In my opinion, the beginning of yesterday's convention

[MineralMan]

session provides ample evidence of the need for closed primaries in future presidential election years. The membership of the Democratic Party needs to select its own candidates.

I'm sure others will disagree with me about that opinion, and that's fine, but I do not believe that those who disrupted the speakers early in the agenda, including civil rights leaders of renown, are Democrats at all. I don't believe those people ever were Democrats, nor will they ever be Democrats.

Our Party. Our Candidate.

Clinton/Kaine 2016! GOTV!

[Peigan68]

1. I agree with you

[bluedye33139]

2. +1

[skylucy]

3. I agree!!

[citood]

4. Aren't most delegates longstanding party members?

Just asking...I thought being a delegate was a reward for doing a lot of 'on the ground' party work, like voter registration and fund raising. Did Bernie get to pick the delegates from the states that he won?

[auntpurl]

6. No - delegates are elected to represent the voters, by the voters

[citood]

14. Yes, but they normally just don't walk in off the street,

after freshly registering for a party. They tend to be party loyalist.

[bettyellen]

37. When they are working in campaigns for long time Dems that tends to be true...

Many switched their registration and worked for Sanders and are leaving immediately after the convention.

[tonedevil]

52. How many? /nt

[bettyellen]

75. Look it up? Interesting how much fetching people been asking me to do, on Sanders behalf..... Nope.

[tonedevil]

76. You are the one with the unsubstantiated...

claim. I wanted to give you a chance to provide some proof. I've seen plenty of your posts and already know you have zero credibility, but plenty of vitriol.

[randome]

7. Delegates, yes. But OP is referring to Primary voters.

Independents should not be allowed to decide a Democratic party nominee. I am in agreement on that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[citood]

8. But the OP referred to those disrupting speeches yesterday

Said they weren't democrats...but those on the floor were delegates, and almost surely democrats, right?

[randome]

11. Were they Sanders delegates?

Some may have been but others were simply ticket-holders who decided to cause a commotion.

But I think it illustrates the point that only Democrats should have a hand in deciding the Democratic nominee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[BobbyDrake]

15. There are no "ticket-holders" like a sporting event. The convention is for delegates, not

any Joe Shmoe who walks in off the street. Although, in retrospect, Bernie's disrespectful delegates may yet prove me wrong.

[randome]

20. I confess to being ignorant about Convention details.

I thought more than just delegates could attend.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

25. There are other attendees. Alternate delegates, staff, press,

and a few others. However, the people sitting in the seats in the delegate areas for each state are almost certainly delegates. And that's where the protests and heckling came from - delegates.

It's difficult to get credentials to be on the convention floor. As it should be.

[randome]

73. Never doubting your knowledge on this but where does Susan Sarandon fit into those categories?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[politicaljunkie41910]

74. However, the delegates to the convention have to pay their own way including all expenses.

So this may influence who is able/willing to be a delegate. We know that Bernie was helping many of his to raise money for the trip and some were staying at a campground in the area. I read this from something that was posted here on DU. So apparently the Bernie delegates were more likely young and in need of financial assistance to make the trip. My area had posted information for those interested in becoming delegates to the State and National convention. I can't recall whether I saw it at the polling site, or on line when I contacted the DNCs office here in California regarding some questions I had regarding our open primary.

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, and caucus voters, as well.

Delegates in ever state are allocated according to the caucus or primary election results. That's why I'd like to limit those to actual Democrats to whatever degree that is possible. In states where there is no registration by party, that would be more difficult, but the principle would be the same.

[handmade34]

9. ...

"A GUIDE TO THE THOUSANDS OF POLITICAL UNKNOWNS WHO WILL PICK OUR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES"

http://www.mtv.com/news/2752509/what-actually-are-delegates/

[MineralMan]

10. No, not really. Delegates are chosen based on the vote

in caucuses and primaries. Depending on the rules in each state, they are elected at the caucuses or conventions in that state. For example, in Minnesota, where I live, delegates to conventions are elected by attendees at DFL conventions, at the district or state level. We use a walking caucus system to form groups in support of a candidate or issue and delegates are elected in those groups. Other delegates are elected at large at the conventions.

It's entirely possible for a delegate who has never been a Democrat to be elected. We don't register by party in our state, and attendance at caucuses and conventions is based only on being at the lower level caucus or convention. At each level, people do sign a paper saying that they support the positions of the party, but there is really no official party membership required at any level.

It's handled differently in different states, though.

