Super-Delegates vs. Caucus-Selected Delegates

There has been all sorts of fuss from the Obama campaign about what will happen if the Super Delegates overthrow the supposed will of the people.  I have another question, though, what if the caucus-selected delegates overthrow the will of the people?  More beneath the fold.

Let's start out with some basic facts.  A caucus is not an election.  Elections are organized so as to protect the right for equal and uncoerced participation.  Protections for that include:

a. A lengthy period of time to vote encompassing at least an entire day and part of the evening.

b. Opportunities for mail-in voting for people who are unable to physically attend on the day of the election.

c. A secret ballot.

Caucuses provide none of these protections.  They don't have to, because they are not elections.  Rather, they are opportunities for party activists to get together and select delegates.  In most cases, a small proportion of the electorate chooses to participate in caucuses, for a variety of reasons, including that others simply do not have the time to take away from work or family responsibilities.

So, basically, we have three sources of delegates:

1. Pledged delegates from secret-ballot elections accessible to all voters (i.e.,  primaries)

2. Pledged delegates selected by small numbers of party activists (i.e., caucuses)

3. Unpledged delegates from party leaders (i.e., super delegates)

Now, most super delegates are either elected officials, Democratic Party leaders, or, in small number of cases, leaders of key constituent groups within the Democratic Party.  Caucus goers, on the other hand, are local activists (and disproportionately high-income) who are accountable to no one but themselves.

Can somebody please explain why delegates chosen by small number of party activists accountable to no one represent "the will of the people" while super delegates who are elected officials, Democratic party leaders, or leaders of key constituent group do not?

I would put it this way: if one candidate has the majority of delegates from the primaries and the super delegates, but the caucus delegates overturn that majority, THAT is an outrage against the will of the people, because the caucus-chosen delegates are the least democratic group at the convention!  And even more so if the candidate who is denied the nomination is a female, since caucuses often make it difficult for women to either participate at all (because they are disproportionately involved in caregiving) or to participate freely (because they are subject to intimidation by male relatives or other caucus goers).  If that happens, I predict that women will riot all over the country!

•  Tips

  Tips for FULL democracy

  by markw on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM PDT

  •  I have a simple solution:

    Toss out all super delegates, and toss out all caucus delegates.

    Let the winner of the popular vote from primary states be the nominee.

    This election rigging by party regulars at all levels has to go. (I say as a party regular and former state delegate).

    by Pacific John on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM PDT

    •  that's the spirit

      let's just tell 20 or so states that they have no say in electing the nominee.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM PDT

      •  There is a solution here:

        have a one-day primary to replace caucus delegates with democratically elected delegates. Include MI and FL. Have the DNC pay for it. Dump the super delegates. Call it a day.

        by Pacific John on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:41:03 PM PDT

•  You make some good points about caucuses

  Yes, there are limitations to voting, and therefore they are less democratic than primaries. But any registered Democrat (or not, in some states) may participate in a caucus, whereas rank and file voters have no control over how their elected officials vote as superdelegates. So I still think it would be worse if one candidate went into the convention with more pledged/elected delegates and the superdelegates threw it the other way. But I don't see that happening...I think too many party insiders recognize the harm that would do to the party.

  by democrattotheend on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:16:39 PM PDT

  •  I generally agree ...

    If someone comes out with a clear majority of elected delegates, the superdelegates will go that way. It gets dicier if the spread is very narrow, and especially if there is a split decision between the elected delegate count and the total popular vote.

    You won't like this, but it is a political reality: If it is razor close, the superdelegates are going to put on big pressure for a Hillary/Obama unity ticket.

    by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM PDT

•  Dem caucuses are just as disproportionately

  female as Democratic primaries are (except for in heavily African-American states, where our racist judicial system has disenfranchised many men for drug possession [whites possess and use plenty of drugs as well, but they don't get disenfranchised])

  by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:16:55 PM PDT

•  I was at the Iowa caucus, and it was hardly

  small, filled with only party activists, and far, far more democratic than low information voters pulling this or that level.

  HRC and Obama both had offices in my town.  Edwards had no offices in the county.

  Obama and Edwards tied for first, and HRC got third, as she did all over the state.

  Stop the whining about not winning.  

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM PDT

  •  Au contraire

    My candidate is winning.  Just check out any delegate count.

    And I hardly think the Iowa caucus is typical in terms of the percentage of the population that participates (at least this year.

