DNC rules committee member: end the caucus System

[Upstate One]

Elaine kamarck,who has been member of the committee since 1997, reportedly called for the abolition of the caucus system.

Link to tweet

?s=19

[msongs]

1. they are not "democracy" - shut out too many people, in fact most people nt

[question everything]

8. Agree. Candidates ignore all future constitutents

the ones whom they hope to represent and appeal only to party activists. Good candidates "pledge" to abide by the party endorsement and drop out of the race when they have not got it.

If you cannot attend caucus, for whatever reasons, you have been disenfranchised.

And, in general, caucuses choose candidates on the fringe.

Sanders, who has never been a Democrat, still has no intention to identify himself as a Democrat, has actively campaigned against Democrats and, for some reason, still hopes to run as a Democrat, is supported by many here - would have never not that far had all of us voted in a primary system.

[Blue_true]

10. Washington State was a prime example.

Hillary lost the caucus that counted big, but won the much larger in voter participation primary big. The primary voters that assumed their vote counted got cheated.

[Hortensis]

53. Not just that, a small group can flood a caucus with its

people and take over even though it doesn't represent almost anyone but itself.

It used to be that, since typically very few participate, caucuses almost always gave the district's dominant establishment residents a special advantage, and good or bad at least there was stability in that.

But as attacks intended to destroy our nation's traditional political systems intensify, and they are from enemies both foreign and domestic, the caucus system is a dangerously weak point for infiltration and disruption.

[Wounded Bear]

2. I won't fight against it...

here we have caucuses and primaries. I'll stick to elections. Caucuses may work for small communities, but not here.

[CentralMass]

3. Good. Dump them.

[LiberalFighter]

4. The problem with caucuses

is that the "voting" is during a limited period of time. And from what I have observed in the news accounts the "voting" occurs at the end of the caucus. In some cases there are stages of caucuses.

It is all about trying to convince people to vote for their candidate during the few hours they meet. That part should be done before as it is done for primaries.

[uponit7771]

16. +1, the amount of time to vote is more limited with caucus

[samnsara]

36. Unless you have participated in a caucus its hard to explain the feeling in them.. its TRUE

..grassroots. Like the old town hall meetings. Its one of the few times that the ppl of the community get together and argue for what they truly believe in. The table I caucused at had neighbors I hadnt seen for years! So it goes past the bumper stickers and yard signs. Its where we as participants have a sense of civic pride...of connection. We stand before others, we are accountable for our decisions and may have to/want to defend them..in public. The Dems caucus in out state and the repubs have sterile primaries.

[longship]

5. Yup! Open primaries everywhere!

That's the only credible solution.

[dflprincess]

7. It depends on how you're defining "open" primaries.

Minnesota has a open primary system- no party registration and, in the past, it has allowed the Republicans to cross over and "help" choose the DFL candidate. This happens when the DFL is having a primary fight and the 'Pukes aren't (it never seems to go the other way). Fortunately, it hasn't happened for a long time, but it is a risk.

[Blue_true]

11. Only newly registered voters within the last 6 months should get an "open" ballot choice.

Those voters would cover people new to the state and teens that turn voting age before the primary.

[longship]

22. That CANNOT work in states without party registration!!!

How do the precinct election judges determine which party's ballot if that information isn't even recorded by the state?

That's why all US primary elections should be open. Let everybody vote on whatever ballot they choose. Level
the playing field.

[Blue_true]

42. Exactly which states don't record party registration?

Your claim is rather puzzling. States allow no party affiliation registration, but as far as I know, all allow party registration.

The date a person first registered in a state is a known value and can be permanently listed in registration records used at polls or on registration cards.

[longship]

45. Michigan doesn't!!!

Look it up. It's a bunch of them.

One cannot register to vote as a Democrat or a Republican in Michigan and in several other states.

The voting registration authorities do not even record party affiliation. In fact, by state law, it's not even legal to do so.

