I'll second the extended debate, but I'll dispute the race issue. In my precinct, which is about half black, half white, and a fifth gay, it was really representative. I saw my neighbors, almost all of them, and we asked after each other's children and dogs, and then we voted. It really did feel like messy democracy at its best.

Completely with you ECB - I'm a PCO in the Dem Party in the 36th, and was furious when I learnt that the caucus was the sole decider of delegates this year.

It is a lengthy, exclusionary process, and I can't help but note that every "party elder" I spoke to who extolled the virtue of "meeting neighbors" and "grassroots politics" was a pretty-well-off middle-aged white person who couldn't seem to grok that some people work on Saturday's and might get fired for having the temerity to ask for a day off to do something like vote.

We've got to change this system for 2012. It's antiquated and broken.

I don't know how you can say it excludes people. Lots of people showed up, sometimes 3x the previous caucus' numbers. If working people didn't show up, then who the hell were those people jamming into the "Labor" Temple?

The caucus is a reaction to the unwillingness of the state to respect the 1st Amendment, specifically, the freedom of association clause. The Democratic Party (and Democrats like me) are allowed to set rules for the partisan nominating process.

The state could fix all of this overnight by allowing partisan voter registration, i.e., folks have to be registered Democrats to vote in a primary (as is the case in many states).

So the complaining about not being able to make the caucus, or the downsides to the caucus system, well, take it up with the management.

Yes, caucusing has its problems.

For one thing, Washington's caucus process failed to result in a win for your candidate. Had it done so, you could at least support it in principle but, having failed to do so, you have no choice but to condemn it as unfair, racist, sexist, fascist, and evil. Because there is no "ECB" in "solipsism".

if you're a delegate lets work on changing this.

personally I wouldnt mind a change where it's half and half.

Yeah, it worked well in New England towns of 1000 people during a time in history that it was possible to "shut down" for 3 hours to meet and discuss the issues.

That said, it was fun. And people brought their kids.

I am very angry with Dem Party Chair Dwight Pelz, whom I saw on KCTS Friday night. When Enrici cerna asked him to defend the dems' decision to not count any of the primary votes Pelz responded "we think democracy is important enough for people to take an hour out out of their day to participate." That is a load of elitist crap. The Republican Party chair trounced him with a riposte to the effect that they count primary votes because "the people" asked for it and deserve to be heard. The GOP comes out smelling like a rose on this and the Dems are pissing off their base, what a farce. I am a Democrat and am very angry over this. Caucusing is exclusionary. Shiftworkers are the lagrest group of people disenfranchised by a caucus.

Upper Middle class and White?

Where do you live, ECB?

Maybe that's who turned out where you live - but not where I live.

And we had tons of kids at our caucus - including babes in arms (something like 6).

Really, maybe you should move to a more diverse neighborhood .... or at least a different precinct.

ECB is teh bomb when she is like this.

Sure, and caucusing worked here when we didn't have fast transport or communications, when you had to roll up local results to ever larger jurisdictions, and that meant travelling across the state to report your results.

But - as an Obama supporter - I noted lots and lots of people at my caucus who were completely overwhelmed with the process. And we had more than one person come in after 1:30 who were told that their vote didn't count because they weren't there on time.

If you are a delegate to the next level - PLEASE let the party know you think caucuses are broken and primaries are more fair.

There's not a thing you said that I disagree with. This being Slog, however, I'm sure about 80 people will find something to argue about.

I got a postcard from the 43rd, reminding me to caucus and telling me where to go to find my location. I'm not sure why no one else seemed to get this information in the mail.

I thought the debate over the candidates was the best part, that annoying that the rules are not supposed to allow it. My precinct had like 90 for Obama, 11 for Clinton, and 7 undecided. We spent about half an hour with each side talking about why they liked their candidate and responding to challenges from the other side.

It was pretty fun and the really cool thing was that it convinced a few undecideds to come over to the Obama camp giving us one more delegate.

The only appeal for money we had was before the whole thing started on guy talked about the new African American History Museum opening up and a women invited us all to the neighborhood potluck.

