The Democrats should abolish caucuses in its presidential primary season

[CTLawGuy]

A caucus system is extremely disavantageous and unfair. The Democratic Party should require primary elections to select delegates. Here are my reasons why...

1. Caucuses require people to spend a lengthy period of time in one location debating each other over whom to vote for. If a voter works long hours or is otherwise busy (ie with family), that voter will be hard pressed to either make it to the caucus or to stay for the whole time.

2. Partially due to reason #1, caucuses present a distorted picture of the Democratic base. The people who can afford to go to caucuses are the elderly, single people - those with few outside obligations. However, working class families with children, a large portion of the Democratic base, will have trouble making it, and thus will be disenfranchised. Thus, the preferred candidate in the end, will reflect only a part of the Democratic base.

3. The potential for voter manipulation in a caucus is unconscionable. In my home state of CT and in my second-home state of NH, persons are forbidden from "electioneering" within 75 feet of a polling place. When going into a polling location, campaign workers/volunteers are required to put down signs and remove stickers. The reason for this is a good one. Voters have the right to make their selection without partisan officials breathing down their neck. It's fine to stand outside with signs, but going inside where the machines are crosses the line.
In a caucus, partisan people are inside with you as you decide whom to vote for, and can manipulate you up until the end. imagine a campaign hiring an army of marketing majors and salesmen to swindle and pressure people into voting for their guy while they are in the act of voting! This is especially bad when you support a candidate who gets less than 15% and you need to choose someone else.

4. To make matters worse, voting in a caucus is public. Everyone there (and consequently potentially everyone in the larger community) knows for whom you voted. This could lead to reprecussions, say if you are a business owner, or a professional, and you vote for someone your customers find distasteful. That may play a part in deciding for whom you vote.
When I worked in New hampshire, many businesses in Manchester would not hang our posters in their windows, even if they supported us, because they worried about reprocussions from people with whom they disagreed politically. Whats nice about a primary is that said business owners could at least cast their votes in secret.

5. Potential for fraud in caucuses is significant.(NOTE: this is not meant to discount the fraud potential inherent in machine voting, so don't bother pointing that out) That is the reason Bush wanted to have the iraqis vote via caucuses, until Sistani demanded elections, IMHO. Caucuses are easier to fix. Its impossible to hand recount caucus results, because there is no paper trail. Because partisan officials are with the voters in the public voting process, it is very easy to sway them one way or another. It is easy to miscount (either intentionally or unintentionally) a bunch of people standing in a corner than a bunch of paper slips. You can even count paper slips several days later, but not bodies.

The Democratic party does not need to associate itself with the horribly flawed caucus system. We would do right by democracy to call for all-primary-style elections (with paper trails of course).

[KingFlorez]

1. I agree

It's not really a fair way to select a candidate anyway.

[MaineDem]

2. Some states allow voting by mail

That does away with a few of your objections. :)

[CTLawGuy]

4. voting by mail is bad, as well as on the internet

potential for fraud (from hackers in the case of the Net) is too high.

[paineinthearse]

3. Who sets each state's method

I think it is NOT the party, rather it is the state law, as enforced by the secretary of state.

A party can recommend / work toward changing the state law, but cannot unilaterally decide to change from caucus to primary.

[Tamyrlin79]

5. This is correct. The party doesn't get to say...

what form of primary exists in each state. This is established by state law.

The party CAN, however, set the schedule as to when each primary happens. If you don't like caucuses, then you should make sure that there are non-caucus states that vote with Iowa.

[CTLawGuy]

8. see post 6

the state party decides how it shall determine which delegates to send.

Remember, they are not voting to put anyone in OFFICE, but are selecting delegates who will vote at the national convention. It's totally a party issue.

[CTLawGuy]

6. its the Democratic party's choice

techincally the choice of each state party.

I remember the SC Dem party threatening to cancel their primaries in 2004 because they couldn't afford to hold them.

In 2002-2003, McAuliffe threatened to not accept the results of any primary held before New Hampshire's. So the party chair has some control over the issue.

[MaineDem]

10. I believe you're wrong

Here in Maine state law sets the procedure.

Granted, the Party can request a change but the Legislature must decide.

[CTLawGuy]

11. really

are you sure that's for a party's primary and not just for the General Election?

[MaineDem]

13. Trust me, I know (nt)

[CTLawGuy]

14. so the republicans could grab control of the legislature

and change our voting procedure for OUR primary? I wouldn't want that to happen on a year we have a primary and they don't.

[MaineDem]

19. Now I'm questioning myself

I'm going to have to check this.

I know the Legislature repealed the Presidential Primary section. I have to see what the law says about Caucuses.

[CTLawGuy]

32. I always was under the impression that the state party was responsible,

but I might be wrong.

[Debi]

7. As a caucus attendee I respectfully disagree with your opinion

1. Since I can only speak for the caucuses I've attended (1996-2000 and 2004) the Caucuses convened at around 6:30-7:00 P.M. and the Presidential preferences were complete by 7:00-7:30 P.M. That is the only part of the Caucus that attendance is mandatory to be counted for delegates to be selected for the candidate of choice. (Both the 2000 and 2004 caucuses my child attended with me as was the case for other families, a wonderful political teaching tool for children and a social event for Democratic neighbors to get together).

2. Since I'm neither elderly nor single I don't agree with this point at all. In fact my husband (61 at caucus time) was the oldest attendee in our precinct.

3. Typically a person who attends a caucuse has determined who they want to be the nominee, and are ready to campaign for that candidate. Undecideds are able to see which candidate has the most support in the precinct and that may sway their opinion. And never is a person forced to change their support from one candidate to another, they can stay true to their candidate and just be dropped from the total attendee count for the purpose of chosing delegates. (This happened with a Dean supporter when she refused to move to another candidate - and in our precinct, when Kucinich didn't reach 15% his supporters went to Edwards to ensure Dean didn't get another delegate).

4. Yes, choosing a presidential preference in a Caucus is public, and yet I have NEVER seen retaliation for prefering one candidate over another. Granted I have only attended three caucuses in my life, so maybe it has happened on a rare occasion, but more of what I have seen is that people who are undecided are drawn to those willing to vigoursly campaign for thier preferred candidate. (and remember that caucuses are held within parties - so no republicans attended the Democratic caucuses - well, actually some did to throw their support to Gen. Clark and John Edwards - but once they walked in to the caucus and signed in they became Democrats).

