LETTERS: Democratic, GOP caucuses a broken process

Having participated in the Nevada Democratic caucus, I must call for the leaders of the Democratic Party to fix this broken process. As Democrats, we pride ourselves as the party of inclusion. The current process puts up nothing but road blocks to participation.

Look at the thousands of people who were excluded from the process: people who had to work that Saturday; senior citizens who could not withstand the rigors of a three-hour ordeal; young parents who would not subject their babies to the same ordeal; and observant Jews whose holy day doesn’t allow them to get there or participate.

More important, for those participating in this process at a casino, it hardly allows for a vote of conscience. If a union official suggests whom you vote for, and you wish to vote for someone else, you are faced with either voting with your conscience or voting so you won’t be ostracized at your workplace, because it’s not a secret ballot.

In all reality, the Democratic Party probably lost participants for future caucuses if our experience was duplicated throughout the state. The caucus at Desert Oasis High School was chaotic. Three of the registration lines had only a few people in them, but for the 2,000 people waiting to participate, there were only three lines to process all of them. Most people stood in line for more than an hour, then sat in a classroom for another 90 minutes, waiting for others to get through the line.

We need to go back to having a primary. It is more efficient, more fair and much more inclusive. Maintaining this clunky process will not bode well for the party in the long run.

Terry Lowe

Las Vegas

Republican caucus

I take our democracy quite seriously, and I was excited to attend the Republican caucus Tuesday. But upon arrival at my caucus site, we were directed to a room for our precinct. There was a line of about 10 people ahead of us. Once we got to the head of the line, there was a single official to process us, wearing a “Trump in 2016” button. I asked him if that button was appropriate, and he stated that it depended on the candidate.

After he checked our identification, we were provided ballots which included the ghosts of candidates past (for example, Rick Santorum). We checked our candidate, and the official took our ballots from us. We expressed our concern about the secrecy of the ballots. He told us he had two envelopes and would handle it from there.

Our concern is that this process was so sloppy and biased that there was potential for fraud. I do not trust the reported results of this caucus.

Jerre West

Las Vegas

Primaries preferred

On Tuesday, I participated in the Republican caucus, a process that will allow — or should I say, mandate — a small percentage of Nevada’s electorate to determine for the entire state how the delegates will be apportioned. Nevada does very well in general elections, with absentee ballots and a very accommodating early voting schedule. Why we adopted the caucus process in place of a normal primary election escapes me.

Hopefully, our state party representatives will change this in the future, so that all eligible voters will be able to participate in selecting candidates.

Keith Coffin

Henderson

Outsourcing the VA

Again, a Review-Journal editorial attacks the federal government for not outsourcing (“Outsourcing government,” Feb. 17) . The only new thing is that the editorial attempts to use MGM Resorts’ decision to outsource its parking operations as a good example that the federal government should follow in privatizing the VA and its land management.

Of course, the editorial fails to note MGM’s tax reasons for moves, reasons that do not apply to the federal government. The editorial also does not mention all the outsourcing the federal government has already done, which includes all major construction of structures and equipment. If the RJ had done its homework, it would find the very same outsourcing of parking operations by the federal government that is being anticipated by MGM.

What is really galling is that the editorial would deem outsourcing of a parking garage and the privatization of veterans’ care worthy of comparison. This view is not only naive and ill-informed, but is disrespectful to and certainly not wanted by our veterans.

Richard L. Strickland

North Las Vegas