Nevada Democrats move to end presidential caucuses

[Joe Republic]

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.

...

Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that in 2020, the Iowa Democratic caucuses saw around 50,000 fewer voters show up than the similarly sized (and way more Republican-tilted electorate) primaries in Utah and Arkansas a month later.

How is comparatively decreased turnout not a problem to you?

Others have addressed why the principle of the secret ballot is fundamentally important already.  I'll simply share an anecdotal example of why it is important:

My mother in law has never attended a caucus in Nevada since they switched to that system in 2008.  Why?  She avidly defends her right to privacy when it comes to her vote, to the point that her own daughter (my wife) has no idea how she votes each election.  Even showing up to a Democratic caucus or a Republican caucus is itself a public declaration of one's vote.  And being married to a full-throated Fox News Republican husband, as my mother in law is, that's an uncomfortable position to be in.

[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.

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.

So your vote for Jackie Johnson gets thrown in the trash, but your neighbor from a few streets away has his counted?  And that's a-ok?

(Note: this argument can also apply to the Electoral College, which is fine with me.)

[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.

Further update:

I spoke with the Chair of the Legislative Operations & Elections committee earlier this afternoon, and AB126 is still very much on the radar.  It's more a matter of when it will be heard, rather than if, and the next two weeks are going to be pretty hectic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Bernie won the popular vote but didn't officially win it, so it gets to stay.

[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.

So your vote for Jackie Johnson gets thrown in the trash, but your neighbor from a few streets away has his counted?  And that's a-ok?

(Note: this argument can also apply to the Electoral College, which is fine with me.)

Okay, cool, but don't abolish it until we abolish the House of Representatives and every other legislature in America that chooses its representatives via arbitrary lines in the sand. You could apply this same logic to a Republican in New York's 15th as opposed to a Republican in New York's 18th.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

How is comparatively decreased turnout not a problem to you?

Because it literally doesn't matter? If someone doesn't want to vote, whether they don't want to or don't care to, then that's their right.

My mother in law has never attended a caucus in Nevada since they switched to that system in 2008.  Why?  She avidly defends her right to privacy when it comes to her vote, to the point that her own daughter (my wife) has no idea how she votes each election.  Even showing up to a Democratic caucus or a Republican caucus is itself a public declaration of one's vote.  And being married to a full-throated Fox News Republican husband, as my mother in law is, that's an uncomfortable position to be in.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, if you don't care enough about what you believe in to stand up for it, then you're probably not the kind of person who should vote anyways.

[The Mikado]

I'll repeat what I said earlier, if you don't care enough about what you believe in to stand up for it, then you're probably not the kind of person who should vote anyways.

You know the entire reason we have a secret ballot in this country is voter intimidation, right? Like your boss saying "If you don't vote the way I want on Tuesday, don't come in on Wednesday" was a real thing in the late 19th century until the secret ballot. I see zero protection in a system like the Iowa Caucus against that.

[Alcibiades]

How is comparatively decreased turnout not a problem to you?

Because it literally doesn't matter? If someone doesn't want to vote, whether they don't want to or don't care to, then that's their right.

Again, caucuses create a needless barrier to voting. There are plenty of people who might want to vote in a caucus but don’t have the time to take part in one. This argument is little better than Republican apologetics for voter suppression.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The basic principle of the caucus as a discussion forum sounds alright on paper, and may have been an advantage previously, but in the internet era one can do all the research that they want on each candidate's history and proposals and have plenty of discussions with others without going anywhere, so it's obsolete. Combined with the time investment, lack of a secret ballot, viability requirements, and other Byzantine procedures, it's an undemocratic relic that invites chaos. Federal law should mandate primaries rather than caucuses.

[Joe Republic]

My mother in law has never attended a caucus in Nevada since they switched to that system in 2008.  Why?  She avidly defends her right to privacy when it comes to her vote, to the point that her own daughter (my wife) has no idea how she votes each election.  Even showing up to a Democratic caucus or a Republican caucus is itself a public declaration of one's vote.  And being married to a full-throated Fox News Republican husband, as my mother in law is, that's an uncomfortable position to be in.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, if you don't care enough about what you believe in to stand up for it, then you're probably not the kind of person who should vote anyways.

