No matter who wins, Do you favor a reform of the democratic primary system for 2012 and beyond?

[peoli]

Poll question: No matter who wins, Do you favor a reform of the democratic primary system for 2012 and beyond?

You can use the comments to post what you would like to see change or if you'd like for it to be the same.

EDIT: added 'don't know'

[whistle]

1. need a "don't know"

[peoli]

3. done

[sfam]

2. Scrap the Supes, and make the proportional barrier 10% or greater instead of 20%

Hell yes, we want to change the forumla. Still make it proportional, but if someone wins by over 10 points, we should leave the even delegate split.

[mohc]

4. What proportional barrier are you talking about? n/t

[sfam]

7. Our method of awarding basically the same # of delegates if nobody reaches 60%

Currently, if you win 56% to 44% for instance, both candidates get almost the same number of delegates. This, I think should change so that if you beat your opponent by more than 10%, you should get a significantly higher number of delegates. If not, we're left with the insanity we now have, where neither candidate can close the deal because their margin of victory isn't high enough.

[mohc]

13. It depends on the number of delegates in the jurisdiction

If for example we were talking about a state with 100 at-large delegates (the most any state has is CA with 81), then the delegates would split 56-44, exactly like the percentages. With 50 delegates it would be 28-22, again aligning with the percentages. The issue arises only with relatively small numbers of delegates. If we were talking about someplace with 10 delegates, it would actually split 6-4, exaggerating the lead. One of the reasons we have seen a lot of close total delegate counts with wider vote spreads has little to do with proportionality per se, but the district system. If a candidate wins many odd numbered districts by small margins they will pick up 1 delegate per district, they could then lose a larger district by a wider margin and only lose that district and the state as a whole by fewer delegates than they picked up in the other districts. This is exactly what happened in Nevada which allowed Obama to win the delegate count while losing by 5% statewide.

If we dramatically increased the number of delegates then these rounding errors would basically disappear. Currently the worst possible error would be in a 3 delegate district where a candidate won by less than 1%. In that scenario they would win the delegates 2-1, increasing their lead from <1 to 33. I would feel comfortable with the error closer to a 2% max, but that would require every district to have at least 25 delegates, which would mean we would probably have over 30,000 total delegates.

[sfam]

16. I'm proposing you award a larger number to the winner if its over 10% difference nt

[bigwillq]

5. Yes

Do away with the supers, and let the voters count above anything else.

[sfam]

9. This means no caucus states...I disagree

Caucus states get the party faithful more involved. I think this is a good thing. Primaries have their place, but truly, I like the idea that the party faithful pick the candidate in the primary. I might even be swayed to do caucuses everywhere. They are FAR harder for the MSM to predict or play with. Primaries allow the MSM to almost "direct" the coverage and results.

[leftynyc]

17. I disagree

Any system where your vote is not private is undemocratic - no exceptions. And the party faithful are all primary voters.

[sfam]

22. So you would do away with public votes from our congress members???

Are you saying that our elected representatives should only cast private votes, or is it democratic for us to know how they voted. This is our system, you know...

There are many many systems where the vote is not private and its still considered democratic. Then again, I don't buy the notion that all these poor Hillary supporters are intimidated, beaten and dragged away from the caucuses.

[leftynyc]

41. First of all, you can stuff your assumptions

I think both candidiates suck - our best and brightest are sitting on the sidelines.

And what goes on in congress is not what I was speaking of although I suspect you know that and are choosing to deflect. Those are our representatives, how could their votes be secret. When it comes to the citizens picking who represents us, the votes must be secret. Anything else is open to intimidation. Frankly, I hadn't heard a word about what you're spreaking of. But the Obama supporters like making their own reality where only he can bring us out of our darkness. It's rather amusing, really.

[WA98070]

21. All states should have caucuses providing two or three top candidates followed by

a Primary. Regional primaries might help to concentrate the focus but the BIG early states would still get the attention.

[joeybee12]

6. Of course...switch some of these states around and Hilary would

have been ahead earlier on and perhaps Obama would have been written. Then again, maybe not. I favor a one-day primary system...doesn't allow the media to play thier games, favoring one for a while, then switching.

[BlooInBloo]

8. I still don't understand what the problem is.

[sfam]

10. Welcome to the last two months of the campaign...

THAT is the problem. We've spent our time ripping up our mandate while the Repubs have a free ride.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Ah. I'm fine with extended, contested primaries. Put me down for no change then.