[floriduck]

21. Agreed. And I hope Washington State will move to a primary from a caucus state. The contrast

between the caucus result, the non-binding statewide vote and the super delegate commitments only caused more friction and dissent between both candidate's supporters.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes. Washington is an excellent example.

As a precinct caucus chair in Minnesota, I can say that our caucus was calm and polite and the election, which is done by secret ballot in our state's caucuses went without any problem. The result surprised me a little, though. 37 to 21 for Bernie. Had we had a primary election in my precinct, I'd guess the percentage would have been the reverse of that, based on my knowledge of voters in my precinct.

I can't prove that, of course, but that was my assessment. It didn't matter. We counted the ballots in public at the caucus meeting, with most attendees staying to observe. I turned in our ballots and the totals to the district chair and they were duly reported.

Oddly enough, at our district convention, only the usual delegates from the precinct showed up. There were several new sign-ups to be delegates at the caucus, but none of the new delegates made an appearance. The thing was that there was nothing having to do with Bernie at our district convention. So, they didn't come.

Selective democracy. It's always that way, of course. I'd like to see things done differently, and now they will be.

[floriduck]

29. And another reason for eliminating caucuses is that there will never be adequate facilities to

satisfy the demand in closely run campaigns. I was a precinct captain and our caucus was peaceful too. But we were crammed into a large hall, accommodating many precincts. But the facilities used are at the decision of public organizations on a volunteer basis. As such, it requires schools, gyms, or other public sites.

If as many people participated in caucuses as primaries, there would never be adequate space to meet the needs of the voters. That alone implies a disadvantage to potential voters.

[MineralMan]

38. Absolutely. Our caucus was held in a high school classroom, which

was too small for it. Everyone got in, of course, but if turnout had been higher, it would have been chaotic.

Primaries are better. People can vote when it is convenient for them, including by absentee ballot. Much more representative. I want things to be as representative as possible.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Washington has a Primary, the Democratic Party of Washington sued the State to be

permitted to caucus for delegate allotment and to ignore the results of the mandated Primary. To put it bluntly the State of Washington did move to a Primary, the Democratic Party did not follow along but insisted upon caucus. If you don't like the caucus the State Party is the place to take your comments.....

[floriduck]

34. I'll research that. Assuming you are correct, I'll take this up with my local party officials.

Was this decision to move to a primary a recent action? It's embarrassing that I nether knew that nor was informed that by party people.

[floriduck]

43. From the State SOS office:

How will the political parties use the results of the Presidential Primary?

The political parties retain the authority to decide if they will use the Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the national nomination conventions. The political parties may also use caucus results, or a combination of primary results and caucus results.

The Republican Party will use the Presidential Primary results to allocate 100% of their convention delegates. The Democratic Party will not use the Primary Election results to allocate any of their delegates. They will rely solely on the results of their Precinct Caucuses on March 26th.


https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/2016-Presidential-Primary.aspx

Unable to find any lawsuit information but this is good enough for me. It's still a Party decision.

[frazzled]

18. In general, they are either elected or chosen by the campaigns

If elected, it is either directly by all the voters, in primaries or caucuses, or at conventions at the state level. Most of these pledged delegates are elected. It's interesting to me that the states who had the most raucous disruptors yesterday were the ones in which the delegates were selected by the candidate, who therefore has direct responsibility for their antics.

Voters directly pick delegates in just a few states (i.e. Illinois and West Virginia) while the presidential candidates select delegates in others (California, New Hampshire). In Florida, meanwhile, all the candidates submit lists of proposed delegates, and voters elect among these nominations after the primary at district conventions.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/29/5-questions-you-have-about-delegates-answered/

Even in states, like mine, where delegates are elected directly during the primary voting (you vote for the candidate, and then you vote individually for each delegate who represents your candidate; in theory, you could vote for delegates representing competing candidates, if you so choose), the slate of delegates is selected by the candidate. Some may be party activists, some may be outstanding citizens who have come forward.

So yes, Bernie did get to pick the delegates from the states he won, generally speaking. But not in the way you are suggesting.

[csziggy]

50. Not necessarily - as soon as I joined the local Democratic Executive Committee

In 2004 I was asked to be a delegate for the state convention.

I refused - I hate crowds, had just had knee surgery, and could not afford to travel. If I had accepted, I would have been completely new to the process. I'd never followed politics in detail, knew nothing about the inside process of a convention, and wouldn't have understood half of what we going on.

If I remember the process locally, delegates can run against each other for the post but too often they have trouble finding even one person who will take it in many precincts.