You heard about the woman in Texas whose parents threw her out of their house for voting for Biden?  She made the choice to declare her vote, as is also her right.  But what if she actually didn't want to piss off her parents, and let's say this had been in an Iowa caucus scenario?  I guess you'd have to make the choice between exercising your democratic right, or becoming homeless, amirite?

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

You know the entire reason we have a secret ballot in this country is voter intimidation, right? Like your boss saying "If you don't vote the way I want on Tuesday, don't come in on Wednesday" was a real thing in the late 19th century until the secret ballot. I see zero protection in a system like the Iowa Caucus against that.

Because apparently we can't pass laws barring employers from firing on the basis of one's primary vote.

Again, caucuses create a needless barrier to voting. There are plenty of people who might want to vote in a caucus but don’t have the time to take part in one. This argument is little better than Republican apologetics for voter suppression.

Once again, if you don't care enough about voting in a primary election to make time for it, you probably aren't the kind of person who should vote anyways.

You heard about the woman in Texas whose parents threw her out of their house for voting for Biden?  She made the choice to declare her vote, as is also her right.  But what if she actually didn't want to piss off her parents, and let's say this had been in an Iowa caucus scenario?  I guess you'd have to make the choice between exercising your democratic right, or becoming homeless, amirite?

See my response to Mikado.

[Joe Republic]

You heard about the woman in Texas whose parents threw her out of their house for voting for Biden?  She made the choice to declare her vote, as is also her right.  But what if she actually didn't want to piss off her parents, and let's say this had been in an Iowa caucus scenario?  I guess you'd have to make the choice between exercising your democratic right, or becoming homeless, amirite?

See my response to Mikado.

So... the solution is to... pass a law that bans parents from kicking out their adult children from home for voting the wrong way...?

Or, get rid of the non-secret ballot instead, as has been the trend in almost every free and fair democracy for about two centuries.  (That’s part of what makes it "free and fair" of course.)

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Imagine defending caucuses lmao

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

That's not comparable. Delegates are sent to the conventions with the expectation they will vote for their preferred candidate. Their votes should be public just like how votes in Congress are public...because members of Congress are also elected just like the delegates.

[Alcibiades]

Again, caucuses create a needless barrier to voting. There are plenty of people who might want to vote in a caucus but don’t have the time to take part in one. This argument is little better than Republican apologetics for voter suppression.

Once again, if you don't care enough about voting in a primary election to make time for it, you probably aren't the kind of person who should vote anyways.

What about if I’m working at the same time as the caucus, caring for a relative, or am ill? There’s no compelling reason why people should be forced to stand around in a room for ages to vote.

[Sestak]

Again, caucuses create a needless barrier to voting. There are plenty of people who might want to vote in a caucus but don’t have the time to take part in one. This argument is little better than Republican apologetics for voter suppression.

Once again, if you don't care enough about voting in a primary election to make time for it, you probably aren't the kind of person who should vote anyways.

Koopa, this is the literally the same argument used to support the most draconian restrictions to voting possible. Banning of the early vote, closing of most precincts, long lines, requirements for multiple forms of ID that many people don't have, absurdly long in-advance registration deadlines, all in the name of "if they were really worthy of voting they'd just shoulder through all of it".

Also, no, you can't just blame "the federal Democratic Party" for everything - the amount of discrepancies that occurred in individual precincts was downright ridiculous. At this point it is still impossible to know who actually won last year's Iowa caucuses because not everything could be resolved - and since the process of previous years was literally exactly the same but without vote totals being reported, the results of all previous IA caucuses are in serious doubt as well.

[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.

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.

This is a private party event. This is not a public election. A primary is not a public election. If you do not understand that you are frankly not intelligent enough to engage in this discussion. A caucus is no different than any decision made by a county party convention, state party convention, or national party convention, where for all decisions made they normally do not allow private ballots because the establishment want to control the process and use peer pressure, and viva voce and hands raising are very typical.

If you're going to tell me caucuses are a wrong way to conduct things then almost every Republican and Democratic county party, state party, and national party in the country should be required to change the methods for how they conduct themselves not only in choosing their leadership but setting their bylaws, approving committee reports, making decisions, etc., otherwise you're being hypocritical. And if you think they should change, great, go to your next county party convention, become a delegate to the state and national party conventions and try to implement change. Tell me how it works out for you. If you even get to the point of having a vote that fails miserably you did pretty well.