[WA98070]

25. Only Hillary has spent time ripping up the other guy. If she'd quit mud slinging it would be good.

[Hoof Hearted]

39. Yes, if only everyone would quit picking on poor little Obama everything would be perfect

1) If you think his hands are clean you haven't been paying attention.

2) If you think Obama was going to make it through this election carried around on a velvet chair like he was from Iowa to Ohio, you've woefully naive about elections in general.

[newmajority]

12. A few thoughts.....

Obviously the superdelegate thing is just dumb. Even if they do the right thing and vote with the pledged delegates, the very idea of the superdelegates is still ridiculous elitism. It needs to be scrapped entirely.

Obviously the Hillbot meme that caucuses are somehow "unfair" keeps making the rounds. But electro-fraud voting is far more of a concern. Given the choice of a caucus in the hands of the people, and Diebold machines in the hands of a scumbag like Ed Rendell, I'll take the caucus every time. At least there's a paper trail there. As far as I'm concerned, all 50 states should have caucuses (cauci??) until the electro-fraud machines no longer exist.

One thing most of us would agree on, is doing away with the ridiculous tradition of Iowa & New Hampshire always getting to go first. There should be some way of rotating all the states so that everyone gets their turn. Also, no primaries before February of the election year. Hell, what if we did all the caucuses on Saturdays in March? This year there were 5 Saturdays in March. 10 states do their caucuses each week.

Without question, we need to take the corporate financing out of it. And no more 2 or 3 year media campaigns. If all the voting waa done in March, let them start campaigning in January. Seems reasonable to me.

[TooBigaTent]

14. IF my candidate wins, the system is just fine. OTOH, if that other one wins, the system

needs to be totally scrapped and replaced by one that (a) does not defeat the will of the people, (b) does pick the stronger candidate, and (c) allow me to brag the most about supporting a winner.

[noisyanimal]

15. I say down with the caucuses and superdelegates.

Too few people vote in caucuses. Primaries encourage participation much more.

[leftynyc]

18. And you can vote absentee in primaries

A caucus is not a secret vote so therefore undemocratic. And superdelegates are total bullshit.

[QC]

28. Agree. n/t

[WA98070]

19. Super Delegate is NOT a bad concept. As long as used judiciously. Which, ...

they seem to be doing. I don't trust the media nor voting machines. Also, it's a long way from the first primary to the convention and election.

[sfam]

24. Bullshit...many of them do NOT want to choose...ever!

At this point, a no-name Supe who has not publicly stated their intentions will get no benefit from doing so, but can clearly get backlash from picking a candidate. This is why they will not choose until its already been decided. If this be the case, then we shouldn't have them choose anyways.

More to the point, if we are going to allow people to cast votes, we shouldn't have a system where the votes can be over-ridden. NOBODY will go for that.

Case in point - if Hillary over-rides the delegate vote this time, you'll see the party split in half. Count on it.


EDIT: Regarding the voting machines, I'm all for a constitutional amendment that forces a paper trail for all votes.

[WA98070]

36. Maybe it would be better if the Supes couldn't announce unless it became necessary...

because there was no clear winner and the supes would make a difference.

For me it is lack of trust of the voting machines. Is it co-incidental that Hillary does better in states with machines then without?

I, as does W, believe in a benevolent dictatorship (the only thing I agree with him on), but I'm the only one I'd trust with the job. Or maybe Obama. LOL

[QC]

29. The point of the sd business was to prevent the party from nominating another McGovern

by giving the leadership a veto over the people.

Hasn't worked out that way, though, has it?

[harun]

34. Supers is ok by me, we are a representative republic for a reason

and that reason being the majority of people don't pay attention (to put it VERY nicely).

[Carrieyazel]

20. Junk it. Absolutely throw out the whole thing and start over.

A modified winner-take-all system, in which there is still some proportional representation, but much less complexity, and where some states are completely winner-take-all. Maybe not the Repubes system, but something much better than the MESS that we have now. This system has hurt us, and two candidates that are exceedingly close can't really break out.

This system does not allow a candidate narrowly ahead to close it, and supporters of Hillary or Obama, can find much to complain about in this mess. Dean MUST do something about this. It's pathetic, awful, and it doesn't make sense.