What I like about caucuses is that it makes people actually work a little for their democracy. Lots of people in this world have to put up with substantially more then a long meeting to express their opinion.

Voting in the general election is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Helping a party select its nominee is a privilege subject to that party's whims.

Parties are private organizations with First Amendment rights to control their membership. Caucuses are supposed to be exclusive, because the parties want to exclude non-party-members. Non-Democrats should have no more voice in selecting the Democratic nominee than non-shareholders or non-members have in selecting Nordstrom's Chairman of the Board or the President of the YMCA.

Similarly, the public should in no way be required to pay for the parties' primaries or caucuses. The parties should hold nominating conventions on their own dime, composed of actual party members. It would be cheaper for everyone, and the candidates would actually stand for something instead of some consultant's half-baked notion of "electability."

I agree with you in terms of the logistical problems caucuses present for many people in terms of realistically being able to take time off; that isn't in line with Democratic values. My feelings are a little more mixed in terms of your point on discomfort with expressing one's political views in public, however. It seems to me that the nomination process should be more open and public, more about people discussing their views, compromising, and making a decision together. I can see where that would be intimidating for the diffident, and it certainly sounds like the current red tape gets in the way of that ideal, but I think there's still a lot to be said for that aspect of the process.

Will H/A: 200,000 people turning out statewide is higher than usual. But do you really think that's high compared to the number of registered voters in the state (to say nothing of the number of people who vote in a typical primary)?

Will Seattle: North Cap Hill--as I said, it was representatively white and upper-middle-class, i.e. like the neighborhood. But folks who lived in less white, upper-middle-class areas reported that their caucuses were less representative.

boring?
serve alcohol...problem solved?
disinfranchising? allow people to cacus where they work as absentee cacusers...minus the booze

Aw, and here I was bracing for a story about those awful Obama supporters. I lose.

Some folks in our precinct submitted a resolution to get rid of the caucus system, and apparently others did the same - wonder how far that will go. The 50-50 system that the GOP has at least tries to strike some balance between giving the general public their say and permitting the most dedicated some control over their own party.

obama supporter and agree completely with erica - and el ganador, inkweary and others above.

i didn't have to work on sat, but did need to bring my 6 yo or otherwise disenfranchise a babysitter - and my husband couldn't go because he was taking our other 2 kids to their farflung basketball games at 12 and 1 (do we tell them voting is more important than the commitments they made to their coaches and teams?

Wonder what planet is Dwight Pelz living on... Should the whole state shut down on caucus Sat?

am curious what the pros and cons are to the repub (1/2 the delegates from primary, 1/2 from caucus) method are but don't have the mental bandwidth to ponder. given that primary seems here to stay and state dem party is unwilling to

I'll second that elechos @9

I'm pleasantly suprised there aren't more accusations of sour grapes to ECB in the comments so far.

She's right. Not only are these caucuses exclusionary, they're also highly prone to manipulation. (See WA GOP caucus.) Not so much of an issue for the Dems this time around because of the universal landslide.

Another beef about these caucuses: Prior to disbursing to our precincts, the Dem Party official running the Prospect Church venue gave a spirited pep talk about the "grass roots" nature of the caucus.

What bullshit!

You've got a half-hour window to show up to vote, and if you work, etc... well, sucks to be you.

Someone needs some cheese to go with that whine.

I find the caucus system to be way more democratic than primaries. The way things are set up now, if you don't tick the party box but you vote in party elections you ballot goes out the window. That's not democratic *at all*.

Furthermore, I have no idea who gets to be a delegate if this was a straight primary state. With caucuses, it could be my next door neighbor AND I get to vote for him or her.

Finally, complaining about the crowds is ridiculous. The venues accommodated people just fine last time and I imagine were chosen based on past performance. The meager turnout last time is the more glaring offense to democracy. Maybe if we'd had that kind of turnout we would be in this Bush pickle now.

Agreed that the caucus system is far from perfect. Saturday's events, however, felt like a big step in the right direction.

The dissemination of information is at the root of all revolutions. There is not a single person I have spoken to that did not feel empowered by their caucus, even in light of all the problems.

The system was overwhelmed by the participation of the people. That is some mighty powerful stuff.

