The caucus system disenfranchises too many voters!

The caucus system disenfranchises:

1. working class Americans with little time
2. the elderly, many of whom find it difficult to go out to caucus or are not able to stand in line for more than an hour
3. the disabled
4. Americans abroad
5. people that don't have convenient forms of transportation, especially when the weather is bad
6. people that give into voter intimidation, which likely occurs (but varies depending on the caucus site)
7. people whose caucus organizers do not run the process seamlessly
8. single parents

As Dems we know about voter disenfranchisement from the 2000 election. We fought for every last vote til the bitter end, and the republicans called us whiners for decrying the sham of an election process. If even one voter gets disenfranchised then there is a flaw in the system. If hundreds or thousands get disenfranchised, then the system needs to be revamped.

The caucus system is written in the rules, but it's not a good system by any means. I hope the party gets rid of it eventually. I believe in everyone having an equal voice. I don't believe that the "strong and the dedicated" should have the luxury of having a proportionally greater voice than the large number of people who are inconvenienced by their own life situation. The fact that over 300 million people live in this country but only a minutae of these people go to caucus is troubling. The demographics at caucus are invariably skewed towards certain types of people. This is not democracy!

The ideal process is the most standardized one. Anonymity decreases intimidation. Mail-in ballots increases participation. Decreased time constraints increases the variability of the population sample voting. The primary system represents this process.

Primaries are by no means perfect, either. It historically has not represented a completely random sample of the population; young voters, minorities, etc are not equally represented. However, they are more representative of a fair, unbiased, standardized process than are caucuses.

This is not a post skewed towards either candidate. This post is in response to what I've gleaned on the voting process itself and my beliefs that elections should be fair and representative of the entire population rather than a select few. The more voices the better. There is no reason to want 100k voters in a state instead of 600k when voter turnout in America has already been historically low.

in 2000 we had a primary after years of caucuses. The state pays for primary, caucus are paid for by parties. 2000 primary came and nobody came - terrible turnout. So it was back to caucus. It's all about money.

I totally agree with you. The primary debate has been brought up again after record turnouts this year, where it seems millions of American's just learned about voting in a primary/caucus.

1. Hillary believes that little states and big states she lost doesn't count
2. Hillary breaks the DNC rules and caimpaigns in Florida
3. Hillary first accepted the DNC rules but now wants Florida and Michigan delgates to count
4. Hillary is encouraging Obama's pledge delegates to vote for her in the convention
5. Hillary's Teachers Union tries to sue Nevada caucuses
6. Hillary is now suing the Texas caucus system
7. Hillary threatens to sue the DNC if MI and FL delegates aren't seated in the Denver convention
8. Hillary endorses republican McCain over a democrat Obama

The Scary Thing to Me, aaroh, Is That You Might Actually Be a Voter!

Re: "1. Hillary believes that little states and big states she lost doesn't count"

First, there's the matter of your grammar. It isn't states doesn't count it's states don't count and they DO count. And Hillary believes no such thing.

Re: "2. Hillary breaks the DNC rules and campaigns in Florida"

NO, she didn't break the rules nor did she campaign in Florida.

Hillary obeyed the rules by not campaigning in the states of Florida and Michigan.

However since it was not the choice of the Democratic party in Florida to move the primary up, but the choice of the Republican government of the state of Florida, and Republicans should never have the ability to disenfranchise Democratic voters the idiocy of not seating the legally gotten delegates is beyond ridiculous. It was a stupid, sappy idea on the part of the party to set this policy to begin with. The Democratic party is NOT a legal legislative or judicial body, so who says the leaders of the party can punish their own Democratic voters for a choice made by a republican state government?!

Re: "3. Hillary first accepted the DNC rules but now wants Florida and Michigan delegates to count"

She upheld her part of the bargain by honoring her pledge not to campaign there and STILL WON. She cannot make the choice for those voters in Florida to insist on their right to have their delegates seated. They will and are doing that on their own.

Re: "4. Hillary is encouraging Obama's pledge delegates to vote for her in the convention"

And? Your point is what? Where did you get this notion, anyway? Got any links or details?

Re: "5. Hillary's Teachers Union tries to sue Nevada caucuses"

Again, so what? Got any links or details on this one?

