Democrats should change the rules for 2012 and have winner take all primaries

[ruggerson]

I know many will disagree, but this proportional thing is ridiculous and, as we see by what's happening this year, it greatly weakens us as a party.

Each state can still be a battleground, but whomever wins the state should get the delegates.

It's fair, it's democratic (small d), it's representative of the will of the people and it strengthens our position as a party.

Do away with the superdelegates entirely, have winner take all primaries and let the best candidate win.

[AX10]

1. I am for a direct election process.

But your idea is a step up from what is. Also, dump the SD's

[ruggerson]

3. I said dump the SD's in the body of the OP

[mac2]

39. Yes...a primary on one day with a direct election process

of some sort.

[XemaSab]

90. What would have happened if there had been a one day primary in this election?

And would that be a good thing? :shrug:

[theHandpuppet]

2. AGREED!

The current system is ridiculous.

[NJSecularist]

4. None of the big states should be winner take all

Like California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and New Jersey.

The rest should, though.

[KittyWampus]

40. How about Run-Off Ballots?

[jackson_dem]

77. Good idea, gives us the best of both worlds

[mac2]

94. Run off ballots have been used in elections

How did it work out and did people like it?

[MadBadger]

5. Bu the proportional thing is undoubtedly the most fair.

[anigbrowl]

7. The hell with fair...

winning is what counts!

[ruggerson]

9. No it isn't

It's stupid. We don't have national plebiscites on every bill. You can take any concept (including fairness) and make a useless mockery out of it, which is what this current system does.

Majority rules in this country. You win a state, you get the delegates.

[MadBadger]

12. So you agree with the electoral vote over the Popular vote in the GE then, right?

[ruggerson]

15. I think the electoral college serves us well

if only because if we got rid of it, the entire campaign would be focused on media markets in NY, CA, FL and IL.

The small states would never even SEE a candidate.

[MadBadger]

19. Thanks for making my argument for me with regards to the Primary

If we got rid of proportional vote in the primary, the entire campaign would be focused on media markets in NY, CA, FL, IL, and TX. The Small states would never even SEE a candidate.

[ruggerson]

37. Not true.

The small states would be battled over because they each represent a chunk of delegates and we have a staggered system. In a national primary, your argument might hold water, but we don't have a national primary. We have a nominating system that runs over a period of five months.

[MadBadger]

41. So then then the Small states would get screwed on Super Tuesday is what you are saying

Not to mention my state like Wisconsin would be COMPLETELY Ignored by Hillary, because she knows that she should get a 51-49 edge in TX/OH/PA. Popular vote is the most fair.

[jackson_dem]

78. I don't think so

Look at the rethugs. Did Romney or Huckabee contest New York, New Jersey, and Illinois? What would happen is likely the opposite. Instead of stumping in a big state to get 40% candidates would write them off altogether and focus on other states, whether big, small, or medium to which are more likely wins.

But it is hard to know since we have had PR since 1992. I could certainly see your prediction possibly coming true.

[slick8790]

24. The electoral college is a sham.

It gives disproportionate representation to small states and effectively disenfranchises up to 49.9% of a state's voters.

[LiberalFighter]

72. Where did you get that number? Did it come to you in a dream?

[slick8790]

74. Before you act like an arrogant, condescending prick, try re-reading.

The concept of the electoral college can disenfranchise effectively up to (50%-1 vote) of a state. Basically, in say, Idaho, it doesn't matter if there's 2% voting dem or 40% voting dem. The electoral votes still go to the republicans. I used 49.9% for simplicity's sake.

[LiberalFighter]

75. When you don't provide support for your statement then you should expect challenges!

And while on this how many states have there been where voters were disenfranchised because a vote might have gone to their candidate if electoral votes were 100% proportional instead of partially?

What is the likelihood that the electoral college will be eliminated?

