HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » All of the Democratic fai...

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:56 PM

All of the Democratic faithless electors were from caucus states

We need to eliminate caucuses. Sanders won most of his so-called victories in undemocratic caucus states. All of the faithless Democratic electors who voted against Hillary Clinton were from caucus states http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/21/1613028/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Round-up-Partisanship-rules-like-it-or-not-so-play-to-win

Faithless Electors List: Who Flipped Their Electoral Votes from Trump or Clinton?
It was predictable that more electors flipped away from Hillary Clinton (7) than from Donald Trump (2). Republicans are more tribal, fall in line better and respond to threats better. But protest votes amount to nothing except removing the focus on Trump, so congratulations or something.

Know what the states that had HRC defectors have in common? They were caucus states. Look for rules to be rewritten to prevent that from happening in future. Was that the intent of the faithless electors? I doubt it. But you’ll have a lot of convincing to do if you think this exercise of not voting for Clinton did more good than harm.

We need to do away with caucuses for the next cycle

19 replies, 3348 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply All of the Democratic faithless electors were from caucus states (Original post)
Gothmog Dec 2016 OP
MFM008 Dec 2016 #1
NWCorona Dec 2016 #16
FBaggins Dec 2016 #2
LisaL Dec 2016 #5
Gothmog Dec 2016 #6
NWCorona Dec 2016 #17
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #19
Squinch Dec 2016 #3
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #4
frazzled Dec 2016 #7
dubyadiprecession Dec 2016 #8
duffyduff Dec 2016 #9
Gothmog Dec 2016 #10
Retrograde Dec 2016 #11
Gothmog Dec 2016 #13
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #12
Name removed Dec 2016 #14
MineralMan Dec 2016 #15
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #18

Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:57 PM

1. for sure

I hate the WA caucus.
hate hate hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 10:24 AM

16. I like the caucuses here in WA. I enjoy the interaction with the fellow voters

But I also see why some hate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:00 PM

2. They weren't "faithless" because of the caucus

They were trying to come up with a scheme that would convince Republican electors to become faithless. It wasn't because they wouldn't have voted for Clinton if she had won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:11 PM

5. Before the election, several of them from WA state were already claiming they won't vote for Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:14 PM

6. I saw those reports also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 10:25 AM

17. Definitely. There's no way to spin this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 11:43 AM

19. WA also had a primary, by the way. Higher turnout in spite of being meaningless.

And a much different result, too.

Anyway, I'm all for getting rid of caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:00 PM

3. Yes. And have Democrats choose the Democratic candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:01 PM

4. Minnesota has already voted to eliminate caucuses

and go back to primary elections for 2020. This happened in May and the bill had bipartisan support. That said, I don't think the caucus system had the slightest effect on that one elector's vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:22 PM

7. The caucus system is "outdated" and should be eliminated

It's even more undemocratic than the electoral college, and states should follow Minnesota in switching to a primary system. Take this faithless elector's inane statement:

Among the Democratic faithless electors was David Mulinix, of Hawaii, who cast his vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton. He said he believes the Electoral College is “outdated,” according to Hawaii News Now

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-candidates-did-the-seven-faithless-electors-support-election-2016/


No David, you are outdated, and an idiot.

This year's Democratic caucuses were predominantly bully sessions in which non-Democrats shouted, yelled, and intimidated, while ordinary people who had jobs or children to watch or other problems showing up at an evening meeting were unable to vote their preference at all. Check the turnout in caucus state primaries: it's minuscule compared to primary state participation.

And a handful of these snarky little uninformed "electors" who were chosen on the basis of these meetings continued their game-playing by voting against the Democratic nominee. I know it wouldn't have made a difference, but it points out the idiocy and unseriousness of these people. They never would have made it to elector status had it not been for the caucuses.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:43 PM

8. I think they demonstrated why even an electoral college is flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:43 PM

9. The problem is it is far more expensive to have primaries.

 

That is why there are caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:58 PM

10. Texas had both but had to drop the Texas two step

I was pleased to see the DNC require this change. The Texas two step was a primary where two thirds of the delegates were allocated followed by a caucus where one-third was allocated. In 2008, Hillary Clinton won the primary but lost the caucus phase. Texas got rid of the caucus phase this cycle and things were fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:02 PM

11. One possible solution

Have the primaries the same day as a regularly-scheduled election. My town switched its local and school elections to coincide with a state-wide one since piggy-backing on an already existing process is a lot cheaper than running a special election. That's why California has its primaries so late - we tried doing it earlier, it cost a lot (18 million registered voters in the state!) and didn't give us any leverage anyway. Since we almost always have something to vote on in June, we just use the infrastructure already in place.

A caucus would not be feasible in high-population areas. First you have to find a place big enough to hold the highest expected number of people turning out, and space isn't cheap in places like Silicon Valley (high voter turnout in this past election - ~83%, so we take our civic duties kinda seriiously). Then you have to make sure people can get there. If you hold the caucus on a Saturday or Sunday there will be people who can't attend for religious reasons. If you hold it during a weekday, good luck getting people there: in the Bay Area traffic is such that you don't go anywhere before 9:30 AM or after 3 PM unless you have to. So no matter when you hold a caucus you'll be disenfranchising some percentage of voters who can't make it to one location.

Primaries are the way to go, and if it turns out that a lot of states have them at the same time so the media has problems covering them, that's not democracy's problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 07:04 PM

13. That is how primaries work in many states

If possible, the primaries are scheduled with other elections

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:31 PM

12. Agreed.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 10:00 AM

15. Minnesota had one, but he was replaced with a loyal elector.

Minnesota has now done away with caucuses for presidential years. It's about time. Bernie won in Minnesota's caucuses. Had we had a primary, he would not have won. However, Minnesota still went for Hillary, but by a smaller margin that I would have expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 10:27 AM

18. caucuses are disenfranchising to the democratic base, and those who support it

 

are snubbing their nose at the base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread