party nominee selection - primary or caucus?

[livendive 8]

Prior to Obama becoming the official Democratic nominee for President, there was an increasing discussion in the media about primary elections versus caucuses. In my state (Washington), we have both, however only the results of the caucuses are meaningful on the (D) side of things. In a caucus, the community (congressional district) is broken down into manageable sub-sets, often times as small as a couple blocks. Inside of each group, each person is given an opportunity to state who they want to be the nominee and why, and then the group votes, basically by writing their preference on a little slip of paper. There are a bunch of procedures to follow in the event of a tie or someone not getting a majority, and then the group picks delegates and alternates to attend the legislative district convention, where the process repeats itself to send people to the county convention and then the state convention and eventually the national convention. At each step along the way, people may also introduce ideas for the party platform, some of which are accepted and then modified or fine-tuned as they work their way up.

Hillary and her crowd faired poorly in caucuses, so they tried to sell the notion that it's an undemocratic way of selecting a candidate. I'll accept the concept that it's not perfect, in that the frail and some shift workers simply can't make it to a caucus at the designated time. However I also feel that it's a much better process, in that the people have to get *involved* in the election, much more so than simply poking a hole in a ballot, or checking a box. For those of you who haven't participated in a caucus, I've attached a picture from our most recent (in August). It's kind of hectic, but it also feels quite "intimate". Anyhow, when talking about selecting a nominee, which method do you prefer and why?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gawain 0]

I think it depends on the community. A caucus I think has value in congested areas, whereas a primary is better in rural areas.

In the end, the caucus is pretty much a sub-primary (with just a few more rules).

However, I think the real issue that members of the democrat party have willingly disregarded is super-delegates. It pretty makes the primaries, and caucuses moot.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

I don't like the idea of caucuses because it takes something that should be a private choice and makes it a very public one. One that is far more likely to be influenced by how a person thinks they might be perceived by their neighbors rather than how they truly feel. Because of the way some caucuses are held, much like the winner takes all electoral college states, they have a tendency to greatly and artificially magnify the outcomes as well.

I don't like them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

However, I think the real issue that members of the democrat party have willingly disregarded is super-delegates. It pretty makes the primaries, and caucuses moot.

I think you're making a bit too much of that. The supers are a "fairly" recent addition and so far haven't gone against the popular. What they have done is taken the popular and made it overwhelming. Again, it's a matter of amplifying the result, but I don't think it's ever gone counter to the wishes of the popular. If you think it has, can you cite an example?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I don't like the idea of caucuses because it takes something that should be a private choice and makes it a very public one. One that is far more likely to be influenced by how a person thinks they might be perceived by their neighbors rather than how they truly feel. Because of the way some caucuses are held, much like the winner takes all electoral college states, they have a tendency to greatly and artificially magnify the outcomes as well.

I don't like them.

This, plus the fact that I feel they're un-democratic, are the reasons I don't like them, either. I like straight votes.

I also prefer the laws of those states in which you can only vote in the primary of the party in which you are registered. That prevents, for example, liberals who intend to vote Democratic in the general election from skewing the process when Republicans, through their primary, choose who their party's nominee will be. If you want to have a say in who a particular party's nominee will be, you should have to commit at least as far as registering as a member of that party.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't like the idea of caucuses because it takes something that should be a private choice and makes it a very public one. One that is far more likely to be influenced by how a person thinks they might be perceived by their neighbors rather than how they truly feel. Because of the way some caucuses are held, much like the winner takes all electoral college states, they have a tendency to greatly and artificially magnify the outcomes as well.

I don't like them.

Some claim what you say here is exactly what happened here in Iowa. Obama bussed people in for this and took the state.

Dont have any idea if true but in any event, I dont like them........

