Both parties near finalizing rules for 2012 primaries. I *hate* the caucus system.

"slow the ... rush toward national primary" - I *wish* we had a national primary.

I hate/detest/despise the CAUCUS system. What is the democracy in: 1) Abandoning the SECRET BALLOT by having to go to somebody's house or wherever and being subjected to the intimidation of declaring one's choice in front of neighbors, relatives, co-workers, bosses, --MY WORST ENEMY-- or whomever?!1 2) Caucuses favor the zealous, fervent followers of charismatic candidates or cult movements. 3) Caucuses discourage turnout, those of us introverts who have NO desire to parade around our voting choices.

Disclosure: In our '08 primaries I was a CLINTON supporter and objected to the caucuses for these reasons and how they favored OBAMA. Let me say that ever since he became the nominee I supported him wholeheartedly and venture to say that I am a STRONGER supporter of him today than many of his original supporters. Note that the article supposes that the Teabaggers (zealous, fervent, cultlike) will benefit from the caucuses.


**********QUOTE********

http://fremonttribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_37db09f8-90ec-11df-b1e9-001cc4c03286.html

Parties nearing deal on 2012 primaries

...reduce the number of winner-take-all primaries - and perhaps prompt some state parties to abandon primaries that attract a broader electorate in favor of caucuses that favor more conservative elements, such as tea party activists. ....

...these changes would slow the headlong rush toward a de facto national primary. ... ....

...proportional representation... ....

GOP acceptance depends on the Democratic National Committee approving a similar calendar Aug. 19-20 in St. Louis. The Democratic plan also cuts the number of party and elected officials guaranteed "super delegate" seats. But party leaders expect the main impact in 2016, unless unexpected opposition develops to re-nominating President Barack Obama. ....

Republican adoption of some proportional representation, a procedure Democrats have long required for all delegates, could trigger some interesting fallout.

A candidate who lost early Republican tests could stay in the race in hopes of a rebound, as Hillary Clinton did against Obama in the 2008 Democratic race. Mitt Romney, for instance, might have stayed in longer against John McCain that year.

But some Republicans fear it could prompt some states to avoid losing delegates by switching from primary to caucus systems. The requirement only affects the actual selection of delegates, which happens in caucus states like Iowa later in the process. ....



Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Readers may write to him via e-mail at: carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com.

(c) 2010, The Dallas Morning News

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

********UNQUOTE********

Proportional delegates would represent a HUGE change for the GOP. They are all about the early crowning or anointing of a nominee.

in conjunction with States' party recommendations and applicable guidelines, or rehaul them completely if they want, but the 2008 primary and caucus season rules were in place prior to any candidate filing deadline and anybody who filed to compete knew those ground rules.

I disagree that the Iowa caucus system "favored Obama." By the filing deadline Vilsack, Bayh, and Warner were out and eight candidates remained. All knew the ground rules. All accepted the ground rules. And all had ample time to prepare and respond. When you play in Fenway Park, the bleachers are in right field, this-many yards from home plate.

Clinton did lead at one time in polling but she finished third behind Obama and Edwards.

I'd favor a primary system to span a 2-month period, max. Every two weeks run 13 primaries, to include states in all regions, the states selected randomly every four years so that no one candidate from the South or New England has an advantage for having that region vote first and so that no one state or states dominate the others on the calendar.

I'd trash the super delegates right out of the gate.

team seemed to have prepared much better for it than Clinton's. My main issue with the complaints of many fervent HRC supporters about the caucuses during the campaign is that the system has been the same for a long time and complaining just because you are losing rather than before the fact seems disingenuous, I'm not accusing you of that but this was true of many of the complainers. Furthermore if it is such an injustice, what have the complainers been doing to change it since, or did they only care about that one candidate and it's a moot issue now?

from the time I participated in one in '72 for the same reasons I give now.

