Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

thesquanderer

(12,902 posts)
33. That may not always be an option.
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:40 PM
May 2016

For example, in Vermont, there is actually no way for someone to register as a member of one party of another.

But I don't see any reason to add severe rules like that anyway, which can just as easily rule out "good" candidates as "bad" ones. I think it has to be up to the voters to determine whether someone meets their own criteria for deserving their vote, I don't think the state has to place stiffer restrictions on the options.

For an example of how it could work the other way, maybe someone should have to be a resident of a state for 5 years before running for Senate in that state, yes? But then Hillary could not have become Senator. Tough restrictions can cut both ways. And you can't make any assumptions about who will really benefit.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

put everything back to 10 days like in europe allan01 May 2016 #1
I want supper delegates they protect are party from Jim Webb and Trump lewebley3 May 2016 #6
they keep good candidates from beating bad ones roguevalley May 2016 #22
And they just nominated Trump. yallerdawg May 2016 #24
The GOP has supers too. but The rules are different and there are only 3 per state. nt Gore1FL May 2016 #61
Then Sanders can claim to be a Republican and run in their The Second Stone May 2016 #84
Did Bernie begin as a republican? No. BunkieBandit May 2016 #89
Hillary has been a Democrat for decades. Bernie? Months. The Second Stone May 2016 #90
Singe Payer health care, affordable college, ending wealthy inequality, holding corporation liable f Feeling the Bern May 2016 #97
Bunkie, how long ago did Clinton become a Democrat? Nitram May 2016 #111
Didn't ABC news lancer78 May 2016 #106
Funny when I read your post it sounds like the super delegates represent the A Simple Game May 2016 #109
"Supper" delegates? mindwalker_i May 2016 #25
With fava beans and a nice chianti FrodosPet May 2016 #32
Do you want the hose again? nt awoke_in_2003 May 2016 #91
Maybe lewebley3 May 2016 #40
Because Jim Webb was just an eyelash from winning the nomination TheFarseer May 2016 #34
Superdelegates are party office holders: they should have say over the rest of the lewebley3 May 2016 #37
All people are equal, but some are more equal than others? TheFarseer May 2016 #45
No. Some superdelegates are party office holders. jeff47 May 2016 #53
If they have won a Dem office: the have some appoval of Dem votes; lewebley3 May 2016 #54
A party of the "Party"... ReRe May 2016 #70
And if you actually read my post, you'll find lots of superdelegates have never held office. jeff47 May 2016 #96
I'd rather eat my own supper than a supper delegate eat my supper. Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #68
Yup. 10 days is more than enough to Helen Borg May 2016 #21
I disagree. While I don't like multi-year campaigning, 10 days are not enough for someone Dustlawyer May 2016 #36
Hell, give em 30 days then mdbl May 2016 #107
I really am considering a run for President in 2020 FrodosPet May 2016 #29
Go a head no one is stopping you lewebley3 May 2016 #38
Founding Fathers knew the risks of mob rule, that is to say houston16revival May 2016 #2
Founding Fathers also knew the benefit of Slavery, Only Men can vote, rule by the landed Gentry. Vincardog May 2016 #35
I'm not playing a game here houston16revival May 2016 #42
The Founding fathers believed the rabble was best served by letting their "betters" make the Vincardog May 2016 #43
It was a very different world. LisaM May 2016 #80
This sub-tread was brought about by the poster claiming the Founder's intent as justification for Vincardog May 2016 #81
Thank God he's gone mdbl May 2016 #108
Democracy would be great, if only... FrodosPet May 2016 #41
The problem of a tyranny of the majority is always there but has harun May 2016 #110
We also need to consider "The Sanders Rule" going forward. yallerdawg May 2016 #3
Or, just get rid of parties. nt silvershadow May 2016 #5
No just get rid of sore losers like Sanders lewebley3 May 2016 #7
He isn't losing. nt silvershadow May 2016 #8
Really? LiberalFighter May 2016 #14
Oh you're using the numbers without the Great Coast to Coast Disenfranchisement silvershadow May 2016 #59
Bernie is winning Skittles May 2016 #101
better video: silvershadow May 2016 #103
Bernie math Skittles May 2016 #104
Hillary math- being shoved down our throats. nt silvershadow May 2016 #105
He is a loser! leftofcool May 2016 #15
Why are you acting like a child? Bradical79 May 2016 #72
It's people like this that really get my blood pumping about voting for hillary. Feeling the Bern May 2016 #98
