Nevada Democrats move to end presidential caucuses

[MarkD]

Some Republicans in the Senate have responded with a bill of their own that still converts the caucus to a primary, but to coincide with the regular primary election for other offices, on the second Tuesday in June.  Which is of course at the end of the presidential primary season.

I'm no fan of this arms race to be the first in the nation, but wanting to move from third or fourth position to almost last is as dumb as it gets.  The GOP is a minority in both chambers, so this bill goes nowhere anyway.  But at least they're on board with getting rid of the caucus.

I have strongly disliked that race for several years, and I have often suggested that we need a constitutional amendment that creates a plausible schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries and caucuses. The amendment idea I have talked about has been one that says no state is allowed to hold a presidential primary of caucus before April 1; allow only the smallest states, with 3 or 4 ECVs, to hold presidential primaries or caucuses during April (or later if they choose); allow the medium-sized states, with 5 to 11 ECVs, to hold them during May (or later if they choose); and make all the largest states, with 12 ECVs or more, wait until June.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

Yes, we should kill off our contest because of the federal DNC meddling with our tallies. Thank you for blaming us rural hicks and our way of counting the votes for this despite the fact that the whole debacle had nothing to do with us having a caucus and not a primary.

It needs to be killed because caucuses are disporpiantly prevent low-income and disabled voters from particpating.

Not any more so than primary elections.

[Joe Republic]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

Yes, we should kill off our contest because of the federal DNC meddling with our tallies. Thank you for blaming us rural hicks and our way of counting the votes for this despite the fact that the whole debacle had nothing to do with us having a caucus and not a primary.

It needs to be killed because caucuses are disporpiantly prevent low-income and disabled voters from particpating.

Not any more so than primary elections.

That just isn’t true, though.  Compare a primary election that includes early voting, mail in voting, and a full twelve hours on Election Day to show up at any time you please, with a caucus.

In 2020, 172k people showed up to the Iowa caucuses; the most spotlighted, hotly contested election on the schedule.  A month later, the similarly sized (although with fewer Democrats) Utah and Arkansas went to vote in their primaries.  ~220k voters cast a ballot.

Primaries are just better for democratic participation, and that’s an indisputable fact.

[Bootes Void]

Caucuses should be killed off cause they always have lower turnout, require alot of time from the individual and there can always be voter intimidation if people choose unpopular or uncool candidates as they say and they are lampooned over it

Private ballot way to go

[The Mikado]

Caucuses should be abolished because they violate the core principle of the secret ballot.

[The Mikado]

Anyway, my ideal primary setup would be a two round national primary, once in the first week of March and the second in the third week of May. If a candidate breaks 50% in the first round, they're the nominee. If no one does, the top two have two and a half more months of primaries until the runoff, with the choice very clear. One on one debates and everything.



I really hate the argument that staggered primaries give a bigger advantage to retail politics, mainly because I see no rationale for retail politics being relevant in the modern era. Unless you live in NH or IA, you're never going to see the future President wandering around your diner, you're going to be interacting through Internet/television/big rallies. That's the authentic presidential campaign experience, why pretend this other thing is still relevant other than nostalgia? It's not like this hurts "upstart" candidates either. Andrew Yang was a completely unheard of person who raised an insane amount of money and name recognition campaigning online and now might be the next Mayor of NYC. Bernie Sanders built a national following through huge rallies, as did Donald Trump. I really fail to see how a national primary would hurt "insurgent" candidates vs this weird "compete in two minor states, then ramp up to a Super Tuesday that's all over in states you probably haven't invested in at all outside of the last week" structure.

In the setup I envision, if you're an insurgent GOP or Dem candidate, your goal is just to A. drag the frontrunner below 50, and B. make sure you're in first or second, and then you're one on one with an obligatorily large share of the spotlight. If you're a "frontrunner," your strategy is to just push your hardest to be 50%+1 in the first round and just wrap it up early. It's a very fair system. It'd also probably do wonders for making GOP primaries less messy and more understandable.

That said, this is basically a pipe dream.

[Mr. Morden]

Caucuses should be abolished because they violate the core principle of the secret ballot.

Many caucuses do use a secret ballot.  But the "walking caucus" format that the Iowa Dems use, where you have multiple rounds of voting based on who reaches 15% in the first round, does not.  My guess is that the DNC might now try to ban the walking caucus format, because of its role in the 2020 Iowa caucus fiasco.  So Iowa Dems would still have a "caucus", but it would be a more primary-like caucus, where there's just one round of voting.....which incidentally is the system that the Iowa Republicans already use.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

Yes, we should kill off our contest because of the federal DNC meddling with our tallies. Thank you for blaming us rural hicks and our way of counting the votes for this despite the fact that the whole debacle had nothing to do with us having a caucus and not a primary.

It needs to be killed because caucuses are disporpiantly prevent low-income and disabled voters from particpating.

Not any more so than primary elections.

Provably false, non-binding primaries in Washington and Nebreska in 2016 saw far higher turnout despite being in fact a glorified poll than the actually binding caucuses that allocated delegates.