Re: "6. Hillary is now suing the Texas caucus system"

And? Again, you point? Do you realize that Obama has started a couple of lawsuits against various states and those involved in the voting process?

And the Texas caucus system is a complete BJ. They should have had the results tabulated and out there no later than a day after the Primary results were in. And they're still holding out -- for what? Some kind of financial pay off from the candidates? Or so that Texas and be the power state that tips the final balance? It's a complete crock!

Re: "7. Hillary threatens to sue the DNC if MI and FL delegates aren't seated in the Denver convention"

Good! Howard Yeeeehaw Dean needs his *ss kicked, and Hillary is the one to do it!

Re: "8. Hillary endorses republican McCain over a democrat Obama"

And Obama rhapsodizes about Reagan and the way Reagan did things. Reagan was a Republican and the Iran-Contra affair happened under him.

Once again proving that Obama is all-too-comfortable with corruption and deceit of the worst order!

whether by ballot, meeting, convention or caucus....what we're doing is "selecting" our nominee. This is NOT an Election!!! The election is in November. During the primary there is NO promise of one vote per person...or all votes being equal. That is why each state decides the process for selecting their nominee.

wait it might this year!

Going into Iowa (a caucus), Hillary had no problems with the caucusing system. Why should she? With her superior organization, she was bound to win most of them. Then Obama shocked her in Iowa, and from then on, he's swept all the caucuses except for one because his supporters are energetic and passionate whereas her's are more cynical and jaded. So NOW, she starts growing a political conscience and starts decrying caucuses? Uh uh, you lose all credibility once you start bashing a system that you remained silent on, and even hoped to benefit from, just when you started to lose them.

Right. I voice a rational discussion on the caucus system, and you start flaming me for whining. You should probably look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you're fulminating on me with your vitriol, when in fact I could damn well be a voter for either candidate. You're echoing the repubs in 2000.

who do you think you're fooling with this?

The disparities still exist, however. The system can't go on forever.

Caucusing in Texas brought 50 new Democrats to the table in my precinct, folks I didn't even know were Democrats! Now I have a mailing list and a donor base and yards to stick signs in, it's GREAT! I didn't even know there were that many Democrats in Lubbock, much less my precinct! Thanks to the hotly contested caucuses, we have a real chance to purple-up this part of Texas again.

Thank God for caucuses!

:eyes:

Some things just are what they are, transparent and all.

I am NOT a HRC supporter. Never have been. You can check all my previous posts on DU.

I have NEVER supported her.

I, personally, am glad the concerns on caucuses are being raised -- at this point I don't care who is raising them or which candidate they support.

I don't know of any Hillary supporters who are requesting a do-over. They knew the rules going in.

And, imo, the problems/issues/concerns with caucuses need to be discussed.

There were rules. She played according to those rules. She lost according to those rules. She now says the game's unfair. To quote Stewie on the Family Guy episode that (fittingly) is on right now, "It's like she's fucking five!"

Seriously, it's like the Faux News definition of "Fair and Balanced": "fair" means "I win; you lose." Anything else is "unfair" and "undemocratic."

You know what's "undemocratic"? Saying the Republican candidate is better qualified to be president than a Democrat. She should be kicked out of the Party, not its leader.

And, once again, I AM NOT a HRC supporter. You can check my previous posts on DU. I have been anti-Hillary from the beginning.

It isn't about which candidate is or isn't winning or who is or isn't complaining. It's about serious flaws in a system that we all should have an interest in changing. For you to dismiss the argument as you have by turning into some partisan battle, when it's not, shows you to care more about winning almost like a sports game (think 2000) then about what's actually right. Try and step back and think a little before you knee jerk.

Maine allows this.

They need to go. Are you insinuating something to me by stating the obvious?

ways. In ways they are somewhat undemocratic, and in other ways they are the most democratic.

Either way, it's a little to late to be bringing up caucuses. There are bigger fish to fry and arguing about a caucus being undemocratic is kind of silly right now.

can vote in the primary, at the convention(caucus)and then again as a super delegate.I don't know why they couldn't. I do know that the super consume 15% of the delegates, the primary 55% and the caucus 29%. There has been much debate about the Texas caucus but after seeing other states' caucus methods, I think Texas is not so bad.

own thread on them.

