I believe it would have to be handled on a local level. So the people of that state would have to start a movement about it.

establishment will never do that since it allowes them to fix states with caucuses.

they make it too easy for insurgents like a Wellstone or a Sanders to gain ground as they aren't as dependent on high cost advertising campaigns to sway voters. With a caucus what a candidate needs is a good grassroots operation that gets supporters out and that can be much cheaper.

I do know there was a time when the DNC would have liked to see Minnesota to away with them - but that was back in the days when the DFL took a certain amount of pleasure in being a thorn in the side of the DNC.

And, given that we saw both the 2000 and 2004 national elections stolen - I'm not so sure I'd say an election is harder to steal.

they can be fixed against grassroots candiates.

Which is too bad, really, because leaving voting issues up to the states enables all the Republican shenanigans, from voter IDs to combat non-existent voter fraud, to providing too few voting booths in minority districts, or even moving polling places far away and away from public transportation, to disenfranchising ex-cons, even though they've 'served their debt to society'.

if you want a change. I'd suggest contacting the Dem. party of the caucus states and ask then why they do it. What possible advantage is there?

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

We used to have a combined primary day for both parties in Idaho, with both the Democrats and Republicans going to the polls on the same day in the spring sometime.

However, in years past, the primary elections we held just a few decades ago were subject to fraud.
That was because many Republicans, who used to live in Idaho, came back to Idaho over the Western border that the state of Idaho shares with the states of Washington and Oregon, in order to vote for the weakest Democratic candidate on the primary ballot during the primary election.
Some other Republicans came over the border from Montana, but not as many.

Democratic state party leaders noticed a trend of unexpected Democratic party primary results in the late 1970s.
Later, detailed follow-up reports analyzing the primary elections resulted in reports of numerous cases of suspected fraud, explaining how someone who had such weak support within the state's own party could win our state's primary election.
There were even reports of more votes being cast for the candidates during the primary election than the number of registered residents listed as living in that town or county.

These reports forced the state's Democratic party to decide to use a caucus instead of a primary to determine who our state's Democratic National Convention group of representatives would be.

It's very easy to cast a vote in a voting booth.
Especially if it is not a closed primary.
Closed primaries require pre-registering as a party member in order to vote as a member of either party.

Republicans can't thwart the outcome of a caucus because they have to show up in order to cast their vote.

About 30 years ago, the Republican party here in Idaho started having contentious primaries within their own party.
The GOP had some real whackjobs who, for some reason, decided all of a sudden that they wanted to run for office in the mid-80s.
They started having harsh public arguments that were reported in most of the state's newspapers, discussed on radio talk shows, and reported on tv stations all across the state.
Their arguments were mostly over which one of them was supposed to be their strongest candidate during the fall election.

After a few prominent Republicans started losing their re-election bids during primaries in Idaho, the Republicans accused Democrats of crossing over party lines during the primary season to vote against elected Republican officials.
The Republicans claimed Democrats were doing this in order to make their weaker primary Republican candidate their General Election candidate.
As a result, Republicans starting holding closed primary elections.

A caucus is like a huge block party, everyone knows someone there.
It's great fun participating in a caucus, but it has to be well organized.
Some participants at caucuses can get a little out of hand, but that is when the precinct chairman has to step in and restore order.

Nevada just started using a caucus this year, so this is their first one.
Each state gets to decide how they will chose their representatives who will attend the Democratic National Convention, and caucuses are a more reliable way of doing that sort of thing.
It only takes an hour or two to attend a caucus, and since fewer people work on Saturday, that is the day they chose to hold their caucus in Nevada.

In Idaho, we are holding our caucus on a Tuesday, which kinds of sucks, but they are fun, and much more democratic than just casting a vote at a polling booth.

I guess my main issue is that by requiring it to be on a single day at a specific time it excludes voters. No matter which day you choose, there will be cops, firefighters, healthcare and retail workers etc who will not be able to cast their vote. In the case of Nevada, having the caucuses on Saturday, which is Shabbat for the state's 60K Jewish voters, is exclusionary. I said it once and I'll say it again. Voting should be EASIER (and more inclusive) not harder.

I imagine if you are an extrovert who loves crowds, it's great fun. I'm an introvert and I hate crowds. I would still be able to do it, but a lot of my students have anxiety disorders and I think they'd have to walk out or just not attend in the first place due to panic attacks in that scene. And now that I'm older and my kiddo is grown and I can take a paid day off or afford a day without pay, it's not a hardship otherwise - but in my single mom days where I had no vacation days at all, it would be a major hardship. I'd have to drag a bored toddler around that scene for hours (NOT fun) or pay for a babysitter (but then how do THEY vote?). And if it was one a work day, or a weekend that coincided with my reserve duty, I couldn't attend.

