I thought the Democratic primary went fine. I see no need for changes.

[Gomez163]

I like having superdelegates to keep out sabotage from non-party elements.

I know the GOP wished they had superdelegates. Look what they are left with now. An unelectable moron.

We need to change nothing.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. We need to get rid of caucuses. They disenfranchise voters, especially the poor and faimlies

who can not afford the time to vote.

[geek tragedy]

2. get rid of caucuses, and do something about superdelegates

they increase distrust of the process, even if they don't do active harm

[Gomez163]

5. Caucuses are a state by state thing

[Hortensis]

19. Right. But am I wrong in thinking there was

more discussion of caucuses and their suppression of the vote this time around? Even though they benefited Sanders too much to stir up the storms of conspiracy theories the primaries did?

As for superdelegates, after watching the train wreck on the right I also especially appreciate the stability they add, while also deploring them of course. One suggestion I read was that they could be limited to people who themselves had been elected to office, thus giving voters at least a say in who could be a superdelegate. This would knock out many valuable people who work very hard for the party, but no one has a special right to more than one regular vote.

In any case, aside from the many shockingly anti-democratic problems with caucuses and subsequent conventions, I agree that this primary went pretty well despite some problems of sloppiness and bad management in various states, like New York. Nothing new there.

[Lord Magus]

39. It used to be a state by state thing whether voters were allowed a say in the nomination at all.

After the 1968 debacle the DNC put an end to having state party bigwigs decide for themselves who the delegates would go to and required every state to hold a vote. They could do the same now and tell states that they have to use some sort of primary. I'm not sure if just flat-out saying "you can't hold a caucus" would be allowed, but telling states they have to decide delegates via primary or else they don't get any delegates, that would certainly be possible.

[MineralMan]

35. Minnesota already has. 2020 will have a primary, instead.

We finally figured it out.

[AuntPatsy]

3. Well that's good to hear because then you must whole heartedly agree that until the 26th

Brings on the last part of the voting process in the form of finishing up the voting tally that it's not over til then the present rules state otherwise....I agree 🤓Let democracy leave its mark

[bigwillq]

4. I would like to eliminate caucuses and SDs

And nominate the candidate only based on pledged delegates and/or pop vote.


Hillary Clinton won the 2016 race based on pledged delegates and won pop vote, so she should be the nominee.

[Gomez163]

6. We need the superdelegates to keep out the McGoverns. Never again.

[bigwillq]

8. The parties should respect the will of the voters

Even if the candidate is awful.

[Gomez163]

10. 1972 was a mess.

[bigwillq]

11. Sometimes democracy is (nt)

[JCanete]

27. cool, so anytime the establishment doesn't like someone, maybe they can just label that person a

Mcgovern, and then pretend that the superdelegates brokered the election for the sake of a victory in the general, not because the party was terrified that the person might actually win. I like how so many people want to make it even easier for the establishment candidates to waltz into the nomination, and actually talk as if having rich and powerful gatekeepers for the party is the most sensible idea in the world. "keeps the rabble out, don't you know."

[JimDandy]

51. Exactly.

[bonemachine]

47. Clearly...

Nixon was a far better choice for the nation than McGovern anyways, right?

[Gomez163]

50. False choice. Humphrey would have fared better. Or Kennedy. Or Muskie.

[Stallion]

7. They Should Keep Current and Former Elected Officials as Super Delegates but Flush Lobbyist

I have no problem with Governors, Senators, Representatives or even state elected officers serving as Super Delegates in a representative Republic-they will generally do what's best for the Democratic party. Eliminate caucuses.

[Recursion]

21. I think the exact opposite: keep the DNC members (the "lobbyists" you thoughtlessly smear)

and get rid of the current and former elected officials.

[JCanete]

25. Why is that a thoughtless smear? Serious question. What don't we understand about lobbyists that

making them super-delegates is a good thing? Why have any? That nonsense about protecting the integrity of the party is just a different framing of "we can't have our elections be actual elections now." Show me a good use case that won't invalidate the whole pretense of a democratic process?

[Recursion]

26. Van Beechler of Idaho is a DNC superdelegate

She is out as a lesbian in politics in Idaho, which is no small thing. She is a lobbyist for the Human Rights Campaign and some other LGBTQ groups.