@ 16

High compared to registered voters in the state? No. But what we're talking about here is a political party's delegate nominating procedure, so it's not about "all registered voters." It's about self-identifying Democrats having their say in who they want as a nominee.

All of these complaints about the process being long and boring are moot. At a caucus, you are allowed to sign in, enter your vote, and LEAVE. It took me five minutes to do that, and then I stuck around for the helluvit.

Seriously. Just five minutes.

Of all the problems with the caucus system (and there are many,) I think that allowing only one person a single minute to speak for each candidate is one of the biggest.

There must be a limit, but choosing only the first person to get their mouth open and the caucus leader's eye to represent led to some pretty disingenuous and disappointing public speaking. For a process that takes half a day, it just seems silly to compress all the actual "democracy" into less than 3 minutes of conversation. After all, they had plenty of time to ask for money.

You're quite correct, ECB. If they insist upon this process, the rules should be loosened to allow for more debate. Otherwise, there seems to be little reason to choose delegates by caucus rather than primary.

Five minutes, is great, Sam, UNLESS YOU HAVE TO WORK.

There were hundreds of people in the neighborhood around my caucus who couldn't attend BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING. Store clerks and so on. The Democrats don't care what they have to say; them and a few million around the state. Not very democratic of them, is it?

And the argument that "well, I went, and it was so empowering" is an argument that as long as I get what I need you folks can go fuck yourselves. Also not very democratic.

It seems to me that a good system would be one where EVERYBODY got to vote.

For once we are in total agreement, Erica.

@ 25

During the scripted "let the caucus attendees argue amongst themselves" time, I gave three speakers from each side a minute to make their case. THis is how they do it at 36th LD meetings, and it seemed like a pretty good idea at the time. I had never run a caucus before, so I wasn't going to be a stickler for the rules on the less-important stuff.

Oh, and by the way, I'm an Obama supporter. But I'd rather hear from all of my fellow Democrats than score a cheap victory like this one.

@27, that's the way we did it, too, and I have to say that none of the speeches, including mine, were interesting or informative or inspirational in any way. And no one switched their votes (except the Edwards and uncommitted, who were just waiting to see if they had enough for a delegate, which they didn't).

I am really tired of The Stranger staffers posting anti-caucus hooey. There is nothing wrong with the caucus process.

What is wrong: We don't get 1 day off every 4 years to caucus. We don't even get 1 day off to vote for President every 4 years. That is fucked up. That is what disenfranchises people, not the caucus system itself. I really hate when arguments are blurred and the negatives related to organization are attached to the caucus system.

What is wrong: People are not being educated about the caucusing process. Therefore, when they show up they are confused by what is a very simple procedure. And then the confused people complain that the caucus is fucked. It isn't. The fact that you weren't taught about it is fucked. The fact that you didn't do the research to learn about it is fucked. I never understood the caucus process before this year, and I took the two hours or so over the past two weeks to do a little bit of research and educate myself so I was prepared come caucus time.

What is wrong: People are clamoring for an anonymous ballot approach to holding a party CONVERSATION about who should be our nominee for President. You cannot have a conversation when you're mailing in a ballot. The caucus system is highly democratic and highly engaging. Official Stranger voices should acknowledge this and stop tacking organizational problems onto the caucus system itself.

"Taking less time" and "allowing more debate" aren't jiving to me. Sorry, ECB, I think we'll have to take a best case scenario on this one. Allowing more people to drone on and on would only worsen the time constraints. Here's how mine went:

Tons of people showed up, babies everywhere. Hugely white and yuppie, but big surprise there (hello, north Seattle). No one wanted to whine about Bush, as it would have been annoying and taken too long, and no one wanted to talk about fundraising. The groups got together and chose a speaker, which took about five minutes (there was actual discussion), and both speakers talked for way longer than their alloted minutes. Both were articulate and were well received. It was kind of fun and a nice atmosphere.

Elapsed time (if you came a bit early, voted, and left): 5-10 minutes.
Elapsed time (if you stuck around): about two hours.

Honestly, it would have taken even less time if the very nice and well-intentioned volunteers had been the slightest bit competent at organizing paperwork. Or known what they were talking about. Everyone else knew the drill.