[politics_king]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

Yes, we should kill off our contest because of the federal DNC meddling with our tallies. Thank you for blaming us rural hicks and our way of counting the votes for this despite the fact that the whole debacle had nothing to do with us having a caucus and not a primary.

It needs to be killed because caucuses are disporpiantly prevent low-income and disabled voters from particpating.

Abolish the Caucus! I'm serious. It's dumb. The way we can vote in LA County is fantastic. One of the things we've been doing right.

[Joe Republic]

Update:

The deadline for bills to be passed out of committee is April 9th, which is two weeks away.  Thus far, AB126 hasn’t even been scheduled for a hearing.  I’ll keep you in the loop if it does, but so far... tick tock.

[izixs]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

Yes, we should kill off our contest because of the federal DNC meddling with our tallies. Thank you for blaming us rural hicks and our way of counting the votes for this despite the fact that the whole debacle had nothing to do with us having a caucus and not a primary.

It needs to be killed because caucuses are disporpiantly prevent low-income and disabled voters from particpating.

Not any more so than primary elections.

As a veteran of the Iowa caucuses, not only is that a ridiculous claim (though less so since there has at least been progress attempted on that front, though not enough success to make under representation not an issue), but doesn't address the collection of other things that make the Iowa caucuses ridiculous such as being pointlessly complicated and undemocratic, poorly run any election cycle, being a lengthy process that not everyone can put hours of their time towards in order to participate in, open to strategic abuse to disrupt popular candidates via strategic moves by unpopular candidates, ect ect. Moving to a primary would do away with all the nonsense and allow more people to participate.

All those who defend it seem to do are claim 'nuh-uh!' when ever someone gives a legit critique. Like seriously, this has gotten well past silly.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

Yes, we should kill off our contest because of the federal DNC meddling with our tallies. Thank you for blaming us rural hicks and our way of counting the votes for this despite the fact that the whole debacle had nothing to do with us having a caucus and not a primary.

It needs to be killed because caucuses are disporpiantly prevent low-income and disabled voters from particpating.

Not any more so than primary elections.

As a veteran of the Iowa caucuses, not only is that a ridiculous claim (though less so since there has at least been progress attempted on that front, though not enough success to make under representation not an issue), but doesn't address the collection of other things that make the Iowa caucuses ridiculous such as being pointlessly complicated and undemocratic, poorly run any election cycle, being a lengthy process that not everyone can put hours of their time towards in order to participate in, open to strategic abuse to disrupt popular candidates via strategic moves by unpopular candidates, etc etc. Moving to a primary would do away with all the nonsense and allow more people to participate.

All those who defend it seem to do are claim 'nuh-uh!' when ever someone gives a legit critique. Like seriously, this has gotten well past silly.

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Poorly run? We all now know that the Great Iowa Caucus Kerfuffle of 2020 happened not because of poor management, but meddling on the part of the national DNC.

Not everyone does have room to fit these caucuses into their schedules, but luckily the Iowa Democrats have been trying to resolve this by allowing for satellite caucuses that start earlier, allowing for people with conflicting schedules to attend the event.

Open to strategic abuse? I'm sorry, but if you can explain how caucuses are special in this case, and can find me an example of a caucus being strategically abuses in a way that can't be done with a paper ballot primary, I'll keep my ears open.

Maybe we keep saying "nuh-uh" because you're unwilling to give me a valid reason to get rid of our caucus.

[beesley]

After reading the contributions of people in this thread I am still convinced that primaries are better than caucuses.

[politics_king]

IA's caucus needs to be killed off as well after that farce about a year ago ...

The caucus needs to end period. Its dumb.

[StateBoiler]

Some Republicans in the Senate have responded with a bill of their own that still converts the caucus to a primary, but to coincide with the regular primary election for other offices, on the second Tuesday in June.  Which is of course at the end of the presidential primary season.

I'm no fan of this arms race to be the first in the nation, but wanting to move from third or fourth position to almost last is as dumb as it gets.  The GOP is a minority in both chambers, so this bill goes nowhere anyway.  But at least they're on board with getting rid of the caucus.

I have strongly disliked that race for several years, and I have often suggested that we need a constitutional amendment that creates a plausible schedule for when states can hold presidential primaries and caucuses. The amendment idea I have talked about has been one that says no state is allowed to hold a presidential primary of caucus before April 1; allow only the smallest states, with 3 or 4 ECVs, to hold presidential primaries or caucuses during April (or later if they choose); allow the medium-sized states, with 5 to 11 ECVs, to hold them during May (or later if they choose); and make all the largest states, with 12 ECVs or more, wait until June.

Not really possible when the whole notion of "political party primaries" exists outside of the Constitution. They're never mentioned in the document, so you would need to not only define what a political primary is, but also define what a political party is, what a national political party convention is, what a convention delegate assigned from a primary is, the process of a candidate for president being formally nominated, and then constrain the actions of the states in the Constitution versus what we have now where each party's national committee acts as a de facto governing check on excesses of their state affiliates. That's probably something neither party wants to happen because it limits their power. Not to mention you'd be dictating the presidential candidate nominating process not just for the Republicans and Democrats, but also for every other political party in the country if you go the constitutional amendment route.

