NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about it and I like the hybrid primary and caucus system that Texas uses. Primaries are the more democratic way to pick, but caucuses are a very valuable way of getting people involved and getting the community together. Also, I personally think caucuses, at least in theory, are a better way of choosing a candidate. You don't just go in and hit a button. You have to think out your decision and compare it to others.

Since you can't just have non-binding caucuses, you have to give them some delegates. So, I think the 2-1 split like in Texas is fine. You can vote and caucus, just vote, or just caucus. Whatever you want.

So, who's with me?

Primacaucus sounds like it would be some sort of robot of doom or maybe a monkey.

I heard it called the Texas Two-Step. I liked that name better.

My train of thought: Primacaucus, primacoccus, staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, hospitals, symphony orchestras (don't ask about that one), concerts, reminder that I have work to do.

Curse you. Now I'll have to go and do it. >.<

I've been thinking about it and I like the hybrid primary and caucus system that Texas uses. Primaries are the more democratic way to pick, but caucuses are a very valuable way of getting people involved and getting the community together. Also, I personally think caucuses, at least in theory, are a better way of choosing a candidate. You don't just go in and hit a button. You have to think out your decision and compare it to others.

Since you can't just have non-binding caucuses, you have to give them some delegates. So, I think the 2-1 split like in Texas is fine. You can vote and caucus, just vote, or just caucus. Whatever you want.

So, who's with me?
I think that the whole Democrat nomination process makes very little sense, especially the caucuses.

I think that the whole Democrat nomination process makes very little sense, especially the caucuses.

Gee, I wonder why you dont like caucuses CH....:rolleyes:

Gee, I wonder why you dont like caucuses CH....:rolleyes:
To begin with they aren't very democratic.

To begin with they aren't very democratic.

on what sort of measure, convenience? they look to me like they more closely approach a number of the motivating ideals of democracy, actually.

i like asians.

Caucuses aren't democratic because you can't vote as you see fit without fear of reprisal. Since caucuses require a public declaration, you need to be willing to state your vote in front of other members of your community.

My boss doesn't know how I vote. If I had to vote in a caucus my boss then would know how I vote. That's a big deal.

whats this, an admission of the existence of power differentials and their importance?!

anyway, that is only a problem because so much of society isn't democratic and doesn't protect important basic freedoms. that is a problem for those parts of society, not for public participatory and deliberative democracy.

Caucuses aren't democratic because you can't vote as you see fit without fear of reprisal. Since caucuses require a public declaration, you need to be willing to state your vote in front of other members of your community.

My boss doesn't know how I vote. If I had to vote in a caucus my boss then would know how I vote. That's a big deal.

Being a Texan who did the whole two-step thing yesterday (and by the way, I absolutely despise that cutesy name for it), I have to say the primacaucus has its upside and downside.

The upside of having a caucus is that it motivates people to come out and vote who might otherwise not do so, especially when you have two compelling candidates like Clinton and Obama. That boosts overall community involvement, which is never a bad thing. Considering the checkered record many American elections have had of late as far as voter fraud and outright cheating, I also like having a public vote; those are a lot harder to steal.

The downside of it is that you do have to make your choice public in a caucus, which understandably doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Also, caucuses are incredibly painful ordeals to sit through unless they're really well-run and organized. And in Texas, they don't tend to be. The one I went to was very disorganized, and took forever to get finished. I did get elected as a delegate to our county convention, though, so it wasn't all bad. ;)

Caucuses force you to think it out more. Primaries, you just go and hit a button. People can be easily swayed by brand names (Clinton/Bush) and not take the time to look at all the candidates.

Primaries are more democracy. Caucuses are more republic.

whats this, an admission of the existence of power differentials and their importance?!

anyway, that is only a problem because so much of society isn't democratic and doesn't protect important basic freedoms. that is a problem for those parts of society, not for public participatory and deliberative democracy.
Secrecy has value.

Secrecy has value.
Absolutely. One person, one vote, no harassment...no mob mentality.

I think there is a better system then what happened in Texas. I think that their should be information about the candidate available to voters at the polling place like in a caucus. When the person votes it would be in secrete as in a primary.

Secrecy has value.

sure. but it is not a trump value of democracy.

or to put it another way, which would be the more democratic way to run, for example, congress or parliment: 1) essentially no debate and secret ballots or 2) open debate and public voting?

No, you are not promiscuous...wait, what was the question?

Another problem with caucuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus):

In spite of a Democratic Party rule that states delegates are to be allocated proportionally rather than by winner-take-all, some individual caucus groups decide for themselves how to allocate their group's delegates -- for instance, by using a majority vote to determine which of the two methods to select. Discussion of party rules is not necessarily part of the caucus experience and few rules govern the actual process. Further, in the winner-take-all scenario, a group's delegate allocation may look unanimous and be reported as such, with the minority votes ignored. Naturally, the caucus system does not allow voters to cast secret ballots. Your personal information, as noted on the public sign-in sheet, including your date of birth (required) and other demographic information such as sexual orientation (optional), is visible for everyone to view if they wish.