[TBF]

23. Funny, mostly I see "ignored" in these threads - lol - yes, I do favor a new party

[BlooInBloo]

26. Shoulda broke it down by Obama/Clinton support.

[JCMach1]

27. Rotating (every four years) regional primaries ... primaries only

The regional and subregional would occur in February, March, April, and May. Non-state primaries would always be the first week of June. New Hampshire, Iowa, and two other random states would be chosen each election cycle as early states. This would happen like the NBA draft at the party convention preceding the election cycle. Do it on TV! It would be exciting! It can become a fun and elaborate system with bonus balls and all kinds of fun!

Within the regional months, primary Tuesday would also be chosen randomly by the lottery method.

For example in 2012 we might have NH, Iowa, Alaska, and New Jersey all occurring each Tuesday through the month of Jan.

Then, maybe the south region is in February. First Tuesday might be FL, TN, GA. Second Tuesday whatever the balls say and so on.

Also, look into cutting WAY back on superdelegates. Why not just eliminate them all together and give VIPs regular positions in support of candidate X at the convention.

Or make SD's only allowed to vote on a SECOND BALLOT! That would keep the delegate majority as the primary key factor. If no one can win on first ballot, THEN all bets are off.

[QC]

30. Agreed--and closed primaries, please.

Not open ones that allow Republicans to raid our nominating process.

[JCMach1]

31. Exactly, left out that part... CLOSE THE PRIMARIES to manipulation

Unfortunately, we need to get the Repigs on the same page to push most of these reforms through.

[harun]

32. The only change I would like to see is that all the primaries should

occur in at most two months. Everything else with it is Ok by me. The dem system is a lot friendly to minority voices. I hope we keep that and don't move to a Repuke, winner take all system.

[Carrieyazel]

37. The general election is a straight winner-take-all system.

Our primary system needs to move closer to that. Proportional representation doesn't reflect enough of the margin of victory, and it has nothing to do with helping lesser-known candidates at all. Look at Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, all out of the race very early as the celebrity star candidates still dominate.

[Neshanic]

33. Yes, a complete makeover and some big staff layoffs would start.

[Stephanie]

35. The superdelegates must go. Democrats don't need an elite ruling class selecting our nominee.

It's offensive. End it.

[Hoof Hearted]

40. Americans in general don't need undemocratic BS like superdelegates.

Not that I care what the hell Republicans do but it's just antithetical to democracy in general. It is offensive, and it should be eliminated.

[Hoof Hearted]

38. Oh hell yes. SHITCAN THE SUPERS. Reform the caucus to be fair to elderly and poor. Have a plan B

for Gods sake when state Democratic parties are hostage to Republican majorities. Make sure VOTERS are never punished for the actions of any Party.

It's a start.

Did I mention SHITCAN THE SUPERS? That - is not democracy. We have to live with them this time, but really, what a fucked up mess. If Obama wins I will remain forever pissed that Florida and Michigan were disenfranchised (and by proxy, the rest of us) and not allowed to stand as is. If Hillary wins the Obama people will remain forever pissed because they will feel disenfranchised by the supers.

[Hatchling]

42. Changes I would like to see.

1. I would like the debates handled by some other group than the M$M. Not necessarily The League of Women Voters as it used to be, but some Democratic organization that will keep the tenor of the debates more sensible. No more "gotcha" questions.

2. I would like there to be some kind of money pool at the beginning of the primaries that candidates like Kucinich, and Dodd, etc. may draw upon to get their message out there.

3. I want all of our primaries to be closed, and that Republicans and Independents must change their registration for at least a year if they truly want to participate in our primaries. No more voting for the Dem. candidate just to mess up our party.

4. Something must be done about caucuses. During this campaign there have been complaints from both sides about antics going on in the caucuses. The Party either needs to do away with them or come up with a system to improve them. I favor eliminating them because I think they are discriminatory to those who can't attend it at that particular time, the idea that your vote isn't secret, plus exposure to bullying tactics would be eliminated. Either way, something needs to be done.

5. Paper trails, for all voting machines, something must be done about machines that have the potential to be abused in this manner. I always vote absentee ballot, and it seems to me a really good way to vote. Maybe go to mail in ballots for everyone.

6. Super Delegates should not be allowed to declare until the convention. If they have been put in place as a safety measure, then they should not be part of the campaign politics.

7. Campaign Finance reform. The amount of money being spent on the primaries by both campaigns is outrageous.

8 . Any candidate who uses a sad story about a person who has it bad, should be personally obligated to improve things for that person. Should cut down on the ubiquitous sad stories used to bolster a campaign point. I'm just saying. ;)

Edited to Add:

9. Rotate the early Primary states.

10. Put measures in place so that we don't have another Michigan/Florida fiasco.