This thread is a very well written thread on the problems with caucuses. Maybe you should address that concern rather than weakly deflecting to a completely different issue. Are you scared to discuss the merits of the caucus system out of fear? Is that why you completely tried to drag the discussion away from it? Pretty weak.

They both work 80+ hours a week, with several 48 hour - 72 hour shifts before they get to go home to their hometowns. Sure they could do an absentee ballot for their caucus or primary, but that's just too much work. It's much easier to cry and complain about it.

Oh, and let's not forget about Fire Fighters.

If their schedules are like this in November they won't be much help in getting out the vote.

Those who will have the time, it is argued by some, should have more say in the primary. The Texas protocol is a direct response by the party to getting creamed by a handfull of highly motivated Republicans that completely dominated their state under Tom Delay.

It has worked, the Dems are rising and Delay is history. It's hard to argue with sucess, but I'm sure you will find a way to say that Dems actually winnning elections is somehow unfair and does not reflect the will of the people.

No, I am NOT a HRC supporter. Never was.

I just realize how absolutely ridiculous the caucus process is --regardless of which candidate benefits.

There's something very important about the private vote and the pluralism of simply voting for whom you choose rather than reaching little feudal consensuses.

Not that it is perfect given the technology and capacities of our time, but it was good enough for them.

AND I hate caucuses.

There, I said it.

he was absolutely lambasted for it! But he was right. But here's the deal -- if Dems don't like the system, it's up to the DNC and the state parties (and grassroots people) to change it....and not in the middle of an election because one candidate or another decides he/she doesn't like it midstream.

I'd like to read what he had to say.

And I don't think anyone is realistically asking to change midstream. I think people are trying to point out the problems. Personally, I think the whole caucus thing should go.

One nationwide primary on the SAME day. One person. One vote.

and I'm a Obama guy myself.

I thik they should go. We want to bring AS MANY people into the process including working class people who work evening shifts with inflexible schedules, military people, folks unable to get transportation, elderly, etc.

Too many folks are excluded.

But I don't agree about a national primary day. It would ultimately favor only big name candidates with lots of money. No insurgent would ever have a chance. That said, IA and NH shouldn't be number 1 either....

I should have said ONE PRIMARY with public financing.

I was on Dean's rapid response team -- forgot it was a comment he made in 2000 that was brought up in 2004. I remember the fallout well.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E2DB1638F936A15752C0A9629C8B63&scp=2&sq=howard+dean+caucus&st=nyt

Dr. Dean's criticism of the caucuses, which most politicians with national ambitions are careful never to fault, came just two weeks after the broadcast of a four-year old interview in which he derided Iowa's delegate-selection process as dominated by special interests. In a January 2000 television talk show, Dr. Dean, then governor of Vermont, said that ordinary people lacked the time to participate in the caucuses.

After NBC News broadcast excerpts from the show, Dr. Dean said that he had not known much about the process at the time, and, as he repeated Saturday, that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary were critical to candidates like him, who lack money or name recognition as the campaign opens.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E2D91F31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63&scp=6&sq=howard+dean+caucus&st=nyt

Four years ago, Howard Dean denounced the Iowa caucuses as ''dominated by special interests,'' saying on a Canadian television show that they ''don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people, they represent the extremes.''

Videotapes of the show were broadcast on the NBC Nightly News on Thursday, less than two weeks before the Jan. 19 caucuses, the first contest of the Democratic nominating race. The tapes show Dr. Dean arguing that the lengthy caucus process in which neighbors gather to debate their preferences is inconvenient for ordinary people.

''Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids,'' he said on the show on Jan. 15, 2000. ''On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?''

A moment later, he added, ''I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.'''

The excerpts shown on NBC also show Dr. Dean saying in December, 2000, ''George Bush is, I believe, in his soul a moderate,'' and adding about those thinking that Mr. Bush's presidency would be a one-term one, ''that is going to be a mistake.''

While Dr. Dean now describes Mr. Bush as ''the most radical right-wing president in my lifetime,'' he also frequently acknowledges that, until after Mr. Bush was elected, he believed his promise of moderation.

