Hey let's discuss options to make our primary system better!

[rinsd]

I have 4 suggestions

#1 - Eliminate Superdelegates. The irony in calls for the Supers to vote for either the pledged delegate leader or the pop vote winner is silly as the Supers were not designed to be a rubber stamp on the primaries. Eliminate them from the process since they serve little democratic purpose other than as favor exchanges. Endorsements work just as well.

#2 - Eliminate caucuses. I like the town hall feel of meeting your neighbors and hearing persuasive arguments but the fact that this process takes a couple of hours and only at a designated time disenfranchises far too many people. Look at the turnout for caucuses, its a pathetic 10%.

#3 - No more than 10 primaries in a single day and no more than 2 weeks between primary days.

#4 - Make sure the start date for sending in one's absentee ballot is no more than 1 month before the election. Perhaps make the start date 2 weeks before the election unless one can prove special circumstance. This would cut down on votes for candidate who drop out, changed minds etc.

I have not included electronic voting here but feel free to discuss it.

[MadBadger]

1. I agree with all of your points, and I see keep the schedule involving the four small states

I like that Iowa, NH, SC, and Nevada were the first states. They all represent different kinds of voters and it allows for the retail politics that is better than what we see for the large states. Just change the states up every so often.

[rinsd]

6. I wonder if they could come up with comparative small states that have broad demographics

As you said, those 4 states offer a range of voter demographics from age to ethnicity to political temperment to regional.

Perhaps we could choose more 4 small state contingent doing the same.

Maybe Vermont, Louisiana, New Mexico & Oregon?

[MadBadger]

7. Fine by me, and I think Delaware would be a good state as well.

[rinsd]

8. I was also thinking about Delaware.

Interesting demographics between the North and South in that state.

[MadBadger]

13. Why not let the first state go first?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

50. Yes - different states. Some that are a bit more representative than Iowa & S. Carolina.

New Hampshire isn't so bad.

[Andy823]

44. I agree.

Every state should get a chance to be as important as Iowa and NH, let them take turns. I think it would be a great experience for all of us who have never had the candidates go all over our state from town to town like they do in Iowa and NH.

[mcctatas]

2. Those are good thoughts...

too late for this cycle, but they should be brought up in the future...

[DrDan]

3. emulate as closely as possible the GE

wouldn't that give you the candidate that would show the best at the GE?

2. And why not have all primaries on the same day. We have the GE on the same day for all states.

3. No disenfranchisement of any legal democratic voter.

4. NO SUPERDELEGATES! Let the people decide.

[scheming daemons]

4. I agree on all counts.... but add a couple more

1. All primaries closed... or open only to Dems+Indies. NO REPUKES!

2. Voters must be registered Dem at least 90 days before the primary. (No more "Operation Chaos!")

3. Rotating basis as to the order that the states go. No more Iowa and NH always first! Rotate it around.

4. All delegates awarded proportionally by the state TOTALS only.... not by district and such. If you win 58% in a state, you get 58% of the delegates from that state. Link the PDs CLOSER to the popular vote.

[Avalon6]

10. Rotating primary is not going to work unless you get Republicans to agree

Many states want to have the Republican and Democratic primary on the same day to save money.

[LSparkle]

14. Agree especially with your point 4 -- proportional by state totals

I like the idea of proportional representation, but the district-by-
district part is difficult to determine and isn't representative of
the state as a whole. Also is confusing because in some cases an
initial win turns into a lesser win or even a loss when the district
totals are finally determined.

Also agree strongly with point 1 -- NO MORE "OPERATION CHAOS" scenarios
in our primaries!!!!

[Political Heretic]

5. I agree with that list - I agree with evey word of #2 including liking the idea but not the practice

I would add, there needs to be a fixed time limit on campaigning and the primary "season" needs to be much shorter.

The fact that the first debate was a YEAR AGO YESTERDAY is insane. The process needs to start on January 1st of the election year, with the first primaries in February, and primaries OVER by the end of May.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. Great suggestions.

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

11. NO MORE SUPER DELEGATES

Thats number 1

and then:

early primaries

1st 50%
2nd 25%
all others share 25% proportionally

when the field is TWO

1st 70%
2nd 30%

States must have the choice caucus-primary.. It costs a LOT of money to run elections, and unless the DNC is going to subsidize them, the states have to be able to choose what's affordable..

there are FOUR LONG years between presidential elections..plenty of time to plan for a sitter or a day off from work.. most people do not even vote in parimary season, so surely people who DO want to go, can plan with 4 years lead-time..


and REGIONAL election days

one a month starting in Feb


flip a coin to choose who draws first..just draw from a hat for order..

[Owlet]

12. Eliminate primaries altogether

We had better candidates in the days of the real party convention and the smoke-filled back room room. Primaries waste time and money, give the media more stuff to trivialize, and give voters a false sense of their own importance. I can't imagine a stupider process than the one we're engaged in just now, but I sure that the DNC can come up with one.

Bit cranky today. Blame the pollen count.

