General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere Do Perez and Ellison Stand on Open Primaries, Superdelegates and...
...and caucuses? If one of them pushes to abolish all three, they have my support.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Against caucuses.
Hillary won several open primaries (13) to be precise. Hence I know that open primaries are not rigged against the democratic base, many who do not have the luxury of having a whole day to spend on a caucus.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)...and any smaller rural state, which would otherwise be difficult for a candidate to Campaign in because it is so spread out.
But a large state with urban areas being controlled by a small caucus? Makes no sense.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Much more representative of the rest of is
Joe941
(2,848 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and also fits other criterion (not too liberal, middle of the country, blah blah)
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464250335/the-perfect-state-index-if-iowa-n-h-are-too-white-to-go-first-then-who
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Like you have any say in the matter. That is up to the Iowa legislature.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,402 posts)n/t
PatsFan87
(368 posts)Open primaries are necessary. If we want independent voters in the general, we shouldn't shut them out of having a voice in the primary. I hear the "well they can always switch to being a Democrat beforehand." Realistically, some people make up their minds in the weeks or even days leading up to the primary. These people should not be locked out and their voice matters equally. Additionally, some states like New York have deadlines to switch your party half a year before the state's primary. We also had the issue in NY and other states of people being purged from voter lists and when people would check their registration online, they were listed as independent/not declared even if they switched Democrat to vote in the primary. All states should have same-day voter registration.
I'm not a fan of superdelegates but if they are here to stay, they should not be able to get behind a candidate before their state has voted. It wouldn't be a horrible idea for them to stay out of the process until the convention. Numerically, they should have less of an impact and if their state overwhelmingly voted for a certain candidate, their vote should represent the will of the voters they are supposed to represent.
I live in Maine, a caucus state, and the whole process was a mess. In our largest city of Portland, they didn't have enough space for people and they were turning people away (which is illegal). It was also an inconvenience to sit through a long drawn out process of electing people for certain positions, listening to speeches, etc. People want to get in and out to vote.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)If more primaries are open.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)How do you think the head of the DNC can change a red state from caucus to primary given that they (the state) will have to pay for the primary while the party pays for the caucuses.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)that's my reason at least for wanting to know
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)You can assume that every Democrat would like to get rid of caucuses as they are not democratic and they cost the party.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that we now know has a huge religious right component and intends to smash liberalism and secularism has gained enormous power this election, allowing them to move into the mainstream from their previous shadowy sidelines.
There is NO chance we can support open primaries in the face of this extremely aggressive enemy. Only wish we could persuade states to switch from caucuses, but with the right-wing extremists in charge of a majority of states, that will not happen.
For now, though, superdelegates are part of our bulwark against these extremists--if/until they use money and stealth to worm their way into local party politics and become superdelegates themselves.
After hearing Ellison speak a couple of times, I am more than just massively unimpressed with him. Schumer and Warren supposedly supported him to draw Bernie's faction in tighter, but could it be they also thought he'd be a weak leader who wouldn't get in their way? That might not be so bad if so. We must unify as much as possible against the tremendous threat from the reactionary right and dominionists, but the possibility that an influential radical presence in the party could ultimately be an open door for attack by a far left-far right alliance is a frightening specter.
In any case, I like Tom Perez infinitely better. He's both a liberal scrapper and consensus-builder.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)Republicans sued California when it tried to go completely open primary. We do not need the consent of Republicans to change how we choose our nominee.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)primary vs. caucus.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)And, the processes are locally determined with good reason.
We have open primaries in my state and I like it that way. There is no state party affiliation requirement. For primary elections, we choose a ballot that is limited to a specific party, though.
I know a lot of people dislike open primaries because people who aren't allowed in the clubhouse might cross over. But, I like our system very much and would not like the DNC to advocate for changes.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)The federal government doesn't have the ability to impose primaries or caucuses. The DNC chair certainly doesn't.
Superdelegates are another matter. I will say this. The GOP wished they had superdelegates to stop Trump.