Abolish the Caucus System

Hey, Mhu, your comments are right on. What's your email? I would love to know more about you and talk to you about promoting our respective blogs and/or web sites.

My web site is http://www.flipsideshow.com. My email is don@flipsideshow.com. I host a radio talk show named The FLIPSIDE Show (the flip side of p.c..

I lived a long time in CA including Santa Barbara, Malibu, Orange, and Hollywood. My kids grew up there. I now live in Austin, TX.

flipsidedon

prayer time!

Op-Ed Columnist – The Charlotte Observer
Blogs as Gamecock at
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock_0 , and
http://www.race42008.com and is Legal Editor for
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com and
http://thehinzsightreport.com/.

http://gamecock.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Sometimes, it gets lonely yelling at the corner telephone pole. ;)

Each party sets the rules for how delegates are elected [that's in each state]. If they want a caucus that's what they use. If they had wanted a secret ballot they would have chosen one.

Jevica, you didn't respond to my central point that a caucus requires a public expression of support for a particular candidate. One of the keys to our flavor of democracy is the secret ballot.

Caucus-goers are subject to peer pressure and majority rule. Neither are acceptable ways of electing a candidate in a federal election.

States may be free to do certain things in state elections but, in federal elections, the states ought not use a system that creates peer pressure and majority rule.

Although anecdotal, the following supports my point: a Hillary Clinton supporter in Texas expressed concern for the consequences of her standing up for Hillary in an overtly-pro Obama district. Her main concern was that she would be considered as a turncoat to her people by voting for Hillary. The repercussions could continue long after the general election.

I've lived in "Democrat Territory" as well as "Republican Territory," which means that one's party affiliation was publicly known and could impact the way in which one was treated, including by local government. My way of taking action against such nonsense was the secret ballot.

Her story started my thinking on the issue. I would not want to attend a caucus. Although the States can handle elections for State matters in any way they wish, I think it is time for the federal government to clamp down on this bastardized, balkanized method for conducting *federal* elections.

that the secret ballot is any more American than voting in the open as
almost ALL New England towns used to and many still do for their town
budgets, etc.

So the secret ballot as sacrosanct is historically erroneous.

Neither is more American than the other.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting

Everyonesfacts,not only did you miss my point, you are mischaracterizing the issue.

However you want to interpret what I said, my position is that the secret ballot avoids the corruption of peer pressure and majority rule intimidation on the voters, particularly the minority voters.

The caucus may be a great way to air out one's thoughts but it is a lousy way to cast one's vote.

town meeting?

I have to disagree with you.

The caucus actually promotes minority views.
For instance, if you support an unpopular candidate you or someone like
you gets to tell all the other people about the candidate and maybe by
persuasion of argument change their view. This might be the only time
some voters would ever hear about a Duncan Hunter or Mike Gravel for
more than a minute.

Calling it unamerican is ignorant as the link shows. The town meeting
pre-dates the Revolution and was used at the time of the Revolution and
has been used ever after. You might not like it, there might be a better
system but calling something that has been in practice, one could say,
widely, at the birthplace of the Revolution unAmerican is ignorant. The
anecdotal problem you suggest is not very real in New England. Every
body gets their say and then the next day your neighbor is still your
neighbor, so what if they opposed or supported raising taxes for the
schools. I doubt any thing will happen to the Clinton supporter.

If you can prove what you assert, I'd be more inclined to support your
argument, but from what I've seen this is not the case. Your strongest
case may be in places where there is the "viability" clause, but one can
argue that either way imo. Perhaps your voice is heard twice?

Is your version of America, your local version of how towns resolve a local issue and, quite frankly, foreign to most other places in the US. Just go a few hundred miles down I-95, and you'd get your tail kicked for supporting an unpopular, minority view, no matter who that majority was.

New England town hall meetings are fine examples of cooperation and airing of ideas, of helping persuade neighbors to your point of view, but only in an area where it is part of the norm to have such a thing as a town hall meeting. Perhaps because they are held as often as they are in New England that they find success.

I submit, though, that there may be many more people in your area, who do not come out precisely because they are concerned about "hurting" another's feeling or betraying a friend or whatever.

If I lived in New England, you and I might have a vigorous, and perhaps fiery, debate over a local issue. We'd probably agree on as many things as we'd disagree.

I know many people who just will *not* do that. They fear, or avoid, even the possibility of "confrontation." They will, however, cast their ballot, secretly. Should their fears disqualify them to vote?

Perhaps you didn't see my point about being a Republican in a Democrat town, or vice versa. So, where are these places? New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and, oh yes, California. Where I've lived. I'm in a position to speak with the concerned *and* to see the impact.

I'm glad that your locale is so understanding. That's quite cool. However, many other people in other places find anything other than secret ballot to be intimidating, even if it is their lack of people skills that generates perceived intimidation. It's a reality.

Perhaps the caucus ought to be followed by a secret ballot. One can speak his/her mind, and then vote without fear of consequences.

But don't call something that was practiced
before we were a country, during the Am. Rev.,
and to this day unAmerican.

I also think you give people less credit than
they are due. If the town meeting had been
established in the South it is less likely Jim
Crow could have taken place.

Anyways, TODAY's papers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/us/13hampshire.html?ref=u s

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080312/ GJNEWS_01/866887541/0/FOSNEWS0406