As for the winning-losing in '08, OBAMA came out of nowhere, and the whole caucus issue was DORMANT for 20 yrs since who could forsee '08? I mean, there will always be somebody in a group whining, "What if a charismatic nobody pops up out of nowhere 25 years from today if we don't change the rules NOW?!1" And the whiner will be pooh-poohed and the rules won't be changed until something spectacular happens. I ask, WHAT has changed about the flaws that resulted in the 2000 coup?!1 I can still see Hillary's head bobbing "yes" post-coup to the speaker saying our Number One priority had to be fixing the electoral rules. And we have done?---EXACTLY NOTHING about it.

**********QUOTE********
http://www.lvrj.com/business/card-check-bill-fight-not-over-96547069.html

Card check bill fight not over

.... The act would allow a majority of employees at a company to organize by signing cards. That’s a change from current laws that let employers demand secret-ballot elections before a union can organize. The bill would also boost penalties for retaliation against workers who support unions, and it could require binding arbitration within three months if management and the union can’t agree on a contract.

Detractors say the measure would strip employees of anonymity and enable unions to harass and intimidate workers during organizing drives, while forcing arbitration would drive a wedge between employers and employees. Supporters say the bill would level a playing field that overwhelmingly favors anti-union employers.

Card check has long been a priority for unions, but passing legislation to allow the practice hasn’t been easy. A card-check bill passed the House of Representatives in 2007, but couldn’t survive a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Card check’s latest opportunity for passage faded out in April 2009, after several key lawmakers, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Jim Webb, D-Va., came out against the bill. ....

********UNQUOTE********

All sorts of claims and counter claims as to why. While I am a member of several unions, I strongly support a secret ballot for unionization or union selection. The current process for union elections needs some serious updating but I feel the secret ballot must remain part of the process.

all votes are taken as secret ballots. The next step in the process are district conventions, followed by the state convention. There, votes are generally taken by voice or standing, but a secret ballot vote can be called for by anyone at the convention.

The very thing that you complain about can be a very powerful positive factor in caucus-based candidate selection. At the caucus level, where delegates are selected for the conventions, serious minorities can do well by mustering caucus attendance. That means that progressives (or any other faction) can get their delegates elected at the local level. Those delegates then take themselves to the next levels at the conventions. If enough precincts elect delegates who support a particular candidate, that candidate will win at the district convention. If enough delegates as the district convention support that candidate, they can get delegates elected to go the to the state convention.

It's a fascinating process. Of course, in Minnesota, that's not the end of it. We also have primary elections, where anyone may run for office. All the caucus system does is endorse a candidate.

This year, two of the Democrats running for Governor did not even participate in the caucus/convention system. One of them stands a very good chance of defeating the endorsed candidate. Interesting stuff.

...in Maine, with Jerry Brown supporters, Jesse Jackson supporters, etc. making a decent -- and wildly disproportionate -- showing with respect to the polls, and thereby turning up at the state nominating convention, where the DNC convention delegates are actually chose, in numbers no primary would ever produce.

At the caucus level, where delegates are selected for the conventions, serious minorities can do well by mustering caucus attendance.

Coincidentally, I was reading in Richard Carwardine's Lincoln bio last night about his climb to the national nomination -- county convention > state convention > national convention. People voted for choice of delegates to the county convention.

is a genuine, historical system for selecting nominees. It's been abandoned in most of the country, but still exists in some states. Minnesota, though, hedges its bets by still holding a primary election. The caucus system usually selects the candidate that wins the primary, but certainly not always.

I lived in California for a very long time, where the caucus system did not exist. I found it fascinating when I moved to Minnesota. I was active in 2008 in the caucus process. Then, this year, I decided to become even more active, and am now the chairperson of the local precinct DFL organization. I attended both the county/senate district convention and the congressional district convention as a delegate, but did not try for the state convention, due to a scheduling conflict.

In 2012, I probably will try to become a delegate to the state convention, as well. Who knows? From the state convention, delegates are elected to the national convention. It's unlikely, but with hard enough work and networking, that's even a possibility.