Shortly after the NBC broadcast, Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for another candidate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, sent reporters an e-mail message with the NBC transcript, asking, ''Which Howard Dean are Iowans going to vote for, the one who insults them, or the one who will soon be releasing yet another clarifying statement?''

Mr. Gephardt also leaped on the comments, saying: ''The remarks he made about the Iowa caucuses to me are unbelievable. I guess I'd ask him a question: Who are the special interests dominating this caucus? Is it the farmers? Is it organized labor? Is it senior citizens?''

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/09/elec04.prez.dean.iowa.ap/index.html

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Democrat Howard Dean moved quickly to protect his lead in Iowa and stem the fallout over his comments years ago on Canadian television that caucuses are dominated by extremist special interests.

Dean was responding to the disclosure of a videotape of a Canadian television program he did in 2000 as governor of neighboring Vermont.

On the program, Dean said: "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests, in both sides, in both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes."

"The Iowa caucuses are dominated by regular Iowans who are concerned about bread and butter issues that all Americans care about," Fischer said. (CNN.com's interactive Election Calendar)

Some of Dean's rivals jumped on his comments.

Gephardt called an airport news conference where he labeled the comments "unbelievable" and said Iowa Democrats deserve an explanation.

Kim Rubey, a spokesman for John Edwards said the North Carolina senator "fully appreciates what he has learned by campaigning in all of Iowa's 99 counties."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter quipped that Dean "is going to extremes of his own to win over Iowa voters."

"Which Howard Dean are Iowans going to vote for -- the one who insults them, or the one who will be soon releasing yet another clarifying statement?"

(Caps for emphasis and shouting, because I am elated for this find.)

Thank you. Thank you.

while I tend to agree that caucuses disenfranchise too many voters, I do NOT think it's OK to rant and rave about this system in the middle of a presidential election, particularly since it's been the system for a long, long time. Do I think it needs to be changed? Yes. Do I think that now is the time to rant and rave about caucuses being BS and demeaning all of those people who spent hours participating in our Democratic process to have their voices heard? Absolutely not.

If HRC didn't like the caucus system, she should have been making noises about it WAY before this. She went through 2 elections with Bill where they benefited from the caucus system and as far as I know neither of them said a world about the caucus system. Now, all of a sudden, caucuses suck. Not cool.

Simply because something has "been the system for a long, long time", imo, is no excuse.

Slavery was legal for a long time. Women couldn't vote for a long time.

Bringing up legitimate concerns is not ranting and raving. Discussing the problems is not ranting and raving.

And supporters of both candidates have expressed concerns.

I am NOT "demeaning all of those people who spent hours participating in our Democratic process to have their voices heard." In fact, I'm trying to point out that those who participated in the process are prolly going to be very disappointed that, in the end, it's the superdelegates who will decide this thing.

<edit> and if it's the superdelegates who decide, will those new voters who showed up at the polls and caucuses, return next time? Or will they get disillusioned?

My mom and her friend were unable to stay long enough at our local caucus. They went, but the friend had to leave because she couldn't sit that long. It was too painful. My mom had to leave also since she had driven. Many can't even go. They're on oxygen, don't have rides, etc. Also the working people don't all get the opportunity. It should be a mail in vote. Anyone with enough initiative to send it in deserves to be heard.

I don't see one good thing about caucuses...unless maybe you're an elitist who doesn't have to work. Is there anything good about them?

And I do NOT understand why TX has a primary and a caucus...WTF?

who have the time, desire and political "knowledge" to get more deeply involved in the process. It is portrayed by its defenders as a party-building motivator for activists.

There may be some truth to that, but on balance I agree with you that a primary is more democratic and preferable. (AFAIK it MAY be that Texas state party thought it thought it was satisfying both the party activists and the Democratic voters in general by using a hybrid system.)

One good thing to come out of the caucus vs. primary discussion is the implied acknowledgment of the "wisdom" of the average voter. For seven years I have seen too many posts at DU that portray voters as "sheeple" who are too easily fooled by politicians (specifically Bush and his RW cronies), while activists (patting ourselves on the back) are lauded as possessing the ability to see through the lies and BS.

I am glad that voters are getting their "day in the sun" now. ;)

I've always lived in a primary state...so I haven't had the experience of a caucus.

