Some women with strollers left the '16 Washington caucus without voting

[Carrito]

Washington State is asking for public comments on whether they should hold caucus or primaries next year.

This new article is enlightening:

Pierce County Councilmember Derek Young, who chaired a legislative district caucus meeting in 2016, supports switching. He called the caucuses “inherently undemocratic.” Besides watching people with disabilities struggle in 2016, he said he watched “more than one mom with a kid in a stroller walk out."

“People were having to park over a mile away on dirt roads without sidewalks,” Young said. “I watched people who were in obvious discomfort and pain trying to sit in the caucus that lasted more than six hours, and they grew more frustrated.”

John Wyble, a Democratic political consultant, said he would also prefer that the party move to a primary election system for nominating candidates going forward.

“When we had the caucuses, we were asking people to take at least two hours out of a weekend and come and participate — and in some cases, that would turn into five hours, or six or seven,” Wyble said. “It limits the participation. …I don’t think any of that is actually good for democracy or good for the Democratic Party.”

https://crosscut.com/2019/03/caucus-or-not-caucus-will-wa-democrats-switch-presidential-primary

[comradebillyboy]

1. I wonder who it was good for.

[KT2000]

10. it is best for

establishment preferred candidates. The bottom drawing candidates are eliminated. This can vary from one caucus to the next and based solely on the number of people who show up. Caucuses with low turnout have more power than those with a large turnout that votes for a variety of candidates.
A person arrives to vote for their candidate but if he/she is eliminated they have to change their vote to one of the candidates who received the highest - I believe that is 3.
Not very democratic or even representative.

[Wounded Bear]

14. Hardly...

Bernie won the WA caucuses. Hillary won the actual primary election.

[Carrito]

15. Sanders won 73% of the delegates

from that caucus.

[KT2000]

16. That year was definitely different

As I said in the post, precinct people were lucky to get 20 people to a caucus in years prior. That year it was triple at least and that was because of the interest in Sanders. People were enthusiastic.

Before, what I experienced is the moderate candidates gained delegates and the more left candidates were dropped. Had the more left candidates had their votes tallied instead of dropped, some of those totals would have been different. One caucus with 10 people could drop all but one candidate and another caucus with 40 people could drop all but two. The people who were supporting the dropped candidates would be forced to change their votes to one of the surviving candidates.

With as many candidates as we have now, the vote totals could be all over the place and not reflect what the majority really want.

[Carrito]

17. Sanders won 12 out of 18 caucus states

On the other hand, lost an overwhelming proportion of primaries.

[Blue_true]

25. The Washibgton caucus had around 60,000-90,000 participate.

The primary had almost 1 million. Hillary crushed Bernie among a far larger voting group and got almost no delegates from Wahington. The state democrats need a primary, that is the only system that picks the candidate most democrats prefer.

[KT2000]

30. Agree

I hope the enthusiasm is even greater this time. People who participate in the primary will likely vote in the general.

[radius777]

31. It benefits activists over regular voters

who don't have time for that shit, and have to goto work/school etc.

Activists tend to be whiter, younger and to the left.

Rank and file regular voters tend to be more moderate and diverse.

This is why Sanders won most of the caucuses and lost the primaries, badly in diverse populous states.

[KT2000]

32. that is why Sanders won

but in the previous years when I attended and hosted caucuses it worked to weed out the less mainstream candidates. Believe me, 2016 was not the norm but things may be changing.

[Me.]

2. PLease Note That The IOwa Poll Being Given Great Hurrahs On Du Today

is a...causcus...poll

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128717946

[SFnomad]

3. Washington state holds both, a caucus and a non-binding primary, or at least they did last time

Switching from one to the other shouldn't be that difficult for them and primaries are the more democratic way of doing things. The Democratic Party should really do away with caucuses. If Iowa wants to keep them, just because they can be "first-in-the-nation", well fine ... the rest should switch.

[SidDithers]

4. Maybe they should flip it...

Make the caucus non-binding.

Sid

[Garrett78]

5. And the results of each were quite different.

[KitSileya]

6. Yeah, and three times as many participated in the primary than did the caucus last time.

If the Democratic party is the party that tries to give everyone a chance to vote, it cannot live with caucuses in their democratic process. Caucuses are against the fundamental policies of the party - to help minorities to vote and to be a voice for the voiceless. The blue wave was all about getting minorities a seat at the table - a record number of women were elected, and they are now championing a bill to restore voting rights and stopping the GOP disenfranchisement of minority voters. Caucuses are a slap in the face of that effort.

