Wisconsin Will Not Be Silenced | Bernie Sanders

[Donkees]

[afertal]

1. I'm amazed that the entire country is not SCREAMING....

....about the lack of democracy in the primary process..... democracy, hell, there isn't even any consistency in the process from state to state. The revolution that Bernie is calling for is way bigger than the current primary.....

It seems to me that concerns about voter suppression in the general election are important, yes, but the corrupt, party-driven processes by which the candidates that we get to vote for are chosen are an even bigger problem.

[pnwmom]

3. I don't understand why "progressive" and "liberal" and "socialist" Democrats

are fine with elitist, exclusive, non-representative caucuses.

There's no bigger form of vote suppression. In my state we set an all-time record in 2008, with 5.3% participation.

5.3%!

[PotatoChip]

8. It works pretty well in rural states like mine.

And it's not a system that is easy to rig. Don't get me wrong, it can be done, I suppose. Probably even more so in states that have county level caucus' with dueling delegates who can outlast their opponent's delegates. (My state doesn't do that. Our elected delegates go straight to the state convention.)

All of that said, I would prefer to just vote the normal way, even though my 2 caucus experiences (08 and this year) each took less then an hour, and both were held on weekends. So I agree with you about not liking caucuses, but don't understand why you think they are elitist. Do you mean that caucuses are elitist because of the lower participation and/or the types of people who show up? Btw- I don't know about other states, but in mine, people can vote absentee if they can't make it.

In my opinion, people who caucus do so because of enthusiasm for their candidate. Not some sort of privilege or wealth-- or whatever. Because my town is so small, I personally knew all 7 people who showed up, as well as the 4 absentees. None of them are wealthy. We all just really liked Bernie. (Except for 2 of the 4 absentee people. In both cases, they were married couples who cancelled each other's votes out.)

[pnwmom]

9. More than half of my state is rural and it doesn't work there, either -- if you don't live

close to an actual town.

Some of our residents would be expected to drive 2 or 3 hrs. to get to their caucus locations. And yet distance isn't a valid reason for voting by surrogate here. Neither is lack of transportation.

Neither is being an out of state college student, or a parent with kids they don't want to drag along, or a person who doesn't want to talk about his vote in front of his spouse, his parent, or his boss.

Being in a small town at a caucus isn't a good thing if you want a secret ballot.

Why should you get to know whom everyone voted for? You wouldn't in a primary or any other normal election.

Just because the people there were like you, and very enthusiastic, doesn't mean there weren't other enthusiastic people who were discouraged by the whole process. It engages some people but discourages the vast majority. And that's why it's a form of voter suppression. But we're so used to it we don't see it for what it is.

[PotatoChip]

10. Rural people are used to long drives for just about everything, but

2 to 3 hours is outrageous! That needs to be changed. It is indeed what amounts to voter suppression- imho. Especially since Washington (where I'm assuming you live) apparently makes people jump through hoops to use absentee (or surrogate?) ballots. In Maine, you can just request an absentee ballot and use it without needing a reason... Incidentally, I learned about that thanks to 'Hillary for America' who sent me an absentee request form and a stamped envelope addressed to the Maine Democratic Party. Though I didn't end up using the thing, I thought it a lovely gesture. So thanks Hills!

But getting back to the long drive, my question to you is, wouldn't the same thing be true for a Primary too?

As far as the rest of your post, I don't disagree with anything you say. I too would prefer to not have my neighbors know who I am voting for. It wasn't a problem this time, but in 08, one of the Hillary people-- who used to be my HS gym teacher (ages ago), got right up in my face screaming about how I needed to be caucusing for a woman for President. I said nothing to her then (I was too stunned in that moment) and do not speak to her now. We used to be friendly with each other prior to that. It was really embarrassing to be treated that way in front of my neighbors, even though it was she who made a fool out of herself in front of everyone.

Anyway- yes, I prefer Primaries to Caucuses but still don't think it's an elitist thing.

[pnwmom]

11. Yeah, I'm in WA, so here's the kicker.

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Years ago, the voters in the state strongly approved a referendum setting up a primary so we wouldn't have to go through caucuses anymore.

But then the Dem party went to court, arguing that they should get to choose delegates however they want. And the judge agreed with them.

So we will be having our primary in May and, if it's like last time, three times as many people will participate -- even though the results won't affect a single delegate. It's just a beauty contest..

Meanwhile the GOP in our state will use the primary instead of caucuses. So which party was more responsive to voters, and which was more determined to hold onto their power?

To add salt to the wound, all elections now, including the primary, are held by mail-in ballot. They send paper ballots to all registered voters a few weeks before the election. We either mail them back in or drop them in a drop box. And then we can go online and make sure they were received and counted.

To add even more salt to the wound, at the caucuses they passed out envelopes asking for donations to help defray the costs -- of the caucuses that we wanted to replace with primaries, that we're STILL having to pay for out of our taxes.

So, to answer your question, it isn't as hard for rural primary voters to vote. It isn't hard for GOP primary voters to vote, and their votes actually count. The votes of Dem primary voters are literally worthless. But they cost taxpayer money!

[PotatoChip]

12. Wow, that is awful!

I would be outraged too. Why would the WA state democratic party go against the will of the voters like that? Their own members, obviously... It was despicable for them to take that referendum result to court, and worse still that a judge would find in their favor.

Eta: I just re-read your post and see that they did it to save money. Still not a good enough reason to go against what the voters want, though!

[pnwmom]

2. I guess they're not having caucuses then.

They're a sure way to suppress the vote.

[Cryptoad]

5. + galzillion

[zebonaut]

4. Voter Suppression is a Felony. Report it.

[RATM435]

6. Do us proud wisconsin .

[captainarizona]

7. what you can do in wisconsin tuesday

The media is shunning the d.c. madam's lawyers claim that ted cruz is in her phone records. Carry sign to voter polling place to force media to make ted cruz respond. sign can read ted cruz is a .......! Also read national inquirer story on rand ted.