Caucuses may be exciting for those who participate in them, but they are disadvantageous for those who, for whatever reason, find it difficult to attend them. I favor vote by mail in primaries, which is the system that my state has.

As for open versus closed, although I dislike the hold that the two-party system has on our elections, I think it is hard to argue against the idea that primaries should be limited to party members, provided that there is enough advance notice so that people can register as party members, should they choose to do so. The important thing is clarity and transparency. Arizona was a disaster in part because the rules were so confusing: Independents can vote in the primary, but not the presidential preference election, which occurred yesterday.

One thing that I don't understand is how the primary election/caucus schedule is determined. Could someone please tell me that? Is it determined by state law alone, or do the two political parties have a say in the order in which states vote? I've done a search on this, but can't find an answer to this question. It seems to me that the current schedule privileges some regions of the country over others.

Thanks in advance!

A majority of voters in caucus states do not show up. This leaves the critical decision to a relative few. In Iowa, just 15.7% of the voters showed up.

Primary turnout tends to be lower than general elections anyway. A system that discourages participation should not be used.

1. Caucuses are inherently unfair. There are a myriad of reasons that could prevent someone from appearing at a caucus. A primary allows voters to vote at whatever time is convenient for them. This is the only fair system.

2. Closed because the purpose of primaries is for the party to select its candidate. With that in mind, only members of said party ought to be able to participate in that process.

people with a lot of time..

I think Democrats should chose the Democratic candidate. Open primaries give the chance to the opposition to interfere and tamper with them.

and mostly agree that if you wanna have a say in your party's nominee you should be in the party. BUT I also see that independents should have a voice too.

I don't know how to fairly give them a voice. Let them vote for any party? Why would anyone ever be in a party if you can vote however you want anyway? Make them run an Indy candidate? Maybe that's where it should go to get away from the 2 party stranglehold.

I personally think the silly gaming of the system by people who vote in the opposite party's primary to try and pump up a lousy candidate is childish. But again, I'm not the boss of voting. I don't expect it happens enough to really have an effect but I still roll my eyes hard at people who say they do it.

I know this: Voting should be easy. Much easier than it is. Voting is a right, not a privilege. There should be nothing impeding that right. Even if you waste your vote on dumb candidates or opposite party candidates. If you are breathing and show up to vote, you should get a vote. If you are breathing but can't show up, you should be able to mail in a vote. I'll let the engineers figure out how to keep you from voting twice but that's another thing I don't believe is rampant enough to warrant much concern.

I will vote my conscience and whatever happens, happens. I can't stop TPTB from rigging stuff. I can't stop apathy in others. All I can do is my part. Even if it is all just an illusion I've done what I can.