[Blue_true]

26. It was more than three times more. It was close to 8-10 times more. nt

[Garrett78]

7. Caucuses need to go, but at least caucus states must now accept absentee ballots.

[Cha]

8. Caucuses are Not Democratic.

[calimary]

11. They're so rough - on anybody who can't get a babysitter

OR who isn’t able to stay on their feet all evening long - there are never enough chairs for the elderly or infirm.

It’s hard for students who have exams or assignments due. Hard for anyone who can’t spare the entire evening or has to leave early.

I wish we didn’t have ‘em, frankly.

[Amimnoch]

23. More than that, it may allow selection of the weaker candidate.

No state does a "caucus" for their General Election. General Elections are fought at the polls.

Washington's 2016 is a perfect example. The voting majority clearly chose one candidate over the smaller sampling of those who can dedicate the time and energy to a caucus.

If States don't use Caucus methodology in the GE, it makes no sense at all to do so to award delegates from the primary season based on an unused methodology.

[Hortensis]

24. Especially when held in often distant places with inadequate

parking, no sidewalks, even unpaved roads, then dragged out until finally only the intended small but controlling majority of the usual people is left.

Except for those times where a second group (but still a tiny minority of the electorate), typically recruited from college towns and prepared to stay all night if necessary, shows up unexpectedly, which is what the Sanders campaign was able to carry off in some too complacent districts.

[TeamPooka]

9. 50+ primaries please, including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam etc.

[keithbvadu2]

12. They have to actually sit/stand/stay there for a time before being allowed to vote?

They have to actually sit/stand/stay there for a time before being allowed to vote?

[Blue_true]

28. It's a dynamic situation.

They vote immediately by moving to specific areas, one for each candidate. The people that support the candidates getting few votes can then move to another group and another count is made after supporters give a rah-rah for their candidate. The process continues until there is no movement between groups, then a final vote is taken after pressure tactics to get more converts by supporters of the leading candidates. During all of that people have to stand or move then stand. A caucus is a horrid voting system and should be eliminated.

[keithbvadu2]

29. Thanks

[oasis]

13. Caucuses gotta go!

[brooklynite]

19. Why would a Caucus take six hours?

In 2008, my wife and I ran a Nevada Caucus site for Clinton. I think it took an hour and change to select Presidential delegates (modeled after Iowa with opening candidate statements and two rounds of selection). I know there are other matters the Caucus sometimes covers, but those can be held to the end for the people that care.

[NurseJackie]

20. Caucuses are undemocratic. They invite bullying and intimidation...

He called the caucuses “inherently undemocratic.”

Caucuses are undemocratic. They invite bullying and intimidation, and they shit all over the sacred concept of secret ballot. It's a NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT for this antique and obsolete process to still exist in 2019.

It needs to GO!

[MineralMan]

21. I chaired and led my Minnesota precinct's caucus in 2016.

To begin with, the room where it was held was far too small for the number of attendees who arrived. Secondly, another precinct was also using the same space for its caucus.

We managed to make it work, but it was clear that not enough thought had gone into the process. Attendance was predicted based on past caucuses, and much larger than expected. I and the chair of the other precinct met and quickly decided to hold separate elections and delegate selection for each precinct, but to run the overall caucus discussions together. It was the only way to make the thing work.

I personally saw a number of people who showed up, but then left, due to the crowded room and disorganization.

Following that caucus, I joined with others in pushing for primary elections in Minnesota to replace the caucus system, which failed to adequately measure voter opinion in 2016. In 2017, our state legislature, in a bi-partisan vote, switched the state to a primary system for presidential elections. Our precinct caucuses now are used only to select delegates to our district and state party conventions.

The caucus system is not effective in urban areas, unfortunately. I like the feel of caucuses, but not the poor accuracy they produce.

[joshcryer]

22. End the damn caucuses.

They're inherently undemocratic crony bs.

[forklift]

27. Caucuses help lesser candidates who have a cultish following

The devotees turn up in large numbers and see it as their raison d'être and cause celèbre. They quickly overwhelm the followers of more popular candidates and many times a candidate who has a lesser following in the population as a whole wins.

Not democratic at all.

[Gothmog]

33. Caucuses are very undemocratic

We need to rid of all caucuses