Open primaries everywhere is the way to go. It levels the playing field for primary elections. It no longer matters whether the state's voter registration records party registration. Everybody gets to vote in all primary elections.

Democracy wins.

[Hortensis]

54. Longship, what about when right wing operatives and media

direct conservatives to vote for a spoiler candidate in the Democratic primaries in various districts? That's just one example of what's going on. With open primaries, hostile voters can -- and do -- flood in to derail democracy. Even one right wing church can use this technique, among others, to take over a school board that once represented the views of the community; it's happened a lot.

This is a form of election theft when it succeeds, but still dangerous disruption and weakening even when it doesn't. And it's all coming from one direction: The right, both domestic enemies and Russian.

[Blue_true]

60. Look like 22 states don't. I was wrong on the registration.

But, I still don't believe that open primaries without specific controls to prevent vote rigging is a good idea. But in 22 states getting the controls that I feel are needed to have effective open primaries would require that those states change their registration process.

I like the system in my state of Florida for primaries. People have to register in one of two parties to vote in primaries, if they don't, they are out of luck. I honestly don't understand why a person that claims to adhere to the core principles of a political party can't register in it and participate in that party's management mechanisms.

[FSogol]

51. Virginia doesn't. N/t

[longship]

21. Well, if there's no party registration, there cannot be closed primaries.

By closed primary, that means limiting party ballot access to registered party members. As 30-some states record no party registration, those states CANNOT have closed primary voting.

In my state, Michigan, I can vote on either the Democratic primary ballot, or the GOP primary ballot. It's my choice on primary Election Day. I usually vote the Democratic ballot. I imagine that is the way it is done in other states without party registration. In those states, the election commissions do not even record party affiliation when people register to vote.

People who screech about open primaries do not explain how to conduct a closed primary in a state like Michigan, or like several other states without party registration.

The solution is to level the field everywhere and make every state's primary elections open, anybody can vote whichever ballot they desire. Everybody gets to vote.

[MichMan]

31. Open primaries can be sabotaged

I'm convinced that Democratic voters crossing over is what caused Rick Snyder to win the primary. It was fairly obvious that after 8 years of Jennifer Granholm that the next governor of Michigan would most likely be a Republican.

Her Lt Governor, John Cherry declined to run leaving it for "America's angriest Mayor" Virg Benaro on the Democratic side. The Republican field had several long time political veterans running and an unknown business man with no name recognition Rick Snyder.

I think a lot of Democratic voters decided to play spoiler and saddle the Republicans with an unknown figuring he was better than any of the politicians. Of course, Snyder ended up winning and ended up being very ideological.

Not so sure that Democratic voters crossing over didn't play some role in Trump winning primaries as people who expected Hillary to be a shoo in wanted to saddle the Republicans with someone thought to be easy to beat.

Open primaries can always be a risk if there are unopposed incumbents on either side

[longship]

41. Listen. That's true of closed primaries, too.

I was a county party officer in Kansas, which at the time had party registration. It was very common for people to change party registration for primaries. Both parties do it.

So it is utter rubbish to characterize this kind of thing as common only to states with open primaries.

Open primaries everywhere, please.

[Blue_true]

62. I favor open primaries IF.

Pulling a party ballot is open only to NEW registrants from the last 6 months. That rule would work in closed primaries, someone that switch parties to blow up a primary would be out of luck. All that is required is most recent registration date and previous registration status in the state, none of which are controversial. Only teen that just became old enough to vote and new residents to the state that had never been registered there should be allowed to pull any party's ballot in a primary.

[longship]

63. That just won't work and is likely unconstitutional.

The problem is...

Closed primary only advocates have to come up with all sorts of convoluted methods to keep primaries closed, when the simple solution is to just let everybody vote in primaries.

The suggested solution is no solution whatsoever as it will be instantly challenged in court, rightly so.

We already have the solution. Open primaries where everybody gets to vote.