[slick8790]

76. So you don't think that

it discourages red state democrats from voting when they know their vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things? It devalues an individual's vote. Same thing with new york republicans. Hell, anyone in a safe state, their vote most likely isn't too important to their overall state outcome. The electoral colleges therefore ends up putting all the emphasis on "swing states". What makes a person in say, florida or ohio's vote more important than mine here in the safe blue state of new jersey?

How do you defend a system that effectively gives far more power to small, red states? Proportionally, your vote is worth a higher percentage of each electoral vote in wyoming than in california, which is backwards ass shit since a vote should be a vote.

And just because something is not likely to be changed doesn't mean it's wrong and undemocratic?

Whatever happened to one person, one vote?

[LiberalFighter]

85. Then why do they vote?

I vote even though my vote in all probability it won't make a difference in the Presidential election but there are other elections that I can make a difference. And I make a difference by getting involved in those campaigns. If I put enough effort and others put enough effort in red state campaigns we may effect the outcome of the swing states. In 2006, we forced the RNC to spend money in our district because we had a credible candidate that made it a possible upset. Others still vote because they feel they should and/or they feel it makes a difference.

There never was one person, one vote in the first election. There wasn't one person, one vote when the Constitution was ratified either. And there isn't one person, one vote when amendments are passed.

There was a reason why smaller states receive the electoral votes they received. It was to keep the big states from gaining up on the smaller states.

You're not accomplishing one bit by trying to convince me that it is wrong and undemocratic. So what! I'm not the one you need to convince. It is Congress and then the states.

[slick8790]

86. So you believe people from small states are worth inherently more than people from large states.

The estimated 2006 population of Wyoming is 515,004. With 3 electoral votes, that comes out to 171,668 people per electoral vote. The estimated 2006 population of California is 36,457,549. With 55 electoral votes, that comes out to roughly 662,864 people per electoral vote. Do you really believe people in Wyoming deserve their vote to count more than 3 times what a person in California's does? If you do, then why? Why should a person have their vote count more based on where they live?

Just because people vote doesn't mean it doesn't make their vote essentially useless in the majority of states. Who knows what voter turnout would be if we had a popular election, and the thousands, maybe millions, or discouraged people in previously "safe" states might finally come out to vote?

[LiberalFighter]

104. Do you know how electoral votes are determined?

And the number of people that vote is nowhere near the same as the population of the state or even the number that are eligible to vote. What are you going to do to change it to a popular vote? It doesn't do any good to complain if you aren't going to do anything about it or it is next to impossible to change.

I don't have sympathy for those that say they don't have time to vote, don't feel their vote makes a difference, or just don't want to bother. And if we went to a popular vote we may end up with even fewer people voting because they will feel their vote doesn't count when they are just one of many.

In all likelihood it would not increase voter turnout considering that there are other elections that hit the voter closer to home. Election for Governor, Mayor, US Senators and Representatives. The major method to increase voter turnout that could be implemented in every state would be to allow voter registration on election day and being able to vote immediately. Most people don't bother considering the candidates until about 30 days before the election. By then it is too late for those not already registered. Those states that have this already or don't require voter registration have a much higher voter turnout.

[XemaSab]

91. It can disenfranchise more than that

if there's three people running.

[hfojvt]

101. three viable people - since there are always more than 3

For example, Colorado in 1992

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Clinton - 40.13%
Bush - 35.87%
Perot - 23.32%

The 59.87% who voted "not-Clinton" were outvoted, but that was true in almost all states, except DC and Arkansas. For example, Virginia was
Bush - 42.91
Clinton - 36.79
Perot - 19.77

with the 57.09% who voted "not-Bush" being out-voted.

[XemaSab]

103. My point exactly

40% of the population = 100% of the electoral votes. :P

[KittyWampus]

46. Okay, but then every state only gets ONE delegate. Candidate that wins most states, gets nominated

[jackson_dem]

79. 600,000 in Wyoming should have the same say as 35 million Californians?

