bully rampage the room.   the method is outdated, and didn't serve the purpose that it was intended.

It's all about using power and tactic to silence the opposition.  Using psychology to get into people mind.  there is nothing democracy about it.

Primary is the way to go.  The system need to be overhauled.

in blog.  They went to caucus in WA.  They tried to fight the Obama crowd.  They said they tried and did their part.  But it's not a good experience at all.

What a brave diary!  Thank you so much for writing this.  We live in one of the great democracies of all time, but without the secret ballot we are as bad as any fascist state.

Thanks for writing this. I'm appalled to learn that this is how "democracy" is practiced in some states.

It really needs to change.

YES, real primaries for a truer democracy.

I would dare them to bully me.

Hmmm..  Didn't hear a lot of people complaining about Caucuses before Clinton started loosing all of them.

I think we can all agree that a lot needs to be fixed about our nominating process. Caucuses are undemocratic and produce only a fraction of the turnout of primaries. Superdelegates are also obviously undemocratic. The decentralized process of choosing dates for primaries/caucuses is also broken, leading this year to a fight over whether we will include two states that contain a tenth of the population.

My question is how can we fix this? Does the DNC have the power to make things better? As I understand it, state parties run the caucuses, while state governments run the primaries. Can we actually get the governments of the caucus states to go to primaries? I imagine if the state govt is controlled by Democrats, a request from the DNC and Democratic bigwigs might be successful. But what about states at least partially controlled by Republicans? (This actually seems to include a lot of the caucus states--Idaho, N. Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota, Utah, Nevada, etc.)

Is it at all feasible for the state parties to hold primaries? It sounds like it could be a nightmare--there are probably generally a lot more primary precincts than caucus ones, and there's the process of getting poll workers, voting machines, and ballots, as well as actually counting the ballots.

I'm not sure what can be done. But it's a shame that in a year in which so many new voters are getting into the process, what they're learning is that the system is convoluted to the point of farce.

Ditto. I really think it's voter intimidation.

Note: I'm a furriner and don't have a full insight in how the US system works.

The caucuses are probably undemocratic, but they're really just part of the problem. And it's not exactly an election anyway but a party's candidate selection.

To make the process resembling anything fair the whole candidate selection system needs a bit of rethinking (along with the whole general binary thinking in US politics). The different ways of selecting delegates, the wildly varying times the states do their primaries, the business with party registration, superdelegates and so on.

At the very least it should be a single, national primary. Perhaps even a runoff system instead of primaries altogether.

I have to admit that I know next to nothing about caucuses. But your description does not sound like something I would like to participate in. Even though I am bully-proof having been raised the only girl in a large family. :D

I read online someone describe the Dem primary system as being designed by FEMA. I think it's an apt description. Which is why I'd like to see them redo the entire thing. It just shouldn't be so complicated. I tried to read some info about delegate portioning and I swear it read like the tax booklet- too complicated for someone who doesn't want to take it up as a full-time hobby.

We shouldn't have different systems in each state and different types of delegates - pledged, unpledged, PLEOs, super, whatever. All topped with a dose of formulas that delays results. It doesn't fill a person with confidence that this party can run a country, when they've created the most complicated primary system they could. The primary system used by the Democratic party should represent what the party values - democracy, accessible government, fairness.

There may have been isolated precincts where such intimidation happened, but Clinton supporters had every opportunity to win over undecided people or supporters of non-viable candidates.

Clinton supporters were just as likely to take advantage of caucus rules to game the system (e.g. by sending a few supporters to another group to make Richardson viable, thereby taking a delegate away from Obama or Edwards).

The initial Iowa exit poll showing Clinton way ahead of Edwards was simply inaccurate. Edwards did pick up more people on second choices than Clinton did, but Clinton didn't start out with a big advantage over him.

but that wouldn't solve all the problems with delegate allocation, super-delegates, etc. in our nominating system.

Obama is winning these caucuses because his campaign has invested more in building organizations in more states. Clinton thought this would be wrapped up on February 5 and didn't bother to build organizations in the caucus states (other than Iowa and Nevada).

I can't help but notice that once Obama started winning all the caucuses, the Hillary supporters immediately started trying to try and delegitimize them.  I can see it the Convention argument now.  "Sure Hillary has fewer delegates, but only because Obama won more of those evil, fascist, undemocratic 'party building' caucuses."

Well, even if I disagree with your motives, I must admit that, after the convention, we should reconsider the caucus system for the legitimate reasons of increasing voter turnout and secret ballot.  Reforming super-delegates should also be looked at.

Washington is the last of the big caucus states. Along with Colorado and Minnesota, it has the biggest distortion on the process--lots of delegates  with a lopsided split.