    But I do find it telling that you find a selection by relatively smaller number of caucus goers to by more democratic than primaries that typically bring much larger numbers of people, including more workers and caregivers, because some of the latter are, in your eyes "low  information voters".  Perhaps we should reinstate a literacy test for voting?

    by markw on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM PDT

    •  Low information voters ...

      Sometimes the classism around here just reeks.

      by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:30:58 PM PDT

    •  Is this sneering elitist still here?

      Even when he's not earning hidden comments, he's demeaning "old people."

      by Pacific John on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:34:55 PM PDT

      •  he's great

        respectful, not at all sneering.  

        by anna shane on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM PDT

•  Don't Complain, act.

  Do you feel that caucus delegates should be discounted as being unfairly awarded when compared to primary delegates?  If you live in a state where the Democratic party uses a caucus, and you think it is unfair, then get active in your state party and change it to a primary.

  Otherwise you are making a suggestion that we should toss the delegates that were selected via caucus.

  by Libesatva on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM PDT

•  Super Delegates should go

  with whichever candidate winds up with the majority of the popular votes.  No more electoral shenanigans ala Florida 2000.  Popular votes, not electoral votes =  popular votes, not delegate.

  by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM PDT

  •  i don't think obama would be THAT democratic.

    it would cost him delegates ;-)

    by campskunk on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM PDT

    •  They're almost exactly even in the popular vote.

      Yet Hillary has a considerable advantage in superdelegates.  If we allocated superdelegates by popular vote, that advantage would be erased.  

      I don't think you would be happy with that result.

      by a wolf raised by boys on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM PDT

    •  Not necessarily.

      On Super Tuesday, Obama lost the popular vote from primaries by ~1%.

      He overwhelmingly won all caucus states (except for NM, I think.) They only report state delegate totals online, so we don't know actual vote numbers, but I think that its safe to say that he made up a lot more than a 1% margin from those votes. And he most likely would have done the same if it was a primary instead.

      by Michiganliberal on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM PDT

      •  not to mention FL and MI

        If we looked at primary popular vote and not delegates there is no reason not to count Florida for sure, and maybe Michigan.

        by spmancuso on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM PDT

  •  Super delegates vs FL & MI delegates

    It's pretty funny to hear people complaining about super delegates deciding the outcome of the convention. Aren't those the rules? Because, these same people think that MI and FL delegates shouldn't be seated, because those are the rules.

    by EE Prof on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM PDT

    •  Well, the same people who argue

      against voices of two million Democrats in Michigan and Florida being heard is the same crowd who wrote long and angry diaries about students casting votes at caucuses in Iowa.

      Why should we grant the franchise to students in Iowa but deny them to Democrats in Michigan and Florida?

      Why?  Because students in Iowa supported Obama, and Democrats in Michigan and Florida supported Hillary.

      by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM PDT

      •  If they want to franchise voters in MI and FL

        then allow them to do do-overs.  The primaries they held earlier were not for delegates and shouldn't suddenly be declared to be for delegates well after the fact.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:30:12 PM PDT

        •  Okay, if the do overs are primaries,

          and the national party pays for it, Hillary will bury him yet again.  

          by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:32:14 PM PDT

          •  I don't mind primaries

            we could probably get one in Michigan.  Florida may depend on a florida legislature that may not be open to playing.

            I supposed they could be "caucuses" which are basically run like primaries (ie open all day, etc.)

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM PDT

            •  No caucuses.

              They completely disadvantage the working poor.

              by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:34:14 PM PDT

              •  No, they disadvantage

                candidates who cannot organize well.

                Winning the caucus-es as Obama has is proof of his managerial and executive talent.

                by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM PDT

                •  ridiculous

                  The people who organize Obama's caucuses won't be around when he's losing papers and pressing the wrong buttons while he's "present" in the White House.  

                  It's undeniable that there is a bias against working class people in caucuses.  

                  Obama's success in caucuses is more attributable to having more money to spend on them.

                  by spmancuso on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM PDT

                  •  Heh! Thanks for the smile . . .

                    Obama's ability to raise more money WITHOUT access to Bill Clinton's Rolodex or an 8 year head-start to prepare for this race also speaks well to his executive ability.

                    by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM PDT

                    •  right, that's another vital skill

                      Is that how he's going to balance the federal budget?

                      How about his ability to lower the price of his mansion so that he can afford it, you touting that, too?

                      by spmancuso on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM PDT

                •  How can you organize...

