Sanders' Democratic Party reforms focus on things that would've helped Sanders win

[bigtree]

Al Giordano ‏@AlGiordano 4h4 hours ago
Bernie Sanders's Democratic Party reforms focus on things that would've helped Bernie Sanders win

During a brief statement in Washington on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders outlined four proposals to reform the Democratic Party...

-Get new leadership at the Democratic National Committee.
-Approve "the most progressive platform ever passed" at the Democratic National Convention in July.
-Enact "real electoral reform" within the Democratic Party.
-Get rid of superdelegates.

...And then there's this one, which we'll quote directly.

"We need real electoral reform within the Democratic Party. And that means — among many, many other things — open primaries. The idea that in the state of New York, the great state of New York, 3 million people could not participate in helping to select who the Democratic or Republican candidate for president would be because they had registered as an independent not as a Democrat or a Republican is incomprehensible."

This quote lies at the heart of the differences between Sanders and the Democratic Party, everything else aside.

It is the job of the Democratic Party to gain new members who will then vote for Democratic candidates. To raise money from those members to help run campaigns on behalf of those candidates. In recent years, the number of people who identify with the party has declined; the number of people who identify with the Republican Party has declined slightly faster. In early 2005, there were more Republicans than Democrats and more Democrats than independents, according to Gallup. By January of this year, 26 percent of Americans identified as Republicans and 29 percent as Democrats. Forty-two percent called themselves independents. In other words: The party isn't getting its job done. (It's not getting the job done in state-level races, either, but that's a different discussion.)

From the standpoint of the party, though, Sanders's proposal would only make the problem worse. Allowing non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary might get voters invested in the candidate they support — but it wouldn't get them invested in the party. The party wants to identify people whom it can reliably turn out to vote in important contests; allowing people to vote in Democratic primaries without being Democrats doesn't help them with that identification. What's more, it doesn't build loyalty to the ticket. Democrats tend to vote for Democrats. Independents votes for ... whomever. (Although in practice they vote for the party with which they privately align themselves, outside of the pesky gaze of Wasserman Schultz.)

It's not weird to suggest that more people should get to vote in elections. It's somewhat weird to suggest that the party has a duty to let non-members help pick its nominee. It's very weird to suggest that the Democratic Party would want to intentionally weaken itself.

Of course, the reason Sanders wishes that the party allowed non-Democrats to vote is that those non-Democrats helped keep him in the fight. In a few states, it was people who identified as independents that handed Sanders a win. If those New York voters had been able to pull the lever for Sanders, he may have ... well, not lost quite so badly.

But notice what's missing from Sanders's list: caucuses...


read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/15/bernie-sanderss-democratic-party-reforms-focus-on-things-that-wouldve-helped-bernie-sanders-win/?postshare=9331466000216234&tid=ss_tw

Presumptive Brauer ‏@allanbrauer 1h1 hour ago
Dear @HillaryClinton: I'm a Dem, unlike Sanders. My list:
1. Candidates must be Dems
2. Eliminate caucuses
3. Closed primaries

[Txbluedog]

1. Open primaries are the most non-sensical thing to me

If you have open primariers you are basically inviting the opposition to vote for your weakest candidate in the GE

[msongs]

8. if you are a temporary democrat looking for $$$ because nobody would give you any as an independent

open primaries are the only way to win....well and undemocratic caucuses

[CrowCityDem]

2. Until he includes caucuses, it's obvious this is sour grapes.

[emulatorloo]

3. I think that interp is a little harsh but

- I don't want Republicans fucking with our primaries. If yr a left-leaning Indy and want to help pick the Dem nominee, register as a Dem

- I live in a caucus state, and those damn things really discourage participation. Not many people have the time or even the ability to stand around some high school gymnasium for 5 or 6 hours. So I hope caucus states switch to primaries w early voting. Sounds like CO is gonna do that.

[upaloopa]

4. No to open primaries. Either join the party or don't vote for it's presidential candidate.

I don't want independents or repukes picking my President.

Independents can vote in the general but I don't want them rat fucking our elections.

Bernie says he wants to reform the Democratic party yet he lost in closed primaries. If Dems wanted him to reform the party they would have voted for him.

45% voted for Bernie and 56% voted for Hillary. Bernie's numbers included many independents.

If you are going to reform my party JOIN IT!

[pat_k]

11. So you're calling on 36 states to change?

36 states -- 70% -- are "doing it wrong."

36 states have a Democratic primary or caucus that is:
-- Completely open to all registered voters.
-- Open to registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
-- Open only to registered Democrats, but voter can change on the same day.

[SFnomad]

5. Sanders had to JOIN the Democratic Party to run as a Democrat, if you want to vote in the

Democratic Primary, you should have to be a Democrat as well.

[bigtree]

7. yes

V. Spellman ‏@v_spellmandem 4h4 hours ago
Bernie Demands @TheDemocrats change then "Journalist" should ask, "Are you a DEM in the Senate Now? @gdebenedetti

[SheenaR]

9. Semi-closed Primaries

do not allow Republicans to vote. And it allows left leaning Independents to be a part of our process. Appeases both crowds in my opinion.

[pat_k]

10. So, 36 State Dem Parties are "nonsensical."

70% percent of the Democratic establishment is acting "nonsensically"?

36 states have a Democratic primary or caucus that is:
-- Completely open to all registered voters.
-- Open to registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
-- Open only to registered Democrats, but voter can change on the same day.


I'm sure they'd all love hearing your opinion of them.

[bigtree]

12. my personal opinion is that states have the right to choose how they elect delegates

...and the national party can suggest, but not dictate that choice.

[pat_k]

16. Certainly.

[frazzled]

13. That first thing on the agenda is stupid

First of all, the DNC chairmanship is not determined at the convention nor by the delegates, and the current chair will not be the chair after January 20, 2017 anyway. You all recall that Obama appointed a chair when he became president, Tim Kaine, who served for two years. After that he appointed Wasserman-Schultz, who has served for the past 3 1/2 years. Both were approved by the Democratic National Committee members, which, should the new president not be a Democrat, will have to choose a new chair by nomination and election. Bernie Sanders has no say whatsoever in this process, and he has little to no leverage on this particular point. There will be a new chair despite him, come February or so 2017.

It's a completely empty statement, meant apparently only to hype up ... I don't know who.

[bigtree]

14. kick

[geek tragedy]

15. he still doesn't accept the legitimacy of the result.

he wants to go down as the man who would have won the nomination and been president had the eeeeevil TPTB not rigged the game against him.

[oberliner]

17. Pointing out the inherent unfairness of caucuses would have been admirable

It seems odd that he would not want to change that system.