We need to completely revamp our "proportional representation" system for delegates

[ruggerson]

This cycle has proven how resoundingly stupid our current system is.

My suggestions to the DNC would be:

1) Get rid of superdelegates entirely.

2) Get rid of caucuses entirely. Tell states that if they don't hold primaries, their delegates will not be certified.

3) Change the pledged delegate system to a compromise between winner-take-all and full proportional representation, what we could call a "modified proportional representation" system: whomever wins a state automaticaly gets 50% of that state's total delegates. The remainder will be apportioned out proportionally by county.

This primary season has shown that our process for selecting delegates is broken. It needs to be overhauled for 2012.

[Johnny__Motown]

1. States have the right to decide how to choose their delegates, Primary, caucus or whatever

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that their rights need to be stripped to please you.



And in 2012 we will have an incumbent President Obama so we won't need a primary system that year.

Yes, I know you want to change it so Hillary can win next time. To bad. C ya

[ruggerson]

3. Some of us are capable of having an actual discussion

about this that is not informed by puerile partisan idiocy.

We'll count you out of that discussion.

[Johnny__Motown]

11. Because I belive states have the right to choose their method of electing delegates?

It appears to me that your suggested method is simply the easiest way for Hillary to win in 2012.

I am sorry but it seems you are the one who is being a partisan here, not me.



If someone other than Barack had won I would still support our system. My candidate lost in 2004 and I never suggested the system needed to be changed to better reflect my choice. (Gephardt)

[ruggerson]

14. I thought caucuses were undemocratic

long before this year. And the proportional representation system is ridiculous. We need a fair way to choose our candidate that best represents the will of the people, but also avoids a battle like the one we're having this year.

This year just highlighted what was already a broken system. So, no, this has nothing to do with partisanship.

[Johnny__Motown]

19. I can discuss the allocation system and the super delegates. But I am states rights guy on caucuses

If a state wants to hold a caucus then the state should be able to hold a caucus


Please keep in mind, I live in a primary state. I hold this opinion on principle only.

[Johnny__Motown]

26. P.S. The system isn't broken just because the candidate who lost refuses to accept it

She is the broken one here.

Everyone else got out when they saw they couldn't win enough pledged delegates to support their candidacy.

Hillary's decision to never give up supported by a former Democratic President is the unique situation that makes our system look worse than it is.


If Hillary dropped out after Wisconsin nobody would be talking about our primary system now.

[anonymous171]

2. Bill Clinton did just fine with the old system.

See no reason, beside the abolition of SDs.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. So?

Why can't people discuss this without making it about partisanship?

I think caucuses need to be done away with, too, and it has nothing to do with my choice of candidate, and in fact, I believed they were undemocratic long before this primary season.

I don't see how we do representation by county, though - there are more counties than delegates, so not every county can have even ONE delegate, much less many. And I'm not sure why winner-take-all isn't good enough in a state. I don't see why rural voters need extra representation.

[quakerboy]

27. Why?

Caucuses measure differently than a primary. You cannot hide a vote or be fucked my a machine in a caucus. That is a good reason to have them, as a sorely needed honesty check and balance. Personally I think that we should do a dual system. The dual thing Texas does makes a lot of conceptual sense, as it produces both a "popular" vote, and a feet on the ground, organized effort.

In the mean time, if we are criticizing under-democratic election options, I would include almost all the states in that. We do vote by mail here. That means everyone can vote, no impediment of having to take time off work or stand in line. No extra paperwork or fussing with "early voting" or any of that. Its just vote by mail, and thats how its done.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. a caucus is the opposite of vote by mail

I don't see how you can endorse one and still support the other.

[quakerboy]

41. Thats what I'm saying

How can you despise the one, yet ignore the other?

As I said, I think they are both valid measures. And if done in concert, they can help provide a check to the corruption that can infest our electoral systems. Were I to run the system, every state would have a vote by mail primary, as well as a caucus, for 2/3 and 1/3 of the delegates. I think there is validity to both.

But if you are going to criticize the system, why pick on one little aspect(caucuses) and ignore other valid concerns(ability to show up to vote at a primary, the problem of machines in an election, the long lines and hassles in some certain chosen places, etc). It makes it look like little more than a partisan way to try to undermine the delegate achievements of one candidate who you do not prefer, rather than a true call for electoral reform.

