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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Democrats delay change to convention superdelegates [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)47. Caucuses are the antithesis to the popular vote.
Low voter turn out
Its common knowledge that voter turnout in America is lower than most nations, but compare the numbers of voters who vote in primary systems to those who vote in caucus systems and its hard not to conclude that the process of the caucus system fosters lower voter turnout. In the all- important Iowa Caucus, heralded for its importance in deciding who ends up winning the nomination, a mere 16.1 percent of the voting eligible population took part in the last presidential election, whereas the equally important New Hampshire primary election had a voter turnout of 53.6 percent.
Fringe groups control the process
With so much time being required to fully participate in caucuses it would make sense that those that choose to participate are those that are most passionate about politics. And those who are most passionate often have views that differ from the general populace. With such a small amount of the voting populace participating in the system it is easy to conceive that a small radical group would be able to commit the time needed to pick delegates and candidates whose viewpoints would appease their own, but likely differ from the views of the majority of people. While some would argue that it is their reward for taking the time to participate, looking at the numbers of those who participate in primary elections it can be fathomed that the caucus system itself discourage the average voter more so than the primary system.
Candidates in a district/state that use caucus elections are responsible to a small group of voters
Rather than having to worry about appeasing everyone, a candidate could, with some validity, seek simply to appeal those groups that have been historically active in caucuses and have security in attaining their delegates. While those who champion the caucus system as it stands points out that candidates no longer have to spend millions on ad campaigns to gain recognition as they would in a primary, those against can simply argue that a candidate simply has to focus on the people who they need to worry about showing up.
Its common knowledge that voter turnout in America is lower than most nations, but compare the numbers of voters who vote in primary systems to those who vote in caucus systems and its hard not to conclude that the process of the caucus system fosters lower voter turnout. In the all- important Iowa Caucus, heralded for its importance in deciding who ends up winning the nomination, a mere 16.1 percent of the voting eligible population took part in the last presidential election, whereas the equally important New Hampshire primary election had a voter turnout of 53.6 percent.
Fringe groups control the process
With so much time being required to fully participate in caucuses it would make sense that those that choose to participate are those that are most passionate about politics. And those who are most passionate often have views that differ from the general populace. With such a small amount of the voting populace participating in the system it is easy to conceive that a small radical group would be able to commit the time needed to pick delegates and candidates whose viewpoints would appease their own, but likely differ from the views of the majority of people. While some would argue that it is their reward for taking the time to participate, looking at the numbers of those who participate in primary elections it can be fathomed that the caucus system itself discourage the average voter more so than the primary system.
Candidates in a district/state that use caucus elections are responsible to a small group of voters
Rather than having to worry about appeasing everyone, a candidate could, with some validity, seek simply to appeal those groups that have been historically active in caucuses and have security in attaining their delegates. While those who champion the caucus system as it stands points out that candidates no longer have to spend millions on ad campaigns to gain recognition as they would in a primary, those against can simply argue that a candidate simply has to focus on the people who they need to worry about showing up.
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=599&sid=17982638
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Exactly right. They can't be rid of superdelegates because they refuse to be rid of superdelegates.
marble falls
Mar 2018
#4
I in no way would call him great, and he had his own immense flaws, but IF the Republicans
Exotica
Mar 2018
#77
The Democrats during Lincoln's time were like most white males, highly prejudiced and racist.
still_one
Mar 2018
#81
Convenient response to the question, though not an answer to the question.
LanternWaste
Mar 2018
#89
I disagree. They vote with the person with the most votes...and I would remind you that
Demsrule86
Mar 2018
#93
Hillary Clinton endorsed President Obama early in June before the Texas state Democratic Convention
Gothmog
Mar 2018
#78
Thank you for an excellent post, Gothmog, and for bringing valued rationality
R B Garr
Mar 2018
#110
Nominations for public office should be made by the voters, decided by the voters.
Sophia4
Mar 2018
#114
Super delegates at a convention that is supposed to reflect the outcome of a democratic
Sophia4
Mar 2018
#128
I have explained several times that I am accusing an institution, not individuals,
Sophia4
Mar 2018
#121
Why do you think that Bernie participated in what you say is a "corrupt process?"
ehrnst
Mar 2018
#129
And his top campaign adviser helped create the system of super delegates.....
George II
Mar 2018
#132
Actually, super delegates were invented because the Democratic hierarchy was not
Sophia4
Mar 2018
#98
Bingo. Candidates who run for POTUS on a Dem ticket agree to the rules when they run.
ehrnst
Mar 2018
#38
Well, anyone who runs as a Dem agrees to those rules. Bernie was a superdelegate
ehrnst
Mar 2018
#43
We have them so we can avoid a Trump like candidate and to avoid a legal mess in the event of a
Demsrule86
Mar 2018
#95
Who is the Trump of the left? Unlike Republicans, we don't have brain damaged racist wing
yurbud
Mar 2018
#99
you can say that after 16? A whole lot of people fell for the Russian crap...and think about this...
Demsrule86
Mar 2018
#100
It is pretty clear the Russians attacked our elections and tricked many into voting for Stein...
Demsrule86
Mar 2018
#105
Disclaimer - this is NOT refighting the primary (although others apparently are), but.....
George II
Mar 2018
#60
Congressional Black Caucus balks at two political reforms being pitched by Bernie Sanders
Gothmog
Mar 2018
#31
So Bernie Sanders - who was a Superdelegate in 2016, was one of "the same old establishment Dems?"
ehrnst
Mar 2018
#58
Superdelegates introduce sanity in to counter populists, an example of which is Trump.
NNadir
Mar 2018
#52
The funny thing is, that if they got rid of superdelegates, the winner would be clear earlier
KitSileya
Mar 2018
#87
The most important reason to KEEP superdelegates is sitting in the White House
jmowreader
Mar 2018
#102