Only taking an hour or two to attend is only a piece of the issue, if it costs you an eight hour work day.

The whole process requires a certain amount of freedom/privilege/income for people to be able to vote. And that's going to influence the outcome, and give more voice to the people with the most privilege.

Everyone can stand up and give their voice about who they want to be the Democratic candidate for President.
Anyone can speak out, or ask to be heard.
Most people just sit in their chairs and are relatively quiet, and then raise their hands to be counted to cast their vote, but this is true Democracy in action.

Each presidential candidate has a representative at the caucus to represent that candidate, and they also have a group of supporters for that candidate sitting, or standing, in one area of the meeting room where the caucus is held.
Each presidential candidate's representative gives a short speech outlining why they think their candidate is the best possible choice to be the next President.
People can then ask any one of those representatives of the Presidential candidate at the caucus questions about the candidate they are representing.
And if they don't like the answers they are getting, they can get up and move to another side of the room where the other Presidential candidate's group is sitting.

Caucuses are only designed to pick the Presidential candidate.
Actually, they are held to select the representatives who will attend our state's convention that represents that particular Democratic candidate at the party's state convention.
Those representatives that are selected to attend the state convention are selected on a pro rated basis, with the number of representatives chosen by the caucus results, not by a "winner take all" method.
So, some representatives that attend the state convention are for one Democrat, while other representatives are for another Democrat.

Then later in the summer, those representatives attend the state convention, and they do it all over again, and that is the way they select the people who will represent our state at the Democratic National Convention.
It does require some time off from work, and some money, to be able to attend the state convention, which is 3 or 4 days long.
But, anyone can apply to be a particular district's representative to go to the state convention.
Those representatives that are selected to attend the DNC are usually people that can afford to take some more time off from work, and have enough money to attend the national convention.

Back in 2004, I went to the caucus that was held here in Boise, which was during the month of February that year, and we got the worst snowstorm of the entire winter that very night!
Just driving downtown to where the caucus was held was an adventure in and of itself, because the snow trucks weren't going to start plowing the roads until the storm would stop dropping so much snow.
It was snowing so hard we were getting about 2 inches an hour that night.
And the snowstorm didn't start until about 2 hours before the caucus started!
The wind was blowing so hard that I started thinking of not going, but I was glad I did because it was like old Greek-style Democracy, everyone had a chance to speak out and give their opinion, and everyone's vote was counted.

Some caucuses are small in less populated districts, with only 30 people attending them, because the precincts making up that district are sparsely populated.
Some caucuses are large, with over 300 people going to the meeting hall.
In 2004, it was SRO at the caucus that I went to, and I was glad that I went early that time just to be able to get a seat.
It wasn't as crowded in 2008, but the meeting room was filled to capacity at the caucus I attended.

Most college students attend some classes that are held in large theater-style classrooms.
So, I wouldn't think anxiety issues would a problem for them to attend a caucus.
Yet, we also hold a primary in Idaho as well, later in the spring, where we vote for all of the candidates who are running for office that particular year.
The primary is when people can just rush over to the polling station to cast their vote.

While the Republicans in our state have a closed primary, requiring pre-registration, the Democrats are holding an open primary so it doesn't leave anyone out of the process . . . that includes new, first-time voters.
Some of whom, we hope will be former Republicans, voting for a Democrat for the first time in their lives.
And we also now have mail-in voting available, so it makes it much easier for mothers with young children to be able to vote, as well as older, retired people, disabled voters, and people who have other issues.

I realize that 4 years ago there were folks advocating for all caucus voting and no primaries due to cost. I never favored that, but it seems germane.

My proposal:

On or about 2/1, registered Dems in all 50 states vote to narrow the field to no more than 4.

On or about 4/1 we either pick a candidate or narrow to 2.

If necessary, we vote one more time on or about 6/1.

No more "Iowa and New Hampshire vote first."
No more delegates
No convention - candidate picks the veep. If the candidate won't do it, the House Democrats can pick from a list of those wanting the gig.

... and if it were up to me, all of this voting would be by mail.

One last thing: I'm a Hillary supporter, but I agree with you 100% on ending the caucus process. That said, I'd be honored if you'd block me from the group. You've blocked all my friends, and I suspect you left me off the list because most of you have me on ignore. I feel left out. Oh - and can we at least agree to fight like Hell to win back the Senate? Thanks.