CAUCUSING VS POLLS

These articles are about the Iowa caucus only, but they do speak of the things which make the process seem both chaotic, inefficient, unnecessarily time consuming for the voter and lacking in access. The Democratic and Republican parties set their own caucusing rules, and those that the Democrats decided upon are the most unfair and convoluted. The Republicans simply meet at the caucus locations and listen to speeches, then vote on paper by secret ballot. That is simple and fair, especially if they allow absentee balloting.

The Democratic Party has just this year allowed tele-conferencing which would still require going to the satellite location, but it should increase access for outlying locations. Unfortunately, they have only allowed four satellite sites so far. That is extremely limited. The Dems still need an absentee ballot method of voting, in my opinion, as well. Just because citizens don’t caucus shouldn’t mean that they don’t get to vote. The 2016 method is an improvement, but it still does not give every person a chance to vote. See the first three articles below on the numerous problems that are involved. The facts that the turnout in 2008 was shockingly low – just 17% of registered voters – and that those who did caucus were predominantly wealthier, with incomes of over $50,000 is to me evidence that the limitations of access are causing real problems.

The reason given for continuing to use caucusing rather than an ordinary paper ballot method at all local polling places as the other states do, is that it is their beloved “tradition” and supposedly a purer form of democracy. Given the drawbacks to voting under that system, it's highly debatable. To me, it should give way to efficiency and go with precinct ballot elections. For the General Elections that is what they do, thank goodness.

The first three articles highlight the problems. My strongest complaints are the lack of secret ballot voting and the continued need for better access. Until this year, 2016, there was no mechanism set up for greater access due to disability or transportation problems, and no proxy voting. There is still no proxy voting, so voters do have to show up in person and participate physically. That would be a difficult thing for me, for instance, with arthritis in multiple joints, to do. There are four – far too few -- satellite locations communicating by tele-conferencing as of this year, to be set up by groups at their locations more convenient to them and tele-caucusing for the military. To attend a satellite site a voter must complete an application through “iowademocrats.org” after which he will be assigned to one of the four tele-caucusing sites. He still has to arrange some sort of transportation.

See the following two items about tele-caucusing and satellite caucusing.

http://iowademocrats.org/satellite-caucus-applications-now-available-for-2016-iowa-democratic-caucuses/ -- “DES MOINES – As part of the Iowa Democratic Party’s continuing efforts to expand participation in the Iowa Democratic Precinct Caucuses, today the IDP released satellite caucus application forms for the 2016 caucuses. Satellite caucus locations, which will be instituted for the first time next year, are meant for groups of Democrats who want to participate in the caucuses, but are unable to attend their precinct caucus due to a hardship (limitations of mobility, distance, or time). Satellite caucuses will be held at the same day and time, 7 p.m. on February 1st, 2016, as the precinct caucuses.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D, The Green Papers
2016 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions,” states: “Military (tele-caucus) and other voters (satellite caucuses) who can not [sic] attend the precinct caucuses in person may participate in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses via tele-conference. There will be no absentee or proxy voting at any precinct caucus. The satellite caucuses are allocated 3 delegates and the military tele-caucus is allocated 2 delegates to the state convention.”


The following two articles discuss the problems in general of the Democratic Party of Iowa’s caucusing rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-caucuses-are-horribly-undemocratic

Why the Iowa caucuses are horribly undemocratic UPDATED
By Zachary Roth
01/29/16 07:23 AM—UPDATED 01/29/16 03:54 PM

Photograph -- Hillary Clinton; “Iowa caucuses inaccessible to some,” 1/29/16, 3:42 PM ET

STATEMENT FROM PETCO AFTER AN EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT:

We appreciate the concern and questions raised around this erroneous story; however we’ve learned that the partner who spoke to MSNBC was never scheduled to work on Monday, the day of the Iowa Caucus. She never formally requested time off and was under the impression that the Caucus was being held on Tuesday. For the record, it’s important to point out that Petco wholeheartedly supports and encourages civic involvement among all our partners at every level of the company. We also have a voting policy that allows partners scheduled to work on election days the ability to arrive to work late or leave early without loss of pay.