                  ... people who work the late shift to go to a caucus? Or their spouses who stay at home with the kids? Caucuses are a terrible idea. And while they happen to be to the advantage of Obama this time, and I support Hillary, I hope I'd have the strength to be against them even if I was for Obama.

                  by EE Prof on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:32:42 PM PDT

              •  well, you may not have a choice in FL

                if you want a do-over, and they aren't going to sit the delegates based on the primary they held earlier

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:39:38 PM PDT

          •  Then there is no argument

            The sooner Obama, Clinton and the DNC hold a kumbaya press conference to announce a plan to re-schedule MI & FL the better for all Democrats.

            by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM PDT

        •  Okay, let the DNC pay ...

          For do over PRIMARIES. They are the ones who got us into this jam.

          by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM PDT

  •  popular vote?!

    how dare you suggest that!~ lol!~

    i was listening to a discussion about the Super Delegates and basically how they should follow the state delegates. they never once mentioned the popular vote, which doesn't always fall in line with the delegates.

    by nycstray on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM PDT

    •  At this moment,

      25 percent of Obama's super delegates come from states that Hillary won; conversely, at this moment, 13 percent of Hillary's super delegates come from states that Obama won.

      Mr. Obama should be careful what he wishes for.

      by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM PDT

      •  Unbalanced Superdelegates

        I'm looking at the same data you are (I think) and I get the same numbers you do. However, after Tuesday when Obama wins VA, DC, MD, NE and WA, your numbers will look very, very different.  For example, Obama will certainly win DC, but Clinton has 11 DC Superdelegate endorsements.

        The truth of the matter is that most of Clinton's superdelegate endorsements came very early in the game when she looked like the inevitable nominee. The rate of those endorsements have slowed, and the rate of Obama's superdelegate endorsements is on the rise.

        by fcvaguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM PDT

  •  They will -- and sooner than many think

    I think you're going to see superdelegates slosh over to Obama from Clinton, a week before Texas and Ohio.

    That will be the end of the DKos Delegate Math Panic Diaries.

    by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:26:13 PM PDT

    •  Hillary is swamping

      Obama in popular vote.  The number of votes she received in Florida alone was two-thirds the number of all the votes cast in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina for all of the candidates.  Hillary already has an insurmountable lead in the popular vote of this party.

      by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:31:17 PM PDT

      •  Bullshit!

        That is simply not true and the super-delegates all know it.

        by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:32:39 PM PDT

        •  Bullshit

          It is true, and you know it.

          by DCDemocrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM PDT

          •  Post numbers and define "swamping"

            Because I say the popular vote thus far is essentially tied.

            by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:38:11 PM PDT

      •  Clinton is beating Obama

        by about 550,000 votes nationwide out of 18 and a half million cast (or about 3%) NOT including caucus states.

        This includes Michigan and Florida (and Clinton basically won 330,000 to 0 in Michigan)

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM PDT

        •  Cumulative Results from all states

          OK, includes a couple of caucuses, but not most:

          http://www.editgrid.com/...

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM PDT

          •  I just recalculated taking out MI and FL

            Obama leads Clinton 7,769,699 to 7,707,185 without Michigan, Florida, or most caucuses

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM PDT

      •  That's if Florida counted.

        It won't.

        And what's all this about the popular vote? That's not how we do this. If you want to lobby to change the rules you'll have to wait until next year.

        You're not going to change them by crying about it now.

        by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:38:06 PM PDT

        •  it will be in Nov

          so it's fair to look at where the votes went. you don't have to add them to the "official" total, but it would be foolish not to look at them as to how they may effect the GE. (imo)

          by nycstray on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM PDT

          •  You want to talk about the GE, then

            we can talk about Hillary getting beat by McCain, and Obama beating McCain.

            Give it up. You drew the short straw in debate class.

            Your technique can be perfect and you're still gonna lose.

            by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:44:35 PM PDT

            •  escuse me? i didn't draw any straws, TYVM.

              by nycstray on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:50:04 PM PDT

    •  Yup . . .

      Fire it up and WIN between now and March 4th and the supers will come.

      Their OWN political future hangs in the balance and they know it.

      by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        Won't it be sweet to see the last of all these panic delegate math diaries?

        "The sky is falling!"

