http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2008021103482

"No," the candidate answered. (HRC) "These are caucus states. They are primarily dominated by activists. They don't represent the electorate." She also attributed her poor results in Louisiana to "a very strong and very proud African American "electorate."

You can read some opinion about this statement here:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/hillary...ivists-and.html

(Well, maybe after Tuesday Latinos and women will matter also)

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/048

(Plus comments on the other side of this opinion)
......
"Perhaps, Hillary Clinton, who rarely makes a gaffe and is an enthusiastic and well-honed campaigner, finally revealed one of the key reasons that the Clinton campaign is faltering. As we noted in another blog, when asked her reaction to Obama winning so many states over the weekend (including Maine, where once she was way ahead, as she had been in most states), Clinton responded that caucuses aren't representative because everyone knows that they are dominated by "activists." Such an attitude is so self-destructive to a party as to be almost suicidal. Any campaign wants to energize activists, not dampen them down. It was the first major mistake that we have heard from Clinton this campaign. It could have just been a way of trying to explain away the worrisome problem of losing so many states by such wide margins. But caucuses are the most transparent forms of democracy, in which people are the ballots. Her statement revealed a certain hubris about grassroots campaigning and bringing in new voters. In essence, the Clinton campaign against Obama would rather rely on a fixed base of "New Deal" coalition voters than expand the numbers of people in that base."



I thought the analysis contained in the last piece was informing. Your mileage may differ.

I could not believe HRC would come out and say that about caucuses, although it's been pretty evident she doesn't like them and has worked- or her campaign has- against some of them.

The turnouts at the caucuses would seem to argue against the idea that they don't represent working people, especially when those caucuses are held on weekends. The plus of caucuses is that the voting is out in the open, not a secret vote count by computers. Yes, Obama has won some of those states that count that way. But I'm waiting to see what happens in Texas and Ohio. It's all to fresh in memory what happned in Ohio in 2004.

The secret ballot is the cornerstone of an active healthy democracy. It frees the voter to make their true choice without fear of intimidation or reprisal.

Unless you're voting that secret ballot on a touch-screen Die Bold machine. :!: :mad: :mad:

Seriously though, having participated in primaries and caucuses I think there is something to be said for meeting your neighbors, discussing issues, and trying to sway the undecided. I'm not sure which is better but both voting styles have advantages.

The problem with causues is that they can lead to intimidation of voters. Say you're at a caucus and you like candidate A but you're boss is there and he is for candidate B. You might feel pressure to go for candidate B because you're up for promotion and want to please your boss. Or say you like candidate A and your wife likes candidate B and you know that if you support A that it will lead to a fight with your wife so you vote for B to avoid the fight. Or maybe a college student likes candidate A but all the cool kids like B. That student might feel peer pressure to support B.

You can still meet your neighbors and discuss issues but the voting should remain confidential so no one is forced or coerced into to voting for a candidate they don't support.

I do think that James points out a critical factor about the need for secret ballots. In a general election a caucus would not be acceptable.

As far as political parties go, I suppose they have the right to set their own rules internally. Naturally, that does not mean they're always going to make good choices :!: :o :wacko:

Normally, I would concur with the idea of a secret ballot as best.

However, our elections are a mess and voting by ballot is subject to problems if not audited.

The mess in LA is a prime example. The idea of having the same candidates of two parties share numbers on a ballot with numbers to spare just boggles the mind. Almost sounds intentional. :coolwink:

Voting systems can be hacked and credentialed professors have proven it.

Paper ballots can be audited and are very important for protecting representative democracy. But until we get elections squared away, for the primaries, caucuses provide a measure of protection.

I am suspicious of a candidate so blatant in their dislike of caucuses.

Secret Ballots are needed, but we can't have secret ballots combined with secret chains of custody and secret tabulations.

Caususes don't provide any measure of protection. The reason so many states have them is that the old party bosses put them in place so that they could control the outcome. Add to that that caususes don't allow for voting thoughtout the day which disenfranchises a portion of the public.

No election system is perfect. All can be manipulated by those with malicious intent. However, when you consider the number of different elections that occur in this country every year at the local, state and national level the occurance of proven fraud is actually a very low percentage of the whole.

The secret ballot offers protection to the individual so they can select their true choice without fear of intimidation or reprisal.