Are the Iowa Caucus Really Germane

[esmith]

One has to ask oneself if caucus's really mean anything in today's world. Ask yourself if you would be willing to go to someplace and set around for hours listing to arguments why a certain candidate should be selected as the parties nomination for office. In this case the the President. I for one would and will vote in my states primary by taking a few minutes to cast a ballot; However, if I had to make my desire known by going to a caucus and basically listing to one argument after another I would stay home.

Now, do you think that results of the Iowa primaries would have been different if all it took was to just cast a ballot? I don't know how many states do caucus's but I do know my state does caucus for the Democrats and ballots for the Republicans.

 

[columbus]

Caucuses are germane, but they are not final.
They are better than just voting though. Because who a voter's top choice is doesn't matter if the candidate is not on an official ballot. If Trump drops out, who will his supporters vote for in November?
The primaries are an imperfect system, but the ability to change your vote to reflect electability is a good thing, IMHO.
TOM

 

[esmith]

Caucuses are germane, but they are not final.
They are better than just voting though. Because who a voter's top choice is doesn't matter if the candidate is not on an official ballot. If Trump drops out, who will his supporters vote for in November?
The primaries are an imperfect system, but the ability to change your vote to reflect electability is a good thing, IMHO.
TOM

I really don't understand what you are saying. Primary votes have no standing in the national elections, as I'm sure you well lknow. So it really doesn't make any difference who someone voted for in the primary. Their candidate may or may not be a parties candidate for the national election.
A person still can make a decision on who to vote for whether in a caucus or on a ballot. All I'm saying is that caucus, IMO, are for political junkies. When it's time to vote for a candidate in a primary the majority of people already know who they are going to vote for. It may just be before they mark a ballot or at a caucus. If they like a candidate, IMO, they are more than likely to cast their vote for that candidate whether it is on a ballot or at a caucus. Where I see the problem is in the requirement to go to a caucus and basically waste hours debating each other on who to vote for. I would not go to a caucus, but I would go to a polling place and cast a ballot.
So, would you go to a caucus and listen to your neighbors arguments on who is the better candidate for hours or would you rather go to a polling place and mark a ballot for the person of your choice?

 

[columbus]

So, would you go to a caucus and listen to your neighbors arguments on who is the better candidate for hours or would you rather go to a polling place and mark a ballot for the person of your choice?

I would rather go to a caucus. I would prefer to make an important decision along with the many diverse people who share a stake in it.
I am very big on consensus driven decision making.

I realize that makes me a bit of a freak in the USA political system. I am not about winners and losers, I am about getting the job done.
Tom

 

[esmith]

I would rather go to a caucus. I would prefer to make an important decision along with the many diverse people who share a stake in it.
I am very big on consensus driven decision making.

I realize that makes me a bit of a freak in the USA political system. I am not about winners and losers, I am about getting the job done.
Tom

That would imply that you had not reached a concise decision on who you wanted and were willing to listen to arguments from others. That's your choice. I for one would rather gather all the information possible, sit down and weight the pros, and cons of a candidate and make my decision on my own.

I point you to the following article, since a caucus is nothing more than a committee
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-cohen/post_2462_b_993472.html

 

[metis]

I think it's a good system but I don't think it would work that well in more populous states. We also have to remember that getting even some last minute information is better than getting none at all.

 

[Altfish]

Caucuses are harmful to the parties. The problem being that to win the caucus you have to pander to the bat-sh*t crazy wing of your party which is so far removed from the general electorate.
Currently it is harming the GOP most.

In the UK it is not the same but the Labour Party's system leads to the same problem.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

In the republican history of the Iowa caucuses it's is rare for the nominee to win Iowa, in the Democratic party it's more accurate. The Republican base in Iowa is the evangelical vote at least 50% are, while the nation as a whole only has 13% Evangelicals. Something interesting is this Iowa Caucus made Marco Rubio the Establishment candidate, despite everyone previously felt Jeb Bush was the Establishment.

 

[metis]

BTW, the use of the caucus technique dates back to the old town-hall type of democracy found in the New England area back into the 1700's. Townspeople met at a given location, discussed the topic(s), and then voted then and there. On a limited scale it works, but it's very difficult to pull that off with large crowds because the intimacy of give-and-take is then mostly lost.

 

[esmith]

Maybe this says it all.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...l-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

 

[metis]

Maybe this says it all.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...l-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

Seems that your "nose" is quite one-sided. Maybe try both "nostrils" for once, and you actually might be surprised in what you "smell".

 

[esmith]

Seems that your "nose" is quite one-sided. Maybe try both "nostrils" for once, and you actually might be surprised in what you "smell".

Not my story, just giving a opinion from the Des Moines Register in Des Moines IOWA a chance to contribute to the thread. You have a problem with someone exercising their right to free speech? Or is only free speech granted to those that agree with you?

 

[metis]

Not my story, just giving a opinion from the Des Moines Register in Des Moines IOWA a chance to contribute to the thread. You have a problem with someone exercising their right to free speech? Or is only free speech granted to those that agree with you?

Don't be silly as you should full well know what I mean. And it is completely disingenuous of you to have me somehow trying to stop you from exercising your freedom to speak and post, and you should be ashamed of implying otherwise because that simply is not true, and I would hope that you would know that.

 

[esmith]

Don't be silly as you should full well know what I mean. And it is completely disingenuous of you to have me somehow trying to stop you from exercising your freedom to speak and post, and you should be ashamed of implying otherwise because that simply is not true, and I would hope that you would know that.

Remember what you said a couple of months ago about by you adding a funny "Smilie" and anytime I saw it I should take it as humor? So, if you will notice at the end of my post there was a "smile".. Will add another just for giggles

 

[columbus]

Maybe this says it all.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...l-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

The editorial does make some good points.
But I think it misses the big picture. The point to caucusing is to get develop a consensus view. Consensus driven decision making is often messy and imprecise. The Dems problem was having only two strong candidates in a virtual dead heat. But we still learned that Sanders is a much stronger candidate than he was getting credit for last Thanksgiving.
It was the Reps that needed a caucus procedure. How different would the outcome have been if the "also ran" candidates supporters had then chosen which of the big three winners was their second choice? We'll never know. But probably very different, and a more realistic view of the political reality.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Caucuses are only good at showing us who the party-core-demographs want, not the average voter.

 

[metis]

Remember what you said a couple of months ago about by you adding a funny "Smilie" and anytime I saw it I should take it as humor? So, if you will notice at the end of my post there was a "smile".. Will add another just for giggles

Got it-- sorry.