2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJosh Marshall: Caucuses Are Just Voter ID Laws on Steroids
You know that I've been saying over and over that to the extent that the Democratic nomination process is 'rigged', the rigging has been a huge advantage to Bernie Sanders. As I've noted, that's mainly because of caucuses. It drives me crazy, candidly, when Sanders claims on the stump that where voter turnout has been highest, he's done best. That's not remotely true. Indeed, where it's been lowest, he's done best. Almost entirely because of caucuses, which are really the most effective voter suppression method in politics today.
And now here's a good visualization of this fact.
Jeff Stein at Vox highlights this study prepared by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law which captures a lot of what's wrong with caucuses. Read the study itself because it goes into specific issues with complaints about disenfranchisement, complaints, reasons for the problems, etc. But the bare numbers tell the story clearly enough.
As you can see, with the single slight exception of Idaho, no primary state had a lower turnout than any caucus state. Most primary states were in the 30% or 30%+ ballpark, with two states (which Sanders actually won) around 50%. Most caucus states were under 10%.
If you care anything about voter participation or making sure people can vote even if they have a job or don't have a free evening to spend at the local YMCA or school gym, the case against caucuses is simply overwhelming.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with organizing to bank a lot of delegates from caucuses. Those are the rules the system currently operates under. Barack Obama did just the same thing. So there's nothing or illegitimate about Sanders focusing on caucuses. But there's simply no argument for not reforming the system and ending caucuses as a replacement for actual elections.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/caucuses-are-just-voter-id-laws-on-steroids
Response to RandySF (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
RandySF
(58,911 posts)My partner works at night and my son has basketball on the weekends. A caucus system favors those without work and/or family obligations.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It ain't there now. Caucuses, super delegates, delegate allocation based on measures unrelated to population, etc.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I agree with you regarding caucuses and superdelegates. I'm curious what you mean regarding delegate allocation.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)other than strictly population. It's based on number of democratic elected representatives from the state, democratic relativity in general election, etc. it's a complicated formula I've never taken the time to parse out. But the result is delegates available from individual districts varies, and not on population. It's not dependent on voter turn out either. The weight of an individual voter's vote varies widely across states.
No votes are equal. The compound that with caucuses, proportional delegate allocation not based strictly on popular vote, give super delegates 15% say in the outcome. It's not a democratic process. It isn't a fine tuned equality based process, it's a big picture who is it going to be process.
I would support popular vote based process. All votes are equal. All votes are private, no caucuses. Same day voter registration in each state. No super delegates.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I could not agree more with this article.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Caucuses do measure the depth and dedication of a candidate's support. If they show up to caucus, they'll probably also support the campaign and turnout in Nov.
On the bad side: caucuses are discriminatory to people who can't get away from work, are caring for children, disabled to some degree...any number of reasons a person can't participate in what's often a several hour long process.
Neutral: caucuses are run by the party, rules are often invented on the spot or the caucus chair doesnt follow the rules, there's often shenanigans attempted... Although at least the caucus-goers can observe and call out shenanigans, the primary vote counting goes on behind closed doors and their seems to be a lot of fraud there.
My opinion: vote by mail is probably the most effective, fair, and least expensive.
RandySF
(58,911 posts)OR a Michigan-style caucus that allowed Dems to vote online in 2004.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)In general it has to do with whomever wins that night. Not surprising.