In non-caucus states, getting into positions in the party organization isn't as easy as it is in caucus states. Here, pretty much anyone who wants to can become a delegate to the first level of conventions. The turnouts are just that small. My precinct was eligible to send 14 delegates to the district convention. Only six people showed up at the caucus. So, we all became delegates. Nobody wanted to be the precinct chair, so I spoke up and was elected unanimously. Now, I'm part of the organization, and a little work has made me known to the organization. It's fascinating, and I like the ability it offers to let individuals become participants in selecting (endorsing) candidates.

I was never able to become part of the Democratic Party organization in California. It operated as a pretty closed system. Not so in Minnesota. I find it more egalitarian.

Here in Colorado, we have both a caucus and a primary.

At the Democratic caucuses, the party faithful gather at their precincts and cast their votes for candidates, and based on that vote, appoint delegates to the county conventions, etc. etc. etc. At the end, the whole thing just determines who gets to be on the top of the ballot at the primary.

Then at the primary, people vote on who actually gets to be the nominee for the office.

Romanoff won the caucuses and conventions handily in Colorado, but there's still the primary, and Bennet's got a very good shot (I haven't seen recent polls, so don't ask me who's gonna win...)

The 2-Step is: 1) Whoever votes in the primary, main turnout. But then, 2) The highly committed then go to the caucuses after polls close both to elect delegates AND to vote (again) for the candidates already voted on at the primary.


This raises another detriment of the caucus: The MECHANICS of party organization (electing delegates) should NOT be coupled, even TIED TO, voting for YOUR CANDIDATE.

Not to mention the violation of one-person/one-vote. Those who vote both at the primary AND the caucus get extra clout.

If a candidate gets more than 30% (I may have the number wrong) of caucus votes (as expressed in the conventions as delegate votes), he gets a spot on the primary ballot, and the candidate with the highest number of votes gets the top spot on the ballot.

The primary, which is this August, will actually decide who gets to be the nominee.

Oh yeah, and I make sure I participate in the caucuses, get myself made a delegate, and work as high up in the delegate process as possible, and vote in the primary, to maximize my clout. :evilgrin:

and get their candidate in who otherwise would have lost if people got a chance to vote. The caucus has outlived it's usefulness.

Most states used this system when they were sparsely populated and it was easier to caucus instead of spending the money to have elections. It also took longer to count the votes. Now a days it would be much more efficient and HONEST to have people to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice instead of the overwhelming loudness of the people who turn up for a caucus have the exclusive right to choose the candidate.

There's a difference between the hardcore party activists and the population at large, and it's very easy for an organized group of nutcases to flood local precinct caucuses and get unelectable freaks on the ballot.

That's what the GOP's likely to find out - they've got a lot of teabaggers and fundies flooding their caucuses, so they're ending up with insane nominees that we're gonna tear to pieces this November...

it is nothing short of outrageous that active duty military can't vote for our Presidential candidates.

most of us vets enlisted because we were POOR, couldn't find work or education. We weren't "heroes" although some of us became it.

Pres Obama's team worked their asses off organizing a 50-state campaign. HClinton always had the same opportunities state-by-state but chose a limited big state strategy ignoring for the most part the caucus states. That's nobody's fault but her own.

Nobody is disputing that charismatic candidates attract more fervent, more motivated, more true-believing supporters who "work their asses off (more)". That is what has been the whole point of the criticism of the caucus system----that a small(er) number of true believers are more willing to take the EXTRA steps of caucuses (showing up in meetings, in front of others) and DISPROPORTIONATELY get representation apart from their small(er) numbers.


And OBAMA is not the first charismatic candidate who has ever run before. My criticism of the caucus system is nothing personal against him. I had the same criticism when McGOVERN won. I also voted for him.

