Our primary system sucks

[B2G]

Too many voters are completely disenfranchised with nominees being determined before they even have a chance to vote. Unless it's an incredibly tight race, candidates often completely ignore the late voting states and their concerns. Iowa and New Hampshire hold way too much power in the process.

We need to eliminate super delegates. We need to come up with a new system. I'm leaning towards dividing the states into 3 or 4 regions based on delegate counts and having rotating primaries so the regions take turns in the order in which they vote. That seems to be the most fair process to me.

But is will probably never happen...

[Le Taz Hot]

1. The system as it stands benefits the Establishment.

It was set up for precisely that reason.

[marions ghost]

20. Yes

and for that reason, as the OP says --it sucks.

Sucks in so many ways-- I don't have time to write an essay right now.

And there is NO incentive to make it better, because it allows for all sorts of manipulation of the popular vote.

[mythology]

42. That isn't true

Having smaller individual states greatly benefits smaller candidates. It allows a smaller lesser funded candidate to get momentum. Look at Obama in 2008 and how winning Iowa boosted him.

Put a candidate like Sanders in a one day primary and he doesn't come anywhere near the level he got to.

[leftofcool]

2. Yes, let's change the rules for Bernie

[B2G]

3. The rules are obviously not going to be changed for Bernie

But thanks for playing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. You're missing the point entirely.

The system is such that late-date primary voters might as well not bother most cycles. The primary season is too drawn out.

[CorkySt.Clair]

26. +1

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and Bernie was winning it would be the "worst system ever"?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

28. Sounds like people who dont plan on supporting the Democratic nominee unless

it is who they want it to be.

When any of you thought (not you) you actually had a choice, I dont know.

I think a little George Carlin is needed right about now.

[B2G]

30. You need to invest in a hearng aid. nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

33. If I am wrong I will gladly admit it. Glad to hear Hillary can count on your vote

if she is the nominee

[B2G]

36. I will vote for whoever is nominated.

That's not the point of this thread.

[qdouble]

4. The main purpose of primaries is for the party to choose the most electable candidate...

I'd lean toward prioritizing swing states first.

[onecaliberal]

32. That's nice, how many of those swing states does my largest in the nation blue state support

with our tax dollars? We certainly have a lot more going out than we have coming in. I'm sick of being told my fucking vote shouldn't count or mean anything.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. It's not Iowa and New Hampshire that are the problems

It's letting all the states of the Old South (which almost never vote for Democrats in the GE) vote for our nominee before anyone on the West Coast has a chance to cast a ballot.

[B2G]

6. Which is why rotating regions would be more fair. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

9. Or even rotating a few states from each region

At any rate, it's ridiculous that no one on the West Coast has been allowed to vote yet even though everyone registered in the Old South (including me) has been allowed to vote.

[Ace Rothstein]

24. I've always thought there should be 5 primary dates.

10 states per date every 2-3-4 weeks starting in mid-Jan. Each grouping of 10 should have a good demographic, geographic and population mix. They rotate in the same order every 4 years and can be regrouped every 20 years or so based on demographic and population changes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. This. Fucking THIS.

I'm already effectively disenfranchised in the GE by the anti-democratic Electoral College (my state's not remotely in play). It would be nice to have at least my primary vote matter.

[Tarc]

25. Any particular reason that you think disenfranchising southern blacks is a winning strategy?

The Democratic Party should be interested in outreach to the entire country.

[TDale313]

31. Any reason why the millions of us in California should never get a real say

In the primaries and are taken for total granted in the general? Cause that's been the case for decades.

[Tarc]

37. You had a say last go-around. California was a Super Tuesday state in 2008

[Shadowflash]

7. Primaries need to be held like the GE.

All states on one day.

Simple, quick and easy. And there would be no determining who the nominee is BEFORE people even get a chance to vote on it.

[B2G]

10. The main problem I see with that

are the logistics of campaigning in 50 states at the same time. Those with the most money and name recognition would have a huge advantage.

[qdouble]

12. The problem is there's often too many candidates at the beginning

If primaries started off with only 2 or 3 candidates going head to head I'd agree, but often there may be 8 or more people running. I don't think it's really a bad thing to reduce the field and to make sure the nominee has been somewhat battle tested before the GE.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. The problem with that is, by the time the General Election rolls along,

the main candidates have a general idea of which states are in the bag and which are hopeless, and which are in play. Thus, it usually would make no sense for a Democrat to campaign in Wyoming, Alaska, or most of the Southern states in the General Election. However, because the primaries/caucuses are not winner-take-all like the General Election is, the candidates almost always have to make an appearance in each state. That would be next to impossible to do in a one-day, 50-state primary.

[Tarc]

27. That's counterproductive, and would basically cut every small satte out of the equation

Candidates would stick to the big states and urban areas only, as that is where the most votes would come from.

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. How many candidates would have a billion or two dollars to spend on a 50 state primary?

Also, primaries are critical when determining which issues are relevant to the voters in an election and honing that message.

No system is perfect but it is better than the Republican primary system.