[auntpurl]

5. Agree nt

[Peacetrain]

13. Absolutely agree.. time to move from the caucus group vote

to primary.. where no one group can intimidate people.. and each persons vote is their own in secret and we can have all day.. so people who are working and older folks and young parents can participate.. I have loved our caucus system..but it really was abused this last time.. so I still think have a caucus on election night for those interested in party building would be a great thing..but the vote itself.. needs to be in a primary..

[MineralMan]

16. Well, Minnesota will switch to presidential primaries for the 2020 election.

This year's caucuses demonstrated that it is far too easy for small groups of supporters can swing any caucus to a particular candidate. Further, in some states that held caucuses, but later held a primary, the results were completely reversed in the actual election.

I like caucuses, but they are intrinsically unfair, due to the low number of people who decide which candidate wins. Primary elections are a fairer representation of the people's wishes. Frankly, I'd like to see a much higher turnout at those, too, but they're better than small caucus meetings.

[Peacetrain]

17. Hoping we can switch Iowa..

Because you are right.. it is unfair to the majority of voters who cannot give 2 hours on a cold January or Feb. night.. that have kids etc..

[MineralMan]

19. I hope you can do that, too.

It's time to move on from 19th century methods.

[calimary]

26. Or the elderly and/or handicapped who can't exactly spend hours standing around and waiting.

Many of these caucuses were held in school gymnasiums, and there never seemed to be enough chairs. And yeah, some people work nights, or have kids, or can't get a babysitter, or have no transportation. It's NOT very democratic.

[kstewart33]

33. Here in Denver, my caucus was cordial, respectful, and we were all happy to be there.

But the proceedings took far too long. And in a much larger caucus about three miles away, the entire proceedings were rife with name calling, anger, shouting, just all round nastiness between Hillary and Bernie supporters. The proceedings took hours because of the discord.

I hope the Colorado state legislature will switch to primaries. Both Dems and Repubs favor the switch, especially given Colorado's growing population.

[Scruffy1]

60. I'm glad its gone.

Although being able to drop your vote off was a big improvement, the very low turnout makes it to easy to gain the system. I don't think it would change the delegates in my precinct, which was about 84% for Sanders, but the caucus system allowed nut cases like Bachmann to get into Congress, just by stacking the Caucuses. Even though I worked some on the Bernie Campaign I knew it was a real long shot and know that we must elect the chosen candidate and I see the 2016 election as crucial for smashing the grip that the Republican Party has on our nation. I think the Republicans trashing of Hillary will backfire on them, exposing them for what they are.

[Cryptoad]

22. Amen!

Only thing u hear on the New cycle this morning abt our convention is BOBer's showing their ass on the convention last night.... Trump is going to get a another poll bump ---out of our convention!

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Oregon has a Primary that is both closed and very easy to participate in, Bernie won it by

a large margin. One wonders if closed + accessible and clean might be the full equation.

It's also very important that people understand that the caucus system is often promoted and supported by the Democratic Party. Washington State Democrats sued the State to be permitted to caucus and to not use the primary results to allot delegates. This cycle, Hillary supporters felt that was unfair. They need to tell it to the Party. The Nevada Caucus is young and both contested Nevada Democratic caucuses have been won by Hillary and yet each time her rival was accused of very terrible actions. Nevada's Caucus was promoted into existence by the Party, Harry Reid on point. Don't like it? Tell Harry about it.

Minnesota has no Party registration, a caucus and same day voter registration. Your work is cut out for you. I think Minnesota is ready to change it up. One of the more electorally proactive States.

[MineralMan]

30. My reasons for discontinuing caucuses isn't about who wins or loses.

It's about a larger sample of voters participating, really. Oregon leads the way with its election practices. No question about it. It should be a model for other states.

Minnesota has already changed it's system over to presidential primaries. That passed in both houses and was signed by the Governor. It had bipartisan support, too. It's been proposed before, but this year, it became clear to everyone that the change was needed.

As for our non-party voter registration, I have no problem with it. I feel the same about same-day registration. While it would certainly be possible for non-Democrats to request the Democratic Party (DFL) ballot in the primaries, relatively few would do so, and the increased turnout would marginalize those who did to a large degree.

I just want a larger sample, really. I want more people to participate in primary election. I hope we'll someday have Oregon's mail-in ballot system. It's in the works, but we need to get and hold Democratic majorities in both state houses through a couple of elections to make it happen.

