Primary process needs overhauled.

[gulliver]

The current process is undemocratic and unstable. Early states "steer" the process, allowing a tiny minority of people to warp the downstream remainder of the primary. Then, the early states themselves can be steered by special interests who only have to fool and media blitz a small population to achieve big results. Usually, the early states actually decide the nominee outright. If there were a Nobel Prize for Incompetence, it would go to the creators of the Democratic primary system.

What is amazing to me is not that Florida tried to move their primary up. I am amazed that every state didn't try to do it. Downstream states have been forced to watch this bizarre, mangled process play out for too long. It is in-your-face disenfranchisement on a scale that makes Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 pale into insignificance, yet we all march over the same cliff every four years.

We need direct, one-day, instant run-off nomination of presidential candidates. Then do the same with the presidential election itself. Either that or eliminate primary elections altogether and let all the elected representatives--and only elected representatives--from a given party choose the presidential candidate for that party.

[ClassWarrior]

1. So are you planning to run for DNC from your state? Or is this just...

...bellyaching in a vacuum?

NGU.

[gulliver]

4. I didn't realize those were my only two choices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

DU isn't a vacuum. It is a wood chipper.

[KittyWampus]

2. No, One-Day Primary= candidate with name recognition, money & political machine ties will win

FUCK THAT.

[gulliver]

6. So a candidate with name rec, money, and machine ties...

...only in Iowa and New Hampshire is better?

[gateley]

7. Before the One Day Primary,

campaign financing would have to be in place. Each candidate gets the exact same amount of money to spend on their campaign. Doesn't that sound like a good idea?

Here's your $10 million - spend it wisely. See you after the primaries - or not.

[PatSeg]

8. And there needs to be some consistent rules about

the primaries. Should some states have caucuses and others primaries? Some states have "winner takes all"? Some states only Democrats can vote and others Republicans and Independents? Some states allow same-day registration? Our current Democratic primary system is a recipe of chaos and division, as well as potential fraud.

Will we remember this in four or eight years?

[gateley]

11. Yes --

consistent rules among the states would be great - and it just seems RIGHT.

Some of the states now are just goofy. My niece (in Seattle) thought she was voting when she sent in her ballot, only to learn later that unless she caucused, her vote didn't count.

Texas had the vote, but in order to drum up the delegates, you needed to go to the caucuses too?

And in MI - the people who DIDN'T know that writing in their candidate was an automatic 'no vote' -

It's screwn.

Needs to be a SURGE among voters demanding change, but I'm not sure how many people are aware of just how all over the map it is.

[PatSeg]

12. Your niece sent in a ballot

and still had to caucus??? That is almost as insane as Texas's part primary, part caucus system. Who are the geniuses who come up with these systems? It is scary that they are Democrats!

[gateley]

14. I know -- crazy!

It's like they're trying to sabotage the votes of their own party.

[gateley]

15. And I'm a little cloudy on if you could do both -- like Texas -- or

if it was an either/or type of deal. Whichever, it wasn't understood by a number of voters.

[ctaylors6]

19. In TX, you could not caucus unless you'd also voted.

You could vote then choose not to caucus of course (sort of like 75% of a vote).

[gateley]

21. Thank heavens you understood that --

Was that new in TX this year, or is that the way it's always been done?

[ctaylors6]

33. It's been that way a long time. This was the first time I remember the race being close enough

for the caucuses to matter, especially since TX is later in the primary schedule. I'd never caucused before this year. In fact, this was the first year I voted on election day in many years. I usually vote early and am out of town on election day. Before this year, the caucuses were effectively more of a local/state party organizing tool than relevant to the outcome of the primary.

[crispini]

13. Exactly. Without campaign financing,

a one day primary would mean "he/she who has the most money wins." NOT the way I want to select our nominee.

[VotesForWomen]

18. wouldn't that apply to the GE as well? maybe we should do the GE the way we do the primaries? yeah,

NOT. name recognition, money, etc. still rule under the present primary system, they just fluctuate over the course of the primaries. case you haven't heard, O's got a lot more money than hill, and that buys a lot of name recognition.

[cyclezealot]

3. Good for you.

Agree 100%. This is the lesson of the Florida/ Michigan debacle. We need another McGovern commission. For sure another nominating process would not give us the string of looser nominees that repeatedly lead us to defeat. The process is undemocratic, emphasizes big money which abandons us come November anyway. / Your comment about 'early states steer the process. ' So true. And the length of the process only leads to bitterness. The process should only be at most three months duration. After that the process turns into a fight to the death. Whatever system might save us, it must allow all voices an equal chance to be heard and not dependent upon media approval and big contributors paying the way.

[gateley]

37. (gateley scrambles to google "McGovern Commission")... nt

[cornermouse]

5. Agreed. We need to change the voting process.

I don't know what can be done to allow every voter to vote for the candidate of their choice and yet let us all get a good long look at them but something needs to be changed.

[AllentownJake]

9. I like the way we do primaries

I'm from PA and we hardly ever get a say but to be honest. I'd rather the candidates have to go door to door in Iowa and New Hampshire to get early traction than voting based on who can run the best TV commercial.

I trust the people in the early states to be an informed voting public meet the candidates and make a choice.

The process works I don't know why everyone is crying foul. If Romney hadn't bowed out in February the GOP would be dealing with the same situation we are dealing with.

[cornermouse]

10. I trust the people in the early states to be an informed voting

public? Why? That's not unlike saying you want the people in the early states to cast your vote for you and is illogical.