5. I don't know where you got the idea that there is no record kept of the Caucuses. First of all there is substantial training for the people who will be running the Caucus, then each person must sign in and declare their party and their preference (or undecided). When the count for presidential preference is made each number is written down and the math to determine the delegates is written down. Two people must verify and sign each document as the County Convention delegates are chosen and written down as well as several convention committees formed at the caucus (as well as Central Committee Members selected). All of this information is made in triplicate - one copy to the State Party one copy to the County Party (and Lord help me I can't remember where the last copy goes). But to say there is no paper trail is a completely uninformed statement.

I caucus in Iowa and am proud of the process and feel that it is a very good process that builds the party and teaches campaign skills and participation to all involved. Is it as easy as walking in and marking a ballot and walking out? No, it reqires a period of time on one evening in the winter every four years. That is a small price to pay for Democracy.

[CTLawGuy]

9. thanks for your opinion

I was hoping to get a pro-caucus person :)

1. Many people feel they don't have time to even go in and cast a ballot, so you can imagine how many people don't have time to sit around for even an hour. and it's not like they can choose the night they do so.
I agree its not an intolerable burden. (I would do it). however, I think going in for 2 minutes and pulling a lever at a time convenient for you gets the job done just fine, with less time involved.

2. I never said ONLY elderly or single people could possibly attend cauceses. I said its more inconvenient for working people with children. Would you like to try, as a single parent, to sit around for an hour with 3 overtired toddler age kids? I went with my father and/or mother into the voting booth when I was a kid, and that in itself was a good lesson in democracy. i don't see where you gain in that respect from having a caucus.

3. Do you think it is a good basis for democracy to choose a candidate "based on how much support (s)he has in the room?" I don't. I think people should make decisions for other reasons than peer pressure. And I would HATE having partisan officials breathing down my neck if my candidate didn't get enough.

4. You have never seen retaliation for voting a certain way. That doesn't mean it can't happen; it doesn't mean it won't happen; it doesn't mean that is not on people's minds when they vote. There is a reason people vote in secret, to protect their privacy. Many people are ok with people knowing who they support, and that's fine. However, many people aren't. And that may keep them away from the caucus.
There was a lot of bad blood between the Dem candidates in 2004. I saw it in New hampshire. You don't need to consider Republicans to know this is a problem with public voting. Remember how much Dems differed on passionate issues like the war, and tax cuts.

5. Unless I misunderstand you, you are saying that caucus WORKERS vote by paper after they are trained, but they COUNT voters as those voters stand in a corner. writing down math in triplicate is not a "paper trail". A paper trail is proof of whom each voter voted for. It is something that can be recounted if there is a dispute.

In your opinion,
Can a caucus result be recounted by hand days later?
If voting is done by paper when people come in (which is the other thing you could have said), why have a caucus at all?
If it is to persuade undecideds, is that the appropriate place to sway someone's vote? I'm reminded of Hitler's stormtroopers in the Reichstag hall intimidating legislators to vote for the Ermaechtigungsgesetz (enabling act). Legislators are hardy, voters are not necessarily so hardy. I worry about aggressive people intimidating voters of less strong will.

thanks for your thoughts :hi:

[Debi]

16. We will have to just disagree

1. Voting is easier. That being said not voting is even easier, so why bother? Caucusing is a responsibility, but (and again, I've only attended three in my lifetime with the same people in the same precinct) it is also an honor and is not taken lightly by those who participate.

2. My first caucus I was a single mother (lucky enough to have childcare for the evening). Again, I think you have to attend a caucus to understand one. They are community events not unlike a Democratic Central Committee meeting - food and beverages are provided and people socialize during the process. Yes, the business of the Party is accomplished, but so is camaraderie and community. Families are welcome as they are at any other Party function.

3. How else is a candidate chosen? If it were a ballot vote then it would be by how many votes the candidate received. Again, most people who attend a caucus have already made up their minds (and, if their candidate doesn't garner enough support for a delegate have made their second choice - something that doesn't happen in a voting booth). And, yes, since I have seen it in action I do believe people vigorously supporting their candidate is a good way to choose who should be the one to receive delegates to the County Convention. (And I have not seen anyone breathing down anyones neck at the caucuses I have attended, people have sought out the supporters of candidate A,B & C and asked why they support them).

4. Again, I haven't seen retaliation, so it's hard for me to argue that it does or doesn't happen. Planting the seed that retaliation may occur is silly, at a caucus we are all neighbors living next to each other and are from the same party - I didn't beat up the Gephart supporter because I was a Dean supporter and the Kerry supporters didn't toilet paper my house (in fact we called each other ahead of time to orchestrate who would bring what food and beverage - does that sound like retaliation?)

5. I'm sorry, but once again, I really think you need to see a caucus in progress and view the paperwork that is used in the tabulations to understand the accuracy and permanency of the information. The Iowa Democratic Party knows that I caucused for Dean, that he was my preference and that he had enough support for one delegate to the County Convention. They know that I was not selected as the delegate, that one of the other seven Dean supporters was selected as the delegate. They know that I was selected as the female Central Committee member from my precinct (and that the male member was a Kerry County Convention delegate). They know the presidential preference of each of the 22 people that attended our precinct caucus and those numbers equal the amount of people that separated out in to preference groups. I will agree that they do not know who (by name) went to the Kerry and Edwards camps during realignment but they do know the number of people did not change and that Gephart, Kucinich and Clark lost their supporters to a viable candidate.

I'm sorry that your impression of the caucuses is one of intimidation and retaliation. I have not only not ever seen that take place but have never heard of it taking place. The caucus is a party building event that brings neighbors together to support not only the candidate they want to see as the nominee but the State and County Party as well. We live next to each other and attend Party events together (as well as work together for candidates that will represent us locally and in Washington).

As for counting the votes - a caucus is not a vote. It is a selection of representative delegates to the County Convention. One person one vote may not be able to be recreated (and shouldn't be as then it would be a primary), but the number of supporters for each candidate in the first preference selection and after the realignment could be if necessary.

[CTLawGuy]

22. "A caucus is not a vote"

thats a good reason not to have a caucus. Also the violation of one person one vote is another good reason.

I think that all Democrats should have an equal say in who gets selected from our party.

Again, your experience is fortunate because there were no really passionate issues such as racial segregation on the table.

Remember that Kerry almost got denied communion from his church because he was pro-choice. Do you think pro-choice catholics would be willing to vote for a pro-choice candidate in public and risk losing access to a sacred sacrament?

And this is not a far out "nightmare scenario", this is reality. the Pope himself advocated that pro choice Catholics be denied communion.