I did get elected as a delegate to our county convention, though, so it wasn't all bad. ;)
That's awesome.

I like this idea. But then I tend to like mixed systems in general (a la a mixed proportional electoral system). IMO, more variety makes for stonger democracy, much like gene pools.

In fact, I think I'll add it to my electoral reforms wish list for thye general elections... :)

Caucuses aren't democratic because you can't vote as you see fit without fear of reprisal. Since caucuses require a public declaration, you need to be willing to state your vote in front of other members of your community.

My boss doesn't know how I vote. If I had to vote in a caucus my boss then would know how I vote. That's a big deal.
whats this, an admission of the existence of power differentials and their importance?!

anyway, that is only a problem because so much of society isn't democratic and doesn't protect important basic freedoms. that is a problem for those parts of society, not for public participatory and deliberative democracy.

Indeed.

Being a Texan who did the whole two-step thing yesterday (and by the way, I absolutely despise that cutesy name for it), I have to say the primacaucus has its upside and downside.

The upside of having a caucus is that it motivates people to come out and vote who might otherwise not do so, especially when you have two compelling candidates like Clinton and Obama. That boosts overall community involvement, which is never a bad thing. Considering the checkered record many American elections have had of late as far as voter fraud and outright cheating, I also like having a public vote; those are a lot harder to steal.

The downside of it is that you do have to make your choice public in a caucus, which understandably doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Also, caucuses are incredibly painful ordeals to sit through unless they're really well-run and organized. And in Texas, they don't tend to be. The one I went to was very disorganized, and took forever to get finished. I did get elected as a delegate to our county convention, though, so it wasn't all bad. ;)

Indeed.
And cool on your delegacy. So, to be mister soopy pants, for whom?

sure. but it is not a trump value of democracy.

or to put it another way, which would be the more democratic way to run, for example, congress or parliment: 1) essentially no debate and secret ballots or 2) open debate and public voting?

Indeed so. And, as I indicated above, a mixed system which balances both is even better.
(And just FYI, it's parliament. :))

Another problem with caucuses:

That's not a problem with caucuses, that's possibly a problem with the particular rules set for one caucus. (BTW, no linky, no trusty. What happened to you? You used to know that...)

Another problem with caucuses:

1) cite your damn sources, plagiarist.
2) which of the sentences you quoted without attribution do you intend to be "another problem"?
3) how is any of the things in that quote a problem with caucuses as a general concept rather than a problem of the specific implementation of certain particular caucuses? i mean, would you honestly claim that the cuban system of voting demonstrates a problem with secret ballots?

1) cite your damn sources, plagiarist.
2) which of the sentences you quoted without attribution do you intend to be "another problem"?
3) how is any of the things in that quote a problem with caucuses as a general concept rather than a problem of the specific implementation of certain particular caucuses? i mean, would you honestly claim that the cuban system of voting demonstrates a problem with secret ballots?
Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus)

1. that the rules were violated
2. that the broken rule may be applied in one district but not another
3. representation by proportion is certainly more democratic than winner take all.
4. secret ballot removes intimidation tactics

on what sort of measure, convenience? they look to me like they more closely approach a number of the motivating ideals of democracy, actually.



CH doesnt like them because his pet preforms poorly there.

4. secret ballot removes intimidation tactics
Secret ballots worked wonderfully in Germany in 1933.

anyway, that is only a problem because so much of society isn't democratic and doesn't protect important basic freedoms. that is a problem for those parts of society, not for public participatory and deliberative democracy.
Yeah, of course, we'll just overturn the entire economic and political framework of the United States. That'll be much easier than simply using private voting.

Yeah, of course, we'll just overturn the entire economic and political framework of the United States. That'll be much easier than simply using private voting.

Can we do that?

Does it take much effort because, if it does, I'm not interested.

Secret ballots worked wonderfully in Germany in 1933.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/c3922e57/i_see_what_you_did_there.jpg

Seriously, one thread without a effing reference to Germany?

Another problem with caucuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus):
In spite of a Democratic Party rule that states delegates are to be allocated proportionally rather than by winner-take-all, some individual caucus groups decide for themselves how to allocate their group's delegates -- for instance, by using a majority vote to determine which of the two methods to select. Discussion of party rules is not necessarily part of the caucus experience and few rules govern the actual process. Further, in the winner-take-all scenario, a group's delegate allocation may look unanimous and be reported as such, with the minority votes ignored. Naturally, the caucus system does not allow voters to cast secret ballots. Your personal information, as noted on the public sign-in sheet, including your date of birth (required) and other demographic information such as sexual orientation (optional), is visible for everyone to view if they wish.

