As a Sanders supporter, I would be fine with doing away with caucuses as long as....
...we developed a rational nomination system based on science and ethics.
What I mean by that is to try to simulate the real voting experience that would occur during the GE and so forth.
1.) If you are going to start with select states, start with the projected "battleground" tossup states that will likely be swing states in November.
2.) All states should allow "open" voting to Independents as we need Independents.
3.) Identify states with problems with voter suppression, target those states early and work on removing barriers to voting by November.
4.) No more Super PAC's and other vehicles that create distrust and corrupt the system.
5.) No more dirty misleading style of campaigning (have some standards and rating system for honesty and trustworthyness).
6.) Create some sort of party non-wavering "constitution" that we adhere to so our candidates have some basement floor of expectations, no more toppling countries around the world for the sake of Israel for instance, no more wars for oil, no more wavering on a right to choose. Be a Party that the country believes it means what is says.
7.) Vote in large waves so that we can road test candidates who can run effective large campaigns.
8.) Have our own internal rules for campaign finance reform, be the party that actually has a moral and ethical code, level the playing field for candidates that aren't the "chosen favorites" by the moneyed elite.
9.) Try to be a big-tent inclusive party that focuses on "a rising tide lifts all boats" rather than triangulating and dividing the population...and...
10.) Get rid of delegates and super delegates. Just go with the popular vote. Let's actually be fully democratic.
and on and on.
Right now, what we have is an ad hoc mess where some are saying white states don't matter, another portion is saying black states don't matter, early decisive voting goes to states we don't have a chance of winning, we have no core set of standards for personal or political behavior (so now we are arguing the merits of elective wars, whether shipping jobs overseas is a good thing, and behavior doesn't matter as "long as we win"
, crazy caucuses, widespread distrust of possible voter fraud, a likely nominee most of the country doesn't trust and a good portion of the left sided electorate wants to make them vomit in their mouth a little bit, and a string of really good candidates that can't get past 3% to 6% (except for Bernie).
===
The above list are just things I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure a better more precise list could be created but the points are these
1.) Make a system that makes more sense and actually road tests our candidates in a way that is relevant to the general election.
2.) Make a system that is more fair and less corruptible.
3.) Be the party that is more democratic and more trustworthy by creating systems that promote trustworthyness and a code of ethical personal and political behavior.
4.) Diminish the power of special interests and special groups that have an outsized influence on the party.
5.) Create a more fair voting and money raising system for candidates.
===
P.S. I am aware that one counter-argument would be that we can't "hamstring" ourselves by limiting fund raising. My counter argument is a.) Bernie Sanders has raised phenomenal amounts of money in a relatively clean way and b.) the benefits of being perceived as the "clean" Party that people can trust will far outweigh whatever commercials "dirty money" can buy.
I also think many of the things I suggest above, such as early voting in large battleground states would actually have benefited Hillary Clinton. I am willing to accept that, even as a Sanders supporter.
But if her candidacy was part of a system that adhered to the other features I mentioned above, I would have a lot less problem with voting for her in the general election and I would wager a lot of other people would too. For instance, her foreign policy doctrine seems to be "whatever is good for Israel" which I don't think should be part of a Democratic Party constitution. Thus, if we had a constitution that spelled out our criteria for foreign intervention, and she had to adhere to that, then it would force candidates to adhere to what we really want of them.
How to create and ratify such a constitution? I don't know for sure but my thought would be by referendum.
1.) Choice?
2.) Criteria for military intervention?
3.) Immigration policy?
4.) Education policy?
5.) A public option?
I guess we create ALREADY "platform planks" or whatever, but it seems to me those are some pretty blurry lines when our likely standard bearer is literally saying "topple foreign governments for the sake of Israel" and 60% of the party doesn't bat an eye. I also don't know who gets to vote on what constitutes a plank.
I also think we create the "platform" after we nominate the candidates...so personality, special groups, and big money gets a say first and then principles follow later. This is ass backwards and honestly, anti-American. As the world's oldest constitutional democracy, it's the idea that principles come first and people must adhere to a set of beliefs that are set with some moral, rational, and ethical code.
A referendum by popular vote every 4 years could clear that up.
Well anyway, that's all I want to say.
This isn't and indictment of either side right now but rather and observation of what a mess our primary system, and hence the Democratic Party has become.
I say this on the day after Bernie has done quite well in caucus states, so there's no sour grapes here. I also saying this knowing a lot of what I suggested would benefit Clinton.
I just want some justice and some ethics.
= new reply since forum marked as read
