Good! Thatâs one. Only another 20 or so to go.
This is not an election as we think of the general election. It is a party chosing the candidate of their choice to represent the party in the general election. Independents and others not registered to a party or not willing to spend the time and energy to understand issues and know candidates should not be allowed to participate.
So only party types that can take off time from work and/or afford a babysitter are qualified?
You can still have closed primaries.
And there are plenty of idiots on all sides of the political spectrum that vote and/or caucus.
I am completely opposed to caucuses because they disenfranchise voters, even those who show up to vote.
Think of what we just saw in NV, which has a closed caucus only available to Democrats. If a Democrat who had studied the issues and made a decision showed up to the first caucus to vote, they would have the expectation of their vote being counted. But if the delegate their vote selected got the flu or just drunk and didnât show up to the county caucus, that vote is lost. Even if the delegate did show up to the county caucus, now thereâs another level where a delegate can skip and disenfranchise the voters again.
Then there are primaries, where that same voter shows up, casts their ballot, and it is counted.
I prefer the latter.
Bad news for Bermie
Somehow this is wrong and Bernieâs going to have to sue to stop it.
Good, the caucus is one of the most undemocratic things around, just make sure it is a closed primary so that those that want to play at mischief canât.
Is this a good thing for the democratic process? Or is this just a conspiracy from the DNC to rig the system?
Iâll wait until the Sanders campaign responds until I figure out what to think.
This wonât affect Bernie at all, heâs done Presidentially speaking, like 2 months ago.
It will benefit the Democratic Party and it will knock off some shenanigans but the big change that I bet will happen is that the Party will think hard about allowing any non-Party members to use us as a launch pad to attack the Democratic Party.
That was never a good idea.
Have you noticed that the quality of Presidential candidates has declined as primary elections have replaced caucuses?
Political parties have an interest in protecting their âbrandâ from interlopers and charlatans. Primary elections often result in candidates like Trump.
If parties are going to compete for the âleavers of powerâ they must be allowed to select their candidates. When non-party members are allowed to make that selection (open primaries) the party is left without any quality control.
Fist, Iâd completely disagree with your major premise, that candidates have gotten âworseâ since primaries were introduced. This is historical bias, plain and simple, the same kind that ends up with GOPers nostalgic about the âgood old daysâ of Beaver and Opie back in the 1950s.
Moving along though, you are conflating open primaries with primaries in general, and caucus-goers from party insiders.
Closed primaries allow those who have committed to the party in a very very minor way to determine their candidates. Party insiders - long-term party officials whom the party has itself selected - have their specific say in the âsuper delegateâ area, which is less democratic, but specifically exists to thwart the rise of a demagogue like Trump. Caucuses are great for demagogues - low turnout, loyalty and fervor requirements, and no legal ramifications to what would otherwise be considered open out-and-out bribery and corruption (see Iowa caucuses [sorry, said âOhioâ originally here]). So if you want party insiders to have a say, you are in favor of superdelegates, not caucuses. You can pull levers to give those superdelegates more or less power, but you also open the door to insider politics and horse-trading as seen before the advent of the primary system.
Iâm not even going to start on the innocent yet semi-Freudian âleavers of powerâ âŚ
Iowa and Nevada for sure need to do the same thing. Closed primaries.
Good. Some states like Iowa probably wonât switch because they want to participate early, but hopefully more states will do so to allow more voters to participate in the process. Maine is also considering a switch to primaries. http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20160307/NEWS/160309323
As it should be.
Agreed. I hope this is the start of a trend where caucuses are eliminated altogether. I grow nauseous at the thought of having to listen to a bunch of twenty-somethings screaming RWNJ Clinton hate as they demand that I vote for Sanders. Nope, no thank you.
Outstanding news for freedom and democracy.
Itâs funny. The best case one could possibly make for superdelegates is happening right now on the other side of the aisle, and the other reforms being discussed are those that make all the sense in the world but would ultimately have helped Clinton more than Sanders. For all of his incessant whining about the process, the only reforms we might actually see are those Sanders doesnât want. Oh, the irony.
Smart move. Little âdâ democracy wins.
I canât understand how anyone can support the caucus system, with its pep rally atmosphere, bullying, cajoling, and the potential for retaliation.
And what about the secret ballot, one of our most cherished freedoms?