If sources you mean everyone reporting in, then yes.
no. new hampshire does a primary like a sane person would. nevada, on the other hand, is a caucus state and was supposed to use this app or a very similar one.
New Hampshire runs a primary.
Individual state parties choosing to stop.What would it take for caucuses to stop being a thing altogether? Would it require separate rulings in each State that holds them?
Yang did.so i tuned out today so eveyrthing's calmed down now right? who won?
so i tuned out today so eveyrthing's calmed down now right? who won?
so i tuned out today so eveyrthing's calmed down now right? who won?
This really is the best story coming out of Iowa.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...sques-serve-caucus-sites-200203194831339.html
"Four years ago, Mohamed Ali, a volunteer with the Bernie Sanders campaign, said it was hard getting those in his community to take part in caucuses in the US state of Iowa.
"They just didn't have the confidence" or they felt uncomfortable, Ali, who is a Palestinian-American real estate agent in the Des Moines area, told Al Jazeera by phone. Others, he said, didn't want to be involved in politics for fear of being targeted or discriminated against.
But this year participation of the Arab-Muslim community "has been huge ... it's been really amazing", he said."
I think this year's election is going to have the largest voter turnout in American history.
What would it take for caucuses to stop being a thing altogether? Would it require separate rulings in each State that holds them?
We haven't even gotten to caucuses where local ties are resolved with coin flips.
Good to hear. What about the Super Tuesday?no. new hampshire does a primary like a sane person would. nevada, on the other hand, is a caucus state and was supposed to use this app or a very similar one.
Oh, I get that. I meant it as in a "ruling" by the DNC. Probably not the best word for it :PI think you are misunderstanding something about the primaries. They are a solely party process. It is up to the individual state parties to decide. Not any 'rulings' to be made (your wording sounds like you expect something judicial)
Yeah, the barrier here is self-importance. Every individual state party should switch. That they don't is them just not properly valuing democracy as an inclusive, accessible process.Iowa not being a Caucus would make it lose the 'first in the nation' status which has a huge financial impact, so they would be against it.
Other states should definitely switch though. I'm not aware of any reasons holding them back.
ThisYeah, the barrier here is self-importance. Every individual state party should switch. That they don't is them just not properly valuing democracy as an inclusive, accessible process.
Oh, I get that. I meant it as in a "ruling" by the DNC. Probably not the best word for it :P
It's all on paper already and presumably it's taking so long now because they are meticulously checking it.I don't even know what to think right now.
But I think they should do it again.
And this time write it on a piece of paper, get it triple checked and not on an app.
Ironically Iowa is historically one of the states that spent the most on education.Is this what happens when you dont invest in education or infrastructure?
Fuck who people vote for. We literally cannot even conduct a successful election.
What would it take for caucuses to stop being a thing altogether? Would it require separate rulings in each State that holds them?
That's just relative to other states in the US, right?Ironically Iowa is historically one of the states that spent the most on education.
The DNC and RNC have a lot less sway on state party happenings than a lot of people would think. Especially the DNC, the Democrats have a lot less control over the state parties than the RNC does.
The Dems could say- you hold a caucus, we won't count your delegates. This is why most states don't vote before Super Tuesday.
It's all on paper already and presumably it's taking so long now because they are meticulously checking it.
The app was to help report the data (that was on paper) from precincts, probably because there's a lot more of it to report now due to a change in the procedures from 2016.
Yep. Also happened before when someone tried to leapfrog NH. Iowa was left alone because someone has always stood to benefit by protecting their caucuses. This time I don't know that they'll still be protected.The Dems could say- you hold a caucus, we won't count your delegates. This is why most states don't vote before Super Tuesday.
They won't remove delegates from states for doing what they've been doing for 50 years.
I hate to be "old man yells at cloud" right now, but having some kind of vote in the evening, and reading the result the next morning in a newspaper wasn't the worst thing in the world.
Caucus chairpeople are in bed. That's what's happened.Something is really dodgy. How long does it take to count it again? Maybe 3 or 4 hours. Something is up. Sanders statement has only counted 40% of his precincts? But Buttigieg has counted 77%? Is Sanders questioning a portion of the votes?
you said they wouldn't strip delegates from a state for not following their rules and i provided a fairly recent example of them doing exactly that.
no... I said they wouldn't punish a state for wanting to continue the same process they've been using for delegate allocation for 50 years. That instance has nothing to do with what I said.
I do, but I kinda feel like this is even more of a stretch than that.
Something is really dodgy. How long does it take to count it again? Maybe 3 or 4 hours. Something is up. Sanders statement has only counted 40% of his precincts? But Buttigieg has counted 77%? Is Sanders questioning a portion of the votes?