Because of the stink I raised on local public radio and in local newspaper letters - military voters were allowed to participate in the caucuses by absentee ballot, but not civilians.

Well, maybe the confluence of the caucus system and John Edwards...

It was sad. When I had called several of the woman were so excited to finally be able to vote for a woman.  These were women in their 80s who had been waiting a lifetime for equity.  But when it came to it, we were in the middle of a cold, snowy spell.  The caucus was dominated by younger folks....who had never even participated before.  Good or bad that was what it was.  

For me, it was a double edge sword.  As a long time activist democrat I was happy to see  young people get involved.  But then it has become clear.  It was more of an American Idol experience.  The young girls swooned, and bought every lie about Hillary. The young males looked through me with the "what's she doing in charge?" stare.

First, and most important, although it plays with voter numbers, and their effect on the Clinton campaign in particular in that Clinton would have won except for . . .  vein, it does not provide evidence from caucuses in 2008 for the actual conduct it alleges most strenuously.
    - although the claim is repeatedly made that the caucus system is outside ADA and HAVA, and that it disenfranchises disabled, voters, no evidence whatever other than the theoretical assertion of that appears in the report For example, 'three persons were denied access to the DoDah City convention because no ADA provision for access was made and as a result those persons could not  get in the building to participate." No such information was presented, and it is therefore inappropriate to conclude that persons were actually disenfranchised in caucuses because of ADA issues in 2008 from this report. On what appears to be p. 4, what the writer says is only "...ADA and HAVA do not have the same force of compliance since caucuses do not receive federal or state monies to conduct the elections. Thereby Equal Access to caucus sites and ballots are not as strictly followed as in primary states and disabled voters can be essentially locked out." Not that they in fact were in any place at all. For all readers of the report know or not, each ADA person who presented himself herself at the door or asked for transportation got it. The report makes the charge without making any attempt to prove it. The same complete want of evidence is the case for other allegedly structurally disenfranchised voters, including military overseas, out of state on assignment, exact time and place requirement, voters with kids who can't get a sitter, workers who can't get or can't afford time off, citizens with limited English proficiency,  and people who cannot caucus on a set day because of religious obligations (no claim present that any 2008 caucus was held on such a day). Nor is there any factual demonstration in the report that of the various categories, such situations are not a similar burden to one voting at a primary, such as worker time off, babysitter needs, language assistance, etc. This category is a rhetorical mudsling intended to inflame prejudice when the evidence demonstrating its actual occurrence does not appear to any degree whatever.
     - the report charges that all voters who were eligible to vote in a state but who did not appear at the caucus were "suppressed." The report does not explain how voters who were eligible and who did not show up for primaries, were or were not suppressed and does not address that issue, preferring to use eligible voters for the suppression charge for the caucuses only. This is inappropriate.
      - As to suppression, the word itself is inappropriate, as the word is intended to suggest, not merely disparate results, but the active effort of persons not identified to prevent persons from appearing at the caucuses, without which effort a larger number would have appeared. No claim is made that the sites and times were not properly publicized, or that any persons who appeared were prevented by any means from participating. No evidence is presented which says "We'll put it over there so fewer people will show up." No evidence is presented that the exact time and place requirements resulted in X number of persons in Y place who would have attended except for the exact time and place requirement. No evidence is presented that any person who appeared was prevented by language limitations from participating fully, much less that "political lingo' limited participation of those present. Proper research uses neutral terms and allows a conclusion of something like suppression to be drawn by the reader from the evidence cited in the research, and does not use inflammatory language in the evidence presentation as this report does. Proper research includes evidence supporting the premises of the report, which is consistently absent here. this group of factors is identified in the report and mentioned as the 'filter effect' as I read it, but that 'filter effect' should be disregarded as  not supported by evidence it exists, rather than a belief in the writer of its existence in the absence of any evidence.
     - Differential participation in cacuses is estimated by a a difference between a stated actual caucus turnout and an estimate of would be attendees which is 63% of "Kerry votes 2004" (apparently general election turnouts but the report does not say)reduced by something called a three tier reduction effect for which I could find no explanation when the term was used. Without a full explanation of the terms, the estimate is useless. All other factors are eliminated because not considered, such as flooding other access issues of general effect.

