prove the machines did any thing wrong.

Hard to frikkin' believe, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. well, actually, it isn't true

There isn't anyone here "saying we should have faith." And you know it. But you say so anyway. It's interesting.

[yowzayowzayowza]

32. In my Tx caucus his supporters were by far...

the most energized and therefore likely to show up. :shrug:

[tiptoe]

35. Footprints of 2008 Primaries Election Fraud

The 2008 Primaries: Statistical Footprints of Election Fraud

[FogerRox]

43. Read the new Rolling Stone.

The answer you seek is based on Campaign Field Operations, the nuts and bolts of organizing canvassing and phone banking.

I would also offer that Hillary has not done better in Primaries, its just that Obama has done good in Primaries and even better in Caucuses. This is the result of Hillary spending money on paid canvassers, while Volunteers were organizing for Obama 6 months in advance, canvassing and making phone calls.

Volunteer boots on the ground trumps money. This is the new paradigm. The age of corporate donors and big tv buys is over. This is the last campaign you will ever see in your lifetime run in the top down style with big tv buys.

Cuacuses are generally run this way.

Supporter gather in a room, For the 1st round, A count is done, any candidate who does not get at least 15% is considered not viable, those supporters generally find another candidate to support. Then the second round occurs, to survive the second round a candidate must get 20% to move to the 3rd round.

[Bonn1997]

55. So basically what you're saying is the MSM's interpretation

[eridani]

58. WA state eliminated the 15% threshold for the precinct caucuses

That made the calculations much easier, and therefore friendlier to newbies. 15% kicks in at the Legislative District or County caucuses, but all the attendees will have had the experience of the precinct caucuses.

Next step--be like Maine and have absentee caucusing for any reason whatsoever. Obama won Maine handily, so that nonsense about latte drinkers having the time and working stiffs not is just a bunch of crap.

[PATRICK]

62. A movement or a candidate

can really inspire this type of extra effort voting and in fact satisfy the enthusiasm more than direct voting can. As long as only the more motivated dominate caucuses, they are vulnerable to candidates who are both well organized caucus wise and more attractive to those kinds of voters. Hillary and Edwards both had savvy and energetic organizers. Obama had the numbers and the persona to sustain them. of course that doesn't mean the others did not show or were bullied out. In fact the reaction would have made HRC supporters more aggressive. It is just that, for all the hoopla and increased numbers this year primaries only work for those who GOTV with the marginal enthusiasm building from strong organization and then refed by a "wave" and increased donors and replicating state organizations based on success.

There have been many now so that it is not a minor, fraudulent process. It is a measure of real democratic strength and is good to keep in some form or other so as not to detract from people who can't get to caucuses. Maybe as part of a free nominating process?