[Telly Savalas]

84. It does in the Senate.

Not that this is a good thing.

[mac2]

92. But the Senate is not all the Congress is it?

The House most represents the people. That body should be important as to the primary winner and agenda of the party. It should decide a President in a close election.

The Senate has two representatives for each state regardless of size. In a primary for President all citizens who vote should be included not some manipulation which includes the party elite.

It is my opinion the Senate has not even stood up to Bush since he stole power have they? They ignored the wishes of the people in 2006. They are self important and arrogant with the power elite corrupting them since Reagan.

[hfojvt]

97. how is it majority rule?

Look at what happened with McCain. McCain wins a state with a score like McCain - 32%, Romney 26%, Huckabee 22%, Thompson 14%, Paul 6%. McCain then gets all of the delegates. Doesn't that clearly disenfranchise the majority? A MAJORITY (68%) voted for "not-McCain" but because they were divided, their votes don't count. Winner takes all is only democratic if you have some kind of instant-runoff voting.

[Lithos]

6. Winner take all?

No, I do agree the idea of Super Delegates is bad, but winner take all is not much better. Eliminate caucuses, and have elections based on who wins in each congressional district with maybe a handful chosen at the state level. Sort of like how Maine does their Presidential election.

L-

[ruggerson]

13. I agree on eliminating cacuses

but the electoral college is winner take all. And that isn't going to end any time soon. So why not nominate that way? We would more than likely routinely end up with our strongest candidate.

[Alexander]

8. No. Winner take all is for Republicans. I like proportional delegate allocation.

If we just get rid of the superdelegates, we should be fine.

[jackson_dem]

80. We didn't have PR until the 92' primaries because Jackson demanded it be put in the 88' platform

With much justification on Jackson's part but it is leading to a train wreck this year.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. 1075-1096 if the primaries were winner-take-all.

Bottom right corner.

[XemaSab]

93. Still really tight

but to chime in for my own state, Obama got 1.75 MILLION votes here. I think it's sort of nonsensical to chuck out that many votes.

Hillary won New Mexico by a narrow margin. Obama won Missouri by a narrow margin. Why not split teh delegates? :shrug:

[NashVegas]

11. They Should Certainly Do Away With Open Primaries

..

[niyad]

14. you are in favour of disenfranching voters for the sake of democracy? interesting position

[ruggerson]

18. how is majority rules disenfranchising anyone?

what an absurd way to spin your position.

[niyad]

33. so, in cases where the vote is only a couple hundred different, for example, you don't

see a problem with "winner take all"? YOUR position is the one that seems absurd to me.

[ruggerson]

54. If a bill wins by one vote it passes

If someone running for Governor in a state wins by a handful of votes, he/she is elected.

That's how it works in this country. Majority rules. Why should this nominating process be any different?

[LordJFT]

16. worst idea ever- we should get rid of the electoral college altogether not add one for the primaries

[ruggerson]

25. Yeah, let's have the GE waged in NY and CA media markets!

not

[LordJFT]

28. so you want the primaries waged in ny and ca media markets but not the GE?

[ruggerson]

49. The primaries are staggered out over the calendar, the GE is on one day

[LordJFT]

62. yeah but it it was winner take all ca and ny would make up almost the entire

focus of supertuesday

[HeraldSquare212]

29. I'm with you - I support the electoral colleg.

[mac2]

50. Not me

Democrats in the Senate refused to allow the House Democrats to protest the election fraud in their districts. They allowed Bush to take office without over sight and then let it come out later that Gore won. It was and is a coup.

[mac2]

48. What do you care unless you live there?

If primaries were all on the same day in every state it wouldn't matter. You get your "entertainment news" from there anyway.

[bluestateguy]

17. That will never happen

Civil rights groups will protest this loudly. Proportional representation allows protest, or fringe candidates to win delegates and thus have a seat at the table, even when they lose.