1) cite your damn sources, plagiarist.
2) which of the sentences you quoted without attribution do you intend to be "another problem"?
3) how is any of the things in that quote a problem with caucuses as a general concept rather than a problem of the specific implementation of certain particular caucuses? i mean, would you honestly claim that the cuban system of voting demonstrates a problem with secret ballots?

Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus)

1. that the rules were violated
2. that the broken rule may be applied in one district but not another
3. representation by proportion is certainly more democratic than winner take all.
4. secret ballot removes intimidation tactics

OK, so it's from a wiki. The sources listed don't seem to support the rules violation claims. (Not to mention one is a blog...)
http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=266
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/caucus_potus

Furthermore, the claim is specific to one caucus only. A possible rules violation in one caucus is not an indictment of caucuses in general.

As for number three, a mixed system makes for a better democracy.

And, as for number three, FS already covered that.

That's awesome.

Yeah, I'm excited about it. :)

And cool on your delegacy. So, to be mister soopy pants, for whom?

I'll be an Obama delegate. He won my precinct 102-41, and since I was supporting him anyway, it only seems fair.

sure. but it is not a trump value of democracy.

or to put it another way, which would be the more democratic way to run, for example, congress or parliment: 1) essentially no debate and secret ballots or 2) open debate and public voting?
But the representatives are not voting on their own behalf; they're voting on behalf of the people they represent. The ballot cannot be secret and allow accountability.

But when a voter votes, how that voter votes can't matter to anyone else if we're going to maintain the principles of free choice, and the only way to guarantee that is by keeping the votes secret.

But the representatives are not voting on their own behalf; they're voting on behalf of the people they represent. The ballot cannot be secret and allow accountability.

a hypothetical for you - if the legislative body was picked at random rather than through elections, which of the options would be more democratic within that body?

But when a voter votes, how that voter votes can't matter to anyone else if we're going to maintain the principles of free choice, and the only way to guarantee that is by keeping the votes secret.

how a voter votes always matters to others. its sort of the point of voting. what is important is protecting people from improper incentives and consequences over their vote.

also, over-reliance on secret balloting means that we can't work with people to either convince them or arrive at a compromise or be convinced ourselves, because we just do not know what is driving their vote or which way they are leaning. and, frankly, it also encourages sloppy thinking and decision making. i mean, you've seen how poorly thought out a lot of people's opinions are. if they never need to engage in open discussion with others they have no incentive to engage in critical thought on political issues.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/c3922e57/i_see_what_you_did_there.jpg

Seriously, one thread without a effing reference to Germany?

http://diy.despair.com/output/poster71073982.jpg

a hypothetical for you - if the legislative body was picked at random rather than through elections, which of the options would be more democratic within that body?
Great question.

At first one might think that it would matter whether these people were chosen to represent the views of their community or to produce a statistically similar result to the population-wide vote by being a representative sample. If they're just a representative sample, make it secret to allow them to vote as they see fit without coersion, but if they represent their constituents they need to vote publicly.

But that's not right. The vote should be secret in all cases. Since the randomly selected representatives aren't beholden to anyone for support (since they don't need re-election), there's no incentive for them to vote as their communities would wish anyway. As such, let's make the ballot secret to reduce coersion.
how a voter votes always matters to others.
The marginal impact of a single vote is effectively zero. This is why most of the economists I know don't vote.
its sort of the point of voting. what is important is protecting people from improper incentives and consequences over their vote.
What's improper?
also, over-reliance on secret balloting means that we can't work with people to either convince them or arrive at a compromise or be convinced ourselves, because we just do not know what is driving their vote or which way they are leaning.
But that's not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes unpopular decisions are good decisions. Being forced to subject your choice to the scrutiny of those sloppy thinkers might make that choise less appealing.
and, frankly, it also encourages sloppy thinking and decision making. i mean, you've seen how poorly thought out a lot of people's opinions are. if they never need to engage in open discussion with others they have no incentive to engage in critical thought on political issues.
This isn't going to change, and it's why I oppose universal suffrage.

But when a voter votes, how that voter votes can't matter to anyone else if we're going to maintain the principles of free choice, and the only way to guarantee that is by keeping the votes secret.
Two wolves and a sheep are deciding what to have for dinner...

The marginal impact of a single vote is effectively zero. This is why most of the economists I know don't vote.
You get the right to complain.

This isn't going to change, and it's why I oppose universal suffrage.
Out of curiosity, what would you do to change it?

Out of curiosity, what would you do to change it?
We'd need a system that wasn't subject to the whims of the majority, nor required regular adjustment (because whoever adjusted it could be influenced by the whims of the majority). I'd suggest immutable laws administered by an impartial arbiter. A machine would probably work best.