That said, if this is the only way a Democratic vote will count and people can't get off work, that needs to change. But it's a fun process and way more informative then checking a box.

One more thing, Erica: the pitch for money at any political event is inevitable. It sounds like yours was poorly executed and not well-received.

That was not the case in my neighborhood. The 34th District Dems raised $29,000 at the caucuses on Saturday.

That is an outrageous and powerful number, and one I'm sure was echoed statewide.

I'm reassured to learn that the one speech each was the rule (so that we weren't cheated in my precinct), but I think the rules really ought to change. It wouldn't have to take more time: How about get into groups as you get there, and start exchanging one minute speeches as the initially tally is counted. Speeches can last for 10 minutes max past the end of the tally. Then it's time to mingle and register vote changes.

Doctiloquus @30: your argument is worthless. A day off? Do you think the entire state can take a day off? Do you think that hospitals close on public holidays? Do you think that hotels, grocery stores, police stations, fire stations, newspapers, all close on holidays? Do you think no one is working on Christmas Day?

Seriously, I don't give a flying fuck how terrific your caucus was AS LONG AS SOME PEOPLE AREN'T ALLOWED TO GO. Currently, it's a LOT of people.

And as for submitting absentee or proxy votes: how is that different than just sending in a ballot? You don't get to hear the arguments, you don't get to talk to your neighbors, you don't get any of these thrilling benefits. So why not just make it a primary?

like others, i was disappointed at the absence of any snacks or beverages. i think alchohol could skew voting and raise tensions among opposing viewpoints, but coffee would've been nice. juice? donuts? a wheel of brie? something!

my precinct (at the border between cap hill and the CD) had a whopping one african-american representing. i was the chair and let more than two people speak for their candidate. i hope i don't get in trouble for that. it was my favorite part of the day, even if it did make things go on forEVER.

we also raised a lot of money, fwiw. nobody really hesitated when it came time to dig into the wallets. go 1863!

much fun as it was, i'd still love to just send my ballot through the mail next time (and have that vote count).

Hey Kerri @32:

I heard at last count that the 36th Dems raised ~$25,000, which is awesome - since IIRC, it cost them about $19,000 to put the caucuses on.

A net profit of $6,000 for an all volunteer org is good news - since that's how they had the cash to mail out reminder postcards and whatnot.

People need to get that the local LD Dem orgs is where it's at - and LD Dems do not equal State Dems do not equal National Dems. All three are competing for your vollie time and $$$.

@31:

JIBE.

not jive.

Guys, being a delegate does not empower one to change the caucus process. Being a delegate allows you to run for delegate at the next level, and cast a vote on resolutions at the county convention. I can pretty much guarantee that, if any resolutions regarding changing the caucus process go to county, they will be ruled out of order. The county convention is not empowered to change the process. The legislature has to do that.

Our late lamented open primary was ruled unconstitutional owing to complaints by the major parties that it allowed non-party members to take part in choosing the party's nominee. The state Supreme Court agreed, and threw out the open primary. If people truly hate caucuses - and I'm no fan of them myself - then we need to go to registration by party in order to vote in a primary. But the delegates can't do that. The legislature has to write the appropriate bill. Bug your legislators.

By the way, if you only signed into the caucus and left, your vote doesn't count. You had to also sign in at your precinct.

I disagree that this is all about real registered Democrats picking their favorite candidate, whom they will then offer to the country at large. This is about putting the right kind of President in the White House. It is about winning. We need a President who won't instigate wars, or allow entire cities to drown, or trample the constitution. If opening up to independents is the most likely strategy to lead to success, then so be it. Choosing an overly partisan Democrat who can't win does nobody any good at all.

As an Obama supporter, I don't worry what would have happened in an alternate reality with a primary instead of a caucus. I don't think there is a natural law that says Obama can only do well in caucus states. It's the other way around: Obama looked at the calendar for the whole nationwide process and his team chose a strategy that worked best with the rules he was given. Clinton's team has made choices that, so far, haven't been as successful.

If there had been lots of primaries in an alternate reality, Obama would have figured out how to make that work for him, and the Clinton team would have found a way to screw it up.