For years, critics of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status have pointed out that the state — small, rural, and 94 percent white — is an awful proxy for the nation as a whole. The effect is made worse by the fact that New Hampshire, the third whitest state in the nation, follows Iowa in the presidential nominating process. But that’s just the start: The wacky way in which Iowa’s Democratic caucuses award delegates — explained by MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald here — grossly violates the concept of one person, one vote. (The Republican process isn’t much fairer: It allowed Ron Paul’s supporters in 2012 to manipulate the party’s convention process and get 23 of the state’s 28 delegates, even though he only came third in the actual voting.) Then there’s the fact that, for Democrats, there’s no secret ballot: All voting is done in public, forcing people to expose their political views to their neighbors and co-workers whether they want to or not. And this year, there are also concerns about basic administration: Democrats are said to lack people to run the caucus in hundreds of sites, and incorrect or changing caucus locations are adding to the confusion.

But the tightly limited hours are perhaps the most glaring problem — especially at a time when Democrats are emphasizing the importance of expanding access to voting, and are responding to the needs of working people. The caucuses start at 7 p.m. sharp — no one gets in if they show up late — and last until 10. There’s no absentee or early voting.



MSNBC LIVE WITH THOMAS ROBERTS, 1/27/16, 1:52 PM ET
What's a caucus?

Bowing to pressure this year, the Iowa Democratic Party is allowing people to apply to hold satellite caucuses. But participants still must be free for three hours on a specific evening, so that doesn’t help people who can’t leave work. And only four satellite caucuses will be held this year, the party said.

Not surprisingly, turnout for the caucuses is strikingly low. In 2008, the last year both parties had competitive contests, 359,000 people showed up for either the Democratic or Republican caucuses. That was just 17 percent of Iowa’s registered voters, and far fewer than the 517,623 who voted in New Hampshire’s primary that year, even though Iowa’s population is more than twice New Hampshire’s. Broadly speaking, caucus-goers appear to be richer than those who don’t make it, at least among Democrats. In 2008, 42 percent of Democratic caucus-goers made less than $50,000 a year, according to exit polls. By contrast, 47 percent of those who voted for Obama that fall made less than $50,000.

On the Democratic side, the lack of access is especially jarring at a time when both of the party’s leading candidates have emphasized making voting easier as key parts of their platforms, highlighting a contrast with the GOP, which has supported restrictive voting rules.

“We’ve got to make it easier to vote, not harder,” Hillary Clinton wrote in an op-ed last week. Both she and Sanders have endorsed automatic voter registration of the kind enacted this year in Oregon and California — Bernie Sanders even introduced a Senate bill to take the idea national, and to make Election Day a national holiday. And consider that Clinton’s top lawyer, Marc Elias, last year filed suit against cuts to early voting in Ohio and Wisconsin, claiming that the changes unfairly burdened the right to vote — lawsuits that were applauded by Clinton’s campaign. But even those states’ shortened schedules offer exponentially more access than do the caucuses.

The restricted hours are increasingly out of step not only with the direction of the Democratic Party, but also with broader economic trends. Many of those who will be shut out are likely to be low-wage workers, who typically have little control over their schedules. Indeed, 48 percent of Iowa’s jobs pay less than $15 an hour, according to Bureau of Labor statistics. Nationally, too, a growing share of jobs are in the low-wage service sector. A bill introduced in November by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, which would encourage more dependable employee schedules, highlighted the problem. Both Clinton and Sanders have taken pains to reach out to the low-wage worker movement as it fights for a higher minimum wage and better working conditions. On Thursday, fast-food workers walked off the job in Des Moines to protest their low pay.



MTP DAILY, 1/28/16, 5:35 PM ET
Harkin Expects 'Solid' Clinton Win in Iowa

Clinton is aware of the problem. Back in 2008, she seemed to blame the caucuses’ limited hours for her defeat in Iowa to Barack Obama, whose sophisticated turnout operation — his campaign even offered baby-siting help to supporters — and appeal among plugged-in party activists gave him an advantage. “You know, there are a lot of people who couldn’t caucus tonight,” Clinton noted in a speech after the results were in. “There are a lot of people who work at night, people who are on their feet, people who are taking care of patients in a hospital, or waiting on a table in a restaurant, or maybe in a patrol car keeping our streets safe.”

But asked twice whether she’s still concerned that the caucuses won’t give those people a voice, her campaign didn’t respond.

Sanders’ campaign said the senator would like to see the party do more to improve access. ”He is committed to working with the state party to expand participation through the implementation of new policies such as ensuring employers give time off to their workers so they are able to caucus,” Brendan Summers, Sanders’ Iowa caucus director, said in a statement.

Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, pointed to the satellite caucuses as evidence that the party understands the need to make the process more accessible.

“This year we are starting small, but we hope the satellite caucuses are able to grow in the upcoming years so as many Iowans as possible have the ability to caucus,” Lau told MSNBC. “While we firmly believe that the caucuses are a unique and important form of democracy, we are constantly looking for ways to make them better and more inclusive, and will continue to do so moving forward.”

