Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:43 PM May 2016

Caucuses are harder to steal. Until we get a secure voting system in place - including how the votes

are counted, they are the only check on the system.

Not only are they harder to steal, but theft is more easily detected.

Getting a secure, reliable voting system in place is doable. So why don't they do it? The obvious answer is because they want to manipulate the vote.

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Caucuses are harder to steal. Until we get a secure voting system in place - including how the votes (Original Post) Skwmom May 2016 OP
Actually no. It's the opposite Renew Deal May 2016 #1
They are HARDER to steal and theft more easily detected. Skwmom May 2016 #7
Was it harder or easier in Nevada? Renew Deal May 2016 #10
Running for President is hard. You gotta get people to vote and stuff. LuvLoogie May 2016 #2
If you like voter supression you love caucuses MattP May 2016 #3
If you love easy vote manipulation (a form of disenfranchisement), you must love primaries. Skwmom May 2016 #11
Or put up with being brow beaten by a bunch of pushy zealots. nt oasis May 2016 #16
Yup, but Bernie Campaign almost stole Nevada itsrobert May 2016 #4
caucuses are great for people with nothing better to do, like work. great for everyone else tho nt msongs May 2016 #5
LOL! onehandle May 2016 #6
It is a YYYYUUUUGGGGGEEEEE conspiracy tandot May 2016 #8
Only a fool or a crook would guarantee the election results in this country. Skwmom May 2016 #13
Didn't you guarantee that Bernie would win ? tandot May 2016 #18
Caucuses disenfranchise voters. hrmjustin May 2016 #9
Caucuses also reward the candidate with the most aggressive supporters... SidDithers May 2016 #12
Yeah, the party insiders do now how to stage intimidation and chaos. Skwmom May 2016 #15
We need anonymous mail in voting. We need to bring the secret ballot back to voting. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #14
That's definitely not true oberliner May 2016 #17
My caucus was fine... Why shouldn't we take time to make an important decision? Joob May 2016 #19
So far from the truth it's difficult not to burst out laughing Dem2 May 2016 #20
Nah! Caucuses are archaic, vote-suppressing, exclusionary. . . brush May 2016 #21
kudos, for maximum black is white logic. BootinUp May 2016 #22
Backwards. Caucuses don't even release initial round tallies Recursion May 2016 #23

Renew Deal

(81,866 posts)
1. Actually no. It's the opposite
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:47 PM
May 2016

The Nevada convention pretty much proves you wrong if you believe it was rigged.

Renew Deal

(81,866 posts)
10. Was it harder or easier in Nevada?
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:52 PM
May 2016

Hillary won the caucus. Bernie had more people show up at the county caucus. Hillary had more people show up at the state caucus because Bernie's people were discredited by the credentials committee.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
11. If you love easy vote manipulation (a form of disenfranchisement), you must love primaries.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:53 PM
May 2016

If I cast my vote for x, and the system changes it to y, I have been disenfranchised.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
12. Caucuses also reward the candidate with the most aggressive supporters...
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:53 PM
May 2016

'Cause voter intimidation is rampant in a caucus.

Sid

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
14. We need anonymous mail in voting. We need to bring the secret ballot back to voting.
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:54 PM
May 2016

If they don't know who is backing their opponent they won't know who to steal from or change party affiliations.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
17. That's definitely not true
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:55 PM
May 2016

Much easier to steal a caucus. In fact, they are a complete mess in every respect. People leaving, coming back, not realizing they can revote if their candidate is not viable. All sorts of shenanigans going on. Look at the video from caucus locations in Iowa.

Joob

(1,065 posts)
19. My caucus was fine... Why shouldn't we take time to make an important decision?
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:59 PM
May 2016

But yeah, there needs to be like automatic pay on election day or something, for a state.


There should be a law passed (at least for caucus states)
where you would be able to bring proof that you voted (not who you voted for)
and afterwards you get paid regularly for the day.

This would also encourage more people to vote.

I know people get all weird about other people knowing who you vote for but that kind of thinking will never progress any nation if you can't even discuss nominating a certain candidate.

That being said, there should also be a law that let's people vote without having to stick around for the discussion of choosing delegates. ...Which would have been people they met. But whatever. The votes will still help choose who the delegate represents.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
20. So far from the truth it's difficult not to burst out laughing
Tue May 24, 2016, 11:59 PM
May 2016

It's far easier for those few people in charge of counting and collecting "votes" to cheat.

Also, caucuses disenfranchise voters who can't afford to spend hours (like myself) to determine a simple primary vote.

You're just plain wrong.

brush

(53,795 posts)
21. Nah! Caucuses are archaic, vote-suppressing, exclusionary. . .
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:07 AM
May 2016

time consuming, intimidating even because of no secret ballot, and therefore undemocratic because of all of the above.

They may be fine for small towns in Iowa but for major metro areas, forget it.

Take Las Vegas, who has time to spend 3-4 hours on election day, then another several hours on a different day at the county convention, and finally more hours on a yet another day at the state convention just to decide the vote and delegate tallies?

People work, go to school, take care of family. That all needs to get done in one day with a primary where people can vote on their own schedule, and be done with it.

And if you've ever caucused like I have, you know there is a head count done after the crowd is divided into candidate groups and the time spent trying to persuade people to switch groups. That head count and it's accurate reporting is where the vote count can easily be . . . ahhh, under or over reported for each candidate.

Cheating can easily happen there, and then you have the other two days to try to steal votes, as was done in Vegas by the Sanders people at the county convention. They were thwarted however at the state convention and delegates restored to the Clinton camp who won them on election day. Justice was done, vote theft stopped.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
23. Backwards. Caucuses don't even release initial round tallies
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:08 AM
May 2016

They're opaque, much lower-turnout, exclusionary, and need to go.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Caucuses are harder to st...