A caucus is not democracy.

[MaineDem]

23. "A caucus is not democracy."

I totally disagree.

I think a caucus is the epitome of democracy. Everyone has her say and then people decide. It's like a New England Town Meeting form of government. It can't get more democratic than that.

[CTLawGuy]

27. the people who can afford to sit around for an hour

and who are ok with violating the principle of secret voting,

and who can take manipulative people trying to lobby them right in the room,

get to decide what happens.

I'd rather spend 2 minutes pulling a lever.

[MaineDem]

31. It's taken me longer than an hour to vote in some elections

The lines have been long.

I'm sorry but if a caucus isn't worth an hour of your time I don't know what is.

Remember, as I said before, many states allow caucus voting by mail. I know you think that's ripe for fraud but it's an option for busy people.

Looks like we aren't going to agree on this one. As long as we are electing Democrats we can still disgree on the process.

[CTLawGuy]

35. thats fine if we don't agree

but the point of arguing is to learn and to try to respond to each other's arguements.

have a nice day :hi:

[Debi]

37. I've never thought of participating in a political process as

sitting around for an hour with a bunch of manipulative people.

But then again, I've actually witnessed what a caucus is rather than forming an uneducated opinion and attempting to start an argument about it.

If you want to tone down your spiteful attitude we can continue this discussion.

Otherwise I'll just assume that rather than having a constructive dialog and learning something about this subject you intended for the conversation to end up when you're trying to take it all along.

[CTLawGuy]

47. what did I say that was "spiteful"

can you prove that any drawback I attributed to caucuses is either impossible or so unlikely as to be immaterial?

[Debi]

48. I'm saying that what you attribute to the caucses in theory

I have not seen in the caucuses in fact.

[CTLawGuy]

52. ok, I believe you

those 3 caucuses you attended have been positive experiences.

But you can't see the guy who didn't even go to the caucus because he was scared of airing his preferences.

You didn't hear about the attendee who voted for someone else to please his opinionated parents who were standing right next to him.

You didn't see the anti-war firefighter who didn't vote for Dean because he wanted to stay on his union's good side. (as you may know, the FF supported Kerry.)

These are theoretical but not implausible scenarios. And they are not obvious to a casual observer. You cannot see in their heads.

You see an empty chair, not a guy too scared to vote.

You see a family of enthusiastic supporters of one candidate, not a kid who wishes he could have supported someone else and two oblivious parents.

You see a union of firefighters happily supporting Kerry, not a group of true kerry supporters and the guys who really wanted to vote for Dean.



You should consider what incentives a caucus system engenders in voters.

Some voters can handle those incentives ok and still vote for whom they want.

Others cannot.

[Debi]

55. This coming from a person who had never participated in a caucus

or observed a caucus. And has some interesting ideas of what may or may not occur at a caucus.

Could a person not get harassed before entering the protected area of a polling place? have their ability to vote questioned? be mistakenly listed as a felon? have their name 'cleansed' from the active voters list? have voting machines crash so the lines get longer and longer and then have the polling site close on time keeping people from ever casting their ballot? These things have actually occurred. Harassment, intimidation and retaliation have not (to my knowledge) occurred at a caucus.

If I were to take just that information and place it next to my caucus experience I would prefer the much more safe and friendly atmosphere of a caucus and show my preference publicly than risk the humiliation and harassment that 'may' occur at my polling site because it has happened in Florida and Ohio.

[CTLawGuy]

59. the primary system is also flawed, but not as fundamentally as a caucus

being harassed before going to a polling place where you cast a ballot in secret is not the same as having the partisans in the same room looking at who you are voting for.

You can always tell someone you are voting for their guy to get them off your back and then secretly support who you really want to. In a caucus, you cannot do that, because they see who you vote for.

there are things wrong with voting in an election, and we should try to fix it as best as possible.

Please tell me where I am way off base in my understanding of caucuses.

Is it impossible for ANYONE to feel uncomfortable with publicly voting?

[Debi]

65. Now you just don't like voting in general?

How could I ever get you to even consider the caucus process if you that's how you feel?

You continue to assume that something bad will come of your Democrat neighbors knowing who you support and I continue to state that none of my Democrat neighbors have done anything bad to me for supporting a candidate that they didn't. (I still think you should take the time to observe a caucus before you have such a negative opinion of the process)

I feel comfortable with public voting, and yard signs and bumper stickers and lapel pins and door knocking and telephone calls to support my candidate. And my neighbors and fellow party members feel the same. (and since you've canvassed you obviously don't have a problem with showing your party preference).

I don't know why a person would lie about who they support other than to mess up a supporter survey for a candidate - none of your business works just fine up until caucus time.

[CTLawGuy]

I never said that I dont' like voting in general

I don't have to think a system is perfect to think it's adequate or even good.

You are using your own experience to disprove what I am saying is theoretically possible and probable.

Is the idea that not everyone wants to publicly vote an unreasonable idea?

People might want to lie about (or not say) who they are voting for..

if they are part of a union supporting someone else.
if a loved one is domineering and supports someone else.
if they run a business in a community that doesn't agree with them politically.
if they are private people and just don't feel right saying who they vote for.
if they (rightly or wrongly) feel they will be harassed by opponents.
if there is a very passionate, divisive issue that the candidates differ on.
to avoid being labelled or lumped in with other supporters. (Ie called a Deaniac, or a hippy, or a corporatist, or a DLC traitor.)

there are many reasons to feel uncomfortable. We can't afford to discourage these private people from expressing themselves.

[Debi]

70. Continuing your theoretical process

voting may very well be bad.

We don't want anyone to know what we stand for so we shouldn't have opinions.

We don't want anyone to think that we contributed to this political mess so we don't want anyone to see us at a polling site.

"Don't blame me, I didn't vote"

Rather than taking the experiences of three people who have caucused and enjoyed it you want to continue to push the theory that caucuses are a bad thing. Fine. Do it.

But that means you have publicly stated an opinion that people disagree with, are you sure you want that to happen?

[CTLawGuy]

77. please understand what I am saying and

don't respond to arguments I didn't make.

Some people are fine with others knowing who they voted for. they are free to tell the entire world on CNN who they voted for.

Some people don't feel comfortable with that. A primary allows them to vote in secret and not tell anyone. In a caucus system, they are forced to choose between violating their own privacy or not voting, becuase they must declare their votes publicly in a caucus.

I NEVER said we shouldn't have opinions.

I never said that people would not want to be seen at a polling site.