[Liberal Gramma]

40. I'm with you on part of that

I don't like representation by county, either. Urban voters are underrepresented and rural voters are overrepresented. Add to that that rural voters are more conservative, and you move the party to the right. We've done more than enough rightward shifting in the past few years in my opinion.

[DJ13]

4. Theres nothing wrong with the current system that small changes couldnt fix

Simply adding 50 bonus pledged delegates per state to the winner of a state would eliminate the pledged delegate shortfall the current system has, and lessen the unfair influence of the super delegates on the outcome.

[ruggerson]

6. that would be an interesting way to approach it

I do think the superdelegates should be abolished.

And, as you say, a chunk of delegates should accrue to the winner of a state.

[woolldog]

5. It only seems broken b/c one candidate

is pulling a Huckabee.

[ruggerson]

8. Nope

Huckabee was playing under a winner take all system.

Our candidates are not.

[woolldog]

17. Doesn't matter. It's over, yet she's staying in.

She's pulling a Huckabee.

[AX10]

9. K & R

[anonymous171]

10. I don't want a system that gives huge representation to states with large populations

Candidates would only campaign in those states and forget about all the others. A system that encourages Dean's 50 state strategy is the best.

[BzaDem]

12. Because that way, we can get a candidate that loses the EC by a landslide in Nov?

We need a system that encourages campaigning in states were campaigning is important in the GE. It needs to be as close to general election conditions as possible. Otherwise, we have different payoffs for primaries and the GE, and that works directly against our candidate.

[anonymous171]

15. Demographics change, states that were blue 40 years ago aren't anymore

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Huh? The primaries should give out points based on electoral votes.

[msallied]

13. There is nothing wrong with caususes

However, I am for the abolishing of SDs.

It is not the job of the Federal Government to tell states how to run their elections. To suggest such a thing illustrates ignorance on how this country is designed.

[ruggerson]

18. No but the DNC is not the federal government

[msallied]

20. No, but I think that there has to be a general agreement

between the states and the DNC. Ultimately, it's still the states' decision. And the DNC does not have the authority to tell a state it can't hold caucuses.

[ruggerson]

24. true

but the DNC can exert the appropriate pressure. Caucuses are a relic from a different era. IMHO, there is far too much leeway for undue pressure, horsetrading, fraud, etc. Each state needs to allow people to have their right to a secret ballot. One person, one vote.

[Muttocracy]

16. another odd thing is the different registration rules (open vs. closed) nt

[terrell9584]

22. different election codes

in some states, such as mine, you don't register by party. You declare the day of on primary day and it is not noted during general elections.

[Muttocracy]

23. sound good - as long as all parties have the vote on the same day nt

[StevieM]

21. How about this idea

First the Iowa caucus goes on Feb 9 plus or minus 3 days and that is the only caucus allowed. NH goes 10 days later. Nevada hold a primary 11 days later, followed by South Carolina 10 days later. 4 weeks after SC comes Junior Tuesday, around April 8 (plus or minus 3). That involves the smallest 26 states (not including the 4 to go already) and DC, Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa (along with Dems abroad). All these early contests are based on proportional representation, all elections and not caucuses. The 20 biggest states, plus Puerto Rico, vote on Super Tuesday, around May 6. That is 6 months before the GE. 80% of the delegates will be awarded on that day and they can be awarded winner-take-all.

So the early states will establish the front-runner and the chief alternative, while the big states have the final say. That also means that the early 4 states will be able to narrow the field to 3 serious finalists (as opposed to 2 currently), the Jr. Tuesday states will narrow it to 2, and the big states will pick the winner on Super Tuesday.

Steve

[SoCalDem]

25. However they decide... primary/caucus

it should be 50% to 1st place, 30% to 2nd and 20% divvied up between the rest of the field.. and after it;s down to two, it should be 70-30.. That would produce a decisive winner

NO supers..

[Awsi Dooger]

28. Keep supers but eliminate caucuses

I've never caucused in Nevada. I'm not sure I know anyone who has. Until this year it's always been an obscure event with annoying requirements and no relevance. This year I planned to participate but I've been in Miami since December 13, helping with a family medical concern. So as far as I'm concerned the caucus aspect eliminated my opportunity, given the situation. Otherwise it's a simple request for an absentee ballot.

I trust party big shots and not primary voters. That will always be my instinct so my preference would be exponentially more super delegates.