CORRECTION: This story originally reported on a worker at Petco who said she was unable to caucus because she had to work. In fact, she has caucus night off. See statement from Petco at top of story.



GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT IOWA CAUCUSING


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

Iowa caucuses
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Process[edit]

A 2008 Democratic caucus meeting in Iowa City, Iowa

The Iowa Caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states (see U.S. presidential primary). The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,681 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting and the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions.[9]

Beginning with the 2012 Presidential election, Iowa switched from the old winner-take-all allocation to proportional allocation. The change was made to prolong the race, giving lesser known candidates a chance and making it harder for a frontrunner to secure the majority early. It was also hoped that this change in the election system would energize the base of the party.[10][11]



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/23/heres-how-the-iowa-caucuses-work/

Iowa caucuses: Here’s how the voting works
By David Weigel
February 1, 2016


Tonight, a few hundred thousand Iowa residents will gather in a couple thousand caucus sites and finally, finally kick-start the presidential nomination process. It's been 44 years since the first presidential caucuses that mattered, and 40 years since both parties held them. And yet, for the 315.8 million Americans who do not live in Iowa — and for the slightly smaller millions who live in primary, not caucus, states — the process perpetually needs explaining.

What time do the Iowa caucuses start? At 7 p.m. Central time, across the state. Expect the cable TV countdown clocks to start much sooner.

When will we know the winner? In 2008, the caucuses were called for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) by 8:30 p.m. Central. Both men won by nine points, and early counts matched the exit polls. In 2012, the late surge of former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) forced an election night tie with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and the networks (and more importantly, front-page editors) only seemed able to call a winner after midnight. That call was wrong. What looked like an eight-vote victory for Romney had been scrambled when eight precincts, with a total of 298 missing votes, missed the count. Santorum had won, a fact that was not reported until 16 days later. Short answer: This year? Probably by 10 or 11 p.m. Central. (You'll be able to see maps here.)

How is a caucus different from a primary? The answer differs depending on which party you're asking about. Instead of heading to one of Iowa's 1,681 precincts and pulling a lever, voters will head to a caucus site that may toss several precincts together. Instead of seeing their votes tabulated by the state elections office, they'll see them reported to the state parties, which will in turn report them to the news media.

Here's where the parties diverge. A Republican caucus is odd but simple, a peanut-butter-and-tuna-fish combination of a normal election and a PTA meeting. At nearly 900 caucus sites, voters will gather, then hear speeches from whichever campaigns have precinct captains assigned to whip up votes. (Presidential candidates can show up and do this for themselves, in one of the most intimate examples of democracy in all of politics.) Then they'll write their choices on paper and hand them in.

The Democratic caucus process is more complicated. When they show up at one of the 1,100-odd sites, voters will be asked to gather in sections designated for the candidates. They will be counted. If one candidate fails to get at least 15 percent of voters in his corner, they are released, and caucus captains for the surviving candidates can personally lobby and answer questions, enticing them to join up. After that, delegates are assigned based on the support for each candidate.

It sounds confusing, and it is. For starters, the number of delegates for each precinct will be assigned based on Democratic turnout in that precinct from the last two elections. (There is no raw vote total released, only projections of how many Democrats turned out.) If there's a massive surge of voters in, say, an Iowa City precinct, if there's a massive fall-off in a rural precinct, it does not matter — the same number of delegates are at stake. This might be best illustrated by the live recording C-SPAN did from one key caucus site in 2008.

Has that mattered in the past? Yes, it has. In 2004, the Democratic presidential campaign of former Vermont governor Howard Dean was clearly starting to flag before the vote. The final Iowa poll pegged then-senator and future secretary of state John F. Kerry (Mass.) at 26 percent, future tabloid cover star John Edwards at 23 percent, Dean at 20 percent and former House minority leader Dick Gephardt at 18 percent.

The final result: Kerry 38, Edwards 32, Dean 18, Gephardt 11. Dean was hit three times: first by his falling level of overall support, then by the 15 percent rule, and finally by the superior acumen of volunteers for the Kerry and Edwards campaigns. In real time, they pulled people from Dean to their side.

How does any of that matter this year? It's an open question, but we all have a few questions that can't be answered until caucus night. Donald Trump, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are all claiming that new voters will swarm the caucus sites and break the turnout models. Will they? Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley has run a traditional Iowa campaign, but he's struggled to break out of single digits in the polls. Who will O'Malley's supporters pull for in the second stage of the caucuses?

By David Weigel February 1