Besides what Erica suggested two other things the Stranger specifically can do to make it better: Weeks ahead of time, encourage readers to volunteer to make their own caucus a success. And advertise what a meat market the caucuses are. Good grief, I had been single...

In COMPLETE agreement with #30! And, kudos, to The Stranger for doing its best to do just that -- educate people about how the caucuses work.

My caucus ran very smoothly, and many folks got to meet their neighbors and show support for their candidates.

I believe that the Dems have NEVER used the primary to pick delegates (but ECB can confirm with the Party HQ on that).

We in the 34th paid for all of the locations ourselves, had volunteers prepping for them and running them, and plan of following up with our attendees to get them involved in the general campaign process and in promoting Democratic values.

If you're angry about the process, then complain to the Sec. of State who confused voters with his support for the primary. Complain to your legislators that we are wasting nearly $10 million in taxpayer money for this beauty primary. And ask for a primary that would allow voters to register for a party and receive ballots to vote for that party. This would keep non-Party folks (and, yes, that includes those of you who are proud to stay Independent) from choosing Party nominees, and would allow the parties to capture voter contact information to continue organizing locally.

ECB, on the race issue:

In my precinct, Obama got 6 delegates, Hillary 2. So with alternates, Obama needed 12 volunteers, Hillary needed 4. Many people enthusiastically asked to participate.

Obama's delegation from our precinct: two elderly Black women, two elderly white women, one 50-something Asian man, one white 50-something woman in a wheelchair, a 20-something Black woman, and five white guys in 30s and 40s, three of whom were very proudly gay.

Hillary's delegation from our precinct: Four white women in in their 30s or 40s.

Wanna run your argument by me again?

@27

Right. So... they should change the rules to sanction your actions for every precinct.

The caucus process is billed as a means of fostering increased dialogue between constituents. It doesn't do so in any way that seems to make up for its tendency to disenfranchise those who cannot attend.

I think you did the right thing.

My precinct voted overwhelmingly for the candidate I support. Were I a Clinton supporter, I'd have been dissatisfied with the argument presented in her favor and would've wished the opportunity to speak. In the end it went 3-1 Obama, but could've just as easily gone 2-2 or 2-1-1 on the strength of a well formulated pro-Clinton position.

Need to challenge the kid/childcare comment in this post--

I have three of them: 10, 8, and 5. My spouse was out of town for the weekend, but I took 'em all to the caucuses anyway. I wanted to be there, and so did they (the 2 older ones, anyway).

What a great civics lesson. They have been following the race b/c mom & dad have CNN on every night, and this weekend they got to be involved. They had a piece of paper to keep track of the tallies, and when they eventually got bored they ran off to play with other kids from the 'hood who were also there.

They're not getting anything close to that level of instruction on this topic in the classroom. And I'm guessing they'll remember this for the rest of their lives.

My main complaint is the crowding. Most of that could have been avoided. The Democratic Party could have easily done pre-caucus polling (and at least one was done that I've seen) to predict turnout numbers. They should have at least set aside enough room for that prediction. Given that caucus/primary participation/voting has been up all over the country during this election cycle, they probably could have safely then added 1.25 times more space assigned to each precinct and people would be more comfortable.

Relying on data from the 2004 cycle -- when the race was still going for the Dems but it wasn't too close by the time it was our turn to weigh in -- is incredibly short-sighted. The "one speech per side" rule probably also assumed a precinct size of, say, 10-20. My precinct was 69 people.

Why don't we get one day a year off to vote for our UN candidates?

I never voted for Ambassador Bolton.

We should all get a day off so we can vote in our International Elections.

(now where did I put my tongue in my cheek?)

oh, and they did double space from 2004 - but turnout was even higher, @45.

Speaking as an upper middle class white man, I think we should move the caucus to Morton's or the Union Square Grill next time around.

@46, what was the difference between predicted turnout and actual turnout, though? How unexpected could high turnout really have been, given all the signs and polling that suggested a record turnout? Was the polling wrong? Was it a matter of the party not having enough money for the caucus? A shortage of volunteers?

