There had been dramatic reduction in number of caucuses

[Gothmog]

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

1. Good. Get rid of them all.

[highplainsdem]

2. Good.

[George II]

3. I never could understand the logic behind caucuses, thankfully it looks like only four remain.

[murielm99]

4. I think they have outlived their usefulness.

They can be manipulated, and that is not good. I feel that open primaries can be manipulated too. We should have closed primaries in every state.

[George II]

6. That's my position, too - I don't want non-Democrats choosing the Democratic Party nominee.

[Hortensis]

10. +1. Margins are so narrow in this era, and hostile

interventions so widespread and sophisticated, that open primaries have become an important weapon for enemies foreign and domestic.

In 2016 massive campaigns by Russia and our own right encouraged hostile non-Democrats to pour in and try to take out our strongest candidate. It was so bad that Pew had to separate vote counts for Bernie Sanders into 2 categories and subtract the spoilers to estimate votes genuinely for him.

[NYMinute]

14. I saw a video of one candidate's state campaign chairman

courting republicans to vote in the 2016 primary, saying, "you can be a Democrat for a couple of weeks and then switch back for the GE."

This was in Seattle.

[comradebillyboy]

5. Definitely a good thing.

[hlthe2b]

8. Good for democracy

[Hortensis]

9. NYT: "Caucuses have long been the bane of the political establishment

and a boost to activist-backed presidential candidates, whether it’s Ted Cruz on the right or Bernie Sanders on the left. But the establishment is getting a bit of a break for 2020. In this cycle, caucuses are dwindling."

This'll at least provide stability and protection against fringe groups swarming in to take advantage of low turnouts. But far more participation will also be a big problem for entrenched local power blocs who don't represent the rest of their communities. Win-win.

Of the four shown red, NV has reformed its caucuses to make them more democratic, 4 days of early voting plus 2 days of "virtual" caucusing, which should be interesting, plus other significant changes to avoid a repeat of 2016, including no 4 days of ongoing caucusing that can lead to building anger and rioting by losing factions.

And ND still requires people to show up, but they can come any time all day, vote, and leave.

[Cha]

22. There's that "establishment" again..

Since "establishment" is John Lewis, President Obama, Planned Parenthood.. etc.. and everything good about this country for the past 60 years..

I am a proud member of the establishment and Democracy.

Caucuses aren't Democratic.. so Democracy Wins!

[Hortensis]

24. :) Can't have a nation without majorities of committed

citizens and the stability they provide. Can't have a good nation without frequent challenges to entrenched power either. The challenges need to come from worthy leaders, though.

Not ruthless populist power seekers who hire rabble-rousing attack dogs like David Sirota and Jeff Weaver to deceive their own followers. The shameful raging and rioting of Sanders delegates at the NV state convention was the direct result of their being systematically and repeatedly lied to that Nevada Democratic Party rigged the process, both directly by their own organizers in the Sanders campaign and by top staffers through national media.

Of course, it didn't help their mood that 58 of the Sanders delegates to the state convention couldn't be seated because they couldn't show they actually lived in NV or hadn't gotten around to registering as Democrats. Ruthless leaders hire ruthless staff and attract way too many people who like that in them.

Only ONE of the investigative journalism findings:

Politifact: Allegations of fraud and misconduct at Nevada Democratic convention unfounded
www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

[Gothmog]

11. Kansas Democratic Party ends caususes

This is great news https://www.omaha.com/news/politics/kansas-democratic-party-joins-most-regional-states-in-ending-caucuses/article_298ad9ca-23aa-539f-8e3f-88d440c9e8ac.html

Like Nebraska, Kansas will no longer award delegates to Democratic presidential candidates via caucuses.

The state’s Democratic Party announced the decision Thursday.

It will switch to a party-run primary a year from Thursday — May 2, 2020. With caucuses, voters gather in a place and discuss the candidates, as opposed to a primary, in which voting is done privately like in a general election.

sanders won 67.9 of the delegates in Kansas in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Kansas_Democratic_caucuses

[NYMinute]

12. This is good for Democracy

It prevents a candidate with a handful of loud and angry supporters from bullying and smothering the candidates with a much broader appeal.

[NurseJackie]

13. Good for democracy! Bad for candidates who typically benefit from the unfair caucus process.

[dem4decades]

28. Like Obama? He benefited.

[NurseJackie]

29. He's not running.

[dem4decades]

30. Way to miss the point. Obama benefited by the Iowa process.

You don't like Obama?

[NurseJackie]

31. Obama isn't running. Fewer caucuses is bad news for those...

Obama isn't running. Fewer caucuses is bad news for those running this time who do typically benefit from that undemocratic process. There's no denying that.

You don't like Obama?

Oh brother.

[brooklynite]

41. No, he didn't...

He WON them, but he also won the Primaries. And his campaign made no special effort to campaign in Caucus States.

[Mosby]

15. I would like to see the primary dates rotated

So every state has a chance to be part of the first couple primaries.

