Display:


No caucuses (2.00 / 1)

Vote by mail, seems cheapest and easiest to accomplish.  I participated in an absolutely hellish caucus in Kansas, and think it's undemocratic and disenfranchises voters.  I'm fairly young, but I was standing in sleet in the cold for an hour, then waiting for an additional 2 hours to be checked against the voter rolls, then standing an additional hour for the caucus to get organized.  All told, some 4 hours on my feet, my legs and joints were in terrible pain.  Elderly people, the disabled, and parents with children were forced to abandon their right to vote because of it.  I've never seen anything as shameful.  Caucuses should not be permitted to determine any re-vote, and should be abandoned out of general principle.


by milton333 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus (none / 0)

It doesn't need to work like your caucus did ,though.

A caucus is party driven, even if you go in and vote just like a primary. New Mexico held this sort of caucus.

A primary is state driven.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus (none / 0)

Why is a mail-in vote funded by the Dem party not an option?


by milton333 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus (none / 0)

That is an option. It would be a mail-in caucus.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus (none / 0)

And do the people who jumped shipped and voted in the Republican primary also get to participate in the Democratic caucus?  That wouldn't be right.


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]