We (multiple precincts) were all in a big elementary school cafeteria, and it was very hard to hear either of the speeches given in our group and the instructions/announcements from our appointed precinct chairperson. If we had more space between groups, that would have been much better.

I think part of the problem is that the primary is funded by the state, and the caucuses are funded by the legislative district--and if the LD doesn't have the $$ to get organized, the caucus-goers are sort of screwed.

My precinct was pretty well-represented as far as race goes, but I'm in super-white Ballard anyway. I liked having the kids there (except for the screaming 2-year-old whose dad thought it was totally cool to keep her in the crowded gym where nobody could hear the caucus chair over her screeching instead of taking her outside).

However, I was not thrilled with the people who decided to speak for the candidates (why volunteer if you don't know WTF you're talking about??), and wish there was at least one "rebuttal" speech allowed per candidate.

Anyway, I'm a delegate again, as I was in 2004. But this time my co-delegate is effing hot. I guess that's in the Yay!Caucus! side.

I thought all you had to do was sign in and write down your preferred candidate. I didn't stick around for what looked like a group therapy session. (Once I saw the chairs in a circle I knew I had to leave.)

Your caucus was overwhelmingly upper-class and white because that is the predominant makeup of Seattle proper. Go to Kent or Everett, and you may find a somewhat different makeup. At my caucus, held at a retirement home, there were way more old people and middle-aged women than any other group, and the room went 70% for Obama.

I keep saying this on every thread. If people want the Democratic Party to select its delegates with a primary instead of a caucus, it will take partisan registration to get it.

We have been around and around the topic of caucuses on the Slog for weeks now, and there are still people here who should know better referring to "registered Democrats."

I mean you, Elenchos. There is NO SUCH THING as a "registered Democrat" in this state. Choosing a Democratic primary ballot or attending a Democratic caucus is NOT registration because these are party affairs, NOT elections.

Give us partisan registration or STFU.

If you got your partisan registration, we'd get ideologues who would be doomed to lose. You'd get to stand on principle and feel good about being right, but you'd also be out of power. It's better to compromise and be in power than to have your perfect system and lose the White House.

dreamboat captain, lets not remind seattle that they are 75% white. we try to promote our diversity here even if it is largely a myth within seattle city limits, and even more broadly, within king county.

I can't give you anything, Ivan; the decision's not up to me. I'm not a Politburo insider. If it was up to me we'd have a primary election, and if that means party registration, that's fine.

Fnarf @ 55:

"Politburo insiders" don't make those decisions here in WA. State committee members are working stiffs like everybody else, and all volunteers.

But at least you understand what the deal is.

Elenchos @ 53:

Maybe I am a dumb shit, but I do not have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. I don't see your scenario necessarily developing in the 49 other states that have partisan registration.

For presidential nominating, I still like caucuses over primaries depsite their messiness. Regarding the following points:

1) Excluding people who aren't exceptionally well informed: If you're in this group, do us all a favor and stay out of the nominating process. We need brains and/or passion, and if you don't possess those, we'll be happy to tell you who to vote for in November.

2) People who have jobs during the caucus: I agree wholeheartedly with ECB that this needs fixing; and implementing an absentee process shouldn't be rocket science.

3) People who have kids: See 2 above, especially for parents of babies. Although we brought our 11yr old, and he took pictures, wrote down noteworthy quotes and generally had a blast of a civics lesson.

4) People who feel uncomfortable publicly revealing their preferences: See 1 above.

Overall, despite the chaos, I had a great time, improvised a 60-second speech in front of my neighbors for Hillary, and became the LONE Hillary delegate from 36-1740. Didn't plan to give a speech, but someone from our precinct needed to. I even swung 3 uncommitteds to Hillary-- how cool is that! Can't do that at a polling place. And I was leaning toward Obama as recently as last week. ECB, you're more persuasive than sloggers give you credit for.

Totally agree with you that if we can't ditch the caucus altogether, we at least need to figure out a way for people who need to work to be able to vote by proxy.

When you listed your candidate on Saturday, you were also asked your race (as an optional field). Can you get the actual numbers of different race turnouts from the Dems -- I'd be interested in seeing those. I hope those are available and published soon.

