Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
Tue May 3, 2016, 07:24 AM May 2016

The real obstacle to voter turnout in Democratic primaries? caucuses

Bernie Sanders wants to transform how the Democratic Party chooses its presidential nominee.

To do so, Sanders has made abolishing the closed primary — which prevents independents from voting — one of his top demands of Democratic officials, arguing that the party needs to "open the doors to working people, to senior citizens, to young people."

Expanding voter participation is indeed a noble goal. But if Sanders really wants the Democratic Party's presidential primaries to be more representative of the public, he should forget the closed primary and go after a much better target: the caucus.

On Thursday, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights published a report showing that caucuses — which often require voters to spend hours at the polls — have been closely connected with very low voter turnout during this election.


Every caucus state but Idaho has seen turnout under 16 percent. Every primary state, including closed primaries, has seen turnout above 18 percent.

And it's not just that many experts think caucuses do more to restrict voter participation than closed primaries: There are also just way more of them. So far, 15 states have held caucuses so far. Only six have held closed primaries.

Primaries work like general elections: Voters show up, enter a private voting booth, and cast a ballot for their preferred candidate. The whole process can take about 15 minutes, says Michael McDonald, who runs the United States Elections Project, which tracks voter turnout.

cCaucuses are "clearly" the most restrictive form of primaries, McDonald says. Not only are some of them also closed to independents, but they also require voters to devote a substantial portion of their day — sometimes as much as several hours — to participate.

"It's not an in-and-out process," McDonald says. "Primaries can be relatively small bites of your day; caucuses take time."

WITH CHARTS: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11535648/bernie-sanders-closed-primaries-caucuses

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The real obstacle to voter turnout in Democratic primaries? caucuses (Original Post) wyldwolf May 2016 OP
Definitely voter suppression of seniors and disabled but also a super short window Thinkingabout May 2016 #1
Got to take this argument to the States that caucus Bluenorthwest May 2016 #2
Do you say the same of states with closed primaries? joshcryer May 2016 #3
I agree. Eliminate the caucuses. nt BootinUp May 2016 #4
That's what Minnesota is doing. MineralMan May 2016 #5
Caucuses also are subject to the veto of the mob. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #6
No more caucases! lunamagica May 2016 #7

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
1. Definitely voter suppression of seniors and disabled but also a super short window
Tue May 3, 2016, 07:32 AM
May 2016

For participating, for working people who are working during the small window. Trying to achieve higher voter turnout of 16% is not desirable. I hope in the future caucuses will be eliminated.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
2. Got to take this argument to the States that caucus
Tue May 3, 2016, 08:01 AM
May 2016

The Democratic Party of Washington State literally sued the State to be allowed to caucus, so the WA caucus exists today because of the Democratic Party of Washington insisting upon it.
The Nevada Caucus is also new, 2008 was the first ever, they insisted on caucus in order to vote earlier in the cycle, Harry Reid a chief proponent of the caucus.

So it's not antique, it's newly sought stuff in some States, imposed by the Democratic Party. So how it is Bernie's fault that Nevada has a caucus I do not know. If you wish to protest Nevada rules, I'd suggest going to Nevada officials about that.
Interesting Nevada Caucus trivia- Hillary Clinton has won every contested Democratic caucus in Nevada history, they have had two and she won them both.

I live in a State that votes by mail, our participation rates are very high and that's because it is easy to vote here. NY has a primary but less than half our participation rates because they have crappy protocols and regulations.

These things, they are up to the States.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
5. That's what Minnesota is doing.
Tue May 3, 2016, 09:55 AM
May 2016

This year, the caucus for my precinct had just 58 voters present. That's just over 2% of the registered voter count in that precinct. Caucuses do not accurately represent voter preferences.

That's why our state legislature and governor will make them go away for presidential election years, beginning in 2020. We also have primaries in Minnesota, later in the year to pick nominees for other offices. Turnout for those runs between 25-40%, depending on whether its a presidential election year or not.

Over 10 times the number of participants. That's still too low, but ten times better than caucuses in this state.

BTW: Bernie won the vote in my precinct, 37 to 21.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The real obstacle to vote...