I don't dispute that 3 people liked the caucus system. I doubt the caucus system would even exist if you couldn't find three people who liked it.

I'm sure you could find 3 people who think David Duke would make a good president. but it doesn't prove that David Duke should be president.

What I am saying is that the caucus system violates fundamental principles that I believe are important to a system of making political choices.

I make a conscious choice to post an opinion people might disagree with. And thank God I have the freedom to do that. A caucus leaves voters no choice but to broadcast to the world who they support, even if they don't want to. And I think that is not fair.

[Debi]

92. In a caucus you do not broadcast to the world who you support

You stand within a small group of your neighbors (all of whom are supporting the same political party) and state your preference for the nominee. Since it is not a one person one vote scenario who you supported is left at the meeting (unless you sign in your preference at the door).

If you don't like a caucus because you don't want your political preference to be known outside your own mind, fine. But as soon as you volunteer at Party headquarters, have a yard sign/bumper sticker/lapel pin, post on a public board that supports a particular political party, canvass for a particular party, walk in a parade....etc. Then what is in your mind is publicly known.

Even now your preference against a political process is public knowledge. Again, a political process that you have never experienced but which you are willing to post your negative opinion.

[eridani]

91. If you are a Dem not living in a Repub suburb--

--voting is likely to take far more time than caucusing.

Another argument is that caucusing gets people involved. Our legislative district got a whole bunch of new Precinct Committee Officers out of the caucus process. Someone has to doorbell, table and phone, after all. Where do you think those people come from?

[Debi]

28. Thank you.

I don't mind disagreeing on a subject, I do mind being brow-beaten.

This must be the retaliation I've read about. :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

30. how am I brow-beating you?

Im sorry I make good arguments, but I have not personally attacked you.

[Debi]

39. Maybe you're right

Maybe I feel intimidated by some of your comments, something I've never felt while attending a caucus.

[CTLawGuy]

42. oh...

maybe you do, and I'm sorry.

I'm glad you've never felt intimidated at a caucus. It shows you are strong in your convictions and are not easily swayed.

but you have to remember, not everyone is as strong as you. Some people may feel uncomfortable publicly expressing their preferences. I've done a lot of canvassing, and I know many people who refuse to tell me who they are voting for because they believe it is a personal, private matter. If they lived in a caucus state they'd be forced to choose between violating that priniciple and being essentially disenfranchised.

We don't know the number of people who don't attend caucuses because they'd rather maintain their privacy.

We don't know how many kids of opinionated pro-war lieberman supporters secretly hate the war and want to vote for Dean, but don't because they don't want to offend their parents.

[Debi]

26. Again, you are just trying to start trouble and I foolishly took your bait

Again, your experience is fortunate because there were no really passionate issues such as racial segregation on the table.

But there was a war in Iraq going on, that is a rather passionate issue and not every candidate supported the IWR.

Do you think pro-choice catholics would be willing to vote for a pro-choice candidate in public and risk losing access to a sacred sacrament?

This obviously occurred because Kerry received the most delegates in the caucus (and people had to stand publicly to support Kerry - if the local Priest attended the caucus then they stood in front of him and supported Kerry or any of the other pro-life candidates).


We will disagree on whether a caucus is Democracy. I believe it is, I believe it is physical participation in the political process. You can believe whatever you like.

[CTLawGuy]

29. Apparently you can't refute my arguments

so you are left with accusing me of starting trouble.

Even the IWR doesnt come close to the passion evoked by racial segregation issues. Is there an IWR version of the KKK?

The reason I say a caucus is not real democracy is because there are possible incentives for people not to vote for whom they really want to. That is why general elections are voted on in secret.

if some people are intimidated into not voting for whom they want to, then the result doesn't reflect the real wishes of the people.

[Debi]

41. There is no voting in a caucus

And I don't believe there is any intimidation or retaliation either.

But since I'm not that great at arguing and you don't want to know about the caucus experience and instead just want to attack what you think is wrong about a process that you've never participated in I guess you feel that you are correct that a caucus is not a good idea.

And you are welcome to think that way.

No matter how much you argue you will not change my mind and I hope that anyone who has read these posts will want to become more educated about the process rather than just say it's wrong and not listen to why it just might be right.

[CTLawGuy]

43. ok

would you say that intimidation is THEORETICALLY impossible at a caucus?

My argument is that it IS possible, and therefore there are adverse incentives of indeterminate strength that come into play.

That is all.

[Debi]

49. My bet is intimidation is theoretically possible at a voting booth

as well.

[CTLawGuy]

53. not when you're behind a curtain

not when partisans are kept 75 feet away.

NOT when NOBODY knows who you REALLY voted for.

[Debi]

58. In a primary it is noted which party you supported

So if intimidation and retaliation is for Democrats vs. Republicans then it's going to occur.

[CTLawGuy]

60. yes,

and that is somewhat of a problem in itself, but it is not as powerful as public knowledge of whom you support.

What is nice about open primaries, though for other reasons I'm against them, is you can be independent and still vote in the primary.

In a GE, you can be a registered Dem and still claim to have voted for bush, or you can be independent, if you so choose.

[Debi]

66. I can't imagine why you wouldn't support open primaries

if you so desire no one knowing what party or what candidate you support. It seems the perfect way for no one to know where anyone stands when it comes to presidential preference.

[CTLawGuy]

69. the reason to oppose open primaries

is to keep Republicans and people who do not identify as a member of your party from manipulating who gets the nominaton for their own agenda.


Again, publicly being a member of a party isnt as much of a problem as public voting.

Many Dems vote for Bush, many repugs vote for Kerry (not as many). Parties have a wide range of adherents.

[Debi]

71. Why couldn't Democrats do the same thing? Manipulate who the R nominee is?

Registered republicans attended the caucus (they had to change their party affiliation in order to participate - in my caucus it was Clark and Edwards supporters who switched parties for the caucus). Just the same as a person (at least in Iowa) can change their party affiliation to vote in a primary and then change back (many Independents do this and then change their preference back the next day).

Are you saying that people will be harassed and intimidated and retaliated against for supporting a particular candidate but not for being from a particular party?

[CTLawGuy]

78. parties are not as big a deal as candidates

a kucinich supporter is easier to pigeonhole than a Democrat (which could be anyone from Zell Miller to Dennis himself), and a McCain supporter vs. a Republican (which could be between Gary Bauer and Lincoln Chafee)


It is possible that someone could be harassed for being a Democrat, but i think it's not as likely because of the diversity of stances a memeber of that party could take.