[barack the house]

15. It's gotta be shorter qucker faster no going to the r convention.

[gsaguyCLW54]

16. I like both #1 & #2

and would add that contests should be winner take all. None of this losers get half bullshit

[MadBadger]

18. Are you for or against letting the GE be decided by popular vote?

[Two Americas]

17. smoke filled rooms

I favor a return to the "smoke filled rooms" approach and dumping the popularity contests altogether, which are media circuses between celebrities and cost a fortune. Get the mass media out of the process, give local organizations a voice, introduce democracy once again to the local level and rebuild the party solidly from the ground up. It is a political party, not a manufacturer of consumer products to be marketed and sold. The system we have now is to easy to game, and too disconnected from every day people.

[Secret_Society]

19. Eliminate overweighting of certain loyal areas

Also, I think Iowa should be the only state allowed to caucus since it is quite the tradition there and well attended. I think a quote from John Locke I read yesterday is very appropriate.

"To what gross absurdities the following of Custom, when reason has left it, may lead, we may be satisfied when we see the bare Name of a Town, of which there remains not so much as the ruines, where scarce so much Housing as a sheep-coat; or more Inhabitants than a Shepard is to be found, sends as many Representatives to the grand Assembly of law-makers, as a whole County numerous in People, and powerful in riches. This Strangers stand amazed at, and every one must confess needs a remedy."

How did he know about caucuses, lol.

[anigbrowl]

20. #5 deal with this in 2009. #6 put it in GD.

Automotive engineers don't modify their vehicles while driving to work, an reconstructing the primary system while we are 80% of the way through the primary season isn't wise either. We have an election to win this November, and then we'll have three whole years to argue over how we select a presidential nominee the next time.

[MadBadger]

22. This is a thread about fugure PRIMARIES. Why wouldnt it go in GD-PRIMARIES?

[Marnieworld]

21. I have no problem with the primary system

Especially the caucuses because they are the best way to ensure honest tabulation of voting. The primary system is fine. I wouldn't mind if they alternated the order of states but other than that I have no beef with it.

[knixphan]

23. how about 50 weeks?

Each week is a suicide round in one state, with a vote on saturday, and on to the next state. 50 weeks of insanity, and then we're done.

[PoliticalAmazon]

24. Hey, Here's an idear! Why don't Obama supporters start working on Indiana? n/t

[DemVet]

25. I like all of your points except number 3.

We should have a National Primary Day...for both parties.

This would eliminate:

The crap the republicans pulled...voting for the other party to influence who their candidate is. People get to vote for any candidate....ONE candidate...either party.

"Pile on" voting...voting for the person in the lead. We then get a "true" candidate...one wanted by the people.

The Primary Day should be in May or June.

[scheming daemons]

28. A national primary would mean only candidates with big $$$ originally could compete...

That means no more "grass roots" candidates.


Only those with name recognition UP FRONT and money UP FRONT could compete.


It means only those that blast the airwaves with commercials could compete.


It means no more hand-to-hand meeting with the voters on the ground. No more retail politics. This is a BAD thing.


It means smaller states get COMPLETELY ignored.


The whittling down of candidates from 9 or 10 down to 2 or 3 over time is a GOOD thing. A national primary day means there are 9 or 10 candidates on the ballot and 99% of the voters would not have been in a position to meet or talk to the candidates... or evolve their opinions on the race.


A National Primary day is a horrible idea.

[paulk]

26. mostly agree with all points -

except I think ten is too many. I would go for less.

I also think the front loading of the system doesn't do us any favors necessarily.

What do you think of going back to winner take all, especially if we eliminate caucuses? That is what the general election is, after all. Why not make our primaries more like the general election - since winning the GE is the point of this whole mess?

[backscatter712]

27. Not too shabby. I'll do my suggestions.

1. I'm with rinsd in losing the superdelegates. The primaries should be purely democratic.

2. Caucuses: I'm not for eliminating them entirely, but I am for some ground rules & changes. First, caucuses should be done by secret ballot, not a show of hands or standing in corners. That addresses the issue of people being pressured or intimidated. Two, put in an early-voting-like mechanism, so people who aren't able to participate in the full process due to work & such are able to at least submit their vote.

3. I agree the scheduling of primaries should be changed. I think the states that vote early, like Iowa and New Hampshire do, should be picked randomly, biased strongly towards small states (We don't want California to be early - we want small states early so candidates with limited resources have a shot.) The vast majority of states should vote on Super Tuesday, and maybe the following Tuesday. None after those two Tuesdays - that way, the primaries are over fairly quickly. We can play around with this, maybe have four, or even six Tuesdays. But it should be compressed more than it was in 2008. That way, less-resourced candidates may have a chance to stay in the game longer.

4. I'm personally in favor of switching to Instant Runoff voting, so you can select your candidates in order of preference. That way, when one candidate drops out, your vote goes to your next choice.

5. Close the primaries, or at least tighten up the requirements for getting in. We want to make it a pain in the ass for Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads to attempt a repeat of Operation Chaos. If you change your registration to Democrat, you're not allowed to change it back to Republican for the general election. Tightening up the primary schedule to make it less likely that the Democrats are still slugging it out after the Republicans already have a nominee would also help address this problem.

