Can we give decent burial to the meme that Bernie Sanders didn't appeal to black voters.

[ehrnst]

199. In caucuses, people who don't know more about the candidate or the process than the rest of voters

Last edited Mon Jul 24, 2017, 10:12 AM - Edit history (3)

but are louder and more excited decide for the majority. Caucuses favor the choice of people who don't have an hourly job, childcare responsibilities, problems with travel to the caucus location, and favors the view of those who dominate a discussion.

A presidential primary, run by the state, generally works like any other election. A voter stops by a polling place, chooses their favored nominee, gets an “I voted” sticker, and leaves. Those unable to vote during regular polling hours can usually vote early or by mail. At the end of the day, those votes are counted (and can be recounted if necessary) and results are made public.

Caucuses, on the other hand, generally require voters to show up at one specific time and spend several hours in the process, hearing speeches for the candidates, dividing into groups, selecting delegates, and so forth.

Carleton’s Steven Schier said that the average caucus attender, unlike the average primary voter, must be dedicate a good chunk of time to the process. He likened nominating caucuses to a famous quote attributed to Oscar Wilde: “The trouble with Socialism is that it takes too many evenings.”

Caucus participation lags behind even low-turnout primaries because so many people are unable to be there in person at the anointed time. This means military personnel serving away from their homes can’t participate, nor can people who have to work during the caucuses, parents with small children who cannot find babysitters, and those babysitters who can be arranged. While some states have taken steps to allow absentee balloting and a tele-caucus option, “it’s not widespread,” Putnam said.

https://thinkprogress.org/america-is-supposed-to-be-a-democracy-so-why-do-we-still-have-caucuses-ffbbdf32caf

"Explain a caucus scenario in which one candidate has a MAJORITY of the total votes and comes away with nothing, or even significantly less than a split." A majority of total votes from what? There is no vote before a caucus. Unlike when the Superdelegates vote.

And one could argue that you are arguing the inverse - that you support caucus members deciding for the population, but you don't support Superdelegates even being involved....

You are the one who pitted superdelegates against the caucus system. I said the the caucus system in the primary is the antithesis of the popular vote. True. Superdelegates are made up of people who have direct knowledge of the candidate and the job they will do. True.

Not conflicting at all.

By your standards, what is conflicting is to oppose the concept of Superdelegates, and support the idea of Senators. Senators give the population of Delaware the same say as the population of California, which gives each person in Delaware many times the power of each person in California.

Right?

There are situations where the popular opinion is balanced by a group that has a greater depth of knowledge of an issue and the legislative implications. The Senate and Supreme Court are two such cases. Also the concept of representative democracy...

If the popular vote determines everything, and we had a direct Democracy, the South would still allow two sets of water fountains.

My thoughts are that that the popular vote has to be involved in the determination of representation, and early. Superdelegates don't enter into the actual selection until the Convention. Primaries occur much earlier.

The dualistic thinking you have displayed doesn't seem to take into account different situations, such as that in the primaries and the party convention.

That kind of binary world view of doesn't map to politics, or even most of life, and those that carry that world view usually call any mention of variations or grey areas "hypocritical."

That's why you don't get what I actually think or have expressed.