[Blue_true]

64. Why does "everyone" have a "right" to decide who a party choose as it's nominee?

The claim is tremendously nonsensical on it's face and anyone pressing it in court is likely to get crushed. If you want to vote in a party's primary, join that party. BTW, in many states, the party pay for primaries, my state of Florida is different, the state pays because a lot of other ballot iniatives get voted on at that time. Exactly why should a party that is paying to hold a primary has to invite non-party members into it's primary?

[longship]

65. Because everybody has voting rights.

There are more than a few of us who have actually marched for that principle. Closed primary only adherents want only their kind of people to be able to vote.

I don't know how anybody is able to make that claim and maintain a straight face.

Hint: There is no fucking way to make closed primaries in many states in the USA which do not have partisan voter registration.

Open primaries everywhere is the solution. Let everybody vote.

[Blue_true]

66. You have no rights to get involved in the mechanisms of a private entity if it is not violating your

constitutional rights. Political parties are members only private organizations that invite anyone to join, they descriminate against no one. You CHOOSE not to join. They are not violating your rights by saying that you can't participate in chosing their nominee for the General election, YOU MADE A CHOICE TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN MAKING THAT SELECTION BY NOT JOINING THE PARTY.

[GulfCoast66]

67. You are correct, we closed primary advocates only want our kind voting in primaries

Our kind=members of the Democratic Party!

[longship]

68. How in the F do you know who's a Democrat w/o party registration?

And who is going to administer the primary if the state government does not record party affiliation?

Answer those two questions!!!!

[GulfCoast66]

69. It obviously not possible is those states

I prefer them but am under no illusion that all states will implement them. I am glad my state is closed and it works here.

But in my mind open or closed primaries are small fries compared to caucuses which I see as totally un Democratic.

[longship]

70. FYI: 22 states do not have party registration.

Here: from the Google.

the following 22 states (mostly in the South and the Midwest) do not provide for party preferences in voter registration: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

These states could have caucuses or open primaries.

My best to you.

[samnsara]

37. we dont vote by party either in wash state

[Blue_true]

61. My information could be wrong, but 22 states don't record party.

Yes, having closed primaries in states like Michigan is not possible under the current system. But that fact still does not refute the logic of closed primaries, or open primaries that have specific restrictions on voter participation.

BTW, the Michigan primary in 2016 was rigged, where republicans crossed over to attempt to blow up Hillary Clinton. Do you really want that in every critical primary contest? In Michigan, Bernie was the beneficiary in 2016, but the open primary can just as easily be turned against candidate like him next time.

[Loki Liesmith]

30. No

Democrats only in democratic primaries.

[loyalsister]

34. I thought about getting an R ballot once

I despised one of their AG primary candidates so much I almost considered using my vote to try to influence their nomination. But, that would have meant throwing away my vote for Democratic governor, AG, congressional and other candidate primaries. For crossover interference, at least tens of thousands of voters would have to be willing to throw their votes away. The risk is imagined.

[longship]

46. Cannot be done in Michigan...

and many other states which do not record party affiliation within the voter roles.

The only rational solution is open primaries everywhere, because so many states cannot have closed primaries.

There's no way to know to which party one is registered if the voting authority does not record it!!!!!!!!

[loyalsister]

33. I like our open primaries

We vote on Democratic or republican ballots. Sometimes we even have Libertarian primaries.
Crossing over means throwing away an opportunity to vote for a party favorite. I think people are less likely to do that than many believe.

[dflprincess]

6. Primaries belong to those who have the most money and the slickest ad campaign

and make it much harder for an outsider with little money to get anywhere. Not surprising that the DNC would want them gone as primaries favor the establishment candidate(s).

Caucuses take grassroots organizing. If it were not for the caucus system, Paul Wellstone would never have been a senator.

