I'll say it again. We are a laughingstock because of our primary rules

[ruggerson]

This proportional bullshit is "fairness" taken to the absurd.

The problem is that our party is far more concerned with whether the Mike Gravels of the world get their one delegate in one obscure county somewhere than we are with actually winning elections and implementing change.

We should adopt a quasi winner take all combined with proportional delegate selection for 2012 and beyond, so we never have to live this nightmare again.

If Candidate A wins a state, they should get half of the state's delegates outright and the other half can be apportioned by county wins.

It will give us stronger candidates, it will be fair, since lesser known candidates will have the time to break through, but it will limit the length and divisiveness of our current ridiculous system.

I have no idea whether Obama or Clinton would be the winner had this idea been implemented this year (I'm too lazy to run the numbers), but one of them would have had the momentum to lock this up weeks, if not months ago.

[Yael]

1. So if Hillary were being honest and running as the Republican she is

we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

:)

[still_one]

7. gee, that is what billy said a few days ago. If he likes the republicans so much

he should join them

[Catherina]

18. You beat me to it. Wasn't that appalling? n/t

[still_one]

22. Yes, and because the primaries have been so drawn out, I believe we

are seeing the true character of the candidates

[Catherina]

24. Good point. I never looked at it that way before. n/t

[still_one]

27. I didn't initially view it that way either until the last couple of months /nt

[Catherina]

28. I'll take that silver lining to keep me warm and smile. She's out. I'm ecstatic.

:woohoo:

Rec this thread- If you think it's time for Hillary to drop out

12 hours later it has 980 991 recommendations. It makes my heart go :woohoo:

[still_one]

30. LOL, I wish it were true, but I fear it won't be that easy, even if at the end of the primaries

Barrack is the clear winner

[Catherina]

32. I don't think it will be that easy either.

Let's hope Hillary and Bill have enough sense to NOT take it to a bloody battle on the convention floor and destroy what's left of their legacy.

[rug]

17. Yes, she's running as a Republican.

:eyes:

[GarbagemanLB]

2. I like proportional delegation, but the SD system has got to go. That is something that fits more

in the GOP.

[ruggerson]

11. I'm all for getting rid of the SD's

but it has to be combined with revamping proportional representation.

[walldude]

3. At least we can agree on something..

Change the damn rules already. :toast:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. The time to have changed this would have been sometime between 2005 and 2007

Not now with the vast majority of contests already done, and the campaigns already set up around this system.

[ruggerson]

6. Yes, I said for 2012

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. My mistake, I completely apologize.

I'm taking the argument from another thread into yours. I apologize.

[ruggerson]

15. no problem

:)

[still_one]

5. I didn't see anyone complaining about it before the primaries

In fact what it has done is show me the TRUE nature of the candidates, especially the clintons, and THEIR TRUE CHARACTER

[LakeSamish706]

8. I frankly think they should hold the Primary just as a General Election....

drop the electoral college and have the winer take all in the same night.

[wileedog]

10. If Clinton's last name was Rodham

We wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not saying the system is perfect, but I have never heard the outcry anywhere near as much about it as this year when the Queen of Democrats started losing in it.

Certainly Bill never had a problem with it.

[ruggerson]

13. it's not about any candidate losing or winning

It's about the fact that this particular contest has exposed how lame our current rules are.

[still_one]

14. Throw the electoral college out first, then maybe I will listen /nt

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Here is a thread...

...where you can post ideas for how you would change the system (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5652138&mesg_id=5652138)

[Muttocracy]

16. winner-take-all no; get rid of sub-states and SD and caucuses

The winner-take-all could give an even stronger bias toward an early leader with $$ and name recognition. It could also shift things to only caring about the big states as the electoral college does. So I say no to that.

I don't like the caucus systems because of the turnout bias (you have to have a certain block of hours free to vote), and the multiple roundings that skew the results (you would have though noone in Iowa supported anyone but the top 3).

I could do without the counting by congressional districts/counties/reps to conventions/whatever. Just tally up the popular vote from within each state and allocate delegates proportionally from that, the way the electoral vote will work from the state anyway.

And no superdelegates please. They can endorse as party leaders and try to guide their constituents and fans all they want.

[ruggerson]

19. I'm calling my idea "winner take half"

so it would indeed let lesser known candidates have the time to run strongly in earlier, smaller states and build grassroots organizations. But it would also prevent situations like this year from happening.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Clinton supporters gripe: The Democratic primary system is TOO FAIR

:rofl:

""fairness" taken to the absurd"

[ruggerson]

21. Why is your entire frame of reference for everything that happens

or anything anyone says, Clinton vs Obama?

Are you that limited?

[anonymous171]

23. Gravel, Kucinich, Edwards and all the other "also rans" bring actual issues to the table.

[MadBadger]

25. We are the laughingstock because of Hillary's bitterness.

[JackORoses]

26. In a winner-take-all scenario, only Big States matter

That is the whole reason why we use proportional allocation.
To give all Democrats a voice, not just those in Big States.

[ruggerson]

31. Not in a winner take half system

[Hippo_Tron]

29. One national primary day, national popular vote wins, all candidates get same amount of money

Runoff a week later if no candidate gets a majority. It's quick, it's fair, and it's democratic.