In the end, of course, the primary candidate who got the most votes nationally will be the nominee. The system still worked, but it could have worked better, I believe. Politics is messy.

[merrily]

28. We get this tiny bit of say every couple of years, or imagine we do. Let's put a stop to it.

Failing that, let's restrict it as much as we can, make it as difficult as we can, etc.

Who the hell is any party or any legislature to restrict my voting choices? I am for automatic registration, simple registration for people who move, and totally open primaries. I want to be able to vote Democratic for President, indie for Mayor and Green for city councilman.

And, as long as citizens have rights and pay salaries of the governor and the legislature and also pay the costs of election, we should have these rights. That's my view.

[MineralMan]

36. Who are "we?"

I want Democrats to choose the Democratic nominee for President. I also want more people to participate in the process, but I want Democrats to choose their own candidate. Other parties and factions can select their own candidates as they please.

If your "we" doesn't include me, then it's not really all that inclusive. I had a voice this year, and I used it. I will continue to do so, as I have done for 50 years. Things turned out the way I hoped they would, and how the majority of Democrats hoped they would. I'm good with the results. "We," meaning Democrats, spoke and their choice was made. I'd just like it made a little more simply and without obstruction.

Not everyone at the DNC are Democrats. I think that's a shame. Our Party. Our Nomination.

[merrily]

41. "We" in the beginning of my post refers to all citizens. The beginning of my post was sarcastic.

The rest expressed my true feelings. I know what you want and I disagree.

As far as the convention, maybe people would have been a lot less ticked off if the DNC and media had fair. Or did you not make the connection between the info in the 19000 emails and the anger yesterday because the candidate you donated to and volunteered for for a year was not the one the DNC and media shafted? Because no one mocked you called you a crazy conspiracy theorist for a year when you pointed out this was happening?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028047987

[Scruffy1]

63. Politics has always been like that.

At the very outset you know you will be up against an entrenched establishment. The media will always be crap. There will be voting "irregularities". When its over, it's over. I had a lot of fun, met a lot of good people, brought a lot of young people into the process and now it's time to destroy the enemy.

[merrily]

64. Hmmm. I am going to link to you to my reply on that thread. Please read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=80480

Also, whether or not politics has always been like that has nothing to do with whether delegates get angry, which is what my post was about.

[workinclasszero]

31. I agree!

Get rid of caucuses too, they are undemocratic as hell and closed primaries!

Unless you want your party hijacked anyway.

[Hekate]

32. KnR

[Omaha Steve]

35. National delegates are elected at the state conventions

First they get elected at the county convention to go to the state convention. Closing primaries will not change the selection process.

You need to get more people to go to the county and state conventions that are Dems willing to pay their way to the national convention. Even filling the alternate slots can be tricky.

Third time in 12 hours I have had to make this reply.

I have a good friend at the convention that is a Hillary Delegate. I love it when she talks about listening to FDR fireside chats as a child. IF she were younger I think some protestors would get more than an earful from her.

OS

[MineralMan]

39. The details vary from state to state, actually.

There is no uniform process.

[Omaha Steve]

49. NE & IA are the same

How does closing a primary or caucus change who gets elected to go to the national convention?

NE & IA use this formula and are closed BTW.

[MineralMan]

61. There are 48 other states.

Each has its own delegate-selection process. They are not all like NE and IA. It's a complicated process and varies from state to state. The goal is the same, of course - to allocate delegates according to the people's votes. It works, but does not always produce the very best delegates for convention at times.

[Omaha Steve]

65. You missed my OP on this (If you’re not a party insider, how do you become a delegate?)

Closing the few open or mixed primary/caucuses changes nothing that your talking about.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/29/5-questions-you-have-about-delegates-answered/

By Linda Qiu on Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 10:28 a.m.

If you’re not a party insider, how do you become a delegate?

The rules for delegate selection are byzantine, varying not only by party but by state, by year and even by congressional districts.

To make matters more confusing, it’s often an entirely separate process from both parties’ presidential nominating contests. In fact, many delegate elections haven’t happened yet.

Most states stipulate that elected delegates should be reflective of primary results. But in a few places like Wisconsin and Washington, it’s possible that a district votes for Trump in a primary and, after the primary, elects a delegate for Ted Cruz at local and state conventions.

Voters directly pick delegates in just a few states (i.e. Illinois and West Virginia) while the presidential candidates select delegates in others (California, New Hampshire). In Florida, meanwhile, all the candidates submit lists of proposed delegates, and voters elect among these nominations after the primary at district conventions.

