Caucuses are no way to choose a candidate

This year's presidential nominating caucuses have featured large numbers of voters coming together in crowded rooms, arguing vigorously for their presidential candidates and voting for their choices. On TV, the process looks like the very model of democracy.

Except that it's not.

Caucuses in Washington, Iowa and the more than a dozen other states that use this method are a flawed way to choose presidential candidates. They're run by the political parties, not state election agencies that typically oversee primary elections. And their purpose has always been more to help organize and strengthen the parties than to give as many voters as possible a fair way to pick candidates. Among the flaws with caucuses:

* Turnout is much lower at caucuses than at primaries. The caucuses in Washington state on Saturday drew fewer than 50,000 people. That's about 1.3% of the state's registered voters.

more...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/our-view-on-pre.html#more

they are less democratic than primaries *but*
it's the system we currently have and no campaign or candidate ought to be implying the results from caucuses ought not be counted the same as primaries.

There is a good deal of election reform needed but during the process is not the time to try and change it.

It was crowded and chaotic, yet our PCO estimated that it was only 3% of the Democrats in our district! (Most of them, I might add, were not party insiders). That's too low. It could not possibly have accommodated a deaf person, it didn't start at the stated time, no rules were circulated, and we couldn't hear our PCO at all. Working people could not come vote, and I had to listen to very vitriolic anti-Hillary speeches (these were people supposedly speaking on behalf of Obama).

Democracy is messy and noisy and terribly inefficient.

Pulling a lever for you candidate won't mean much if he or she doesn't much if he or she can't win, or if there's no down-ticket effect for your state or locality.

But I just don't see how caucuses do that. Because of the time requirement, an awful lot of interested voters just do not, or cannot, participate. Their voices aren't heard, and the message they get is that the party doesn't need them.

I favor a primary election. It's a lot easier to VOTE than it is to caucus.

Bake

I guess is the rationale. I remember one woman on here who had attended either Iowa or Nevada, who said she exchanged phone numbers with a couple she met so they could work on the general election together. That would not have happened if they just went in and pulled a lever and went home. And I'm sure the party is more organized than that in trying to recruit volunteers or encourage additional participation.

I understand your point, I just think that in some states where the party either needs a boost or is in a very competitive position with Republicans, primaries can make a difference in the outcome of the general election. In the end, that makes a Democratic voter more likely to see the Democrats succeed. That's a party focus, not a candidate focus, I'll acknowledge that, but presumably someone registered as a Dem has some interest in the longer-term viability of the party as an institution, and up and down the ticket.

Nominations are about standing up, speaking out, and organizing your allies within the democracy. A perfect democracy isn't an achieveable goal, as the founders knew, and some limitations on the power of the majority often ensure the liberty of the republic in ways that democracy might trample over. A democracy doesn't always ensure that a fair and full debate has occured when the people make their choices. Democratic majorities supported the war in Iraq--in large part because we didn't have a full and open debate on the reasoning for the invasion.

Caucuses are a very good way to force the people to debate the questions of the state before they vote on them. It may be a less pure form of democracy, but it can achieve better results for the republic, which is what the Constitution is framed to do.

The process is wholly unfair, no matter how you slice it.

The whole process is fraught with opportunity for malfeasance - I just don't trust loyalists to run a clean operation.

I don't like the whole intimidation issue that seemed evident in Nevada & the disenfranchisement of people who are unable to get away for a couple of hours (soccer/basketball/hockey/dance/gym/karate/swimming moms & dads, single mothers, poor people with jobs with lousy hours) is totally unfair IMO. I have been saying since early on that caucuses suck and need to be eliminated.

My ideal is to have a single day where registered Dems and Reps vote for their Presidential nominee. I'd like to see it happen during election day the year before the Presidential election. That would put an end to all the whining about who gets to go first and it would get their damned mugs off my TV for awhile.

is a miserable system to choose a nominee. What actually does 1.3% show anyone?

As other posters have stated, this is a problem to be handled in the future, not during the process of this one.

Eliminate the caucus for national elections and national primaries.

Question: How many of those turning out were Republicans, Indies, Greens, evangelicals attempting to skew the results.

Primaries should also be closed to party members only.-

Turnout at caucuses is indeed lower than in primaries, but there is no need to repeatedly exaggerate the number. The 50k number above is based on the caucus delegates elected by the caucus goers, not the actual voters at the caucus. The Washington Democratic party estimates that the caucus turnout was about 200k.