The racial mix at my Beacon Hill/Georgetown caucus seemed proportionate to the population.

Photos:

http://midbeaconhill.blogspot.com/2008/02/beacon-hillgeorgetown-caucus-at-van.html

olo @ 14

Similarly, the public should in no way be required to pay for the parties' primaries or caucuses. The parties should hold nominating conventions on their own dime, composed of actual party members. It would be cheaper for everyone, and the candidates would actually stand for something instead of some consultant's half-baked notion of "electability."

Not only should the general public not be forced to pay one dime for party nominating conventions but those conventions should also have no legal standing for determining who gets on the ballot. Rather candidates should be required to get say, 15 percent of the signatures of all of the registered voters who are eligible to vote for the office they are running for, to get on the ballot. What? You say that you're your party's nominee but you don't have those signatures. Tough shit.

While we're at it forbid any mention of party affiliation on the ballot. Why should political parties be given any legitimacy by the state over any other special interest group?

Selection of candidates in the general election would require reworking since you could have a situation where someone like John Edwards gets enough signatures to get on the ballot but isn't his party's nominee. Instead of the current plurality system something like approval or cumulative voting could be used. Now this would be a lot more democratic than any caucus system, open or closed, or any primary system, open or closed.

@34 Fnarf: You seem to be arguing that any electoral process that receives less than 100% participation is a failure. You will never have 100% participation in anything except DEATH. Two state-wide "voting holidays" every four years would go a LONG way to increasing participation to a very high level, as will better education about the very simple, engaging, effective and appropriate caucus procedure.

Furthermore, you don't NEED 100% participation in a voting process to accurately gauge the will of the people. This is why most everyone not named George Bush supports the scientifically-established value of surveys and polls. This is why election victories can be successfully called long before a vote-count reaches 100%. You can extrapolate truths about large numbers from smaller numbers.

So take your worthless "100% Participation Or Bust" sign and thumb your way to Utopia. I'll continue looking for less-imperfect solutions to problems here in the the complicated, messy real world.

You go on to suggest that we go with ballot-only primaries because caucuses are basically ballot-only with some extra debate tacked on. This is over-simplification that belies ignorance. You clearly don't understand caucuses, even after engaging in multiple threads here about them. The discussion/debate phase of the caucus is there for people who are UNDECIDED. It isn't provided just so you can get your rocks off in frivolous, unnecessary debate. So for those people who are DECIDED and who only NEED to cast a vote and leave, the caucus accommodates them. What's great about the caucus is that it also provides a party-sanctioned space and time within which UNDECIDED party members can seek additional, face-to-face conversation about whom they should support. Doing away with what is most useful to those who need the most help is pure idiocy.

I'll say this again: Stop tearing down a PROCESS just because there are roadblocks in the way of greater participation in that process. Instead, start suggesting ways, as I have, to remove the ROADBLOCKS. Complain about the right problem for fuck's sake or that problem will never get resolved.

I don't expect 100% participation. I DO expect 100% availability. Every Democrat should have the opportunity to vote, whether he or she takes that opportunity or not.

A voting holiday still leaves out thousands of people: policemen, firemen, doctors and nurses, hotel clerks and cleaners. Hotels never close. In the real world, very few things close; even on Christmas Day there are thousands of people working in this state. And there is no way in hell every business in the state could or should shut down for some voting holiday. Safeway is open on Veteran's Day.

That's just reality. The only Utopian thinking going on here is with people like you, who think it's realistic to expect everyone to drop everything. You have a warm fuzzy New England Town Hall view of caucuses which bears about as much of a relation to the modern world as the horse plow.

I actually find a little offensive the notion that people who cast absentee ballots in elections are stupid, lazy, and disengaged from the world. Quite the opposite. Most of the people at my caucus were reasonably thoughtful and considered (if poor speakers); but most of my non-caucusing neighbors are too. Let 'em count.

NapoleonXIV @47, the problem is Union Sq. Grill has sucked since the changed to their "fusion" menu. :( Morton's is as overprices as the MET with none of the charm. It's sad because Union Sq. Grill was the best steak house in town.