The radicals purged the state delegations of sitting governors, senators, labor leaders, etc wherever they could. The party response after the 72 disaster was to provide for "Super delegates" who would be immune from a takeover by "radicals".

You could vote absentee; there was early voting; there was all-day voting.

The caucus favored the candidate who organized, to be sure. It also favored the candidate whose supporters were comfortable and able to be at the caucus the required time: present from whenever it officially started (potentially at 9 pm, in reality at 9:45) until near midnight when it formally ended.

Big family with sibling as babysitter? Flexible work hours? No kids? You could go. Small child and no babysitter? You're screwed.

I could go on with other reasons against this version of caucuses, but this is a built-in, systematic flaw and is sufficient. The corruption and fraud that accompanied it is icing on the cake.

I know. If it's so great, let's structure the 2012 general election after the caucus system. We can all vote from 9 pm until 10:30 pm, but must be physically present from the first minute until the last minute. No early voting. No absentee voting. Not even all-day voting. Mandatory in-person voting, at the prescribed hours. If it was fair in 2008, it'll be fair in 2012. If it's fair for the primary, it's fair for the general.

I'll keep my state caucus, thanks.

Period.

They may have some redeeming features--those who participate probably enjoy it more than a primary, for example.

But those are overwhelmed by their drawbacks. They are terribly undemocratic--their turnouts are much, much lower than those of primaries. In many states they require that you show up at a given time on a given day, and stay for an hour or more. This makes it simply impossible for shift workers, parents with children, soldiers serving somewhere else, people on vacation, etc. Have to work overtime? Deployed in Afghanistan? Kid has a soccer game? Stuck in traffic? No voting for you! One couple I know could only send the husband to the caucus, since the wife had to take care of their children. In this day and age, it makes no sense for us to fight against GOP efforts to disenfranchise some voters through identity checks, driver license requirements, etc, and then use the extremely restrictive caucus system.

The parties are no longer closed, clubby systems. The more open they are, the better. And caucuses are the antithesis of that.

to attend their caucuses. It is up to the employee to decide whether they use PTO or take an unpaid day - but either way the employer must allow them to be gone.

At the DFL caucuses (I assume at the Repukes as well, but I don't know) a person who is unable to attend the caucus may send a letter asking to be considered as a delegate to the next level in the process.

And, finally, the best part of the caucuses is that issues get addressed - not just personalities. People are more apt to pick their candidates based on issues, not on who had the slickest ad campaign. It gives more of a chance to candidates with a good organization, not just one with the biggest war chest.

should be the ones choosing that party's candidates. Caucuses are not public meetings. They are party meetings, where party members choose their candidates. I completely HATE the primary system. I go into a voting booth, and look at a list of candidates. I have no idea what the process was for getting them on the ballot, in that order, etc. I have to work my ass off to find out where and when my county committees meet, and who's on them...and how I might participated.

Not so when I lived in Iowa. The caucus, along with choosing candidates, conducted party business. Our party committee members were introduced, and they conducted the caucus. As part of the caucus business, they asked who present might be interested on serving on committees. I was elected at such a caucus. It's nearly impossible to break into active party participation here.

As to secret ballots, in my precinct we were given a choice, though I know not every precinct did that. I never minded either way. I was always proud of and committed to my choices. I never saw any attempts to intimidate anyone. I was the only vote for Howard Dean in my precinct. I felt not the slightest bit uncomfortable taking that stand. We weren't adversaries. We were Democrats trying to do the best for the party and the nation.

I only wish we had caucuses here.

not just walking into a booth to vote once in a while, but otherwise having nothing to do with the party?

Yeah. People of my personality/type are scary!

Par example, MY having to live up to YOUR expectations!1 Get it?!1 Oh, I'm going to look up and post the Gestalt Prayer JUST FOR YOU!1

I just don't know how to explain it MORE.

I do my thing and you do your thing.

I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, 1969

if they want to participate in the business being conducted at that meeting. Nothing more, nothing less.