Where the fuck do you get off smearing her work?

[JCanete]

28. Where the fuck do you get off saying I smeared her work? You should probably quote me on that,

or hell, even on the implication. That was quite the dick move there. And of course it avoided the meat of my post, which was asking you under what circumstances should the will of the voters be overturned by those who were appointed more power, in some cases by people who might actually be vying for that very vote?

[Recursion]

29. She's a "lobbyist". Are you now saying it's OK for lobbyists to be superdelegates?

If so we have no problem.

I can come up with literally hundreds of other DNC members who have lobbied for women's rights, unions, consumers, communities, social justice, etc.

I'm sick of this lazy thinking and I'm calling it out. "Lobbyists" are not evil.

[JCanete]

31. I didn't say that here. You're the one not putting the effort in. I didn't attack lobbyists

as such, and neither did the poster who said lobbyists shouldn't be given super-delegate status. Whether there are lobbyists who are good people has been, and continues to be, completely beside the point, but I get the feeling you don't give a rats ass about the point, unless it means scoring some.

Just...I don't know, maybe read the posts before you respond to them with the audacity to call others lazy.

[Recursion]

32. No: own or disown the smear

You guys have gotten away with this for long enough.

Is Van Beecher too "tainted" to be a superdelegate because she was a "lobbyist", or not?

[JCanete]

34. I said nobody should be a superdelegate. Nobody. It has little to do with Van Beecher's record,

and everything to do with my opinion about giving some people so much more influence over the election outcome than the rest of us. In this case you're speaking of a person that clearly has a storied career and people trust her authority when she speaks. She can already add her endorsement to a candidate and it will matter. Why should anybody get the extra votes?

So far, that is all this has been about, except that you've been trying to make it about something else.

But if I were to tell you that I didn't trust the super-delegate system or how they were awarded, that could still not be twisted and cajoled by you into an attack on Van Beecher's record, character or integrity, so stop it already.

Fuck it, I'll go further since this is what you want to talk about. There are lobbyists who work for nonprofit causes or large communities of voters, and there are lobbyists who work for corporate interests. One is not a good or bad person by virtue of what group he or she falls in. But there is a fucking difference between them! I'm not exactly sure what your game is, but why are you trying to defend a system that is so clearly corrupted by money? You can't just throw up an anecdotal example of somebody who isn't corrupted and say "how dare you besmirch her, " when we're talking about the whole system. That's fucking crazy man!

Is this just you experiencing such a painful level of cognitive dissonance about your candidate and her ties to money, that you have to feel right about it by elevating every lobbyist to the esteem of Van Beecher? Help me to understand you.

[LonePirate]

9. I think this season highlighted the need for standardized voting laws and methods across the country

Also, I don't think anyone likes the superdelegate system so we need to address that as well, which is a far simpler task than standardizing voting laws.

[joshcryer]

17. IMO every election does that.

We need one standardized system (even if it takes 10 years to create) across all states for all parties and all nominations and everything. Fuck it. We need to get this shit straight and clean. And it should be all paper based.

[Gothmog]

12. I agree but there are 8 or so proposed rules changes at the Texas State Democratic Conv.

on this issue. I expect to be busy arguing for keeping the current system

[TSIAS]

13. Everything went fine?

Look at Nevada. These cockamamie rules led to a meltdown of epic proportions.

I don't think it's wise to cut polling places to make it more difficult to vote.

I think at the very least the superdelegates should hold off from voicing their votes the process ends. Hillary essentially had the race won from before the first ballots were cast.

[Rex]

14. The electoral system has a huge amount of flaws that need immediate attention.

The GOP is a fucked up party that likes to stay in a dysfunctional state, be thankful we are not them. Way too much voter suppression still in 2016. If someone cannot vote even with two forms of ID, we have a serious problem.

[joshcryer]

15. I agree with Gary Hart that superdelegates should go with their states.

But they can announce their intentions before their states vote.

The outcome would not have changed, but they would still retain influence that they deserve.

[aikoaiko]

16. Get rid of caucuses, superdelegates, and closed primaries.

This would help create a system more welcoming to change.