[tritsofme]

8. Starting in March, states can choose when they vote. My best reform would be to eliminate caucuses.

After the very early states vote, the schedule is basically a local decision. There is no reason all of the states couldn't vote by the end of March, it is local politicians who choose to hold later elections that effectively disenfranchise their voters.

The best reform I would like to see is the complete elimination of the un-democratic caucuses from the entire process. Caucuses disenfranchise working people and there is no secret ballot. These ruses have no place in our party's nomination process.

[brooklynite]

11. Are you happy with only well-funded candidates?

Because doing 12-15 States at a time is going to eliminate more marginal candidates right off the bat.

You also need to be prepared to give up retail campaigning; no time for it and too much are to cover at once.

[B2G]

15. Why?

Because it would be cost-prohibitive for candidates to focus on 12 states at a time?

[brooklynite]

18. Broadly, yes

Martin O'Malley comes to mind.

[B2G]

19. I don't think funding was O'Malley's issue. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. This used to be debated widely every four years in the seventies and eighties.

The regional primary idea seemed to be getting some traction at one point.

But lots of $$$ to be made ( and wasted) by keeping things as they are.

It is, unquestionably, a monstrosity from every other POV. But remember: it's an entire friggin' INDUSTRY now.

Anyway... judging by the way things look right now..... it's not even on the agenda for at least another 4 years.

At least not on the DEM side.

[MineralMan]

16. People ARE voting.

In fact, they have given Hillary Clinton roughly 2.5 million more votes than Bernie, with nearly half of the states already done with their primary events.

Perhaps you don't care for how they voted. That's irrelevant, you know.

[B2G]

17. That is not the point of the thread

But if you're completely happy with the current system, that's fine.

I'm not, and it has nothing to do with who is currently in the lead.

[CalvinballPro]

21. I have also thought that rotating regional primaries would expose candidates to more voters

But I would go with 5 regions of 10 states, clustered by location. This way, candidates cannot complain about distance between states as an excuse not to visit some locations. Regional primaries should actually save candidates money, as well, since they would have to invest in fewer media markets at different times.

Consider that media buys in NH were purchased for that state, but also played in MA, VT, and ME. Then those markets had to be re-invested in once those other three states voted later. Why? Why not have ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, and CT all grouped together, so a candidate could target only the media markets that affect those states. The same would go for every other region. (I say this as a New Jerseyan who gets his television stations out of Philadelphia, PA.)

You are absolutely correct, the calendar needs to be adjusted and 90+% white states need to have their influence reduced to better reflect America's increasing diversity. I'd go even further, though, and ban caucuses. One person, one vote.

[revbones]

29. It would only really be fair if

we switched to primaries on the same day. Or at least the same week.

Given the primary season reliance on money, it's too hard to campaign nationwide all at once, so they have to stagger it. Unfortunately staggering it can easily give favored candidates an early edge to eliminate competition.

[beachbumbob]

34. Usually it's the supporters of the candidate losing complains about

The system....can't for the life figure out why that is....

[merrily]

35. Many things in our political system suck. Question is, can we do anything about

them at this point or did the internet come along to educate us about such things too late for a realistic shot at change?

[LanternWaste]

38. No doubt, you've held this sentiment consistently

No doubt, you've held this sentiment consistently, and that it arises repeatedly only during primary season when things look less bright for any given candidate is due simply to coincidence.

[B2G]

40. Don't be a jackass

Nobody likes a jackass.

Of course I have. Typically by the time I vote, the writing is already on the wall. And I vote in mid-March.

Thanks for checking though. It's nice to know you care.

[NCTraveler]

39. I do think it is really flawed.

I addressed many of the disenfranchising aspects before the primaries started. Interesting enough, my only opposition was from Sanders supporters. I believe it is flawed from start to finish. Still gets the job done. Needs to be greatly improved.

"We need to eliminate super delegates. We need to come up with a new system. I'm leaning towards dividing the states into 3 or 4 regions based on delegate counts and having rotating primaries so the regions take turns in the order in which they vote. That seems to be the most fair process to me."

The basic thought itself sound better than the current system. I like the thought generation.

[Haveadream]

43. There are Pros and Cons to Our Current System

One advantage to the current system is that it is a process rather than a singular event. It allows the Party to truly get a good sense of the candidate's positions, message and demeanor. There is a tempering process at work and it makes a difference. It also prepares the eventual candidate for the General Election.

There are many arguments for and against the order in which they happen. If massive states were to vote early on, smaller regions would be disenfranchised entirely. Lesser known candidates would be eliminated sooner as well.

Closed Primaries as opposed to open give a more unadulterated accounting of what other Party members want. They are also more difficult to be "gamed" by members of the opposition.

Primary ballot systems (rather than caucuses) allow for the most Party voter representation. Caucuses are far more corruptible and can unfairly suppress many voters who would otherwise be able to cast a vote.

Another idea would be for each state to grant Primary Day voting "holidays" so that working people and students are not prevented from participating.

Just some thoughts.

[Nye Bevan]

44. The establishment would LOVE what you are suggesting.

To be competitive in such a system would require lots of money and name recognition. Much less risk of upstart maverick candidates coming up out of nowhere in the early small states to capture the voters' imagination.