They're a horrible anachronism that I'm so glad that are used by few states anymore. And I don't know about other states, but in Colorado, they were only in place from 2004 until 2016 because the jackwagons in the General Assembly wanted to save a few bucks. You see, if the state runs a primary election, they pay for it. But if it's a caucus... the parties pay for it.
It would be wrong of me to spike this football in the end zone. I wouldn't want to remind all of you about this thread the next time I make predictions. And I certainly wouldn't dare use this as an opportunity to whack old traditions that only exist for the purposes of nostalgia. That just isn't who I am.
I would love a federal law (or Constitutional amendment if necessary) to make all voting done by secret ballot and eliminate caucuses. Since it only applies to competitions within a party, eliminating caucuses shouldn't be something that most Democrats think would help Republicans or vice-versa. A long time ago, I read a story where Voter X, Voter Y, Candidate X, and Candidate Y would be together in public, Voter X would vote for Candidate X out loud, Candidate X would say "thank you," and the same would happen for Voter Y and Candidate Y. I don't know how long ago that was if any federal laws since then require secret ballots. Secret ballots have never been mentioned in an amendment. IMO states have too much control over their elections. The control comes from the Constitution, but I disagree with it. One of my objections is that third party candidates for president vary by states. IMO the candidates for president who are listed without needing to write-in should be the same for every state. I'm not saying it matters how these third party candidates do, but the current system is like claiming that some voters who want to vote for third party candidates are more equal than others depending on how easy the state makes it for third party candidates to get on the ballot. In Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes (1998), the Supreme Court made a 6-3 decision against Ralph B. Forbes. Forbes was a Conservative Party candidate for the House in 1992. He read about a debate on public television that only the Democrat and Republican were invited to. Forbes took the AETC to court, and the AETC won. Forbes appealed to circuit court and won. The AETC appealed to the Supreme Court and won Stephen Breyer voted with the five conservatives that a debate for one House district is not a public forum, and that when it is not a public forum a debate can exclude a candidate for having no chance at winning. A book I read criticizing the decision said that a candidate's chance of winning should be determined by voters and not guessed in advance by judges, and that if Forbes was in the debate it could have helped the Democrat relative to the Republican. The results were 50.2 percent for Republican winner Tim Hutchinson, 47.2 percent for Democrat John VanWinkle, and 2.5 percent for Forbes. The Democrats have standards for primary debates, but that's because of how many candidates there are. If Forbes was the only third party candidate who wanted to be in that debate, including him wouldn't have been a burden.
That's an interesting take. I have another one. Voters have too much control over nomination processes. Do you really feel you are more qualified to find the most electable Democrat or Republican for state legislator than your state party? Do you feel your fellow voters are?
We the people are stupid. I fully endorse this, but it may not win many voters if we ran for office with this.
So you want smoke filled rooms? Or state legislatures picking senatorial nominees and electing them again? I agree with your premise the masses are asses but having a select wealthy, non-diverse few pick again is not a good alternative.
Now more than ever, the Democrats should ditch ALL caucuses and primaries except Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania. I don't care what anybody else thinks.
Why not? The political parties in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, and Australia (among dozens of other democracies) all pick their candidates with virtually zero input from voters, and their democracies are doing just fine.
A caucus debate about major Pete being gay, I guess some people didn't know. #PeteButtigieg precinct captain in rural Iowa responds to a caucus-goer flipping out upon learning that he has a same-sex partner. It’s a masterclass in patience, persistence, and love. Bravo @nikkiheever #IowaCaucuses #cresco #howardcountyiowa pic.twitter.com/PhX7vRFh8X— Annabel Park 🇺🇦 (@annabelpark) February 4, 2020
It's an interesting thought that I've had several times since Nov 2016. The upside is that we wouldn't have gotten Trump. The downside is that we also likely wouldn't have ended up with Obama. Parties would generally pick safe choices, experienced choices. Boris Johnson is actually a shock to the British system, that was possibly inevitable once Brexit was voted on. And when you look at him, he not governing remotely radical under American standards. The other downside is that the President would always have the House (I would assume in an American parliamentary system, it would be the House picking the President, similarly to how the House of Commons picks the British PM), so it's harder to have a check on the President
Does anyone seriously think that a mere embarrassing technical foul-up would persuade Iowa to voluntarily give up the huge power of going first?
Mayor Pete destroying Biden for the moderate vote... And the socialists continue to support Bernie over Warren.