        What crap!

        by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:39:56 PM PDT

  •  The candidate with a solid clear delegate lead

    But, the supers know politics better than we do. That is how they got elected to the positions that allow them to be named super-delegates.

    by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM PDT

•  Caucuses are an accepted way to elect delegates

  and are obviously used by several states to choose said elected delegates.  I'm also sure that county parties provide ways for those who may not be able to get to a caucus on their own to attend.

  Caucus goers, on the other hand, are local activists (and disproportionately high-income) who are accountable to no one but themselves.

  Is there even any evidence that this is the case?  Oh, and if caucus goers are "accountable to no one but themselves," wouldn't primary voters be the same?

  Meanwhile, while caucuses elect delegates based on at least what a reasonable number of people in a precinct believe, super delegates are allowed to vote however they wish, even if the complete opposite of their constituents.

  I highly doubt you're going to win an argument that caucuses are somehow invalid, much less one that tries to argue that superdels are more valid than caucuses.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:20:41 PM PDT

•  Caucuses

  It's a real stretch to say that they're less representative than superdelegates, who represent constituencies that take virtually no consideration of their elected officials' future potential convention votes.  Caucuses are deeply flawed and should be eliminated, but hundreds of thousands of people voted in them.  The delegates from there are in no way tainted.

  by Mikey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM PDT

•  Excellent points.

  The caucus system is terrible (remember what Howard Dean said about it before he ran for president).

  by EE Prof on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM PDT

•  HSAC -- Hillary Supporters Against Caucuses

  Because she really really sucks at person-to-person politics.

  by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:23:57 PM PDT

  •  I remember when Howard Dean was against

    caucuses...and back in those days, we all thought he was right. Of course now that certain former Deaniacs for Obama have figured out how to play the game, they've changed their minds...do whatever you have to to win. Funny how the new politics is beginning to look like the old politics so quickly.

    by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:28:47 PM PDT

    •  Things change.

      Hillary loses. Get over it.

      I note that Hillary Supporters have grown fond of bitching about rules that aren't favorable to their candidate. Like the rules imposed upon Michigan and Florida.

      Because, good or bad, they ARE rules. If caucuses had been stopped by the the Democratic Party prior to this election season, you would have a point. But they weren't. You caucus-haters didn't have enough votes in the party to change the rules and your candidate won't have enough votes to get the nomination.

      Get on with your life and quit whining.

      by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM PDT

      •  Sort of like the Obama supporters complaining

        about her lead in super-delegates.

        by spmancuso on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM PDT

        •  I'm not complaining about that.

          Obama will draw even in superdelegates or even go ahead, a week before Texas and Ohio.

          I LOVE superdelegates.

          by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM PDT

      •  So stop whining about superdelegates

        Since that's part of the rules, too. Incidentally, I wasn't whining, I was pointing out a little hypocrisy. Each side is playing to win, but one side (Obama's) has been acting like playing to win is somehow unfair/immoral.

        by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:00:48 PM PDT

        •  Whine? I LOVE superdelegates!

          Love them. You'll hate them in about a month.

          I guarantee it.

          by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM PDT

•  This notion that the caucus is awful

  is too much.  What is so what about meeting with YOUR NEIGHBORS to discuss, debate, argue about the future course of the country?

   

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:24:29 PM PDT

  •  There is an exquisite irony ...

    To Obama supporters' preference for caucuses. Caucuses are fundamentally an establishmentarian institution. They are designed to give a structural preference to "regulars," while holding a door open to people willing to become regulars themselves.

    I am not reflexively anti-establishmentarian, so I understand a role for caucuses. But it is a peculiar insurgency that finds caucuses to be its best electoral venue, just as it is a peculiar insurgency that gets endorsed by Ted.

    by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:48:31 PM PDT

•  First of all, women are not going to riot

  I don't think anyone's going to riot over how the nominee is chosen...the only question is, whose supporters are going to be miffed enough to abstain from volunteering, or who will be less-than-enthusiastic in getting out the vote in November.

  Your point about which delegates are "democratically" chosen is right on, though. Obama's college-student base has a definite advantage when it comes to caucuses, which also overrepresent activist groups. Most interesting, though, is how some Obama supporters wail about the superdelegates being backroom wheeler-dealers, while at the same time bragging about how they got more delegates from a caucus where Clinton got more votes. Clearly it's not about being democratic, it's about winning.

  by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM PDT

  •  No one will head for the barricades ...

    Outside of DKos. Most Dems like both candidates, and only in delusion here is it some kind of war for the soul of the party.

