Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh yeah, and lots of reports of robo calls falsely telling people that the caucuses had been canceled. GOP is investigating what the source might be. Whatever the source, it was not very effective.
Well, I guess it's not an actual election, just a caucus for a private organization. So I guess they have every right to do that. That being said, from a moral standpoint, it is reprehensible that anyone would do anything to compromise the public's already extremely low trust in the electoral system. I think that's it for caucuses. No more. RPON is right, there are ways you could make caucuses work better (all relatively simple) but it's clear the GOP can't figure it out. The primaries we've held this year have had much fewer problems and have all gone smoothly. What a shame. I don't think this would affect any one candidate any more than any other, although it could on a statewide level if that particular caucus site strongly favors one candidate over another. We shall see. Even if it doesn't affect results, it's a real shame that citizens eager be politically active and ready to participate in grassroots democracy were denied that opportunity
This is awful, but I think this would almost favor Ron Paul voters. They tend to be more organized and might have shown up in force early. Who knows. It does stink.
Looks like it helps both Romney and Paul considering it looks like a Santorum strong hold.
It's time to put an end to caucuse and just use a primary. Seems like every caucus thus far has had some kind of issue.
It's not so much that a caucus is a bad thing. They just need to join the 21st Century and bring the things up to date.
The caucus format actually solves one of the biggest problems with elections: Idiot voters. You actually have the chance to make the case for your candidate and explain why they are the best man or woman for the job. If you could force voters in all elections to spend one hour listening to what each candidate stands for and what they're all about. If you have clear message, a clear vision and people like what they hear at the caucuses, then you get more votes.
There are many many demographics in the USA that blindly vote for whoever has the R or the D next to their name. It's pretty pathetic.
It's not so much that a caucus is a bad thing. They just need to join the 21st Century and bring the things up to date.
The caucus format actually solves one of the biggest problems with elections: Idiot voters. You actually have the chance to make the case for your candidate and explain why they are the best man or woman for the job. If you could force voters in all elections to spend one hour listening to what each candidate stands for and what they're all about. If you have clear message, a clear vision and people like what they hear at the caucuses, then you get more votes.
There are many many demographics in the USA that blindly vote for whoever has the R or the D next to their name. It's pretty pathetic.
+1 The caucus system clearly failed this time, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There can be problems with the primary system as well. In 1996 religious conservative Ellen Craswell won the GOP primary here for gov, as scads of liberals crossed over to vote for her in order to get the weakest possible GOP candidate. She lost in the general election in a landslide to Democrat Gary Locke. That kind of subterfuge is much less feasible with a caucus system.
+1 The caucus system clearly failed this time, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There can be problems with the primary system as well. In 1996 religious conservative Ellen Craswell won the GOP primary here for gov, as scads of liberals crossed over to vote for her in order to get the weakest possible GOP candidate. She lost in the general election in a landslide to Democrat Gary Locke. That kind of subterfuge is much less feasible with a caucus system.
That is true, and that same phenomenon cut Romney's Michigan margin of victory into less than half what it would have been without Democrats. It's not often that there is an effective, coordinated effort to do that, but it does happen and is far less likely in a caucus.
why would a Democrat care about how the Republicans run their system?
And the 2008 Democratic Primary had accusations of the party getting behind Obama to snuff Hillary out and the Democrats also disenfranchised Florida and Michigan (the 4th and 8th most populated states) for a petty reason...they were tired of the same old states always getting to vote first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