2. The report contains an inherent bias that primaries are preferable, and spends a great deal of time attempting to demonstrate that the results of primaries were more favorable to Clinton  specifically than were the caucuses. For example, p. "Primaries are better designed to deal with large voter turnout and encourage higher participation via ease of process and alternatives to in-person voting." (Apparently p. 3 below table "Comparison: Primary vs. Caucus, numbered p. 1, not the only p. 1, on my printout). No proof of the assertion is attempted.  
    It contends that because of want of state or Federal statutes or regulations, that caucuses as their principal fault are insufficiently transparent, as a reason for their abolition. Again, there is no proof presented that the alleged transparency faults in fact occurred in 2008 at any location, whether or not states trained their volunteers, the degree to which any particular caucuses did nor did not follow the rules of procedure, presence or absence of oversight and auditabiity of counting voter results. Although the report alleges that caucuses generally are unfunded, again no evidence of either underfunding or resulting problems appears. All it says is that the present situation might create that situation, not that it did. It does not suggest regulations which the DNC could impose on caucus states which might improve the situation, a requirement for training of volunteers, vote counting and audit trail procedures or the like. Nothing short of abolition.

3. The argument repeatedly takes into account in the prose, but not the useful evidence two factors which the reporter believes are essential to be taken into account.
   First, that many caucuses are held in historically red states, on a general election basis, such that the caucuses in such states and their results are less worthy of respect because of the implication that states which traditionally go red don't have good democrats, and should perhaps be disregarded entirely becasue Democrats do not win the Presidential general election there. So it doesn't matter what happens in the caucuses. No similar suggestion is made for primary elections where the states frequently go red in the general election. the reporter argues that the delegates granted to historically red states should be reduced because they are historically red states.
   The report does not examine the methods by which the DNC allocated delegates on a state by state basis, so the conclusion that Obama's eight caucus states which were red were overallocated delegates is outside the scope of the report, although it is one of its principal conclusions. In fact, the report argues that it is unfair that caucus states have 2.9% of voters and 14% of delegates, a matter not related to the caucus system at all, but to whatever other factors the DNC used to allocate delegates. A matter outside the report's stated concerns.  
   Second, the reporter evaluates caucuses in various states based on her limited data only in light of the differential effect ON
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN if primaries rather than caucuses had been used. A proper consideration of the caucus system would have to consider more elections than one, in order to demonstrate that the caucus system requires rehabilitation or scrapping. No mention is made in the report of allocation of delegates by the DNC arising from performance issues in prior elections although the allocation of delegates is well known to be augmented where Democrats did well in the prior general election.
     Nor does the report take into account the well-reported peculiarity that the Clinton campaign elected not to do any organizing for any of the caucuses and that Obama did. A proper comparison of the two systems would require considering a situation in which the two candidates had made equal caucus efforts, so that the discrepancies which the reporters decried might fairly be argued to be due to the caucus form rather than the peculiarity that only one candidate organized and showed up in that jurisdiction. It is not an appropriate conclusion to say that caucuses must be abolished because one candidate elected not to participate in them and as a result suffered political damage in the resulting delegate count. If it's true in Michigan ( a matter outside this post) it is also true for caucuses.

   Another failing of the report is that it concludes that caucuses distort voting results because they suppress voters (discussed above), because fewer people participate (discussed in part above) and because in states which grant delegates on the basis of caucuses, the actual  results were more skewed to Obama specifically than to Clinton specifically, compared to primary results. That is, he got higher margins in the caucuses. The undemonstrated premise of the writer is that the proper margin for caucuses should have approximated that for the primaries she cites, of course without evidence as to why this should be so. That is, since the margin for Clinton in the primary states she cites was 1.4 per cent, the caucus results in different states should have been the same, and the reason they were not was a failure of the caucus system to adequately reflect the TRUE will of voters, rather than recording the views of those who caucused.  Which the report translates to an inappropriately lopsided delegate allocation, because delegates were allocated on the basis of the candidate margins in the caucuses rather than in the primaries.