Most of the discussion of this thread falls under the category of "a bunch of Talk Elections posters that think they know how politics works are completely ignorant about how political parties operate".

[Alcibiades]

This is a private party event. This is not a public election. A primary is not a public election. If you do not understand that you are frankly not intelligent enough to engage in this discussion. A caucus is no different than any decision made by a county party convention, state party convention, or national party convention, where for all decisions made they normally do not allow private ballots because the establishment want to control the process and use peer pressure, and viva voce and hands raising are very typical.

If you're going to tell me caucuses are a wrong way to conduct things then almost every Republican and Democratic county party, state party, and national party in the country should be required to change the methods for how they conduct themselves not only in choosing their leadership but setting their bylaws, approving committee reports, making decisions, etc., otherwise you're being hypocritical. And if you think they should change, great, go to your next county party convention, become a delegate to the state and national party conventions and try to implement change. Tell me how it works out for you. If you even get to the point of having a vote that fails miserably you did pretty well.

Most of the discussion of this thread falls under the category of "a bunch of Talk Elections posters that think they know how politics works are completely ignorant about how political parties operate".

I am actually quite sympathetic to the argument that the US uses too many primaries for a variety of minor offices, but the presidential nominee is a pretty big deal that everyone should have an equal chance of voting for. I think the distinction between county dogcatcher and president is a pretty clear one that most people should be able to grasp. Just because the Iowa and Nevada Dems can, doesn’t mean they should.

(PS: A tip - wantonly insulting other posters’ intelligence doesn’t exactly strengthen your argument.)

[AlterEgo]

This is a private party event. This is not a public election. A primary is not a public election. If you do not understand that you are frankly not intelligent enough to engage in this discussion. A caucus is no different than any decision made by a county party convention, state party convention, or national party convention, where for all decisions made they normally do not allow private ballots because the establishment want to control the process and use peer pressure, and viva voce and hands raising are very typical.

If you're going to tell me caucuses are a wrong way to conduct things then almost every Republican and Democratic county party, state party, and national party in the country should be required to change the methods for how they conduct themselves not only in choosing their leadership but setting their bylaws, approving committee reports, making decisions, etc., otherwise you're being hypocritical. And if you think they should change, great, go to your next county party convention, become a delegate to the state and national party conventions and try to implement change. Tell me how it works out for you. If you even get to the point of having a vote that fails miserably you did pretty well.

Most of the discussion of this thread falls under the category of "a bunch of Talk Elections posters that think they know how politics works are completely ignorant about how political parties operate".

I am actually quite sympathetic to the argument that the US uses too many primaries for a variety of minor offices, but the presidential nominee is a pretty big deal that everyone should have an equal chance of voting for. I think the distinction between county dogcatcher and president is a pretty clear one that most people should be able to grasp. Just because the Iowa and Nevada Dems can, doesn’t mean they should.

(PS: A tip - wantonly insulting other posters’ intelligence doesn’t exactly strengthen your argument.)

Just because the Iowa and Nevada Dems can doesn't mean they should...sure. But by the same token, just because you believe that the office of the Presidency is so important that you as a Dem should have a say in who the Reps nominate (nominate, not elect) doesn't mean you should.

[Dereich]

You know the entire reason we have a secret ballot in this country is voter intimidation, right? Like your boss saying "If you don't vote the way I want on Tuesday, don't come in on Wednesday" was a real thing in the late 19th century until the secret ballot. I see zero protection in a system like the Iowa Caucus against that.

Because apparently we can't pass laws barring employers from firing on the basis of one's primary vote.

Again, caucuses create a needless barrier to voting. There are plenty of people who might want to vote in a caucus but don’t have the time to take part in one. This argument is little better than Republican apologetics for voter suppression.

Once again, if you don't care enough about voting in a primary election to make time for it, you probably aren't the kind of person who should vote anyways.

You heard about the woman in Texas whose parents threw her out of their house for voting for Biden?  She made the choice to declare her vote, as is also her right.  But what if she actually didn't want to piss off her parents, and let's say this had been in an Iowa caucus scenario?  I guess you'd have to make the choice between exercising your democratic right, or becoming homeless, amirite?

