-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Caucuses or Primaries?
- Thread starter Skip
- Start date
Doremus Jessup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,364
- Reaction score
- 135
- Location
- Berlin, 1930s
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I say primary, that way the decision is left to the voters instead of a pre-selected group of delegates.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,321
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Definitely primaries. Caucuses are biased toward those who have the time for such things.
Skip
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Shouldn't the ones who actually care about who receives a party nomination, be the ones to select such a nominee?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,321
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
If people didn't care, they wouldn't vote in primaries. It's not like they get a big turnout as it is.
But with caucuses, there are lots of reasons to not go besides not caring. If you're busy with family, or you have to work that night, or you just don't feel like spending the evening at a caucus, then you don't have any say in the process. There are probably plenty of people who DO care who fall into that category.
Skip
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Here's the way I see it: Elections are open. And that's definitely the way they should be, easily accessable to every voter. But party nominations are different. They should only be available to the most devout of all parties, and those who are involved should be able to engage in debate with other party members and things along that vein. I worked for the party in 2004, basically trying to get people to the caucuses, and going around to various seperate caucuses around the area making sure things were in order, and let me tell you, some of them are a sight to behold. Most of them are your typical somewhat boring caucus, but at one in particular that I recall, the Kerry people and Gephardt people were fighting over a few Edwards delegates that were beyond Edwards' viable representatives number (I don't remember the numbers but as an example, there were 20 Edwards people, and for every 15 people you got one delegate. I think the Kerry people were at 42 or so and the Gephardt were around 13, so they could both gain a delegate if they got some more people.) It was amazing, they way that these people had come together, discussed their candidates views, and debated. In the end, 3 of the Edwards people went to the Kerry camp, giving them their 3rd delegate, and I don't recall what the other 2 or 3 of them did, but it would be irrelevant anyways.
In primaries you don't get that. You go, you cast your private ballot, you're done. Where's the fun and Americanism in that?