Discussion: Iowa Dems Float 'Virtual' Caucuses In 2020

‘“Virtual” caucus where you can change your vote from candidates below a threshold to a viable candidate of your choice’ == ranked preference balloting as used is Australia (that also allows a secret ballot). Dump the quaint archaic caucusing and bring in a democracy-promoting system.


How about changing it to a closed primary instead? I am fed up with the antiquated caucus bullshit.


Yeah, whenever I think of caucuses I always think of “floaters”.

I don’t want Independents or Republican interlopers allowed in a Dem primary system, and I don’t give a flying fuck what Bernie and his acolytes want. Let them have their own goddamned primaries. To hell with this caucus bullshit!

1 Like

Hope they have excellent security around this. Otherwise Russia will be choosing for Iowa.

1 Like

I participated in Iowa’s first caucus… one thing I will note, there were a lot of people who refused to take part because they feared their Republican boss might fire them.
Much too exposed a process, it discourages participation simply in that it openly reveals a person’s politics and in many places, that means a Republican boss and Democratic employees, Iowa in particular.
Here in Kansas, ever since it started, that effect has dampened turnout since day one. I was county chair in 2012 and ran the Dem caucus, and it was obvious many of our members refused to expose themselves to that public scrutiny for that very reason.
There’s a reason ballots are secret.


Any old geek can keep an eye on the process from a digital watchtower, and there is ample technology already available to act as an electronic watchdog.
This is a very good idea, and refusing to give it a try because of fear of Russian influence proves only weakness.
They need to give it a try and sort out any issues as it occurs, but running scared based on simple uncertainty isn’t a liberal concept, its what conservatives do.

May the best phone bot-farm wielding candidate win!

Here’s an idea, Iowa. How about you pick your candidate by trying this new-fangled thing called voting? It’s been tested in this country for 250 years, might be time to give it a whirl.


They won’t. Security is hard, and it is unlikely they will spend the money to make right. There’s also the disincentive to invest in a system that is used only once every 4 years.

1 Like

Stop misrepresenting my comments. I didn’t say not to do it. I said it required excellent security, which it does. Gawd that was lame.

And no, that is not how you do security for this sort of event. You don’t even understand the vulnerabilities let alone the tech.


No, you misread me, that wasn’t directed at you, it was meant for some self-important Iowa Democrats I know read these comments.

Seriously, chill.

Since I’m literally the only one who mentioned the need to secure this well, and you replied to my comment where I said so, that doesn’t even make sense.

Seriously, back off.

1 Like

If you need that, you can have it, sometimes people communicate on different levels.

“back off?” like I said, chill. Nothing personal, I mean that.

You’re forgetting the upside of people coming out about their politics. It let’s people know they aren’t the only one who thinks like they do, and they get acquainted with other Democrats in their neighborhood. That’s a big thing in building a local party. It means when ask me to go to the doorknock, you’re not some stranger, but someone I’ve at least met. I was a local chair too, and that was how we built a volunteer base, and got people to step up their involvement in not just campaign events, but maybe going to the monthly meeting too and getting more involved ongoing, like becoming precinct officers or local convention delegates. If people look at caucuses as just a way to pick presidential candidates, they’re missing 90% of the point. From what I’ve observed, caucus states have stronger state parties than primary states, and it’s because of that face to face contact.

1 Like