However, Minnesota also has a primary so if someone doesn't like the candidate picked in the party process they can challenge the endorsed candidate in the primary. Governor Dayton skipped the caucus/endorsement process and was endorsed by the DFL after winning the primary.

And the state will be going to a primary for the presidential race in 2020.

[Blue_true]

12. People who have jobs and are not activists often can't attend caucuses.

Every system has it's drawbacks, primaried have the fewest and as a result are the most democratic.

[Cha]

15. Right.. plus older people and those in

school who are old enough to vote. And, not easy for Disabled Peeps, either.

[Blue_true]

17. Hi Cha.

Looked like someone ticked you off earlier tonight with a post. You seem calmer now. I need to drop off DU for the night, with clocks moving ahead, I don't want to be a zombie when I write tomorrow. Take care.

[Cha]

18. Really? I thought

I was pretty calm today.

Had a wonderful day here on the Island. I hope the same for you, wherever you are.

Our times don't change but it's good to be reminded that it will now be 3 hours later on the West Coast and 6 hours later on the East Coast.

Mahalo, Blue_true

[samnsara]

38. not true in my state...hubby and i both worked and attended every one of them. They are on Sat

afternoon or after work week nights... and if you cant make due to work or illness related excuse you can submit for an absentee ballot.

[dsc]

29. and all of following can't vote in them

military stationed overseas, people who are for some reason unable to leave their houses, people who work at the appointed caucus time, people with small children who don't want to leave them alone to vote at the appointed caucus time, but screw all of them, right.

[NCTraveler]

56. A caucus belongs to those with more disposable income and time.

Grassroots efforts can get people to the polls. That is the will of the people. Not well funded “grassroots” efforts looking to narrow their efforts in a manner to subvert the will of the people.

[tritsofme]

9. Caucuses are undemocratic. They should be abolished.

This is good news.

[AllyCat]

13. Yup. I can get behind that!

Completely unfair to people who need flexibility to vote.

[Cha]

14. Plus Not everyone can get to the

caucuses to have their voice heard.. so to speak.

Not Democratic.. and no OPEN Primaries.

[samnsara]

35. those who cant make it to the caucuses can have a ballot mailed to them and the caucuses Ive been to

..have been on Saturdays or week day evenings. Aside from some of the obvious problems during the last election they are a great grassroots type involvement. I enjoyed them.

[idahoblue]

19. Idaho

Has done away with the caucus.

[Jim Lane]

20. How, as a practical matter, can this be done except by state legislatures?

I'd like to see all the convention delegates chosen in primaries. The problem, as I understand it, is that some states' laws don't provide for holding a presidential primary. In those states, the only alternative is for the state Democratic Party to organize caucuses.

The OP says that "we must encourage primaries." Unfortunately, I don't know of anything the DNC can do beyond encouraging. Its only power would be the extreme step of refusing to seat convention delegates not chosen in a primary. That would completely disenfranchise the voters in the affected states, even more than caucuses do. The GOP in those states would obviously block any law to establish a primary -- they'd be happy to point out to voters how the Democrats wouldn't even listen to them -- so this threat would be completely ineffective except in the few states where Democrats have complete control, and maybe not even there.

[Lee-Lee]

26. Pretty easy

DNC changes the party rules and says “After this date we will no longer accept delegates at the national convention from states who use caucuses to choose their delegates”.

If those states still want to retain any relevancy in the selection of one half the race for President, and all the political influence and spending that comes with that, they will quickly adopt primaries.

[DURHAM D]

23. Stupid. The party does not decide if caucus or primary.

The state legislature decides.

If a caucus the party pays for the event.

If a primary the state pays.

Why would a state change the rule back to primary? They don't want to pay for it.

Caucuses are the least democratic process I can think of but states won't do anything about it.

Meanwhile...the party needs to STOP allowing open caucuses and primaries. Focus on the the right thing ffs.

[Lee-Lee]

25. Actually I think the party can choose any way it wants to select a candidate

The candidate is selected at the convention. The party can set any rules or standards it wants for how that is done.

