Caucus and Primary Reform

Researched some pros and cons of the caucus vs. primary today.
- 12 states use caucuses, 36 states have primaries
- it's a meeting between members of a party, rather than a popular vote
- this study was cited to show some differences between the two systems
- it has very low turnout (with the exception of Iowa caucus) because it is time consuming and only registered voters with a party participate
- Caucuses are less time-consuming and cheaper than primaries
-The states that hold caucuses are rather attached to them, so banning them all together would be difficult

Notes from the study cited earlier:
- Obama won more caucuses than Hillary Clinton in 2008, but she won more primaries, leading to the idea that systemic differences in the nomination processes influence candidate choice. This was also shown in the races between Romney and McCain.
- There is evidence that caucuses have a sort of response bias, where the voters with the most strong and partisan opinions are most likely to participate.
- The methods that are employed by the caucus (one time, one place, lots of speaking, old procedure) are likely to alienate certain groups of the population, such as the disabled and those with limited English proficiency, once again leading to response bias.
- The study found that neither primaries nor caucuses have great demographic representation (caucuses had more Hispanic voters, while primaries attracted more African Americans. This was probably because of which states had which systems)
- Caucus voters were more likely to be male, educated, and less religious (in terms of church attendance)
- The studies showed that caucus participants had more extreme political views than primary participants. However, the extremism was evident for both parties.

Reforms for the primaries:
- Graduated random presidential primary
- Delaware plan
- Rotating regional primary system
- Interregional primary plan
- National primary

Reminder to look closer at the different types of primaries.