Watch the minute the final delegate count in Nevada goes to BERNIE!!

[pnwmom]

90. You really do have a reading comprehension problem ,in addition to your

problem using a search engine.

The first one I happened on was from March 2013, before anyone announced their candidacy for President.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=296262

The Washington caucuses are a joke. I went once or twice.

They are deliberately screening out everyone who doesn't have the 3 or 4 hours to spend debating on party platforms, etc.

And there are lots more like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511102254

If you don't hate caucuses yet, you are likely to before this is over.

Did you know, for example, that in a small Iowa precinct -- one with only 2 delegates -- the candidate with only 25% of the vote would get the same number of delegates as the one with 75% of the vote?

And that precinct delegates are then weighted based on how many people showed up to caucus in the previous Presidential election?

And that in the Democratic caucus there is no such thing as a secret ballot, and the whole process can take hours?

And they don't announce the final vote count -- just the delegate count?

All this is on top of the fact that caucuses are designed to limit voter participation, compared to the number who show up for primaries. If you have a class or a job that conflicts with the caucus time -- tough luck. You don't get a vote.

But we're still stuck with it in backwards states like Iowa -- and my own state, Washington (at least for the Dems. WA Repubs accepted the public preference -- as determined by a referendum -- for primaries for their delegate selection. The Dems hung on to their caucuses.)

This article was written at a time when the writer expected that Hillary would be ahead, but the points remain true no matter who gets the most voters to the caucuses. No matter who wins in actual votes, it is not likely to be reflected well in the delegate count -- unless they are very close to being tied anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511122553

Now do you believe me? The caucus system is a very messy process --

in Iowa and in all the other states that still rely on this antiquated system -- and should be replaced everywhere by primaries.

We have them in my state and I've hated them since the first time I attended one. On top of the problems we saw demonstrated last night, they are non-inclusive, non-representative, and have no secret ballots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511102254



http://time.com/4172793/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders/

The complicated rules of the caucus process are inherently tilted toward equalizing the strength of candidates, especially in a two person race. Only the number of delegates awarded in each precinct will be published on caucus night, which means there will be no official record of the candidate’s share of the voters at the caucuses—a figure that will likely more closely mirror the pre-caucus polls.

As a result, Clinton will be at the mercy of a process little changed over generations, in which candidates can tie the delegate count, even if Clinton has far more support inside the room. If Sanders surprises with an upset, by bringing more caucus goers out, he will face a similar result, which looks more like a draw.

Here’s how it works: Each of 1,681 precincts in the state is assigned a delegate count based on its relative strength of Democratic Party within that part of the state. To earn delegates, candidates are required to meet a threshold—25% in two-delegate precincts to 15% in precincts with four or more delegates—in order to earn any delegates from each precinct. (The vast majority of precincts have four or more delegates, requiring the 15% threshold.)

For the large number of precincts with an even number of delegates, however, Clinton would have to win by large majorities in order to net more total delegates than Sanders. In odd-numbered-delegate precincts, barring a blowout, Sanders would still pick up several delegates.

SNIP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511058105

How Martin O'Malley will be hurt by the caucus system in Iowa.

Unlike in the primaries, where each vote counts, under Iowa's anti-democratic caucus system, only candidates with 15% or more of the precinct vote are assigned delegates.

This will also affect Hillary and Bernie because candidates can have a substantial spread in the number of votes from individual voters, but be assigned the same number of caucus delegates. No one can get a fraction of a delegate, so two candidates with different vote counts can have the same delegate count.

And the actual vote counts are not publicized -- only the delegate counts.

Also, none of the votes are secret ballots. If, for example, a husband and a wife disagree, or an employer and an employee, they have to disagree openly and in public. And they get to try to persuade each other, publicly, to change their votes.

It's an antiquated system but it's what we're still stuck with in states like Iowa and my own state of Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/us/politics/clinton-sanders-omalley-iowa-caucuses.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

The arcane rules of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses mean that most O’Malley supporters will be ruled “nonviable” if he does not get 15 percent support at a caucus; his supporters will then be up for grabs by another candidate. With polls showing the race between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders narrowing to a near tie, O’Malley supporters, along with attendees who enter their neighborhood caucuses undecided, could swing the