I'd like to see the superdelegates disposed of, at least for the first round of balloting. In the event of a tie (very unlikely), or if the leading candidates drop out between the end of the primaries and the convention, then I could see a role for some kind of superdelegates.

[DefenseLawyer]

20. I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there, Bob

As Lumbergh would say. I'm not sure what the winner take all advantage is, except that it would favor Hillary Clinton at this point. Other than simply wanting to help Hillary at any cost, it is actually anti-democratic and more unfair to the will of the voters in each state. It is an election to choose delegates, not electoral votes, so the delegates should represent the voters not the state. If two candidates are neck and neck in say California and one of them wins by one vote, giving the winner all of the delegates means 50% of the voters are out of luck at the convention and their choice unrepresented. That doesn't seem very democratic to me. It's not like it is difficult to apportion the delegates as long as you have a decent calculator. What am I missing here?

[mondo joe]

21. I just want the same model in each state, whatever it is: proportional or winner take all.

[housewolf]

22. Au Contraire! I heartily disagree

I think proportional representation is SO much more democratic than winner-take all! Winner-take-all is, at it's heart, not democratic at all!

I love that the Dems have strong candidates that vie for support among the party faithful. I think it strengthens the Democrats as a party and the candidates themselves. It gives voice to WAY more aspects of the party. I think this ear has been VERY GOOD for the Democratic Party.

[ruggerson]

31. When a bill is voted on in a democracy

If the outcome is 51-49, the bill passes. They don't slice the bill up and only pass 51% of it.

How is majority rule (which is the essence of a democracy) less democratic than proportional representation?

[MadBadger]

34. Then why not just do this all by Popular vote? Wouldnt THAT be the most fair?

[ruggerson]

45. If you're advocating getting rid of delegates and conventions

good luck with that. It's not going to happen. BUt, yes, I'd be fine with a popular vote. The winner is our nominee. End of story.

[mac2]

51. Yes if you have paper ballots and fraud investigation before

declaring who won.

[stillcool]

59. In that case why have a primary at all?

Republicans, Democrats, Independents all vote in a General Election featuring all candidates, and whoever has the most votes wins. Forget campaigning and let people educate themselves about who these candidates are, just as Congress-critters educate themselves about bills. Maybe even votes would be ensured to be properly tabulated as well, just like Congress. A win-win all around as far as I can see.

[housewolf]

63. To me it's the same issue as the Electoral College...

I think it's basically unfair that someone could win the popolar vote and lose the election. It's the same issue with winner-take-all primaries. When that happens, it's not majority rule. Winner-take-all primaries are like having the Electoral College applied to the parties.

I think our system has worked great this year, so far, with the exception of the Michigan/Florida issues. If anything doesn't work right, it's the use of so-called "super-delegates" who get 2 votes, one as a resident of their state and another one as a "super-whatever". THAT'S what's undemocratic about the system this year, not the proportional allocation of delegates according to the popular vote.

I'm a strong proponent of proportial representation. I think it's much more democratic than winner-take-all. What I'd really like to see is Instant Run-off voting, but... well, that will be the day!

[mac2]

23. Stinks of Robber Baron back room politics with the

Super delegates. They have to go to be truely a small "d" democracy party.

Seems Mayor Daley got angry about being thrown out of the DNC convention so they changed the rules. Emm well he was an important man was he not? Daley's son thinks he runs the whole state even today.

I as a Democrat feel every state should have their delegates for the candidate who won so many delegates at the convention. It is there that the final vote should come to a conclusion. A VP and platform should be picked by the delegates at the convention also. States run their own elections so the costs of polling,voting booths, and law enforcement should be their responsibility.

Example=

NY=67 delegates for Hillary
NY=68 delegates for Obama
NY-=42 delegates for Edwards

PA=50 delegates for Hillary
PA=35 delegates for Obama
PA=63 delegates for Edwards

etc. than at the convention the delegates get to meet and determine the total delegates for each candidate and who wins the party nomination. They also determine their platform. It should not be each state who has the majority candidate takes all delegates. Not for President anyway.

