What’s the difference? And why are some states primary states and some caucus states?
In a primary, each party chooses their candidates for office by holding an election. Depending on the state, the primary may be restricted to registered members of that party.
In caucuses, party members gather in meeting places in small districts (Iowa has over a thousand) to hear open debate about each candidate’s positions, and then votes are counted to elect delegates to the party’s county convention. The county conventions then elect delegates to the party’s national convention, which chooses the final candidate.
Each state is free to set up its election procedures largely however it wants (barring things like poll taxes and discrimination which are unconstitutional) and each state party is free to set their own rules and procedures. So every state does it slightly differently.
One of the features of an election by the populace is that even ignoramuses can vote. Someone who knows nothing about any of the candidates may vote based on a candidate’s good looks, nice smile, etc. The advantage of the caucus is that only knowledgeable people vote. (At least I think it’s an advantage.)
In Iraq, we want a caucus for the new leader for the main reason that if a general election was held by the populace, a Shi’ite leader would be chosen, since they have a 60% majority in the country. This would alienate the other religions, and quite possible place a Ba’ath person in power. 
Uh, is it the state or the party that determines if it’s a caucus or a primary? I ask because I know that here in Michigan, for example, we have a Republican Primary (which is open to all), and I think for the Democrats we have a caucus (which isn’t open to all or I’d try to vote for an idiot [not hard]). And for caucus states, who foots the bill – the Party, I imagine, right? Maybe the same for a primary? After all, the whole purpose is so the party can pick its delegates; nothing at all related to the government.
I think it’s determined by Caucasian primates.
That depends on state law, I think. A state may require all major parties to hold a primary, or it may say “It’s up to you dudes to figure it out.”
Heaven forbid we allow the majority to rule; what would you have, a Kurd? A Sunni? Now that’s democracy!
If Bush installs a non-Shiite puppet, Iraq will never know peace. And when the Shiites inevitably gain power, either throught the ballot box or the gun, they are going to establish an Islamic republic. American-style democracy will never work there, and the more Bush tries to cram it down their throats, the more American soldiers will die in a vain effort to maintain it.
And this, of course, has fuck all to do with the question at hand. Please refer to the sticky thread at the top of this forum regarding politics in GQ. It’s only been up there for 9 months now.
I apologize, the subtlety of barbitu8’s hijack made me forget where I was.