Else you would not have embarrassed yourself by asking.

Please, correct your ignorance by reading my Civics 101 course matter below.

This is extremely aggressive behavior for this board on your part.

are sent to the national convention where they nominate the candidate.

The caucuses select the delegates to the national convention. Primaries determine whether the party-endorsed candidate goes to the general election.

The state holds the primary. The party holds caucuses.

The state determines the primary format (whether by election/caucuse/convention).

?

State LEGISLATURES determine the rules for when and how primary elections are conducted.

State party organizations have the power to schedule and pay for party caucuses to determine how delegates to national conventions are chosen, thus making the state legislature determined primary elections nothing more than a straw poll.

The national party organizations can exert influence over state organizations regarding caucuses, however, they have no direct power whatsoever over party caucuses and most certainly have no influence over state legislature determined primary elections.

candidates to be placed on the statewide elections ballots.

Goodness... that must be embarrassing.

They can participate in shenanigans like the Florida Democratic Party, and behave as if only one candidate is running. But that does not turn out well. Nor does it turn out voters, whose candidates are denied the democratic process. Your question is scary, in that you think a party can make such decisions, when anyone can run for office and create a primary.

the party may not vote to accept that person due to various party rules.

get rid of them..

The state party then has to have a caucus.

I think caucuses should be banned and we should go over to primaries.

most popular support.

Primaries are an all day affair while caucuses are a very limited window.

They require people to show up and get involved.

But a lot of people can't be troubled to get off their butts and vote in primaries, either. People who are really committed and informed are the ones who show up at the caucuses. Sometimes this does lead to weird results, though; for example, a few elections ago my precinct went for Kucinich, who never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. Some caucuses come up with off-the- wall resolutions to be submitted to the state party convention, and occasionally hilarity ensues, or maybe just annoyance. The caucus is, however, one of the more interesting exercises in civic engagement. I'd hate to lose our caucuses.

Especially in states that have a long history of them.

I think some states make provisions for absentees though.

They can always reform to give more people the ability to participate.

Is it that party politics alienates people?
Or that the process itself is a disincentive?
Its confusing to assume its "lazy people".


Um, yeah?
So these "weird results" are a result of "people who are really informed"
nominating unelectable candidates?
Or is it that they are "really committed", and perhaps overzealous?
If these caucus folks are the best of the best, how on earth
do they select someone "who never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination."?

It's honestly confusing and has a lot to do with why "average" people disengage.

1. I don't know why people tend not to vote in primaries but it's a fact that primary turnout in most states tends to be much lower than the turnout for general elections. Maybe it's because they don't know who the candidates are, or they don't care who the candidates are, or maybe in some cases they figure the fix is already in and the party-endorsed candidate will win regardless so there's no point in bothering. I suspect the low turnout may be for some of the same reasons that there is a low turnout in off-year federal elections.

2. People sometimes get behind unelectable candidates or oddball causes at the caucus level because they feel strongly about certain issues and want to make a statement; it doesn't mean they are not well-informed. Also, many of the caucuses are pretty small, so it may take only a relatively few devoted fans of a candidate to ensure that the caucus' votes go to that candidate. Once you've been to a couple of them they don't seem confusing, but I understand some of the criticisms. As I said before, though, it does encourage participation and becoming familiar with the candidates and the issues.

It is indeed a conundrum.
We need more voter participation,
but we don't know why its so low?
Maybe it's all of the above!

~The "fix" is in, based on MONEY
~The process is too difficult for working families...
it takes time, effort which may not be available
~Being knowledgeable about the candidates is a time consuming effort and
MANY people don't have the time or know where to get accurate info.



So, in essence the most vocal and zealous caucus goers
get disproportional clout in the process, leading to pet causes.
THAT seems reason enough to turn away "average" voters.
It seems the caucus system is it's own worst enemy IF
the objective is to generate MORE participation.
It's very design appears to disenfranchise, more than include?

Avoiding blame, why not use the caucus to
press for ELECTION/VOTING changes?
As a "pet" issue, push for paper ballots...
or better yet, multiple-voting days, weekend voting,
a voting holiday, or mail in ballots like Oregon?

If you support caucusing,
why not use it as an agent of change for EVERYONE?

State law (legislative and/or constitutional) determines who ends up on the ballot come election day. Some states hold primary elections, others use caucuses or even state conventions. For some offices, there's a backup option for vacancies that take place too late in a cycle to hold a primary.

It really can be a hodge-podge. You can have primaries where the parties get to determine whether their primary is open or closed... and others where the state determines that. For presidential elections, some of this is de-facto trumped because the states generally have a ballot-access rule that says that the nominee from a national convention of a state-trecognized party automatically gets on the ballot.

The real answer to your question is "it depends" - because where you live and when/how the seat came open makes a difference.

Do you have a specific example that sparked your question?

(assuming they can get the rest of the legislature to vote for it and the governor to sign it - and the state in question doesn't have a constitutional provision blocking that).

Laughing at the attack and the fact they don't know after all of that bluster. I'm going to read on as I would like to know more of the detail to the process myself. oops. Think someone received a little time out to think about their anger.