Edited to add;

By the way, the claim is made on one of the Hillary support sites. Dont remember which one....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

I agree with you on the super-delegate issue. Even *IF* any of them are necessary, I haven't heard why there has to be so many of them.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Honest question: Should voting necessarily be a private choice? I can see benefits and drawbacks to both sides of the issue. Personally, I have no qualms about publically declaring my support for a particular candidate. If we ever get to the point that I'm afraid to do so, well, I'll probably find myself wishing the 2nd Amendment had stood up and the people hadn't been such pansy-asses.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Honest question: Should voting necessarily be a private choice?

Absolutely.

We're only a generation removed from when people were killed for participation, and we're still in one where you can get fired for advocating one's own stance.

Even short of such dramatic action, public voting would share the problems of the caucus - the more vocal, and typically more extreme elements get greater voice than their group size warrants. In areas like Orange County or SF or Oakland, the active voice would deaden out the minority opposition, and even the same party moderates.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

However, I think the real issue that members of the democrat party have willingly disregarded is super-delegates. It pretty makes the primaries, and caucuses moot.

I think you're making a bit too much of that. The supers are a "fairly" recent addition and so far haven't gone against the popular. What they have done is taken the popular and made it overwhelming. Again, it's a matter of amplifying the result, but I don't think it's ever gone counter to the wishes of the popular. If you think it has, can you cite an example?

I can cite that without the Super-delegates, no candidate running for the nomination can acquire enough delegates to close the deal. The fact that the democrats created it in the first place is to push aside the wishes of others in case they get another "Walter Mondale" or "Mike Dukakis" type...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Quote

I can cite that without the Super-delegates, no candidate running for the nomination can acquire enough delegates to close the deal. The fact that the democrats created it in the first place is to push aside the wishes of others in case they get another "Walter Mondale" or "Mike Dukakis" type...

That's absolutely untrue. Do the math. If Hillary had not been running and it would have been any of the other candidates, Obama absolutely would have had the delegates without the supers being involved at all.

What the supers do is push a close race in favor of whoever was winning anyway and sends them from a small margin to a huge one. The only time they really come into play as you suggest would be if there was no clear winner at all, but that absolutely wasn't the case in this last go 'round at all. The handwriting was on the wall that it was going to Obama maybe two weeks before the convention. I actually WAS hoping for a bit of a floor fight with the super cutting some deals, but that wasn't even a remote possibility, contrary to what a lot of the right wing pundits kept spewing even up to the day he accepted. I have no idea why they did that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

Honest question: Should voting necessarily be a private choice?

One poster on this site has stated that if he has to cut back on employees, he's going to fire the Obama supporters first.

That sort of attitude shows why voting should be done in secret.

- Dan G

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Honest question: Should voting necessarily be a private choice?

One poster on this site has stated that if he has to cut back on employees, he's going to fire the Obama supporters first.

That sort of attitude shows why voting should be done in secret.

Exactly. Imagine living in a small community with that guy and him "attending" a caucus just to see who's doing what. Or a Pastor at a church (which is where some caucuses and polling are still done!) and having him watch over his "flock".

To me that's just bullshit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I can cite that without the Super-delegates, no candidate running for the nomination can acquire enough delegates to close the deal. The fact that the democrats created it in the first place is to push aside the wishes of others in case they get another "Walter Mondale" or "Mike Dukakis" type...

That's absolutely untrue. Do the math. If Hillary had not been running and it would have been any of the other candidates, Obama absolutely would have had the delegates without the supers being involved at all.

What the supers do is push a close race in favor of whoever was winning anyway and sends them from a small margin to a huge one. The only time they really come into play as you suggest would be if there was no clear winner at all, but that absolutely wasn't the case in this last go 'round at all. The handwriting was on the wall that it was going to Obama maybe two weeks before the convention. I actually WAS hoping for a bit of a floor fight with the super cutting some deals, but that wasn't even a remote possibility, contrary to what a lot of the right wing pundits kept spewing even up to the day he accepted. I have no idea why they did that.

You're correct, I was writing in the context of this past election. But yes, you are correct in the sense of there only being one strong candidate. But, the likelihood of more close contests I think is only growing. In that sense, the democrat nominee had absolutely nothing to do with the caucuses or primaries. It was an appointment.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!