    That is why the two worst words for Obama supporters are Hillary/Obama, because for a lot of Dems it sounds like a dream ticket, while the converse is not quite believable.

    by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:39:53 PM PDT

  •  well

    Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the riots.  I agree with your points, though.

    by markw on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM PDT

•  It is about winning

  HRC got THIRD in Iowa after being here for almost SIX MONTHS.

  She lost.  She lost Super Tuesday.  Deal with it.

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:27:19 PM PDT

•  This Obama supporter believes

  the supers will do the right thing:

     Super Delegates. Most super delegates are, in fact, waiting to see which way the wind blows before solidifying their endorsements. As long as there is a candidate with a clear edge in both pledged delegates and voter support during the nomination contests, in all likelihood the super delegates will back that candidate. While, as both pledged delegate totals and dueling popularity metrics show, we have not arrived at that point, odds are that we will arrive at that point by June 4th, the day after the nominating contests come to an end. It does not have to be a large advantage, just as long as it is a clear advantage

     To the point: If Obama builds up a lead of 100 delegates between now and March 4th, and then manages a practical tie or even wins either OH or TX, they'll come down on his side.

  The above scenario comes from a comment at Marc Ambinder's blog.

  If Obama's supporters stay focused on the task ahead -- WIN more delegates tomorrow and Tuesday and next Tuesday and so on and then do well in Ohio & Texas -- then the any super who did not jump into the Obama camp would be faced with significant backlash from his/her own constituents.

  The converse is also true. If Clinton prevails in February and March and is clearly ahead in delegates as the primaries wind down the supers will move to her.

  = = =

  MI & FL must be re-scheduled to enfranchise the voters of those states.

  The sooner Clinton and Obama shake hands, hold a kumbaya press conference, and agree that the good of the party (and all of us) requires that to occur the better.

  And if one proposes to re-schedule and the other resists, the supers should pummel them in retaliation.

  = = =

  If the popular vote and delegate counts remain essentially tied AFTER all the primaries and the re-scheduled MI & FL contests, God help us all.

  ;-)

  by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM PDT

  •  This Clinton supporter agrees

    The super delegates are there for the sake of flexibility and institutional wisdom...there won't be any smoke-filled rooms (not least because of health regulations and the fact that most VIP's don't smoke).

    By the way, Florida has always held something like a caucus to elect delegates, though in the past those delegates were always pledged proportionate to the primary results...at least that's how I recall it being done in 2004.

    by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

    •  Tips for smoke-free smoke filled rooms!

      :-)

      by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM PDT

    •  One of the greatest sig lines ...

      Ever.

      There has got to be some fair way to deal with Florida, but fair is in the eyes of the beholder. The fairest would be a full do over primary, and I am not sure anything else is fair at all.

      by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM PDT

      •  I hate to say it, but

        The Republicans dealt with this much better (cutting delegates in half rather than completely cutting them out)...the Michigan primary is a disaster, since they actually got some candidates to remove their names and thus the results are completely useless. I'm not so troubled by the lack of a campaign...after all, it's not like we didn't get to see the debates in other states, plus we have internet access here, too. Since none of the candidates campaigned, it was a level playing field, and frankly I found the lack of campaign ads and pandering (i.e. Rudy Guiliani's wholehearted support of federal windstorm insurance) refreshing. No way is a primary do-over possible.

        by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM PDT

•  caucuses suck but

  to dismiss them as being solely composed of party activists is ridiculous.  All those first time caucus participants in Iowa were not party activists.

  by eparrot on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:48:29 PM PDT

  •  The Iowa caucuses ...

    Are unique, because of the spotlight and the outsized role they play.

    The real problem here isn't caucuses but delegates. We ought to hold our convention together with the national convention of the Society for Creative Anachronism, because the whole concept of delegates is a holdover from the fucking Middle Ages.

    If we want to have a system where we, as ordinary Dems, pick a group of people who will sit down together and select a nominee, we can do it, but we will have to completely change our political culture. If we are going to pick by popular vote we should pick by popular vote.

    by al Fubar on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM PDT

•  Caucuses are somewhat democratic

  They do involve a lack of a secret ballot, to be sure, and are only hold at a certain time so people working at that time can't vote.

  OTOH, they're better than primaries in certain ways.  For example, if it looks like your favorite candidate will lose, you can switch your vote.

  And you can be a delegate to the convention itself.

  This actually gives the cuaucus goer more potential power and influence than  primary voters.

  So I kind of see points with both systems.

  by Mumon on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM PDT