[Debi]

93. That's not what you posted earlier

Let me ask you this: If you needed a service done for you, and you had a choice of two different businesses (who charge the same prices and do about the same quality work,) and you knew one owner voted for Kerry and the other for Bush, would you be objective in deciding which business to patronize?

Would you understand why a business owner in a republican town might want to think twice before publicly supporting Kerry?


On edit:

I could argue that theoretically it could happen therefore it will happen (just like being harassed or intimidated or retaliated against for caucusing).

But rather than argue that I'd say that I don't believe neighbors would harass a person for not supporting their candidate of choice. Again, I can only say this from personal experience, not hypothetically (which seems to be the standard you've set)

[Inspired]

83. I am pro caucus

1. It is an honor to attend and caucus for the candidate you support. There is a lot of excitement in the air. I can't imagine anyone feeling it is a burden to attend.

2. I saw a good mix of different age groups. I also saw an equal number of males vs. females and a very good representation from all ethnic groups.

3. No one was breathing down the neck of anyone at my caucus location. Each candidate had a spokesman who briefly explained why she/he felt strongly about their respective candidate. No one knew for sure who a person was for until it was time to 'vote'. There simply was no peer pressure at all. In fact there were several Kucinich supporters who refused to back any other candidate. No one pressured them. They were admired for their loyalty and each person left the caucus with a lot of respect for Kucinich.

4. Retaliate against a fellow Democrat? (I thought that was reserved for Republicans.) I don't know one single Democrat who would retaliate against another Democrat just because they supported a different Democrat. Whew! Our goal was to get rid of GWB and get the White House back. I don't know what went on in New Hampshire but the general mood during the caucus was that we were going to be instrumental in finding the 'new great hope'...no matter who it was.

5. I understand your concern with the paper trail issue. I don't have an argument here.

I have never lived in an area with a primary so I can't compare the 2 experiences.

This is a good thread and I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this subject.

[CTLawGuy]

86. thanks for your thoughts!

you obviously felt comfortable with public voting. Not everyone does though. The problem with the Iowa caucus (as opposed to the Minnesota caucus) is that you either tell everyone who you support, even if that is a problem for you, or you don't participate.

A primary election is run almost exactly like a general election, except only certain voters can participate.

Remember, retaliation can be subtle, or it can be something in the supposed victims' mind. Upthread I have a post listing reasons why someone might not want to reveal whom they support.

[CTLawGuy]

87. referring to your point #4

I worked on the Dean campaign. by late in the season, Kerry and Gephardt supporters were sticking attack flyers on the cars of people at our events. They stuck libelous flyers and stickers on our office door. They stuck confederate flag stickers on our cars.

Don't tell me Democrats can't be ungentlemanly toward each other...

politics is an ugly business.

[MaineDem]

12. Excellent points

Our caucus notices must include the time the Presidential vote will take place, i.e. convene at 2pm; Presidential selection to be held at 2:30pm.

Our third copy stays with the municipal committee.

[CTLawGuy]

15. Re: retaliation

what about this scenario.

You a white business owner in 1960's Alabama and you are choosing a candidate for governor via a caucus system. one candidate is a segregationist, and the other is pro-civil rights. Would you be ok with publicly supporting the pro-civil rights candidate? ...If you knew that your white customers would boycott your business?

Be thankful there weren't issues that fundamentally powerful in the 2004 caucus. But that doesn't mean they won't manifest themselves in a later presidental election.

I believe strongly in the principle of secret voting.

[Debi]

17. I'm certain that any nightmare scenario you want to dream up

could be considered.

I can only relate to you what my experiences have been and what experiences have be relayed to me.

And since I have never been intimidated with regard to my preference of candidate or retaliated against for supporting a specific candidate (nor have I done so against another person) I can't talk to it happening.

Why presume it would?

I will relate, again, what occurred with setting up the caucus site for my precinct. When the main supporters of the Kerry/Dean/Edwards campaign arrived we agreed on where (equally) we would place our campaign literature and posters (Gephart/Kucinich/Clark supporters did not bring any lit or posters). The Kerry supporter (noting that I was the Dean supporter - this information being provided by our County Party) called to see what I was bringing so that she wouldn't duplicate treats - we brought cake, cookies and muffins. We had hot coffee, tea and cider as well as bottled water to drink. When the main Edwards supporter showed up we all worked together to get people signed in As to the appropriate spot (we had two precincts caucusing in the same building)in fact she had more people signing in to her precinct (35 to my 22) so I went to help her sign people in. Once everyone got to where they needed to be we separated and completed the Presidential preferences. My precinct caucus concluded prior to the main Kerry supporter so we stayed and waited for them to finish before we socialized for a while and all pitched in to clean up the building. Then we went to our separate headquarters to celebrate. (Oh, we also delivered the Kerry info to the Kerry HQ since it was in the same building as the Dean party - and the Kerry supporter trusted us to do so).

[CTLawGuy]

18. I'm sure people have driven drunk before without killing anybody

or crashing the car. Is drunk driving, therefore, ok?

And would recounting a horrible traffic accident be dismissed as a "mightmare scenario"?

[Debi]

21. Are you honestly trying to relate attending a caucus to driving drunk?

Last time I looked attending a caucus wasn't illegal.

I do think you are now trying to start a fight just to prove an admittedly uneducated point. Only one of us has attended a caucus, and only one of us can relate the experiences of what occurred at a caucus.

You are welcome to continue to try to scare people away from the process, as am I to encourage people to attend or observe a caucus before they try to dissuade people from that form of political participation.

On Edit:

And unless you can come up with someone stating that they were intimidated or harassed why is your scenario to be believed? I, on the other hand, was in a room with fifty-seven people who supported six different candidates and no intimidation or retaliation occurred. Why not err that Democrats may be decent human beings instead of dictorial monsters.

[CTLawGuy]

24. its called analogous reasoning

Im attacking your pattern of reasoning, not comparing caucusing to drunk driving.

Im saying that just because a likely bad result didn't happen in one case, doesn't mean it can't ever happen.

It's obvious, the potential for improper incentives when voting is not done in secret and is done under the watch of partisan officals who are allowed to "lobby" you until the moment you make your public choice.

I am not trying to scare people away from participating, I'm trying to argue that caucuses should be abolished as undemocratic. they violate basic principles of democracy.

[Debi]

34. And I'm saying you are trying to scare people away from a process

you don't even understand and maybe cannot understand until you participate in the process itself.

But instead of seeking education of the process you create false demons and scare tactics and horrific 'what if....' scenarios.

