2016 Postmortem

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)

51. It is not 'provably oppressive', that is nonsense.

Tue Jan 26, 2016, 10:41 AM

Jan 2016

There are advantages to it, and there are also disadvantages, like with almost any other electoral system. It aids lesser known candidates and provides a counterweight to financial power, whilst also providing the voters with a high level of engagement into the process. At the same time less people engage with the system and its not an equal way to distribute each persons vote.

Advantages and disadvantages, like with most things in life.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How Iowa Hijacked Our Democracy [View all] Beacool Jan 2016 OP

Iowa may lose it's first status. Dawson Leery Jan 2016 #1

Says who exactly? Kentonio Jan 2016 #33

Not a chance... brooklynite Jan 2016 #38

I think it is time to review IA and NH being first. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #2

In my state the voters decided against a primary. sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #3

yea I just love a system where those in the military defending our rights can't vote dsc Jan 2016 #23

Personally, I've never understood this "First-in-the-Nation" voting... KansDem Jan 2016 #4

Wouldn't work. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #6

That's exactly right. draa Jan 2016 #8

I believe the current system is extremely flawed. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #10

Of course it is but that wasn't what was being discussed. draa Jan 2016 #11

It's what the op is about. Nt NCTraveler Jan 2016 #14

True, but the discussion you were having was draa Jan 2016 #16

You and all the other Hillary supporters who are watching the 'flawed' system defeat your candidate. Kentonio Jan 2016 #34

I have no idea what your point is. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #41

I'm saying it's very amusing that the people lining up to insult the Iowa caucus system Kentonio Jan 2016 #44

I have posts on this very board from well before Sanders put his hat in the ring.... NCTraveler Jan 2016 #46

You also call yourself a progressive despite not supporting the progressive candidate in the race Kentonio Jan 2016 #48

There is simply nothing to disagree with when it comes to the primary process. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #49

It is not 'provably oppressive', that is nonsense. Kentonio Jan 2016 #51

Did you forget the sarcasm smilie? MoonRiver Jan 2016 #36

No. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #42

Other countries do it. Beacool Jan 2016 #12

"Other countries" rarely let ordinary voters select candidates for the General Election. brooklynite Jan 2016 #39

Really? Beacool Jan 2016 #53

I agree for the most part. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #43

I've been saying it for a long time. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #5

That and electoral. Popular votes should be the ticket. Iliyah Jan 2016 #7

Caucuses are weird, it's true. MineralMan Jan 2016 #9

Yes, but that worked in another era. Beacool Jan 2016 #13

People have always had to work. MineralMan Jan 2016 #17

Not a bad analysis. The caucus system isn't a model system that we should advocate everywhere... cascadiance Jan 2016 #15

Good post! eom Frustratedlady Jan 2016 #18

All good points. Beacool Jan 2016 #22

great post - I think of it as Iowa and NH really vetting the candidates karynnj Jan 2016 #31

I agree. Missouri switched to a primary system and I miss the caucuses. wilsonbooks Jan 2016 #19

There's also the issue of access for the disabled. MoonRiver Jan 2016 #40

You may have a point. In Minnesota, however, all caucus locations MineralMan Jan 2016 #50

completely disagree karynnj Jan 2016 #20

I see your point. Beacool Jan 2016 #25

I was suspicious of the caucuses until I watched the CSPAN coverage that focused on two districts karynnj Jan 2016 #28

As a political exercise it is fascinating. Beacool Jan 2016 #30

Perhaps its actually a more accurate reflection of the current state of politics. DaGimpster Jan 2016 #56

That's great that you are able and willing to participate. Beacool Jan 2016 #57

I don't necessarily disagree with you. DaGimpster Jan 2016 #58

I see caucuses as an exercise in democracy cali Jan 2016 #21

yea the military members who can't vote because they are deployed on our behalf dsc Jan 2016 #24

Exactly and not a representative democracy but the real true thing nt karynnj Jan 2016 #29

Pssst. Your subject line describes DWS to a "T". cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #26

Shouldn't we have known better? You know, like Homeowners??? Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #27

I'm sure that you also believe superdelegates are undemocratic. Flying Squirrel Jan 2016 #32

And they should all be held on the same day treestar Jan 2016 #35

I think phased primaries are good on some level. Perhaps, though... Armstead Jan 2016 #47

What rubbish. Caucuses are just as 'democratic' as primaries. Caucuses may not have KingCharlemagne Jan 2016 #37

And if somehow Clinton runs into trouble in South Carolina, we'll be hearing.... Armstead Jan 2016 #45

This is not about this election or the 2008 election either. Beacool Jan 2016 #54

I tend to agree Armstead Jan 2016 #59

Caucuses were a large part of Obama winning the election in 2008 artislife Jan 2016 #52

Every time a group's candidate doesn't get their way, people cast stones down on my state. EOM DaGimpster Jan 2016 #55