[Jane Austin]

26. Yes!

Let's be more like the Republicans!

:sarcasm:

[mac2]

30. Having their system but not their agenda

yes.

[Ravy]

27. What is so wrong with *this* year, that late states actually get

to have their votes mean somthing?

I don't get it.

[mac2]

35. It is not far to the late states who are left out of the

primary selection. They are the largest and usually different in their political make up (more liberal).

Fight for all on one day primary. That's the fairest way for all states.

[Ravy]

67. But the late states will decide this one.

A one day primary makes for a selection based simply on soundbites and money. The current process allows for virtually unknown candidates to emerge.

[HeraldSquare212]

32. Caucuse help build the party in states that need the help.

they help parties that are struggling get more general election support and turnout.

[mac2]

52. Hold a meeting not a primary

[Richardo]

36. Winner-take-all is about as far from democratic as you can get

Unless all primaries are on the same day, W-T-A disenfranchises the majority of the voters. Especially the way the media rushes to declare 'inevitable' candidates and 'coronations'.

And how is the proportional process 'weakening' the party? More participation and voter turnout since forever. The issues remain in the public eye.

Ask the diehard RWs in the GOP how they like W-T-A. That got them McCain and too bad if you haven't had your primary yet.

I do agree with the removal of the superdelegates - that too in undemocratic and has no place in the selection process.

[BklynChick]

66. exactly....

[robbedvoter]

38. No delegates. One primary day. Dem only primaries. No caucauses.

Votes directm equal, secret - and only dems vote in our primaries.

[mac2]

47. I agree

Isn't a caucus just a discussion? Which could be held at any time.

Only Democrats should vote for their representatives for public office.

[InsultComicDog]

42. No way

because that would insure that the front runner going in always wins. Control the machines in the major cities in the big states = win the nomination.

Screw the people and what they think...

[mac2]

55. You mean you are afraid of what NY or CA might

vote for in your party? They do pay more taxes (and a lot of it goes to smaller, poor states) but you have equal say because you live in a small state?

They are liberal, well educated, and more progressive. Are you against that?

[InsultComicDog]

61. I am against

taking the will of what could be a minimal majority of the Democrats in NY and CA and using that to replace the will of the Democrats nationwide.

And no, I don't think Democrats in NY or CA are any more progressive than elsewhere. I'll bet the Democrats in Utah are more progressive and outspoken than the Democrats in NY because they are surrounded by so many Republican buttfucks.

Further, I'm not from a small state, unless PA is a small state in your book.

And one more thing: be careful what you wish for.

[mac2]

68. Oooo

[XemaSab]

96. Word

n/t

[XemaSab]

95. Here's the deal: I live in California

and there's nothing more annoying than the folks who think California is all Berkeley-educated liberals sipping tea and listening to Ozomatli and planning the next protest. Especially people who LIVE in California and think that!

We're a diverse state, but I'd shudder to think we're the paragon of liberalism.

[mac2]

98. So say you

I have friends and relatives who live in various areas of CA. They aren't all alike in their political views. You seem to agree with that. They don't hate Berkeley-educated liberals like you (you seem to forget that protests are what patriotism is about...at least ones for democracy). CA is certainly more liberal than say...Georgia. Even though Liberals and Conservatives live in both states.

[XemaSab]

100. I was raised by Berkeley-educated liberals

Most of my family went to Cal, and I grew up in the Bay Area.

I have spent time outside the Bay Area, however, and I am proud to say that California Democrats are a very diverse bunch.

But among that diverse bunch there are many moderate Democrats, and Democrats who are nothing like the above stereotype in terms of level of education, activism, political commitment, or overall Liberalism.

There's also a lot of Republicans in the state, including some real right-wing crazies.