This is a public board, why not go to the Iowa forum and seek out people who were harassed, intimidated or retaliated against for supporting a particular candidate? But until you find them we only have me here to say I don't think it happened. It certainly didn't happen at the caucuses I've attended.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good system that builds the Party and creates community all while finding the candidate that the majority of members of that Party want to be the nominee.

[CTLawGuy]

38. warning: more analogous reasoning below

there have not been black people who have been lynched in a long time, therefore racism must not exist anymore.


the point of that, was to show that intimidation can be more subtle and can even be an irrational notion in a voter's own head. Of course racism still exists, but it's more subtle. Many white people mistakenly think it doesn't exist anymore, because they don't see lynchings or other overt racist acts.

Most people are ok with people knowing who they support, but some people are not. they are forced to choose between not voting and violating their own privacy. I don't think that is right.

[Debi]

45. I can see why no one would like the process

If they had to see it through your eyes. I've tried to show you that it isn't the way you keep presenting it but you keep disagreeing with me - bringing in drunken driving, racism and attacks on Catholics who aren't pro-life.

Here's another Iowan who posts about the caucus process - I don't see much intimidation or retaliation there:

After the voting, we all caucused about what we wanted on the platform. Our biggest concerns. Then we elected delegates to the state convention. It's more personal than just going to vote.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1830286&mesg_id=1831375&page=

[CTLawGuy]

46. please try to understand my POV

rather than bring in anecdotal evidence. i'm sure you can find someone who thought Saddam Hussein was a great leader.


Let me ask you this: If you needed a service done for you, and you had a choice of two different businesses (who charge the same prices and do about the same quality work,) and you knew one owner voted for Kerry and the other for Bush, would you be objective in deciding which business to patronize?

Would you understand why a business owner in a republican town might want to think twice before publicly supporting Kerry?

[Debi]

51. So, rather than having people who have actually attended a caucus

say that it is a good process and that they enjoy what they've done and don't feel intimidated and have not been retaliated against for participating in the process you would rather make uneducated assumptions?

So it really doesn't matter how many people who have actually participated in a caucus disagree with your assessment.

You have made a decision and you are going to stick with it.


On edit:

If a person voted for Kerry or Bush in a Primary that would be traceable through their party preference declared at the polling place.(At least in Iowa where primaries are closed and Party affiliation has to be declared before voting). So either way a person ends up declaring their Party preference somewhat publically.

[CTLawGuy]

56. there will be people who agree with almost anything

no matter how bad it is. You can't go by a few anecdotes.


You are correct in that you have to declare a party to vote in a primary and people know what party you are in. but that is not the same as people knowing who you support. The parties have such a wide range of views, I don't think its as big of a problem. Not saying it is NOT a problem in some way, but just not as big.

In a general election, you can be independent if you so choose.

[Debi]

63. That throws this argument out the window then...

Let me ask you this: If you needed a service done for you, and you had a choice of two different businesses (who charge the same prices and do about the same quality work,) and you knew one owner voted for Kerry and the other for Bush, would you be objective in deciding which business to patronize?

Would you understand why a business owner in a republican town might want to think twice before publicly supporting Kerry?


Because it would be known which person declared for which party in the primary. So under your theory the person who voted in the Democratic primary would be ostracized just for being a Democrat, not for supporting a specific candidate.

Actually, your comment supports not voting in primaries as well as not attending caucuses. (Which could mean not declaring a party at all but registering as an independent and not outwardly supporting any partisan candidates or activities).

[CTLawGuy]

64. people have more animus toward specific candidates rather

than parties. Ex. Zell miller is still inexplicably a Dem, but hates Kerry and supported Bush.

But you are right, declaring a party may invite retaliation.

[Debi]

73. So we're back to open primaries where party affiliation

is kept secret and no one has to know who was supported by whom at any time.

This will rid the country of voter disenfranchisement and any retaliation against a person for not supporting a particualr candidate?

[Ravy]

20. Here is a bit of a different take...

I think that who the Democratic Party nominee is should be a function of the DEMOCRATS.

A caucus guarantees that the public knows WHO is supporting which candidate. It is not a vote for office. It is a vote for who we want as our Democratic candidate for an office.

I get uncomfortable with Greens, Independents, Republicans, etc. determining which candidate is the nominee for the Democratic party. Personally, I can't think of a better way than a caucus other than perhaps a closed primary (more inclusive, but less transparent).

Either way, states should decide how they are going to choose and allocate their delegates.

[CTLawGuy]

25. what if you don't want people to know who you support?

I agree with the idea of a closed primary. I think Dems should decide who the Dem candidate should be. I think that, as Dems, we should require that selection be done by a primary.

[Ravy]

36. Transparency in the process.

If you don't want people to know who you support, then you won't be volunteering, contributing money, writing on discussion boards (grin), LTTE. If you don't want people to know who you support, in short, you (figuratively) probably don't feel strongly enough to go through the caucus exercise at all. Some would say that is bad, I say it is good.

On the other hand, if you DO want to brave the Iowa cold, stand up for your candidate, encourage others to join you in a public manner... well, then I for one, value your opinion more than someone who potentially flipped a coin before entering the voting booth-- or a Republican who switched parties because there weren't any contests on their ballot.

[CTLawGuy]

40. I think all Democrats should be able to vote, not just the ones who

can jump through a bunch of hoops. I think even people who can't decide until the end have just as valuable an opinion as me.

There are three kinds of undecideds:

1. Those who are undecided because they are not paying attention.
2. those who are undecided because they hate all the candidates.
3. those who are undecided because they are carefully considering all the candidates before they choose.

I think the number 3 undecideds have very valuable opinions and are behaving in a very mature way.

[Ravy]

50. But not all people who vote in the Democratic primary are Democrats.

And your point about the three undecided categories is good.

I would submit that any value from learning the opinion of the third group would be heavily watered down by participants of the first two categories -- not to mention people from outside of the party putting in their own votes for whatever reason.

There comes a time when you have to vote. Whether it is on the way to the ballot booth, or to the center where the caucus is held, the people from your third category need to make up their minds. If they don't have enough conviction to stand and voice the support for their choice (within the Democratic party), I would rather not hear from them until the general election.

[NightOwwl]

33. All I know is that I live in California...

and I NEVER get to vote for the candidate of my choice. I am sick and tired of Iowa and New Hampshire choosing the nominee for the rest of us.

[CTLawGuy]

44. I agree,

but that is a different story. Be glad you get to choose in secret.

