I'd love to see better voter counts. The numbers I saw on tv and the web made no sense to me.
I'm not surprised about a lopsided turnout, but the numbers I was seeing were SO weird, it was difficult to understand.
Barack Obama
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Todd Shapiro
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:22 pm
Dl,
The vote totals in Iowa can be confusing because both parties count their votes differently. And also remember what a caucus is. They are electing delegates to their state convention where the delegates to the national nominating conventions will be committed and selected. Because the nominating process for presidential candidates is controlled by the parties and is not Constitutionally mandated the results may look different.
In Iowa, the Republicans use a secret ballot vote count at each caucus site to come up with the final vote totals and percentages that were reported by the national media Thursday evening. Democrats conduct their caucuses differently. At each caucus site voters gather in groups ( or via sign-in sheets) to publicly state their nominee preference. If there candidate is considered to be "non-viable" or has less then 15% of the votes they are invited to join another group and throw their support behind a "viable" candidate. At the end of evening state conventional delegates are chosen by proportionate representation of the final caucus totals. The democrats then publicly announce who won each individual caucus site. That is why there were figures that showed Obama won like 800 and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton won 760 or 750. Those are not vote totals those are individual caucus sites won. That is how the democrats choose their delegates to their state convention who will choose the delegates for the national nominating convention.
If any of you actually took the time to read this long-winded rambling post. I hope this clears it up instead of making it more confusing.
The vote totals in Iowa can be confusing because both parties count their votes differently. And also remember what a caucus is. They are electing delegates to their state convention where the delegates to the national nominating conventions will be committed and selected. Because the nominating process for presidential candidates is controlled by the parties and is not Constitutionally mandated the results may look different.
In Iowa, the Republicans use a secret ballot vote count at each caucus site to come up with the final vote totals and percentages that were reported by the national media Thursday evening. Democrats conduct their caucuses differently. At each caucus site voters gather in groups ( or via sign-in sheets) to publicly state their nominee preference. If there candidate is considered to be "non-viable" or has less then 15% of the votes they are invited to join another group and throw their support behind a "viable" candidate. At the end of evening state conventional delegates are chosen by proportionate representation of the final caucus totals. The democrats then publicly announce who won each individual caucus site. That is why there were figures that showed Obama won like 800 and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton won 760 or 750. Those are not vote totals those are individual caucus sites won. That is how the democrats choose their delegates to their state convention who will choose the delegates for the national nominating convention.
If any of you actually took the time to read this long-winded rambling post. I hope this clears it up instead of making it more confusing.
-
Jim DeVito
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Man what a weird way of doing things. Let me ask you this, what makes a caucus better than a primary? Does it have something to do with better representation? Seems like an awful lot of work.-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
-
Todd Shapiro
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:22 pm
Jim,
Proponents of a caucus system might argue that is better in the fact that it requires a high level of participation that a primary. Also, the caucus in most state's is paid for my the parties themselves relieving the burden of financing a primary election form the backs of the voters. Also it grass roots politics at its best a small group of people meeting in a firehouse, church basement or school cafeteria to discuss the issues and choose a leader who will represent their interests at the state level and choose delegates to represent their interests at the national level and choose their party nominee for president.
Tova Andrea Wang wrote a comprehensive report on some of the failing of the caucus system. her report can be accessed by clicking this link: http://www.tcf.org/publications/electio ... sbrief.pdf
Personally, I think the primary system is a better way to choose candidates for president. statistics have showed that primaries increase voter turnout and allow more Americans to become involved in the electoral process.
Proponents of a caucus system might argue that is better in the fact that it requires a high level of participation that a primary. Also, the caucus in most state's is paid for my the parties themselves relieving the burden of financing a primary election form the backs of the voters. Also it grass roots politics at its best a small group of people meeting in a firehouse, church basement or school cafeteria to discuss the issues and choose a leader who will represent their interests at the state level and choose delegates to represent their interests at the national level and choose their party nominee for president.
Tova Andrea Wang wrote a comprehensive report on some of the failing of the caucus system. her report can be accessed by clicking this link: http://www.tcf.org/publications/electio ... sbrief.pdf
Personally, I think the primary system is a better way to choose candidates for president. statistics have showed that primaries increase voter turnout and allow more Americans to become involved in the electoral process.