[Uponthegears]

40. A fair subject for discussion

However, to claim that ANY decision should be made based upon the actions of a handful of children (I am alternating with "children" with "Yahoos" now that I have looked up the latter) is pure opportunism.

To the point of your OP, I agree primaries are a must (caucuses are just fundamentally non-democratic) and I would also agree closed primaries are preferable, so long as same-day registration is available.

I like new people and new ideas being brought into the party. Moreover, mechanisms designed to make sure that the only people who participate in ANY phase of the electoral process are people who "care enough" to take the steps necessary to participate sufficiently ahead of time is the (unstated) goal of GOP (which deems those who decide late, and/or for whom the political process is immaterial for 364 days a year to be "unworthy" of the right to vote) efforts at voter suppression and I just refuse to be any part of that.

Edited to add: Allowing/encouraging same-day registration also gives the party a way to check for shenanigans like crossover voting. While our ballot is secret, our registration is public record. If there is a problem with GOPers, etc. using same-day registration to affect primary results, the party would be able to tell.

[stonecutter357]

42. K&R!

[thesquanderer]

44. I don't think open vs closed has anything to do with disruptive delegates.

As discussed elsewhere, even if they were Sanders supporters, the delegates were most likely Dems (that is, people who would have been eligible to vote via closed primary selection as well). But more than that, open vs closed--while it may have helped load the floor with more Sanders supporters than you'd have seen otherwise--still would not explain the discord at past conventions. It wasn't all hugs and roses for Jimmy Carter. (To say nothing of Hubert Humphrey.) The bigger issue that transcends any one particular convention isn't open vs closed primaries, it's leading candidates who have some weaknesses combined with opponents who have devoted supporters . This can happen regardless of open vs closed primaries.

The way I see it, while Sanders may have done better than otherwise expected because of open primaries, he also may have done worse than otherwise expected because the ostensibly impartial DNC had its hand on the scale for the other candidate. Let's call it a wash...?

As for the virtue of open vs closed, even if ends justifies means, we can't truly say what constitutes the better means without knowing, well, how it ends. As I posted elsewhere, hypothetically, what if Clinton loses to Trump, but Sanders would have beaten Trump? Or even short of that, they both can beat Trump, but Sanders would have carried more states and so had better downticket coattails? It's impossible to know, but in these circumstances, the Dem party would have been better off with more open rather than closed primaries (since the Sanders would have had a greater chance of being the nominee).

My point there really is that, on both sides, closed primaries (which by definition are targeted to party loyalists) seem to lend themselves to producing candidates with the least appeal *outside* the party's base, which, in the long term, is not necessarily best for the party. (Or the country.) So there is a counter-argument to be made.

[Lucky Luciano]

47. Great post.

[Lucky Luciano]

45. Most voters have good intentions.

I like open primaries and I don't think caucuses are useful in any context.

I like vote by mail.

Trouble with closed primaries is that a plurality of the population is in neither party (myself included though I always vote for democrats). It would not be realistic to tell them to start their own party as "real" democrats on this board insist. It is also obnoxious to demand people join a party or have no say. I agree repubs should be locked out of dem primaries, but indies should be given a shot.

I for one don't want to be a member of some Big Data collection that a party uses to make unsolicited calls and mailings asking for money. I always vote for the democrat though. Even if I gave money to a candidate or party, our compliance procedures at work mean full disclosure- fuck that - I'll take my privacy tyvm!

[TryLogic]

46. National well-being first, party second. Honest democratic processes. Neither party...

Neither party should be gaming the system.

Clean elections. Honest primaries.

Primaries should be for party members, with independents permitted to choose which primary they vote in. No cross over: No Repubs voting in Dem primary, and vice versa.

What I hate about politics is the gaming, the shenanigans, the demands for party loyalty. I remember hearing about the democratic wing of the democratic party. That I could appreciate.

[DemonGoddess]

48. K&R!

COMPLETELY agree!

[redstateblues]

51. Democrats should be able to pick the nominee of the Democratic Party

[BlueCaliDem]

53. I *totally* agree with you, MM. Closed primaries will go a long way in preventing trolls from

infiltrating our Party and disrupting our Party's convention. What happened yesterday to renowned civil rights leader, Elijah Cummings, should never, EVER happen again. I only saw part of it, but I was horrified. The disrespect they showed him was out of bounds. They tried to do the same thing (booing) to FLOTUS but I heard a LOUD and collective "SHH!" and they were silenced. Had they tried to continue, you can bet there would've been hell to pay - and justifiably so.

