Regarding abolishing caucuses in Dem presidential primary

I started a thread where I advocated the abolishment of caucuses for the Democratic presidential nominating process. After futher consideration, I no longer want to abolish all caucuses, but rather I think that the Democratic party should create a list of principles that any voting system must conform to in order to for the resulting vote to be considered valid. here is what I think they are.

1. All balloting must be done in secret. Caucus attendees must vote via a paper secret ballot, and other atendees may not peek at others' ballots. Primaries already have secret ballots.

2. There shall be absolutely NO electioneering while balloting is taking place. In a primary, this means partisans are kept at least 75 feet (in my state) away from a polling place. In a caucus, this means that people shall not try to sway voters while voters are in the act of voting.

3. Electioneering must be orderly and civil. Harassment, attacks and threats shall be strictly forbidden.

4. Polls or voting opportunities need to be available for at least 12 hours on election day. for a caucus that means that attendance is not required to vote. Voters must be allowed to submit, in person, a secret paper ballot with instructions (should their preferred candidate not make it past the first round) at any time within a 12 hour period, which may include the caucus itself.

5. Except for absentee ballots, voting by mail shall not be allowed. This cuts down on the potential for voter fraud.

6. Voting online shall not be allowed. Same reason as principle #5. Threat from hackers is enormous as well.

7. All voting systems must allow for independent hand recounts, even days later. That means there must be a paper trail that can be independently recounted.

:beer:

but the BIG problem with iowa is that voting is not in secret. So if an Iowa Democrat was uncomfortable with publicly expressing his or her choice, he or she would be forced to violate his or her privacy or not vote at all.

that is not a choice we can expect people to make.

I dunno if Kerry would have been defeated under this system, but I know it would be a lot more fair.

who you support?

Can you give me any evidence of a person being harassed/intimidated/retaliated against for professing support for a specific candidate?

Why do you continue to try to plant seeds of fear in peoples minds about an exciting, honorable political process?

I can see how people can be intimidated by letting their boss know they voted for Kerry if he is a Republican.

But do we really want to create an atmosphere of fear among Democrats? It's not the Teamsters elections.

caucus - so if your boss is there, your boss is supporting a Democrat.

I've asked for some sort of proof that intimidation has been used in the past, but have not received anything other than comments that it could happen so therefore it has happened. (I've been asked not to use anecdotal evidence as it messes with the OP's theories - but I've been to three caucuses and have never seen intimidation/retaliation of any sort. And remember, since each caucus is four years apart that means in a decade I haven't seen it happen...bound to in that period of time don't ya think?)

Remember that a caucus is attended by people in one precinct of one party affiliation (for instance my caucus for my precinct was attended by 22 people). These are your neighbors and fellow party members. Not a large group of different parties in an unwelcome atmosphere.


On Edit - I just re-read your post. I agree that a caucus is not a good idea for a general election - that's just too many people to account for.

I don't think Kerry supporters slashed the tires of Dean supporters last year.

:eyes:

Political preference is a very private thing to many people.

I personally don't think that who I support is the business of anyone else unless I make it their business.

I wish I could understand the desire to keep support of a candidate seceret.

I don't want to argue with you as it is your preference, but do you volunteer for your party or put our yard signs or have bumper stickers? Because doing any of those things is the same as sitting in a room having coffee with your neighbors saying "I support candidate x"

If there are 20 of us in a room....and I have an Edwards sticker on my car....how is my vote secret?

their buddies that they support one candidate just to get them off thier back but then vote for another.

Again, I don't understand why a person would lie about their support for a candidate, but (if you look at how Dean did in the Iowa caucuses) obviously some people do it.

I choose to put my politics out in the open.

But I just don't think that should be required if you want to participate in the political process.

I don't think we can come to the same conclusion. Only because I don't see a problem with publicly proclaiming support for a party or a candidate.

But I'm not going to try to change your mind, you are entitled to your opinion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have never experienced a caucus but you think they should be abolished. That's choice? (and when have I said primaries or straw polls should be banned? I've only advocated for a political process which I agree with - I've not bashed other processes (like open primaries, absentee ballots or voting by computer. You are the only one suggesting that there can't be processes other than the one you are advocating)

Here's some of your analogous reasoning:

I've never eaten Vietnamese food, yet I fear that it will be too spicy and give me indigestion (and its rumored that some restaurants use cats instead of chicken). Since I've never tried it and no one has ever told me that it would be too spicy or that it would give me indigestion (or that cats are substituted for chicken)I can only assume that I am correct and Vietnamese food must be abolished. (Also people have to order it and eat it in public so other people see them eating it which goes totally against a person's right to order food and eat it in privacy) Now, along come several people who have eaten Vietnamese food who don't think it too spicy who have never gotten indigestion (and who can vouch that cats are not used) who tell me maybe I should give it a try. But I refuse to listen to them because I have already made up my mind using my uneducated theory and no amount of fact or reason is going to change that. The only option is to shut down restaurants who serve Vietnamese food because I say it's bad and people shouldn't have to experience something I say is bad.

Finally, since we don't know eachother and have not discussed anything other that our preferences on parties and political processes...do you really think you should be judging my morals?

and I don't want to sound argumentative.

Do you make it public knowledge what your preference is by an outward showing of support? Signs/bumper stickers/lapel pins or by volunteering for that candidate?

Another poster put it here, that to arrive at a caucus with an Edwards bumper sticker on thier car doesn't really lend to a private preference.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've continued to let people know that they are entitled to their own opinion. I'm not trying to change people's minds and I'm not saying 'My way or the highway'.

What I am trying to to is take the opportunity you've provided to educate people on what REALLY happens at a caucus instead of the doomsday scenario you describe. No one has to agree with me, they can do what they want.