See my response to Mikado.

You show up at your caucus. It looks like its going to be a close contest between Ronald Dump and Ritt Momney. You can't stand Dump and you're here to make sure Momney gets the nod. You see your boss. He's decked out in Dump merch. Of course he is; he's been loudly proclaiming his support for Dump for months. He sees you and starts waiving you over.

Do you really want to take the risk of not voting for your boss's candidate? He hasn't said you have to vote for Dump, but he'll be pissed off if you don't. You know that Koopa's Law would make it illegal for your job to fire you just for your primary vote, but how would you prove that? You're a decent worker but you're sure your boss could find something you've done wrong. He'd just say he fired you for that. Plus, even if you did have a case you'd still have the hassle of having to hire a lawyer while unemployed and going through months (or even years!) of litigation. And even if you weren't fired you know your boss can make things hell for you if he doesn't like you. No vote is worth that much trouble. You join your boss and and are counted for Dump.

That is the voter intimidation scenario. No words need to be said and a court case would be long and difficult to win. You can argue that that the employee didn't believe in his candidate hard enough if he's not willing risk his job to vote how he believes, but that's an insanely high bar for voters to have to face. What, if any, benefits do a caucus provide that make the risk of that scenario worth it? I can't think of any.

[The Mikado]

Not really about Nevada, but:

https://twitter.com/DavidMDrucker/status/1377231196753702913

If Dems get rid of IA and the GOP doesn't, it'll be a fascinating divergence in the early calendar. We've had differences in the early calendar in previous cycles (Wyoming going before NH on the R side in 2008 stands out), but not a MAJOR divergence.

Also, the GOP should probably have even more reason to get rid of Iowa than the Dems do.

GOP Iowa Caucuses, significant candidates:

2016: Cruz 28, Trump 24, Rubio 23, Carson 9
2012: Santorum 25, Romney 25, Paul 21, Gingrich 13, Perry 10
2008: Huckabee 34, Romney 25, Thompson 13, McCain 13, Paul 10
2000: W 41, Forbes 31, Keyes 14, Bauer 9
1996: Dole 26, Buchanan 23, Lamar! 18, Forbes 10, Gramm 9
1988: Dole 37, Pat Robertson(!) 25, HW 19, Kemp 11

The religious right has a TON of say in the Iowa Caucuses and it's massively disproportionate to the rest of the GOP. The GOP would probably benefit way more from abolishing the Iowa Caucuses than the Dems would.

[VAR]

Iowa has changed so much in the last 4 years, though. I’m pretty sure the less religious voters in Eastern Iowa make up a significantly larger share of the GOP electorate than they did in 2016.

[izixs]

Once again, if you don't care enough about voting in a primary election to make time for it, you probably aren't the kind of person who should vote anyways.

This bit, this bit right here... are you seriously going to claim that arbitrary barriers to people participating in the democratic process at any level or any corner of government is somehow a good thing? When Republicans are presently going all in on doing exactly that to try to prevent the voters they explicitly don't want from voting? Really?

I mean, your very argument could be stretched to any election. Can't vote in the general because you needed 5 types of ID and needed to show up between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm which happens be during the work day and you couldn't vote early because the early voting had been shut down and absentee voting was gutted to require 3 excuses and a doctors note? Well golly gee, I guess you didn't care enough about the election enough to vote, and thus probably shouldn't have. Because jeepers anyone who actually cares about having a voice in their government should have to jump through a bunch of ridiculous hoops in order to have their voice heard...

Yeah, its a ridiculous argument. And it isn't helping your case at all. A functional democracy should be pushing for more and easier participation in elections at all times, not less.

[Non Swing Voter]

Good.  Caucuses are really dumb.  People shouldn't have to wait around for hours to vote.  I got my covid shot in less than 5 mins.

[Joe Republic]

AB 126 has been scheduled for a hearing on Thursday at 4pm.

However, the deadline to pass it out of committee is the next day, and I haven’t heard if they plan to vote on it.  (The Leg Ops committee doesn’t *usually* meet on Fridays, and the rules state you can’t vote on it the same day it’s heard.)