[Maru Kitteh]

20. YES! And no single state should be the only "first" state, it should be done in blocks

and those blocks should be selected in some kind of balanced rotation.

YES - YES - YES!

[Cha]

16. Thanks for this caucus news

tweet from Ruby Cramer, Goth!

[oasis]

17. Order is being restored. nt

[MarcA]

18. Do you know how many are Closed Primaries?

Different sources on the internet (not sure which are up to date) seem to indicate
different info or that some states are still deciding.

[Celerity]

19. 4 to go

[KitSileya]

21. A win for democracy!

Caucuses (cauci? LOL) are disenfranchising, and that makes them undemocratic. It is the most marginal groups who are disenfranchised, and that is a disgrace. If you cannot afford to take the whole day off, if you are chronically or acutely ill, if you are a caretaker, and many other reasons, participating in a caucus may be impossible for you. Just look at Washington state, where many times more people voted in the primary, which didn't have an effect on the apportionment of delegates, than in the caucus, which did. We're talking 800,000 in the non-binding primary vs 26,000 in the caucus, which is completely disgraceful.

[Gothmog]

23. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

25. K&R! This is great news. Thanks for posting, Gothmog.

[democratisphere]

26. Great news. Caucuses are fraudulent.

[Blue_true]

33. If they are done like Iowa has changed to, they work.

Some people like the social dynamics of a caucus room. Others prefer to vote quietly. Allowing people to mail in their vote helps smooth the process.

[comradebillyboy]

40. They just made the change. Let's see if it works.

I'll agree, conceptually, it's a big improvement over the old system.

[brush]

27. Not good news for a certain candidate from a small state who got most of his delegates from caucuses

[NurseJackie]

34. It makes me happy...

... It's great for democracy and the sanctity of the secret ballot.

[Indykatie]

32. Reducing the Number Of Caucuses is a Good Start

We should also work on moving to closed primaries in States like Illinois or be stuck with politicians like Dan Lipinski who w/b a good fit in the GOP.

[helpisontheway]

35. We would not have had Obama without caucuses

That is how he won. I honestly don’t care now. However, I’m glad they were there to give President Obama the boost he needed going against the Clintons in 2008.

[NurseJackie]

36. As if that somehow makes caucuses fair and equitable...

It doesn't.

[NYC Liberal]

37. Right. And as if Hillary wouldn't have been just as great a president?

So instead of Obama we’d have gotten Hillary. Either one would have been OK by me.

[mcar]

38. Excellent news!

Thanks Gothmog.

[Hekate]

39. Good

[Gothmog]

42. How Will Democrats' Move Away From Caucuses Affect The 2020 Race?

I am so very glad that the Democratic Party is getting rid of caucuses

Link to tweet

At least 10 states are planning to switch from a caucus to a primary in 2020. As things stand, just two states — Iowa and Nevada — have firm plans to caucus again. Two other 2016 caucus states — Maine and Wyoming — are still up in the air. Maine lawmakers may establish a government-run primary, in which case the Maine Democratic Party plans to move to a primary. And Wyoming Democrats are still ironing out some details. (The state party committee told FiveThirtyEight they plan to release an updated plan this summer.).....

Of course, increased voter turnout could change which candidates benefit — or suffer — from that voting system. “The conventional wisdom is that caucuses favor more ideological candidates,” said Kamarck. Understandably, then, of the 2020 Democratic presidential field, Sanders is the candidate who’s often named as most likely to take a hit. In 2016, he won all 10 caucus states that are moving to some type of primary in 2020, though the field was far smaller in 2016, when most caucuses were head-to-head matchups between Sanders and Clinton. That said, Sanders probably owes some of his success in the caucuses to the fact that these low-turnout events tend to reward candidates who have strongly ideological and deeply committed supporters, and the move toward more primaries could erode that advantage.

“Caucuses benefit candidates who have strong grassroots campaigns but are also organized to get those grassroots supporters there,” said Jewitt. But since primaries are easier to participate in, candidates who have a bigger base (even if those voters are less engaged) may benefit from the format change. For example, in 2016, Nebraska and Washington held Democratic primaries in addition to their caucuses, though the caucuses determined delegate allocation and the primaries didn’t count. While Sanders handily won the caucus in each state, Clinton won the higher-turnout primaries.....

So to recap, all we can say for sure about the move toward primaries over caucuses is that turnout will likely be higher in 2020 than in 2016 for the states that switch — and that could produce some interesting results.

[sheshe2]

43. Excellent News.

[Gothmog]

44. At least 10 states are planning to switch from a caucus to a primary in 2020.

Link to tweet

[corbettkroehler]

45. Akin To The Electoral College

Caucuses may feel right from time to time because of nostalgia but they are, at best, unscientific and don't allow for anything close to "one person, one vote".

They made sense before satellite television, air travel and email. Today, they are unfair and open to abuse.