However, I am noticing a trend about people who disagree with you. (and it's not a very nice one).

John Edwards won...easily, 2 to 1. I live in a heavily populated area of Iowa and I thought for sure that Edwards would win based on my precinct results. Dean came in a very, very distant 3rd, which was extraordinary considered HIS supporters were the most visible (t-shirts, buttons, signs) and somewhat vocal (although not rudely). So much for 'peer pressure'.

Was this your first caucus? Did you enjoy the experience? Did you feel intimidated or harassed as a result of your public support for your preference of candidate? Were you consequently retaliated against in any way?

I'm being rude and putting you in the middle (which I know I should not do) so you have every right to tell me to mind my own business.

Debi

From what I've read.

There isn't the same degree of electioneering, and voting is done by a straw poll, the ballot is secret, and it is then tabulated and reported.

Supporters can bring campaign literature (and t-shirts and signs and lapel pins) into the caucus, and a supporter for each candidate gives a speech on behalf of the candidate prior to the straw poll (I don't think it's called a ballot to differentiate it from a primary).

After the presidential preference is done they continue to the party organizing, selecting delegates and committee members.

people who are campaigning for a canidate are allowed to stand outside with signs supporting them on election day. I think outside of a polling place someone could be allowed to have flyers with a website URL or something like that. But when you go to vote wouldn't you already know who you have in mind??

and the same in a caucus - some come in undecided and wait until a presidential preferences is necessary.

so in fact you are proposing abolishing the caucus process.

So, where in this process is there any party building? When are delegates selected to the County Conventions? How are Central Committee members selected? How are Convention Committee members selected?

You have no evidence that a caucus (the way the caucuses are run in Iowa for Democrats) are a negative - other than your personal opinion.

Why not ask people about their experiences to determine what would be best for the Party?

So...you are still in favor of abolishing them.

In fact, I don't think you even understand what a caucus is.

I'm trying to figure out this great fear of one's neighbors knowing a persons political preference.

Can you give me any insight?

I grew up in West Virginia.

But I grew up in politics so the idea of a bunch of people arguing in a room seems to be the most natural way to make a political decision.

The real issue is whether Iowa and NH get too much power by their position on the calendar. I think that is a valid discussion.

And, since I'm from Iowa, I don't really want to see our First in the Nation status go by the wayside.

I think in 2000 and 2004 the reason Iowa and New Hampshire had so much power is because of the front-loaded calendar.

When Gephart won in 1988 he didn't have enough money to complete the race and when Harkin ran in 1992 Clinton didn't even compete in Iowa (and came in second in NH).

I think there should be a re-group time after Iowa and New Hampshire.

But I'm not giving up Iowa as First without a fight ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I just don't think it's necessary in a primary setting.

If you are against a caucus, that's fine. I'm not. It seems to have served Iowa well.

But your suggestions would change it from a caucus to something else.

I have heard the theories dealing with Kerry and Dean. I personally don't think it happened but I think the media had a big part in it. :shrug: I didn't follow anything back then so I don't really know. I do think these rules should be around. Have you ever talked to Dean about that? I do think your votes should be private except in exit polling if you want to participate of course. If there is online polling I think it should be just opinion polls. I do think the voting in the primaries should for sure be on paper's and also taken time for.

Those reforms are good for primaries and general elections (or essentially any election that involves use of a secret ballot) but they hack away at the caucus until it's nothing but a skeleton of its former self.

If one's goal is to reform the caucus, as I assume yours now is, one must realize that the caucus is a different sort of animal.

You wouldn't approach a lion the same way you'd approach a housecat, would you?

as much as they want to breed fear and doubt about the process.

see this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1832789


Although I don't understand why a person's political preference needs to be held privately, I won't try to change that opinion. I've never viewed the process with fear and have never been around people who don't want others to know what (or who) they stand for. Obviously that fear or desire for political privacy exists. I can only try to understand why.

I agree with the above methods but I would like to see the Dems do something different instead of the standard caucus/primary methods.

Have the primary for all fifty states on the sameday sometime before the Convention. Try to get it as close to the conventions as logistically possible.

Instead of the standard caucus/primary, just do a basic straw vote. Let the state Dems coordinate the vote at some central location and the various "Candidate X for Pres" groups can demonstrate their grass roots organization but getting people to the voting sight. The vote would be nonbinding but would give a good idea on who is the best organized. They can give preference to certain states for the order (Iowa, NH first?). Delegates would be chosen from the respective candidate groups based on the Primary outcome.

Benefits,

-longer buzz about all the dem candidates.
-people stay interested longer
-All states have a say on candidate
-Candidate based on more on popular support than on money
-Press/Repukes won't know who to attack
-Election night hype/mystery

Any thoughts?

Greg

would see the candidates?

With a fifty state campaign the candidates may only campaign where they can get the most delegates for their campaign dollars. Remember that Kerry focused only on battleground states in the general, ignoring thirty-some others either because they were solid blue or solid red.


And, if they did go state-to-state would they only go to the most populous part of each state? (for instance only the state capitol and nowhere else). (Also I think it would still be a race based on dollars as the better funded candidates would be able to organize and advertise in more states than the others - read Kerry vs. Kucinich in a national straw poll)

Your idea would make for one big national Democratic night, though!

Have the the straw votes in order of population/number of delegates starting with the smallest states first. Therefore if the candidates wish to have any sort of momentum they will need to spend some time/money in those locations. For example, if the media discussed how Kucinich is cleaning up in the straw votes from January to April, would Kerry still be able to stop the momentum in the larger states? Who knows but the buzz would be there.

Greg

Leaving the biggies til the end may make the smaller states get some attention. (but I still want to keep IA #1 ;))