It's pathetic to allow a 52-48 win in a major state to be virtually meaningless, a tiny margin in delegates that can be easily trumped by an 8000 to 4000 win in an obscure caucus. This is a hybrid era so the suggestions of ruggerson and SoCalDem and others make sense, although I haven't thought out the specifics.

In a caucus setting the specific allotment of 50% to winner, 30% second and 20% third, or anything similar, could be easily manipulated for strategic advantage depending on the status of the race. McCain supporters did that in West Virginia this year, throwing support to Huckabee after the first ballot, to insure Romney wouldn't win and receive a boost in delegates and publicity.

[geek tragedy]

29. Winner take all is anti-democratic. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. You mean the fact that Hillary, the inevitable candidate, is LOSING proves how stupid the system is?

:eyes:

Proportional representation of delegates is more democratic.

[boppers]

31. I like the Texas system.

It has both caucuses and blind votes, allows both disinterested "I only want to vote" and interested "I want to discuss our party's choice with others" people representation, returns delegates on both, and then, later, the regional party delegates convene and refine their choices. They also allocate delegates based on the party's general election returns, so, say, a small army of rural voters don't get to "pretend" they suddenly switched their party.

I don't like the idea of eliminating the caucus system, or going to "winner take all", as such a thing would give more power to the disinterested voters who only know as much their TV tells them. Our party needs better thinkers than that making our grand decisions.

OTOH, getting rid of, or reducing the number of, super-delegates would be nice.

Oh, and having everybody voting and caucusing on the same days, all across the nation, would be super.

While I'm at it, I also want a pony.

[McCamy Taylor]

32. Caucuses disenfranchise people who have to work for a living.

[hayu_lol]

35. Ruggerson, glad you started this thread...

this sort of reasoned debate has been sadly lacking around here.

Caucuses should be eliminated, couldn't agree more. Plenty of obvious reasons why this needs to happen and has nothing to do with either candidate.

Primaries should be closed. Dems only and winner take all. State party committees should take a good look at our present patchwork quilt of election laws and see if they can't eliminate the worst of them.

Perhaps compress the primary so that candidates don't have to endure this two year long campaign.

Lots of things we can discuss here. Thanks again for starting this thread. May we see more of them?

[eridani]

42. No, they do not. Not if caucus states move to the Maine system

Maine allows absentee caucusing for any reason whatsoever. The only things that absentee caucusers don't get to do is change their minds and persuade other caucus goers.

[CakeGrrl]

34. Because THIS primary season didn't work out for HRC like she thought it would?

She knew the rules, just like the MI and FL knew the rules, going into this primary, and she was fine with them and signed off on them like everyone else. And she was convinced that she wouldn't need any primaries after Super Tuesday. So now that the voters have decided they prefer someone else and put that person ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote, the system isn't working?

Maybe not for HRC.

No one's complained about it before. Why now all of a sudden?

[hayu_lol]

36. This thread is not about either candidate...

it is about our crazy patchwork quilt of really nutty election laws/requirements or lack of them/and the terrible effort required by all candidates. Two years of campaigning is nonsense.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Why?

I see no reason to believe that the current system is "broken." What you're suggesting is something much more akin to the Republican nominating system, which is specifically designed to favor the candidate with the most support from the party leadership and big business. I really don't see why everyone is so bent out of shape over this. We have two good candidates. We've registered lots of new voters. And most of the American public isn't freaking out over the long nominating process because they don't spend most of their time surfing political web sites and posing on forums like this.

[TacticalPeek]

39. Number three sounds good to me.

Or something close to that.

So long as we have the electoral college system, the Dem selection process should to some degree reflect that in ofcdf to be in synch nationally with the forces that will actually decide the thing.

[eridani]

43. Great. Make more peoples' votes totally meaningless. Just what we need.

With winner take all, 49.9% of the voters backing the loser have just wasted their votes.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Yeah, we coulda just let Terry McAuliffe call it eight months ago, when he announced "IT'S HER TURN"

Obviously, the system is broken because it didn't hand the nomination to the person who was divinely ordained to receive it.

Just think! If the voters would have done like they were supposed to, and accepted the Clinton Inevitability train, we could have avoided "all these problems"!

[SKKY]

45. As much as I question the "Texas Two-Step" nonsense...

...even though it clearly benefited my candidate, I think each state is perfectly capable of deciding how to conduct a primary. What's good for Texas may not be good for Kentucky.