[The Revolution]

57. Why can't you vote for the candidate of your choice?

This has never made any sense to me. Does California have a state law that prohibits voters from voting for someone who didn't win in either Iowa or New Hampshire?

[NightOwwl]

84. By the time we have our primaries...

everyone but the frontrunner has already dropped out.

[UnityDem]

54. Gephardt/Aaaahh/PLEASE PLEASE

If you watched c-span's coverage of the Iowa caucus, you know what I'm talking about. A young woman, who was a Gephardt supporter, was followed running all over the school where her caucus was being held. It was comical how she was pleading for people to change their vote to Gephardt. It was VERY AMATEURISH looking bordering on just plain comical and silly. Unfortunately, this is the way we pick our nominee. I will be SO HAPPY if Iowa dumps the caucus system. If not, we should DUMP IOWA from their number one status.

[CTLawGuy]

62. word of advice, put on your flamesuit and helmet

;)

all kidding aside. that shows a flaw of the system, people should be free to register their choice free of harassment, and a caucus doesn't allow that.

[Debi]

68. That is really sad that someone would behave that poorly

and the Precinct Chair should have asked her to stop what she was doing and act like an adult. (But then again, I don't believe Gephardt was very organized this time around). This is the first time I have heard of anyone acting that way.

[The Revolution]

61. I went to the 2004 Iowa caucus

And I had no problems. It was fast, everything ran smoothly, no one was manipulating or threatening anyone. We were all Democrats who shared basically the same values, we just supported different candidates.

It was actually really nice to see that I wasn't alone, that the people who made up the party still wanted to fight for the same values we always have. It gave me a lot of hope, as well as a far greater feeling of participation and making a difference than I've ever gotten from filling out a ballot.

[Debi]

67. I'm sorry, no anecdotal information allowed

read upthread.

Only people who have never attended a caucus and who don't like the process are having their opinion taken seriously today. ;)

[CTLawGuy]

72. ho ho

correction: if you think caucuses weren't divinely inspired and commit the BLASPHEMOUS act of criticizing them, your opinion and your person will be attacked...

oh and thanks for John kerry.... NOT.

[Debi]

74. The Iowa Caucuses did not deliver John Kerry to the nation

In fact the winner of the Iowa caucuses has rarely been the nominee for the Democratic Party (Just ask Dick Gephart and Tom Harkin).

I don't mind you not agreeing with the process, but you've continued to try to dissuade people from participating by conjuring up scary scenarios that have failed to materialize. And when a person posts about liking the caucuses you request that they not provide anecdotal evidence (because it disproves your theory?). Rather you wish to continue to share what may happen in your idea of what a caucus is.

Why not try to educate yourself on the process rather than continuing to try to convince people it's wrong?

[CTLawGuy]

76. anecdotal evidence doesn't prove what you are trying to prove

you are trying to prove that those posibilities I suggest can't happen and then as proof, you offer your specific case. it's still possible that what I suggest could happen. It didn't happen in your case, and that's your experience.

I can understand that if you are ok with voting publicly and you can spare a significant part of an evening to vote, you will be ok with the caucus system.

But what you don't understand is just because you are comfortable in a caucus situation then everyone else must be as well.

that's frankly an arrogant position.

here is a list of what I have asserted about caucuses: feel free to add if I forgot anything

1. they take a significant amount of time
2. votes are counted by officials counting people who are standing in a group.
3. They require public voting
4. There's no paper trail showing the number and preferences of votes versus the number of people attended, (no ability to recount a result)
5. people are allowed to sway your vote within the caucus room.
6. people whose candidates don't get 15% have to choose another candidate


Which of these assertions are wrong? You constantly claim I am ignorant of the caucus system but don't back it up. Where am I off base?

[theboss]

88. My reply to your assertation

1. Demonstrably not true. It takes about an hour. And I have little sympathy for people who cannot spare an hour every four years to choose a President. Not when 26 million people have an hour to choose an "American Idol."

2. So? Has there ever been evidence of a miscount? Not to my knowledge. Therefore, you are worried about a scenario that has never materialized.

3. True. And I guess this could be a minor problem. Except, I think it shows a level of committment to the candidate that is admirable. If you can't declare your preference among the most dedicated Party members, so be it....

4. So, if a caucus is miscounted, no one in the room is going to challenge it? Again, you are worried about a scenario that is next to impossible to materialize. This now reminds me of the laughable threads wondering if Diebold gave Iowa to Kerry.

5. Which is the bloody point. It's democracy in it purest form.

6. I can see where this is a problem. But the point of the caucus is to separate the wheat from the chaffe. Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, etc were not going to win and were barely going to register. So, why not begint the process to narrow the field?

[ISUGRADIA]

90. Actually in Iowa there is a paper trail

1) initial preference is noted when a person signs in
2) a form showing the final count and delegate breakdown is signed and is witnessed by candidate reps at the caucus
3) candidate reps are there when the numbers are called in to the state dem party

[Debi]

94. I'll try again

1. they take a significant amount of time

Presidential preference can take as little at 10 minutes Dependant on how many are running/who is supported within the precinct. That is the only part of the caucus that attendance is mandatory to be counted. (for many it takes longer to stand in line to cast their ballot)

2. votes are counted by officials counting people who are standing in a group.

There is no vote - there is a preference, which must equal 15% of the people in the precinct, if necessary there is a realignment to ensure a candidate has the 15% necessary to receive a delegate or delegates. (And people don't have to stand in a group, they can be seated if it is easier).

3. They require public voting

Yes, which I understand you see as a negative and yet you are willing to show your preference for a particular party by canvassing and posting on this board, but it is not standing in a coliseum screaming the candidates name to thousands of people. It is in a group of neighbors from the same party in a casual social setting.


4. There's no paper trail showing the number and preferences of votes versus the number of people attended, (no ability to recount a result)

There is a paper trial - you keep trying to make it a one person one vote trail and since a caucus isn't that you will not ever be satisfied. There is a count of how many people are in the precinct, how many people supported a specific candidate on the first preference and, if necessary, how many people supported a specific candidate on the second preference. Then there is a written record of Delegates to the County Convention and Committee Assignments.

5. people are allowed to sway your vote within the caucus room.

People are allowed to support their candidate - if a person does not want to change their preference they do not have to (even if their candidate does not have 15% and therefore a delegate to the convention - the count changes and the equation changes). No harassing or intimidation has occurred to my knowledge (and I'm not going to go into hypothetical arguments - when did facts start getting treated as less than theory?)