[qdouble]

18. I don't mind superdelegates, they would probably only step-in if there was a too close

to call race or outsider sabotage. Probably the biggest thing to do is get rid of caucuses. I'm also in favor of more closed primaries, but I'm not fully against allowing some semi-closed primaries.

[TSIAS]

23. WhaT I don't get about SD's

If they're just there in case of some sort of emergency, why did Clinton spend the months prior to the first votes locking up their support. In the end, she didn't really need them. She may have clinched faster were the SD's not there.

In terms of caucuses, they are cheaper than primaries. If states want to fit the bill, that's fine. I believe parties pay for caucuses. I don't like closed primaries if its the taxpayer paying the bill.

[qdouble]

24. Caucuses are probably the least democratic part of the primaries in the way it disenfranchises

everyone who doesn't have the time or patients to go through all those shenanigans. Seems more like an old-timey ritual, rather than something that has any place in modern politics.

I think it's more or less splitting hairs in regards to whether or not the party pays for the primary or not...unless the state is cash strapped like Puerto Rico, none of us are going to notice the difference anyway... it'd just be campaign finance money going to the state instead, but the accounting would become more complicated. No democrat seems to care if 3rd parties or republicans have closed primaries, so I don't think the concern is genuine.

The main thing to me is that people outside of a political party shouldn't have the strongest say in who that party nominates. If the party loses in the fall, then that's their fault, but they should be allowed control over their platform.

[-none]

30. The people should be able to tell the political party what they want.

The political party should not be telling the people what they can have.

Uniform primary election laws across all states. Open primaries. No gerrymandering. No touch screen voting machines. Paper ballots only.
Put some real teeth in our election fraud laws. Allow exit polling. Allow international monitoring of our elections.

[Ace Rothstein]

37. How about semi-closed primaries?

I don't want Republicans voting in the Democratic primary.

[-none]

48. What about Republican on the fence?

Allowing them to vote in open primaries would help get more people on the Left side during the General, lessening the number of people voting Republican mis-fit.

Not many hard core Republicans would vote Democratic anyway. They have their favorite Republican candidates too.
But whatever, your point is more of a talking point than reality anyway.

[BootinUp]

20. Superdelegates are very similar to endorsements nothing more. nt

[Logical]

22. Bullshit.....

Superdelegates ruin the democratic process. If you think they are needed then the rules is they keep their mouths shut until the convention.

[Gomez163]

33. They kept out this year's McGovern so good.

[Logical]

38. Another classy Hill supporter. Typical. nt

[tabasco]

52. You're not fit to shine George McGovern's shoes, if he was still alive, God Bless him.

McGovern was a war hero, a true patriot, and an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam war.

[Nye Bevan]

36. Get rid of superdelegates, caucuses, and open primaries. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. What "non-party" elements?

[Gomez163]

42. Independents and Republicans.

Independents who are Republicans in disguise or just flat out gadflys.

Republicans trying to sabotage the primary.

[Lucinda]

41. Either the caucus system needs to go, or there needs to be absentee voting added to it

Too many people are disenfranchised with a caucus only system.

I don't mind the supers.

[pampango]

43. I could see getting rid of superdelegates and caucuses (though that is a state concern).

This year open primaries favored a liberal, Bernie, but next time they could favor a moderate candidate who appealed more to independents and republicans. Not too thrilled with open primaries though that, again, is a state determination.

[Garrett78]

45. Clinton won more open primaries than Sanders did.

Anyway, I'd do away with superdelegates and caucuses, as well.

[pampango]

46. I know she did. Was thinking more about 2020 that a non-liberal

might appeal more to independents and cross-over republicans in open primaries.

[Garrett78]

49. But you said open primaries this year favored a liberal, Sanders.

And that next time they may favor a more moderate candidate.

But open primaries this year didn't favor Sanders. Certain demographics favored Sanders. Clinton won more open primaries.

[apnu]

44. Super Ds are bad, and the caucus system is past its prime.

Plus there is no rhyme or reason to how the states conduct their primaries. NY has a ridiclious 8 month registration requirement, Cali has the most convoluted ballots, and Nevada has the most pointless system ever.

It should be uniform, if only so the voters have the right expectations when they vote.