6. As far as electronic voting machines, go, the only system I'm willing to allow would be Punchscan's (http://www.punchscan.org/) Punchscan is a voting system that actually uses technology to make elections more secure and verifiable - the opposite of Diebold. Diebold/Premier, ES&S and Sequoia machines should all be junked. Every single one. They are not trustworthy. Do it with Punchscan, or do it with pen and paper, with chain-of-custody rules and observers from all candidate's campaigns and all political parties watching the whole thing.

[BlooInBloo]

29. The losers always want to change the rules.

[anonymous171]

30. #1 and #4 are my favorite.

But I'm not sure I can let go of my precious caucuses! :cry:

[Aloha Spirit]

31. No delegates of any kind. Use multipliers if you have to. This sh*t with 4 delegates a district is

ridiculous.

[Egnever]

32. Dump Hillary Clinton

the stink will go away pretty quickly after that

[ruggerson]

33. Whomever wins a state gets half the state's delegates

the other half are elected proportionate to the vote percentages.

Also, make the disparities between big and small states less glaring. No more situations where 600 Wyoming voters equals 1 delegate while 15000 Ohio voters equals the same 1 delegate. That is indefensible and wrong.

[scheming daemons]

34. At least that allows for candidates who are behind to have a rationale for competing....

Winner-take-all means that Hillary wouldn't spend even one second in NC, and Obama wouldn't spend one second in WV.

[ruggerson]

35. I think it's a good compromise

on the one hand, it will still give lesser known candidates the ability to compete and start winning delegates early on.

on the other hand, it will award a reasonable chunk to the victor in each state and help curb situations like the one we're experiencing this year.

"Winner take half"

[thevoiceofreason]

36. Forbid anyone named Clinon from ever running for office again.

[woolldog]

37. I think we need more caucuses.

Ideally the entire election would be caucuses.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Keep caucuses.

Make it a statewide holiday.

[bluetrain]

42. That still disenfranchises people with small children, low income workers who will not get the day

off, etc. Caucuses are stupid.

[woolldog]

47. bring your kids to the caucuses!

[MaineDem]

52. Allow absentee balloting for caucuses

Some states do.

[Tyler Durden]

39. All of that, and expel Howard Dean and Donna Brazille.

If they hadn't played their little power games, none of this would be a problem right now.

Good suggestions though.

[quakerboy]

40. Universal vote by mail

Solves many problems.

If you are going to complain about the caucus and access issues, take it all the way. Vote by mail. Anyone who can check their mail can vote by mail.

Plus there is the inherent paper trail.

Bring back the caucus, universally. The caucus's takes the place of the SD's and does not happen until after all states have finished their voting and counting of the vote. 1/4 of delegates to be awarded by caucuses.

Change the order up, as regards who goes first. Perhaps a lottery to determine order. I think that I would go with you, but maybe even drop it to 6 contests per day. And mandate a 2 week break between, to give time for campaigning. 4 and a half month process. Start it February, done in mid June, with the Caucus at the end of June.


I toy with the idea of winner take all primary's, but only if we can do it with instant run off.

[izzybeans]

41. I don't care whether it is a Caucus or a Primary. Just do them all one fucking day

and get it over with.

I don't know why they have to spaced out. The general happens on one day. We don't need to beat dead horses.

[Jamastiene]

43. Popular vote state by state, and most importantly, NO Repukes allowed to vote in

our primaries, PERIOD.

[bluetrain]

45. This board is a never ending caucus.

[Lord Helmet]

46. how about waiting til we're not in the middle of an election to try to change the rules?

[bobbert]

48. Superdelegates are required because of the 1/2 + 1 policy

Without them if a 3rd party stays in a little longer it will be really hard to get that 1/2 + 1 number of delegates. They are also there for the protection against a huge number of crossovers voting for someone like Huckabee and him getting the democratic nod. The superdelegates can keep that unwanted person from becoming the nominee if they band together. I think they make sense and they are a small enough percentage of the overall delegates that it really is the voters who will determine the nominee. I think that some SDs can use it as favor exchanges, but overall, I have faith that the system will work as intended.

[CK_John]

49. First we need a lesson guide on the "process" of changing the rules. How, when, and where. n/t

[bobbert]

51. aas far as #2 and #3 go, that's just adding more restrictions on what the states can do

It will just cause a lot more problems like MI and FL, I think you should allow each state to set their own primary date. Either the states' rights are important or they aren't, considering you are a Hillary supporter, I would assume you think that the state should be able to decide when and how it will hold its elections.

[rucky]

54. Tend to agree

I think we've all seen the consequences of starting primary season too early (and convention too late). This mess of a year should correct itself naturally.

[MaineDem]

53. First of all, get Democratic majorities in state legislatures

Then we can change state voting laws for the better. (As well as protect against GOP redistricting.)

State law governs much of the procedure for nominations so we have to start there.

[cornermouse]

55. No television ads, phone calls, or print ads till

3 months before the first primary. I am sick and tired of election to election campaign cycles. I agree with getting rid of caucuses. Schedule primaries so that everyone gets to see all candidates on all the state ballots.