In summary, California is not really a progressive Mecca, so if your campaign strategy involves praying to us 5 times a day, well.... :crazy:

[mac2]

102. I was raised by Buffalo, NY liberals

[Happyhippychick]

43. I can almost guarantee that the Republicans WISH they hadn't done any winner take all

That's how they ended up with McLame.

[shayes51]

44. no

[Terry_M]

53. So instead of what we currently have...

We will potentially end up with one candidate winning Florida/California/New York/Texas by 51% to 49% and the rest of the states could go 80/20 in the other direction, the popular vote added up could be 60% in favor of the losing candidate and you end up with one pissed off population in the small states. Yay?

[mac2]

56. What?

[Terry_M]

60. Sorry..

I don't always explain these things clearly...
The worst case scenario for a winner take all situation is basically this:

Say you have a few big states that add up to 51% of the total delegate count.
Now say candidate A carries those states by having 50.1% of the vote in them. Candidate A just won the election no matter how the other states voted. Even if the other states voted 100% in favor of candidate B. And if the other states did vote 100% in favor of candidate B, you have a situation where candidate A wins the primary by having just about 25% of the vote while candidate B got 75% and lost.

Now this is the most extreme possibility, but anything in between is still possible. This is how Bush kept winning despite having a lower popular vote by a few %.

[Sanctified]

57. I would support it if each State represented 1 vote. n/t

[mac2]

69. The war and our Constitution should be top billing for

for the candidates (I mean globalists).

[mac2]

70. The war and our Constitution should be top billing for

for the candidates (I mean globalists).

[NastyRiffraff]

58. Strongly disagree with winner take all

As many have said, it would ignore the will and votes of many many people. It would knock out all but the most well-financed candidates very early, before they could raise money based on wins.

I'm very much for doing away with caucuses; they limit participation. They were fine for very small communities, but as we've seen this year, once participation grows to large levels, it becomes unwieldy and basically a straw vote. And I'm very much for closed primaries..I've never understood the logic of letting a Republican vote in a Democratic primary. If they do want to vote, let them register as a Democrat.

Sure, there are many more efficient ways to hold primaries, such as winner take all, but democracy is messy. Those pesky voters sometimes do what the "experts" least expect. And good for them!

The most "efficient" government, after all, is a dictatorship. No dealing with annoying voters, protesters, and legislatures.

[ulysses]

64. agree with getting rid of the superdelegates

but I think proportional representation is best, even if it leads to a longer primary.

[wellstone dem]

65. It makes no sense in 3 way races

why should someone who gets 36% of the vote get 100% of the delegates. I don't agree with it, in two way races, but at least that makes minimal sense.

[ddeclue]

71. No they should change the rules to have one single national primary

and it should be late in the year near to the convention.

That way people in every state will be motivated and everybody's vote will be equally important and we will have a much wider pool of choices in every state instead of letting IA and NH decide for us.

[mac2]

87. I elect you head of the Democratic Party

I like your style.

[stevietheman]

73. Yeah, it's too bad we couldn't get steamrolled over by Mrs. Inevitable this year. n/t

n/t

[jackson_dem]

81. Even with winner-take-all the delegate totals would be as close as they are now

I think Obama would actually be ahead even under that system, excluding Florida and Michigan...

[IndianaGreen]

82. winner-take-all is undemocratic!

That's what you get with the Electoral College!

[BeyondGeography]

83. Democrats should be more like Republicans (because the guy I hate is winning)

Could we be more disingenuous?

[mac2]

88. What? I feel it has little to do with who is winning

but more importantly about the fairness to all states and the Democratic voters in them being represented in the process.

[XemaSab]

89. I think for close elections it should be proportional

but for blowouts, it should be winner-take-all.

If a state has 100 delegates, and Al Gore wins 90% of the vote, why should Joementum get 10 delegates? :shrug:

[JCMach1]

99. Winner take would only be good because it reflects the Gen Elect

conditions.