If the party says we won’t recognize results from caucus’s then the states can change their procedures or leave their state with no say in who the candidate is. Given the two options you would sudd sky have primaries pretty quick in all those states, because otherwise they would lose 100% of their influence in the selection process of the nominee and also lose a lot of political attention and spending buying primary season.

[DURHAM D]

28. Do you think that in a deep red state they care about

the process the Democrats use?

Answer: NO

[MineralMan]

24. Minnesota has already done so, following the 2016 election.

I have been an active participant in the caucus system in that state. I welcome the change to primaries, which sample more people and provide a better selection process due to that.

[samnsara]

27. i love our caucuses...since we have all mail in ballots the caucus..

..is the only time like minded voters get to net work and come together. An... up until the caucus of the last election.. they were always places of polite social discourse. Last time we had some rather intimidating bullying..esp towards older more vulnerable participants.

[Demsrule86]

50. You can mail in ballots to the primaries as well.

[redstatebluegirl]

32. We have to quit looking inside and look outside.

We won the popular vote with someone the R's had been trashing for years, plus someone who joined our party to run. We have to keep our eyes on the prize, they love it when we go after each other.

[samnsara]

39. frankly I feel states should get to decided however they want to run the elections..

...all the complaints im reading about caucuses have simply not been observed during the caucuses i have attended... over the many many years. When they are done right they are a wonderful grassroots experience. Last year there were some bad apples who were new to the process and assumed the word 'caucus' means 'bully'. I dont think they will return.

[Demsrule86]

48. In local elections but not primaries...no we all have a stake in primaries...

and when a couple thousand votes carry a state...it is unbalanced and waters down the votes of other primary voters. I don't think they should have them period. Time to end this silly practice.

[Demsrule86]

49. Look at Nevada in 16...there was a caucus and a primary with different results.

The caucus has a miniscule number of participants compared to the primary...yet that small amount of voters picked the delegates....completely foolish.

[Gothmog]

40. Caucuses are not democratic

[Adrahil]

43. I'm in favor of DEMOCRATS picking the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

No more outside saboteurs.

[UTUSN]

44. R#32 & K for *END* caucuses! They violate private/"secret" ballots; favor the loudest voices;

intimidate voters by forcing them to put their votes out in front of the judgment of neighbors/co-workers/bosses/strangers; they suppress the voters who refuse to subject their participation to all of the above; and on and on.

[Demsrule86]

47. Absolutely. Caucuses are not Democratic and exclude people who can't sit around for hours.

[Scurrilous]

52. K&R

[NCTraveler]

55. Its an impediment to participation.

Allows for intimidation and propaganda on-site. There is simply no reason for them today.

[NewJeffCT]

57. No caucuses is a good start

though, maybe keep Iowa for tradition's sake?

The next step would be to make the primaries open to Democrats only.

[zipplewrath]

58. Depends upon the objective

I'm fairly agnostic on the topic. The whole selection process is flawed in many ways, which in part is because it evolved over time. We have primaries today because it was an attempt to get rid of smoke filled rooms. I suspect one can trace caucuses back to those smoke filled rooms. Strangely however, we also have a rise of the "party purist" approach in which it is believed we should only allow "loyal" party members to participate. Which was the reason for smoked filled rooms at all. Super delegates seem to fall in with some of this thinking as well. The folks from the smoke filled rooms still want some authority.

The real core problem is that out system of government was never intended to have parties. Thus, we have created a system where only two can truly exist. That in an of itself creates a situation where people are "participating" in the process, not to support it, but to try to change it. In some cases there are attempts to in effect undermine it, or at least one of the parties. There are a plethora potential solutions/improvements that we could pursue. But all of them would undermine the dominance of the two major parties and so I don't see us ever really changing anything.

[SidDithers]

59. Absolutely...

A primary is much more democratic and inclusive.

Sid