   If there was any demonstration of want of accountability other than a general statement that four caucus states did not ultimately report total votes and counts, such as how such had an effect on the outcome, the argument for stronger reporting requirements on caucuses by the party might have power. the reporter concedes she has no proof of whether the reporting method affected the outcome. But again the only claim is insufficient reporting, and the only interest is the effect on Clinton, not whether the system could be refurbished to require such reporting and auditable records. I conclude this is because the actual purpose of the report is not to consider the actual defects of the caucus system and whether they could be cured, rather than to add to the aurguable illegitimacy of the entire primary process by reason of inclusion of caucuses. A fair report would have required substantially more actual evidence and an analysis of what the evidence showed and what could be done to rectify any criticism.

   The report also contains arguments unrelated to the caucus system, starting on p 9, which involve the Rules and ByLaws Committee and Michigan and Florida primary rulings, neither being a caucus state and the observation that if only the 39 primary states were considered, Clinton would have won. The consequences of determining a winner for the primary by disenfranchising eleven states and a number of territories such as USVI, PR, DC and Samoa are not even discussed.

    I disregard the discussion on pp. 10-11 and the first half of p. 12 because it does not concern caucuses, but is an extended argument as to why electoral votes should be considered. Not a matter addressing caucuses. While the Clinton campaign may have made an electoral votes argument, cacuses are a DNC matter which is not required to use electoral votes as the basis for allocating delegates, and the allocation of delegates is not related to the strengths and weaknesses of caucuses, and must be addressed separately.

   Additional arguments against caucuses not previously mentioned appear on pp. 12-13. The reporter believes that photo Voter ID rules should be strenuously enforced and opposes same date voter registration (voter registration being a state rather than a party matter)  on the ground that anything less might facilitate voter fraud and double voting. Proof cited that such occurred in any caucus: none whatever.  

   the reporter also argues on p. 13 that because the turnouts at caucuses are smaller than the often hypothetical turnouts at primaries, a smaller profile of voter preferences will be reflected at caucuses and may be skewed by extremists and activists who appear, as a reason not to use caucuses, because the people who do not turn out at caucuses (as with the people who do not turn out for primaries, an unmentioned matter) may not reflect the general election results and therefore may lead to less than optimal candidate selection.
    This argument does not serve to provide a basis for preference of primaries over caucuses. the reporter cites three Republican examples of how the actual attendance at caucuses led to a result which was unexpected, but no Democratic examples, certainly not Democratic 2008 examples. What the argument and limited evidence does not address is whether primaries were similarly affected, as what makes the three examples work is identification of the caucus attenders specifically. And why a primary with a 9% turnout does not skew the results over against one with the never-happened-in-this-world 100% turnout.
    Rather peculiarly for a Democrat, the reporter suggests that caucuses are unfair because they suppress the Bradley effect, that is the tendency of certain voters to lie to pollsters about how they in fact voted. Apparently the reporter believes that such suppression of the Bradley effect is a bad thing, on the premise that attenders at caucuses have their votes known, and might be discouraged from, say voting in secret ballot, say,  against a black candidate where their vote is not secret.
   I am not repeating repetitive charges against caucuses in the later pages which have been addressed above, because no further or additional argument or evidence is provided for these in the later pages. they are unproven on p. 3 and unproven thereafter either.

  I must note at p. 14, that the reporter purported in her argument about primaries to include the FLA and MI primaries, allegedly according to the DNC RBC ruling but a footnote states that the allocation of uncommitted to Obama was disregarded, despite the ruling.