In my mind, when I say 'sheeple,' I am referring to those that John Dean writes about in his book, 'Conservatives w/o Conscience'...the evangelical who do as they are told with no questions asked, otherwise they are called Devil's Advocates.

I guess we need to define 'sheeple.' I think of that bumper sticker: God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It. I guess one could replace God with any other Hero or Idol.

WA allows absentee caucusing for the disabled, people in the military, and people whose religious observance is Saturday. Maine allows it for any reason whatsoever--I'm trying to get Washington to adopt that. We have too goddam much citizen passivity anyway IMO. The caucus process gets people more involved with party politics on an ongoing basis. The primary system gets people less involved, and more passively dependent on the media soundbites that only the wealthiest candidates can afford.

In the words of one famous politician: "mend it, don't end it"

Let's reform the caucus system to allow absnetee balloting for the elderly and military.

I think, given an reasonably well organized state party, that this is doable for any state.

In 2012, of course.

Though Andrew Jackson had some complaints worth noting. Read a bit of history. There is time to improve things before the next one, but for now we have what we have and it has been good enough for 43 presidents so far.

could figure out a way to be "off" on that day..if it were really important to them :evilgrin:

if people have a wedding to go to ..or a rock concert..or a party, they usually figure out a way to swap shifts or take a vacation day..

so voting is not as important to some people as it is for others.. nothing new there

I'm not suggesting it's right to change things mid-stream.

Is there a sign at the door that says Citizen X, Y, and Z aren't allowed to participate?

And why pray tell did I not hear the first protest against caucuses before now?

Don't you have some donuts that need devouring?

I would think a caucus would be an excellent thing. But any system that doesn't allow everyone a chance to vote, needs to go or be modified.

If you look at the list, every person on the list is disenfranchised by the obligation to show up and vote. The caucus system is older than the US government, and every one of our founding fathers, the signers of the Declaration, every single president, etc, has gone through it. You have to look fairly hard for complaints on their part. (Andrew Jackson is the first complainer I have found).

Politics has changed in recent times. Voters haven't turned out since the 70s, and most of this has to do with poor government outreach during this period. The country is also more diverse than ever, and a representative sample of the population is necessary to maintain the integrity of the political process, in my opinion.

Granted, the caucus system is a raw and authentic form of the democratic process. It is an exciting part of the political process. But times change. Nowadays, with busy schedules and heterogeneity rampant among the population, this system is rapidly becoming outdated. We are no longer a nation of small communities and independent family farms. For the most part, we work on wages -- not on OUR terms. Herein lies the most critical flaw in the caucus process.

Thanks for a good response, and I would certainly support change to the system. To change a system one has to have some understanding of its history - how it arose and how it worked in the past....

And gee: from yet another new poster. Wonderful.

You're suggesting that I work for the Clintons? If only that were true; I'd be a millionaire.

The drawn out primaries disenfranchise too many voters!

I say we do the direct democracy thing, and have one day, one vote, and let the many resulting parties pick a PM out of their coalitions.

This whole selection process is settled law from long ago. Parties can make up whatever rules they want in picking a nominee. They could all meet in Denver and just flip coins (the luckiest person wins) or they could stage a boxing match or whatever. Democratic party, DNC rules. No lawsuit filed will get anything more than a cursory look see (except, of course, with judges appointed by BUSH that will be HAPPY to see our party waste more time and money!). Eventually the case will get tossed.

no legal basis exists. preparing for 2012 would be a good move for the DNC

Those roadblocks they've been setting up outside some caucus sites to systematically identify Hillary supporters and stop them from voting and those poll taxes they've been imposing on Hillary supporters at other caucus sites are just too much!!

Plus, everyone knows that all Obama supporters are young, childless members of the leisure class whose only hobby is going to caucuses.

It's really not fair, and it's just one more reason to feel sorry for poor Hillary!

New England Patriots complain about very tall NY Giant receivers.

"Half those throws would have been incomplete if those guys weren't so tall, Belichick was heard muttering to the press.

Our defensive backs are only 5 foot 9. This is incessantly unfair to shorter Americans."

And we Dems did this to ourselves......