After this we have Maine, Wyoming, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

So far despite Obama's big caucus wins, the pledged delegate count and popular vote are not that far apart. With mostly big primaries left, there's a good chance that popular vote and pledged delegates will go to the same candidate, defusing some of the controversy.

Of course, that's until you start talking about superdelegates, Michigan, and Florida, at which point all hell breaks loose again.

I certainly agree overall.  Maybe Clinton can lead the charge on this.  But I certainly don't remember complaints when the Clinton machine was rolling over caucus opposition in the 1990s.

I'm surprised at how sore the Clinton folks are at losing in caucuses.

So what that caucuses give an advantage to activists? Primaries give an advantage to name recognition and fickle voters. And everyone starts running a year or more before the contests start knowing that they have to compete in both to win the nomination.

If Clinton did as well in primaries as Obama is doing in caucuses, Obama would be practically out of the race by now. She doesn't, and he isn't, and as much as you might want to, you don't get to change the rules when they don't produce the results you want.

i was at in Iowa.

And why should it: they were run by the local Democrats.  

you:

"WAAAAAAH! My candidate didnt win - the system must be broken! Its unfair!"

grow up.

Caucuses suck and are completely contradictory to a core democratic principle (the secret ballot). So I agree we should do away with all of them.

As for this specific election, it's to Obama's credit that he was able to recognize that organizing on the ground is the way to win caucuses and to take advantage of that fact. It's Clinton's discredit that she failed to come up with any strategy for the caucuses--what is Mark Penn doing with that $5 million he got from the campaign, exactly? Tactically that was simply a mistake.

P. S. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Obama is actually winning the popular vote for the nomination right now. Can anyone confirm?

Hillary is using "superdelegates" to her advantage. Obama is using "caucuses" to his.  

Hopefully for the next primary election we can get rid of both and just count every person's vote.

This diary and the comments should be sent to Howard Dean as DNC chairman.  This is no way to run an election regardless of who won or lost.  Voters should not be subjected to intimidation.  

Caucuses are great. Our party nominee should be decided by the most committed Democrats, not by lazy voters who turn out only if its convenient. Everyone has obligations. If you do everything to make it to the caucus it proves something about your commitment to the Democratic Party and its ideals.
And is it really such a bad thing that younger Democrats are able to push aside older Dems? Last time I checked, every great movement in our history was fueled by a punch of young kids.

Stop griping. Hillary doesn't win caucuses because her supporters are about as committed to her campaign as a republicans are for John McCain.

Sorry, that partisan Democrats don't like to support a pro-war candidate with a record of failure and running to the right of the party on important issues.

that Clinton supporters think Obama people don't have jobs or other obligations.  Pure comedy.  It's called "being more dedicated."  Many of Hillary's voters are low information voters susceptible to her ample positive reputation in the Dem party over the past 20 years. That's why she has a built in advantage in many primaries.

So... The Clinton crowd never complained about caucuses until she started losing every single one; never complained about Michigan and Florida voters being disenfranchised until she desperately needed the delegates from these "contests" where she was unopposed, as agreed upon by all; never complained about proportional representation in the primaries and caucuses until she won the bigger states and lost all others by landslides.

The Clintons have been running for president for nearly 20 years: they are aware of the system, have agreed to it, fully endorsed it, thrived on it until now. Of course, it's no surprise they want to change it now, but it doesn't work like that. And does anyone realize the amount of bullying that went into securing those Clinton super-delegates? And those tapped-out Clinton donors?

It's a GREAT idea to change the primary and general election systems, which are dreadfully undemocratic, and we have to hope that the Clintons will work hard at this after November, when they'll have plenty of time and opportunity to do so. They can find comfort, though, in the fact that under any kind of system, she is likely to lose the primary and even more likely to lose the general election.

Oh, I agree completely. These caucuses are a joke!!! Anything that doesn't use a secret ballot is not Democracy.

I cancelled my Democracy Bond with the DNC and wrote them and told them why, because I refuse to support a system that doesn't use the secret ballot to choose a nominee.

Great diary, its sad but true!!

We really need to get rid of caucuses.

Put aside the silly comments about college grads being somehow wiser and more informed than anyone else. That thinking is in itself deeply undemocratic, not to mention wrong. However, the bigger problem is that in the caucus sytem, many people CAN'T vote, committed, educated, or not.

There's a reason why most states open their polls around 7-8am, and close around 7pm. Somewhere in there, most people are able to get to the polls, and if they can't, they can at least vote absentee,  (Yes, I know at least one caucus state allows absentee ballots. Better than nothing. Baby steps.)

Caucuses may have once been a good idea, for small communities. But its time has past. Instead of friends and neighbors getting together to have a conversation, you have scenarios where people are intimidated, subtly (your employer is there) or overtly (actual intimidation).

We need to work on this mess for the future.