[stopbush]

54. The problem we face is that while the political parties pay for caucuses

the individual states assume the cost of running primaries. Ergo, they get to decide whether those primaries are open, closed or a variation on the same. It's up to the parties to decide if they want to participate or not.

Short of the DNC announcing that they will fund their own primaries, or that they will participate only in closed primaries, there's little that can be done to close the process, especially as most states tend to move in the direction of more-open primaries as they believe they are better serving their constituencies by allowing them to participate in the political process.

[Orsino]

55. Somebody got 'em to Philly, and I don't think it was Trump or Rove.

Keeping them there is the first test of our nominee.

[AlbertCat]

56. I don't believe those people ever were Democrats, nor will they ever be Democrats.

Because they disagree with you....


This mentality reeks of the GOP and purity tests to me. I don't believe that is very Democratic.

[Lithos]

57. I think a mixed one is best

Texas used to do a two stage primary, both technically open.

The first round was at the precinct level and fed to the County which then fed to state. Different electors were chosen at each level.

So, while the first tier was very open with a fairly diverse group of what were often neophytes to the process, the second tier tended to be more dominated by party faithfuls who the system tended to vet.

It gave a good balance of getting people involved, yet protected the State level from disruption. Now it's a closed primary which I think dissipates the energy level.

L-

[bullwinkle428]

58. Closed primaries are fine, as long as you're willing to accept same-day registration.

[bekkilyn]

59. Perhaps a bit short-sighted and reactive

While I agree that *some* of the Bernie delegates yesterday were rude, to say the least, I'm not sure closing the Democratic primaries would be a good idea. Though I typically support Democrats (especially these days), I'm still registered as an Unaffiliated voter (which is not considered the same as belonging to an Independent party.) In North Carolina, it used to be that Unaffiliated voters could vote in the Republican primaries, but not in the Democratic primaries, but at some point it was changed to allow it for both. We just have to choose the primary ballot we want when we go vote.

I found that when I was allowed to vote Republican but not Democrat, I became more invested in the Republican candidates I studied in order to know which ones I wanted to vote for (or vote against as was often the case.) It was more difficult to become invested in the Democrat candidates outside of the fact that I'm typically progressive on most issues and Republicans have completely failed on these issues.

I suspect that if Democrats decide to no longer allow Unaffiliated voters to vote in their primary, the Republican party will still allow it in theirs. After all, why would they be against someone deciding to vote Republican and then having a greater chance of those people also voting Republican in the general election? It's probably a reason why the Democrats decided to also allow it.

While it could still be a good idea to close all Democratic primaries, it could also simply be a kneejerk reaction to a few rude delegates that would have more of an overall negative effect than a positive one on the party. Especially since both parties *want* to attract people outside their party to vote for their candidates.

Bernie and most Bernie supporters are *not* enemies to Democrats. Considering the platform that Bernie and Hillary created *together* we are on the same side more than ever. Do you really want to throw that away because some people were acting like jerks?

[tblue37]

62. As a Bernie supporter I agree. Remember Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? nt

[Gore1FL]

66. No way. I am for same-day voter registration across the country.

That means same-day party affiliation as a natural side effect.

I'd rather make it easier to vote than to keep some imagined purity.

[Android3.14]

67. The large increase in the number of people registered as Democrats

Show your reasoning is incorrect.

[Gothmog]

68. I agree with you analysis

[MineralMan]

69. Thanks.

[yallerdawg]

70. A perfect example!

A day after calling for party unity, Bernie Sanders goes back to being an independent

The morning after taking the podium at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and giving a full-throated endorsement of his political rival Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders told reporters that he will return to the Senate as an independent.

“I was elected an independent,” Sanders told reporters at a Bloomberg-hosted breakfast the morning after.

The move is somewhat expected, but the gravity of the decision feels a little off-putting, coming only hours after he tried to unify the Democratic Party, pleading for his own supporters to rally behind presumptive Democratic nominee Clinton.

[LeFleur1]

71. Agree! NM

[mountain grammy]

72. They're conventions. They're crazy.

Bernie got a lot of votes, one from me, and I'm glad my vote will be counted at the convention. That's what it's all about. I watched almost the entire event, and loved it. A few, very few, people were rude. It's a convention with thousands of diverse and passionate people. That's what I want to see. It may not always be pretty, but it's democracy, and some rude people are Democrats, what a shock, but they're real Democrats and I'd rather have them on my side. Every one of them will vote for Hillary.
Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat!" Me too, Will, me too!