1. working class Americans with little time to stand in line waiting to vote
2. the elderly, many of whom find it difficult to stand in line for more than an hour waiting to vote
3. the disabled who find it difficult to get to the precinct and wait in line to vote
4. Americans abroad
5. people that don't have convenient forms of transportation, especially when the weather is bad
6. people that give into voter intimidation, which likely occurs (but varies depending on the primary site)

7. single parent who cannot take the time to wait in line to vote
8. everyone that votes on a electronic voting device or has their votes tabulated electronically or where paper ballots are counted in secret.

And, yeah, I know that many could vote absentee, but #8 covers them too AND a lot of folks like to wait until the last minute to make up their minds.

And the caucus system is there not to ensure that every last person vote, but to test the appeal of candidates to the base. Someone that attracts lots of energy from caucus goers will likely have more people willing to canvass and phone bank in the general election. Wars are not always won by who fields the biggest army, but are often won by the army that is committed to winning. All we are doing in the primary is picking the general and the army that will fight our battle in the GE.

and backroom deals.

I was just pointing out that no matter WHAT system you choose, it will likely be "unfair" to someone.

And the purpose of a caucus is NOT to poll everyone to see who they want, but rather to test the attraction of one candidate over another. People have to make an effort to caucus, more so than merely voting. And the people that DO caucus, should their candidate become the nominee, are more likely to volunteer to work the campaign for their candidate than someone who drops off an absentee ballot. So they ARE more valuable to the party than mere votes. Like I said, we are picking the general and the army right now with which we will go to war with the other side come November. I'm happy with either system, but there isn't anything unfair about a caucus.

the method of choosing delegates is chosen long before any candidate even announces..

It's up the the candidates to figure it all out, plan the expenses, campaign and win votes..

A good manager and campaigner can usually navigate the process.

If one person has bad turn outs for them at caususes, they are either too narrow in their appeal or they are going after the wrong voters.. It's up to THEM to inspire and motivate and seek out voters who WILL caucus for them.. It;s just that simple..

and it's also why DELEGATES, rather than popular votes are important.. In most caucus states you don't really HAVE to turn out big numbers, but you still have to inspire & motivate people...just not as many..

when we vote in America, we go into a little cubicle where we're provided privacy by a curtain....or somthing that shields us from PRYING EYES

we're not beholden to anyone

our neighbors don't know who we selected

neither do our friends

we're not pressured by peers, neighbors, friends, spouse.....

we don't have to conform to anyone's views, or choices

we simply pick the candidate we wish, in complete privacy

feeling group pressure is HUGE....social scientists have studied it a lot....it's REAL...so real, that students will deliberately give the WRONG ANSWER to avoid going against the crowd....

that's why caucuses are so un-democratic

people cannot cast their vote in private, and they are subjected to peer pressure

peer pressure can be very subtle

but it's there

There is no right to vote for a political party's candidate. How the defacto institutionalized parties organize their selection process is not a constitutional issue.

I agree that a caucus is a bad way to choose our nominee, but please keep the arguments within the bounds of what is real.

In fact caucuses were the norm and primaries the exception until quite recently. I prefer primaries as well, but caucuses don't violate anyone's rights.

some states will be re-thinking their system. Not for this fall--but for the next election.

Um, OK.

I have actually attended a caucus, and disagree with nearly all of your points. The only valid point is the limited time . Who ever said Democracy is easy? Also, the law of averages dictates that those unable to attend would be distributed across the backers for all candidates.

And, for me, the open vote is a big plus in the Diebold era. No way to game the system.

Sorry. I would personally prefer a primary for the convenience, but the caucus system gets to the same end result.

They also care about the will of the people when it relates to superdelegates, but couldn't care less about the will of the people when it comes to caucuses. It's the epitome of hypocrisy and makes them look quite silly.

But what you write about caucuses is spot on. We all should band together and make a huge push in each state to have them done away with, in the spirit of simply doing what's right.

when one side is clearly losing. These complaints, and the alleged horror at the self-disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida, all surfaced after Clinton's campaign lost the nomination on Super Tuesday. It is an exercise in poor sportsmanship and a display of sour grapes. Structural changes to democratize the nomination process are a good idea, but the debate about those changes is out of bounds in the middle of a contest, and poor form when being used essentially to discredit the winner.

rather than being weak and deflecting it into a partisan issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's a real issue, with real problems, as stated in the OP. Deflect away from it all you want with your closed minded partisan bullshit, but the problem's still there. Stick to fucking context, will ya?

