come out and who is most susceptible to peer pressure in determining their final vote.

I enjoyed participating in Colorado's caucuses in 2008 and 2016--meeting people from my neighborhood I'd likely never get to know otherwise. But even though there were some differences between CO's and IA's, I could not wait to vote to end them and bring back true primary elections in the ballot referendum that same year.

Caucuses are a nostalgic remnant of a much earlier period. Much like the electoral college IMO.

I've never remotely had an experience like a caucus, and your reference to "peer pressure" is exactly what I was wondering about. It seems to put a huge emphasis on how good a candidate's captains are

I guess something like this would be fun as a social event (I guess!), but far too much seems to ride on a process like this.

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth on Super Bowl Sunday....go "Niners!

yes, 5/7 who won the nomination but went on to be defeated and often crushed in the General Election. Exactly ONE went on to win the Presidency since 1984--Barack Obama.

It is not a democratic process because it is not representative and there is no mechanism to engage if you are working and can't attend. And as one who (if you read my post) has actually participated in caucuses, that is a big damned problem.

Nebraska used the caucus system in 2016 just so I could experience it first hand one time. Although I am glad they switched back to a primary. The most maddening thing was we all counted up the people in the auditorium and one candidate won about 550-220 and we all gave a mighty cheer for this massive victory! The very next moment, the leader person announced the absentee ballots brought it to almost a tie. I was like, why the fuck did we do all this then?!

...in my opinion. But it's the way they do it, now... I hope they change sometime before the next election.

The caucus may have been a good idea at one time.

But it is truly an undemocratic way to do things today, especially when so many people are working 2-3 jobs and cannot spend hours in a caucus venue.

Primaries are MUCH more democratic.

Time going around the country would be time better spent for us to get to know the candidates.

If you think of a caucus and realignment as Ranked Choice Voting it begins to make more sense.

... where the state that is least representative of the Democratic party, using an undemocratic process that often includes bullying, has tremendous power to influence who the nominee is.

It's tailor-made for a candidate like Sanders. Fortunately smarter Iowa caucus-goers have been able to beat back the left for years. I hope they come through again.

I like the runoff quality of the caucus process.

In modern times that could certainly be instituted with a variant of Ranked Choice voting. Doing that and switching to a ballot process rather than caucus, might make the voting more accessible to more people.

What I don't like is the bullshit declaration of a plurality voting state that so-and-so "won" the primary. If there is no run-off that takes into account people's second choices, it is less relevant for selecting a "winner" than the caucus process. Also, as a voter if I vote for a candidate with less support because I want to register who I most support, then I am handing over my actual voting power to delegates who will re-align at the convention. A ranked-choice process that requires "viability" to award delegates would be better, IMO. Then at least I have a chance of registering my vote for a candidate who has a chance, while being able to indicate my true first choice.

It's also the way things worked for a very long time. The walking caucus concept is fascinating, really. I had never heard of it, really, until I moved to Minnesota and began participating in the DFL organization here. Minnesota has now abandoned caucus-style primary events and has switched to a primary election for presidential candidates.

The first Democratic convention I watched on television, back in 1956, gave me my first glimpse into the walking caucus concept. It's a fascinating way to make decisions in a large group of people. It was used here in Minnesota for district and higher conventions. Anyone could form a caucus when decisions were being made. If you could gather enough people to create a group that represented enough to select one delegate to the next level, your caucus was viable and you could continue. If not, the members of your caucus were free to join a different one. They literally walked to the new caucus and joined it. Walking caucus.

Once all remaining caucus had enough members to elect at least one delegate, that delegate or those delegates were elected by the members of that caucus.

That's how the ages old caucus system works. It's still in place in Iowa, so think of it as a historical method for selecting delegates that is just about to disappear. It's a very interesting system with a long, long history.


Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject, as it was handled in Minnesota:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_subcaucus

it's time to move into this century and let Iowans VOTE. nt

Really appreciate the collective insight. I just didn't realize how antiquated things were for something this seemingly important.

Though I have to say the past few years have made me think there may be something to the idea of smoke-filled rooms.