Frankly, I think primaries are private party events governed by each group's right of association and where ran by the state election board the political parties should reimburse the state for the costs to run it. And the presidential preference primary has less justification to be paid for by the state than all other elections the state election board operates.

Iowa Democrats pissed off about the forced move from the caucuses can just not organize a caucus or primary, and leave it to the national party to organize and finance one if they want to have a presidential preference primary in the state.

[Joe Republic]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

[StateBoiler]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

Been on Facebook any time in the past...oh...decade? Or you can just look at the cesspool that is this place where people mock others for supporting certain candidates and losers all the time.

[The Mikado]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

Thanks for the nice example of why an election without secret ballot (like any caucus) is inherently undemocratic.

[StateBoiler]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

Thanks for the nice example of why an election without secret ballot (like any caucus) is inherently undemocratic.

Look forward to the national Democratic and Republican parties getting rid of viva voce votes at their national conventions and providing everyone the right to vote by phone app.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

So? None of this is an indictment of the caucus process. Jackie would've lost anyways, and so the system is irrelevant in terms of the actual number. As for Brendas, if you don't believe in your positions enough to actually stand up for them, you shouldn't be voting for them anyways.

[Alcibiades]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

So? None of this is an indictment of the caucus process. Jackie would've lost anyways, and so the system is irrelevant in terms of the actual number. As for Brendas, if you don't believe in your positions enough to actually stand up for them, you shouldn't be voting for them anyways.

You still haven’t addressed the central points of caucuses’ abysmally low turnouts, and their violation of the right to a secret ballot.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

So? None of this is an indictment of the caucus process. Jackie would've lost anyways, and so the system is irrelevant in terms of the actual number. As for Brendas, if you don't believe in your positions enough to actually stand up for them, you shouldn't be voting for them anyways.

You still haven’t addressed the central points of caucuses’ abysmally low turnouts, and their violation of the right to a secret ballot.

Neither of those are problems.

[Alcibiades]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

So? None of this is an indictment of the caucus process. Jackie would've lost anyways, and so the system is irrelevant in terms of the actual number. As for Brendas, if you don't believe in your positions enough to actually stand up for them, you shouldn't be voting for them anyways.

You still haven’t addressed the central points of caucuses’ abysmally low turnouts, and their violation of the right to a secret ballot.

Neither of those are problems.

Yes they are.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

So? None of this is an indictment of the caucus process. Jackie would've lost anyways, and so the system is irrelevant in terms of the actual number. As for Brendas, if you don't believe in your positions enough to actually stand up for them, you shouldn't be voting for them anyways.

You still haven’t addressed the central points of caucuses’ abysmally low turnouts, and their violation of the right to a secret ballot.

Neither of those are problems.

Yes they are.

How so?

[Alcibiades]

Pointlessly complicated? You stand in one corner of an elementary school gymnasium that represents the candidate you want to vote for, and if that candidate doesn't make up a large enough part of a room, you go to a different corner. It doesn't take a doctorate to understand that concept, dude.

Undemocratic? In what way? You still get to vote for your favorite candidate, with the added benefit that uninformed voters are able to learn about other candidates and what their goals are.

Imagine you're a supporter of underdog candidate Jackie Johnson, running against establishment favorite Johnny Jackson.

You show up at the caucus (because luckily you had the evening off work), and there you find you are one of thirty voters in your precinct.

It turns out that you are one of only three voters for Jackie Johnson.  The other 27 are all for Johnny Jackson.

Your next door neighbor, Brenda, is standing in the Jackson group, and is looking over at you with her arms folded and a smirk on her face.  Last week she had reminded you to take your trash cans back in the same day they get picked up, not the next day or the day after.  Brenda is a bitch.

A caucus worker approaches your small group and tells you all that unfortunately, Jackie Johnson has not reached viability in your precinct.  The three of you will either need to realign, or go home.  You really don't want to vote for Johnny Jackson, at least not in the primaries.  You have your reasons.

Worst of all, you can see across the other side of the gymnasium another neighbor (a friend of yours) who lives a couple streets away.  His house must be in a different precinct.  You can see that he is also in the Jackie Johnson group, and they actually appear to have won the precinct!  Good for them, but sucks for you!  You may as well have not shown up at all.

You hope not to bump into Brenda tomorrow.

So? None of this is an indictment of the caucus process. Jackie would've lost anyways, and so the system is irrelevant in terms of the actual number. As for Brendas, if you don't believe in your positions enough to actually stand up for them, you shouldn't be voting for them anyways.

You still haven’t addressed the central points of caucuses’ abysmally low turnouts, and their violation of the right to a secret ballot.

Neither of those are problems.

Yes they are.

How so?

1. The secret ballot is pretty foundational in ensuring free and fair elections by preventing voter intimidation.

2. It’s obviously desirable to have as high a turnout as possible to increase democratic legitimacy. Caucuses present a needless barrier to enabling people to quickly and easily vote - and the truly shocking statistics bear that out. When you claim that low turnout doesn’t matter, you kind of sound like a Republican defending voter ID or reduced early voting.