   The "Conclusions" of this report demonstrate its inadequacies. The conclusions contends that the report has demonstrated that caucuses suppress voter participation and systematically disenfranchise voters, although it does not do so. It also contends that the report demonstrates that caucuses skewed voter results (apparently because Obama margins in caucuses were much higher than predicted or that were achieved in later nonbinding primaries) and had a disproportionate impact on the selection of the nominee. The conclusion then goes on "from a voting rights standpoint, the question becomes when millions of Americans are filtered out or systematically locked out of the caucusing process, how can we say we have a nominee who was chosen democratically by the wil of the people? When so many citizens are excluded from the voting process, itself, then how can we trust the outcome?"  the reporter than says "From the author's point of view, this is prehaps the greatest failure of the caucus system, i.e. it breaks the sacred promise of achieving truly representative government through our votes."

  Then a new argument is raised that despite the number of complaints raised about the caucus system in 2008, none of which are documented in the report or even summarized, the system is unfair because the caucuses still retained their same number of delegates. this is not a clear comment since it appears both without examples and very late in the report. The implication of the comment is that if it could be proven, and this report does not, that voters were in fact disenfranchised or affirmatively suppressed, rather than simply not showing up without explanation and without requests for access, transport, babysitting or whatever, then the proper remedy was in some manner and by a rule not identified, the number of delegates allocated to the state including the offending causus should have been reduced. No rule is cited of the DNC supporting this demand and no request for that result is stated to have been made.
- - -
  One bottom line here is that when you finish the full report is that it is not a report at all but is an argument brief, arguing for the abolition of caucuses principally because the supposed difference in delegates  which unfairly disfavored Clinton and denied her her victory, which victory is attributable principally to Obama's victories in caucuses, and that since such victory is itself a frustration of the will of the people, caucuses, which made it possible, should be banned.
   As has been noted before, the report does not take into account the virtually complete failure of the Clinton campaign to participate in any of the caucuses, although her participation in primaries was substantial, which failure of participation may well have had a substantial effect on the outcome which the reporter despises. Showing up has always been 80% of politics, but the premise of the report is that showing up does not or should not matter in the outcome. Either in the caucus participants or in the result.
   It does not examine the caucus process except for the limited purpose of arguing that it prejudiced Clinton.
    It does not consider, because that is not the purpose of the report, whether reforms such as better volunteer training and an audit trail and reporting of all results would cure the vices of the form in future campaigns. That would not cure the 2008 result and is therefore outside the concern of the report.
   The report is fundamentally defective for its want of actual evidence of anything, relying instead on hypotheses about facts which needed proving, as if there was a theoretically correct method to hold primary processes, which can be established by a few tables which may or may not be accurate, and are based on assumptions not appearing in the report, and only one such method, the one the reporter from the beginning admits she prefers.
   Most importantly in a report claiming to want to respect the will of voters, it fails entirely to address the actual wishes of the voters of states which hold caucuses, that they choose to conduct their nominating process in this manner for reasons they consider sufficient, having done so and having been satisfied with the results for what is often many, many years. None of them invented this form specifically to frustrate Hillary Clinton's candidacy. They invented it to take into account the things that Republican or Democratic party memebers in those states wanted taken into account. It reflects their views and what those party members have decided works for them, year after year. Nothing here suggests with proof that what caucus organizers did was other than making sure that people who needed a ride to the caucus got one or that anyone who had trouble getting into the building got into the building anyway or that there were baby problems or employers who denied time off to caucusers, or any of the other alleged defects of the method. After all, these folk and those with mobility issues  and babysitting and work problems are neighbors who will deal with one another the day and the week after the causus. Not a single religious holiday conflicting with a caucus has been identified although the charge that they 'may' do so is made repeatedly. According to this report, all of those state party members in both parties are inherently undemocratic disenfranchisers and suppressors of the 'true will of the voting majority," the neighbors  who did not show up at the caucuses and who they have to look in the face the day after, and then get to vote the party line in the general election,  because they follow a different procedure, According to the report, it is a wrong of the party and the state parties to allow caucuses to proceed without being penalized harshly if not eliminated by the party from having that procedure result in valid delegates. Apparently you are lesser democrats and entitled to fewer delegates than the DNC provides if you come from a traditionally red state, or if the turnout for caucuses is lower than it would be for a primary election done with anonymous machines. I am surprised that the reporter did not suggest eliminating delegates entirely from previously red states, frankly.