"Stick to fucking context, will ya?"

Fuck off.

The context is a nomination process the rules for which were established and understood before the process got underway. The time for re-evaluating and changing the rules is before the process starts or after the process is over, not at the tail end of it when one side has already lost for all practical purposes and has decided to contest the rules in order to save face. The OP, despite disclaimers, is merely regurgitating current Clinton talking points, consciously or otherwise, and your posturing in your post is equally disingenuous.

I was at the caucus. It certainly doesn't discriminate against the old or disabled, because that's about half of who showed up. What the caucuses do is reward people who are willing to sign their name to their candidate, listen to couple of speeches, vote on resolutions, and otherwise help build the local party.

This post is sour grapes from a campaign that can't seem to get a decent ground game going and doesn't know how to caucus.

said so. AND I AM NOT AN HRC SUPPORTER.

I caucused in Lubbock, and it's a mighty barren place for Democrats. It was so cool to find out how many Democrats there are in my precinct, and there was such a sense of comradery I can't begin to describe it. If the only way to bring Dems out in the open is to have caucuses, then I'm all for them.

I might remind everyone that this is a Primary. Officially the DNC doesn't even need to ask for our view. The party leadership can sit in a dark room and decide who they want to run.

I've done vote by mail..the worst thing to me. Your ballot comes to you over a month before the of election. It sits with the bills and junk mail. You'll get to it later. Finally, you hit the bills and fill out the ballot at the same time and put in the mail box hoping it makes it there. Not sure if your vote even mattered. This takes no effort and only costs the price of a stamp. candidates.

Voting machines at least takes some effort. You feel like you did something important. You get your little "I voted" sticker and it takes some effort to at least go to the voting booth.

Then there are caucuses. That is an experience that you can never forget. It is what gets the party fired up. Instead of being just one democrat alone you are surrounded by hundreds who have the same views and concerns as you. You suddenly feel that you have power and that you can make a difference. Every vote and every person matters. You can speak your views and know that matter. More importantly, if you are passionate enough, you can actually be the delegate for your candidate and move on to county and state conventions. It fires up your base and gets the people that you need to actually run the party in your state.

The people who voted with the bills...they will still be there in the general election, but the people in the caucuses. They are the ones who will knocking on doors and doing phone calls and all the hard work the party needs done for elections.

Sorry, for a primary vote, I wouldn't take away caucuses. Split 50/50 is most I would ever go between mail in and caucus votes.

Nominating a party's candidate for the presidential election is not the same as any normal election and it should involve as many rank and file party members as possible. Key word is "involve".

The caucus method is the only way to accomplish that involvement in the party. It actually requires a person to discuss and support their choice for president in public, with friends and neighbors, to weigh the pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses...the reasons one thinks any candidate is worthy over another and why they might be better for our party.

A caucus also makes the selection of delegates a very civic matter, for ordinary party members to consider their duty...to elect the best delegates for the job of representing our interests at the party convention and getting messages of discontent or approval to those who think they have ultimate control over us lowly party members, besides just supporting a presidential nominee. A caucus is the only method that will actually increase that political activism that is necessary for us to clean up and retake the inner workings of the Democratic Party from the upper echelons of the DNC.

There are very simple solutions to those problems of the "disenfranchisement" of caucuses that you mentioned. Make it possible for anyone's choice to be represented by an absentee caucus vote, just as those unable to vote in a normal general election can use absentee ballots. Those who don't wish to actively participate in the process of delegate selection should be able to just mail in their choice of who they wish those delegates to support as our candidate.

A little reform of the caucus method is all that's needed. A caucus does consist of real "voices" and, if handled correctly, is honestly much more "representative" and "fair" than any impersonal vote in a primary could be. It's your party...get with it!

Reform is definately necessary. I have the feeling that most, if not all, voters come into caucus knowing absolutely who they will vote for. We're not living in a time where people don't have access to information and need convincing. As far as I'm concerned, a caucus is just an elaborate method of voting which to many is too troublesome to get involved with.