I second that. LiberalFighter May 2016 #11
Thanks lewebley3 May 2016 #13
That may not always be an option. thesquanderer May 2016 #33
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy is a Democrat. yallerdawg May 2016 #46
Sure, once they are approved to get on the Democratic ticket, they are de facto Democrats. thesquanderer May 2016 #50
That's why we need "The Sanders Rule." yallerdawg May 2016 #55
actually, he now is a democratic senator green917 May 2016 #60
Actually, he remains an independent. yallerdawg May 2016 #65
i stand corrected green917 May 2016 #112
Well, maybe we need a WJC Rule... ReRe May 2016 #74
The country had turned "right." yallerdawg May 2016 #83
Indeed - It's WJC-HRC Inc. And has been GoneOffShore May 2016 #86
Damn right, GoneOffShore ReRe May 2016 #87
We did a similar vote in Iowa last weekend. CoffeeCat May 2016 #4
States don't decide on supper delegates: Government shouldn't be telling lewebley3 May 2016 #10
I like food so I will vote for the supper delegate AllyCat May 2016 #27
I love Iron Chef food for supper! Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #69
The party in each state can decide what they want to do, I believe. (n/t) thesquanderer May 2016 #28
The only reason they are against automatic delegates LiberalFighter May 2016 #9
Agreed: Supper delegates protect the party from a McGovern or Trump lewebley3 May 2016 #12
And Bernie leftofcool May 2016 #16
What are they serving at the supper? jopacaco May 2016 #18
Maine is stating proportionate split, not all or nothing. Kittycat May 2016 #58
Read my post a couple of posts down. LiberalFighter May 2016 #82
Super delegates are always a bad idea. Gore1FL May 2016 #62
It has never happened. Yet people are upset about. LiberalFighter May 2016 #75
How did the Dem Party even properly exist before 1982... Bodych May 2016 #17
Well it is possible to form opinions about people by meeting them anigbrowl May 2016 #79
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahha this coming from the state that elected Paul LePage TWICE! Firebrand Gary May 2016 #19
So you think that Maine Dems voted for LePage? Really? Bodych May 2016 #20
Nothing says the primary is supposed to be one person one vote Gman May 2016 #23
No. Primaries are elections run by the government. Caucuses are run by the parties. JimDandy May 2016 #26
THANK YOU for stating this Bodych May 2016 #31
It blows my mind that US citizens spout off such nonsense JimDandy May 2016 #48
If you opt out, you let others choose for you. yallerdawg May 2016 #51
? Bodych May 2016 #57
Independents can vote in their own primary. LiberalFighter May 2016 #77
No one is stopping independents from joining a party. SunSeeker May 2016 #47
No. The party runs the primary Gman May 2016 #88
And they should be paid for by the parties, NOT the public FrodosPet May 2016 #44
They can participate if they join a party. SunSeeker May 2016 #49
Sorry, I disagree FrodosPet May 2016 #52
You are represented. SunSeeker May 2016 #56
If that's what the party wants to do, fine FrodosPet May 2016 #63
The Moose Lodge is not a political party that runs candidates for government office. SunSeeker May 2016 #73
There is a difference from not being allowed to participate. LiberalFighter May 2016 #78
Leave Paul outta this...Superdelagates are so undemocratic and backward...besides Paul is an R you downeastdaniel May 2016 #30
"Some Sanders supporters want the delegate allocation to occur this year" Changing the rules after Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #39
The rules don't exist yet. Gore1FL May 2016 #64
Again, "Russell said that some Sanders supporters want the delegate allocation to occur this year." Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #66
The rules for 2016 have not been written. They will be in summer 2016 Gore1FL May 2016 #71
Any rules change will be for 2020 LiberalFighter May 2016 #85
From your link: Gore1FL May 2016 #92
From your post. LiberalFighter May 2016 #93
You seem to be arguing a different topic than what I am. nt Gore1FL May 2016 #94
You originally responded about changing the rules for delegates. LiberalFighter May 2016 #95
And that they could be changed. Not who could change them. nt Gore1FL May 2016 #100
Critique of the private party argument and the openly anti-democratic argument Redness May 2016 #67
So they're repudiating the delegate system? Does this mean they repudiate the architect as well? nt Tarheel_Dem May 2016 #76
Trying to Shutdown Bernie. TomCADem May 2016 #99
I'll be satisfied if they eliminate the corporate lobbyists from the super delegate ranks, but... desmiller May 2016 #102
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»At Maine convention, Demo...»Reply #33