6. people whose candidates don't get 15% have to choose another candidate.

Please see the post above, they do not have to choose another candidate. They can retain their support for their candidate. The negative is that a person can only move on to the County Convention as a supporter of a specific candidate that received enough support to garner a delegate (that is why Kucinich supporters went to Edwards so that they could attend the County Convention and continue to push the platform that Kucinich envisioned).


I have asked you to find people who participated in a caucus that had difficulties and you have not or will not. So now I am arrogant because my experience and others posting on this board (who have attended a caucus)are similar? If my experienced opinion that a caucus is a good political process is wrong am I to believe that only your opinion (without the benefit of the experience) that a caucus is a bad thing is correct?

The only thing that will apparently satisfy you is to agree with you (which means that I would have to be dishonest and I don't intend to do that just to appease you). I'm sorry that you think that you would be uncomfortable in a caucus situation, that it itself does not make the process a bad thing.

[CTLawGuy]

97. response

1. fine, so it is possible to stay for the bare minimum of ten minutes. I will point out that in a primary, you can make those ten minutes whenever you want over a period of 12 hours. In a caucus, there are a particular ten minutes you have to be there. A primary is still more convenient.

2. What is the difference between a vote and a preference? None. A vote expresses your preference.

And wow, you sure refuted my point about standing in a group. :eyes: They can be SEATED. I do remember watching the Washington caucus where the candidate supporters were gathered together to be counted by a teller.

3. no response

4. that may be techincally a "paper trail," but it cannot be recounted if someone later claims that the numbers were doctored or a mistake was made. A real paper trail can be independently recounted to confirm the correct vote totals. that requires each person writing his or her preference(s) on individual ballots.

5. I agree people do not have to change their preference, but I believe that partisan passions should be absent from the voting area. You substitute your own experience for objective fact, which is pure arrogance, and then claim the possibilities I assert are impossible because "it didnt' happen to me."

6. No response

What I find most irritating about arguing with you is you cannot accept that the caucus system is flawed. You believe it is perfect apparently. You have the right to believe that caucuses are ok, but at least acknowledge that some people might be uncomfortable with some of the aspects of it.

[Debi]

98. Why should I argue against something I agree with?

Why would I lie and say I don't like the caucuses? Only to appease you? Why should I be dishonest in my convictions only because you are trying to intimidate me and harass me to agree with you (note that I have never had that happen to me at a caucus).

You don't like my statements, you don't like my experiences or that of other posters and you don't like caucuses, absentee ballots, computer voting, and open primaries and you certainly don't want anyone to know what party or candidate you support which is why you are posting on a board called the Democratic Underground with a Howard Dean avatar.

Other than your prescribed way of voting is there any other alternative? Can suggestions be made or will you continue to knock down ideas that don't mirror image your opinions?

Why don't you just let me have my opinion? Why don't you let me advocate for what I believe in? Why don't you let other people advocate for what they believe in? Why don't you send a positive message instead of calling people arrogant, question their morals and proclaim that they are in the wrong party? How will we ever have progress in political discourse if this is how differing opinions are treated?

Or did you just want to start a fight and hurt people's feelings?

[theboss]

75. The Party doesn't even need to have a vote

In theory, the Party could decide the nominee by having Howard Dean pull a name out of a hat. So, there are no constitutional principles at stake here.

And there are so few cauci left as to make the question hardly relevant.

[CTLawGuy]

79. The Iowa caucus is surely VERY relevant

it set Kerry on the track to locking up the nomination.

[ISUGRADIA]

82. And helped sink Howard Dean because he came off bad

in person to a lot of people who went to his campaign events.

The caucuses are much less likely to be infiltrated by Republican voters than a primary.

[bvar22]

80. I attended the Minnesota Caucus.

I recently moved from a state that had an open primary.
I prefer the Caucus.
There is some validity to the OP.

The establishment Dems were the organizers (of course), and had already gotten the WORD from Party Hq that John Kerry was the preferred nominee, and they were touting the party line about Presidential and Electability. They were also miffed that so many younger and more liberal upstart voters attended. We set RECORDS for Caucus attendance.(Standing room only)

Dennis Kucinich (my guy)finished a strong second to John Kerry. I don't think many DK supporters were dissuaded from their preference by the attitudes of the Establishment Dems who I found mildly arrogant.(some justification: these ARE the people who keep the Party running during the off season)

The voting was not public. We wrote our choice on a slip of paper which was folded and collected. The ballots were counted and the totals announced. We had one run off ballot.

The BEST part of the Caucus was after the balloting, attendees got to publicly propose resolutions that WERE voice voted (all won). These resolutions were carried to the state convention to be added to the State Platform.

I LOVED the process, and had a much deeper feeling of involvement in the Party Process than the rather anonymous trip to the polling station and pulling levers.

You may disagree, but I love the grassroots activism and participation in the Party Process that I found in Minnesota. That experience has encouraged me to become more active in the Party at the Local Level. I hope to become a State Convention delegate in 2008.

Part of the enjoyment could be attributed to the fact that I live in the Bluest part of a Blue State. It was fun and exciting to be apart of a large group of liberals who were publicly voicing their opinions about the direction OUR government should be going.

Afterthought: NONE of the resolutions proposed at our caucus were included in the Democratic party Platform for 2004.
We have much work ahead of us.


Edited to add: The total process of selection was less than 1 hour. You could leave after that. The entire caucus including selection of delegates to the state convention and the resolutions lasted about 2-1/2 hours. For me, it is worth the time.

[CTLawGuy]

85. hey

that system you describe isn't too bad.

Voting done in secret, relatively fast, and no harassment (because no one knew who voted for whom)

That system I could accept.

[Debi]

95. Here in Iowa that is how Republicans run their caucus

Campaign representatives give supportive speeches and then a straw poll is cast. (I don't know about a run-off vote)

That does somewhat make it closer to a primary that an actual caucus, but the party building that occurs afterwards is what qualifies it as a caucus.

[Pryderi]

81. Dems need an "old school" smoke-filled, backroom deal made.

[Debi]

96. I think that's what happened between Kucinich and Edwards

Kucinich didn't really benefit from his supporters moving to ensure Edwards got delegates. I guess it continued Kucinich's platform. For him that was a positive.

[CTLawGuy]

89. PLEASE SEE THIS THREAD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1834278

Thank you.

[Moderator]

99. Locking

two days of lively debate seems to have exhausted this topic.

[Moderator]

100. locking

two days of lively discussion seems to have exhausted this subject. Thank you.