[cyclezealot]

41. I don't trust anyone to be informed with my vote

thank you.

[ctaylors6]

17. I understand the reasoning behind having a few states early, but I wish

the first 2 weren't Iowa & NH. I would have loved for Michigan and/or Florida to have worked out as early state. I really like the idea of having a swing state early, especially a larger, more diverse one (or two).

[PatSeg]

27. There a number of plans out there

and one would rotate the early states every four years.

[BalancedGoat]

29. They like small states first.

The idea behind it is that it reduces the influence of media coverage, big money, and name recognition. In Iowa, we like our candidates to come out and talk to us. You won't find my arguing that Iowa needs to always be first, but at the same time I don't want early momentum determined by who can shit out the most ads onto the airwaves.

[AllentownJake]

32. Agreed

I'm from a big state and I like the way you do things in Iowa. PA is two big for us to be one of the first and I have no problem with that.

[cyclezealot]

42. another positive move.

outlaw tv spot ads. too. They add nothing. Encourage an attack mentality. If a candidate can't be lucid when presenting themselves in debate; they should not be president. Had we had a more thorough examination, think GW Bush was be president. Its the process. Require a candidate to have to talk on, at great length about their ideas. that will trip up the morons we repeatedly elect. Most candidates want to resort to short messages since they fear exposing themselves if they actually have to say something that reveals the real them.

[VotesForWomen]

16. yep, but americans are so resistant to change it will never happen. nt

[Muttocracy]

20. thanks for your post - with a few caveats.

Might also want to send a link to the election reform forum? I need to spend more time in that one.

I agree with most of what you said except my concerns about the famous moneyed candidates having a huge advantage, as others noted above. The three who were polling at the top in spring 2007 were the same ones who placed in Iowa, which basically says the debates didn't matter.

The caucuses have to go. There are about as undemocratic as it gets (limited time frame, rounding off for viability at multiple steps - remember from math classes how repeated rounding causes errors?) So I'm for instant run-off primaries. But I don't know that a single day for the whole country is the way to go. That would make it more like the general election, money and media attention dominating, less of a chance to find out AND vet the candidates. I've been brainstorming about having several national primary dates (say, Feb, April, June), with instant runoff, eliminating the bottom one or two candidates each round to narrow the field. Or some regional primary, which would probably be better.

In regional primaries the candidates could campaign locally in a cost-effective way, voters could actually see candidates in person etc. And the candidate would have to address issues of importance to more than just 5 or 6 big states. Would make a lot more sense to have, say a New England primary day, or a mid-Atlantic primary day, or a West Coast one, or a Great Lakes one.

And also, why the hell do we have people campaigning in two of the :scared: coldest ** * snowiest * ** * states in December and January?! We're lucky we haven't lost a candidate, staffer, or journalist in a car or plane crash.

[yewberry]

22. I absolutely won't support the idea of a national primary day.

It's bad for the candidates and the process and the voters in the states with fewer delegates.

A one-day primary would essentially ensure that candidates would only campaign in the same 5 or 6 states every time. Retail politics would be dead. Only the most heavily bankrolled candidates would have a shot, and the media would have even more influence than they already do. A national primary could also allow external events to skew results: a train bombing in London the day before the primary could result in a hawkish candidate being chosen, or a local weather event could generate sympathy votes for a candidate from that region.

The small-state strategy is a good one, I think, but I'd like to see it change. I'd prefer to have a series of primaries, starting with those ten or so states with the lowest delegate counts. Two weeks later, I'd like to see a primary held in a single, prioritized state. States of any size of region could petition to be in this position, but it should be used for a state in need; LA or MI would seem like natural choices for this election cycle, because they're both in perilous situations. A month after the first group, the next ten, and so on. This calendar would limit special interest influence and allow for enough time for voters to get to know their candidates, while keeping the 'must-win' states toward the end to encourage candidates to stay in the race for longer.

[VolcanoJen]

24. It would be a Televangical Campaign

It would be wholly run on television and radio, and it would be crafted by advertising executives and Mark Penn-types. Only the big, most populous states would really "matter." All of the money would flow to them, and Utah, Idaho, West Virginia, etc. just wouldn't get a fair shot at seeing and hearing from the candidates.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[yewberry]

26. True--ad execs would craft the messages of the candidates.

Yuck.

Now, that gives me the willies!

[gulliver]

36. I actually think it would make one person, one vote real.

If retail politics is the candidate shaking hands with someone and chatting with them for a couple of minutes, then I think it is already dead--and good riddance. Because I don't choose to take off work and go meet a candidate or attend a rally, is that supposed to mean that my vote counts less? I think face-to-face politics is a myth now. People use the face-to-face meetings to get autographs to sell on e-Bay.

I'm not sure how one justifies over-representing a small state merely on the idea that they would supposedly be ignored in a one-day primary. Wyoming and Idaho get no TV ads? Good! Let's have a bunch of debates with questions from every state. But then that's it. Vote.

The train bombing skewing the results would happen under the current system too. The hawk candidate would win the next several primaries and be a shoo-in. It would just happen in slow motion.

Any attempt to subdivide the nominating process into chunks and schedules is inherently artificial and subject to unfairness. Pure democracy is the closest we can come, IMO, to having a design that is "designer free" and therefore one-person-one-vote neutral.

[yewberry]

38. Sure, as long as that one person lives in CA, NY, FL, IL, or TX.

Only the people in those states and their issues would ever be addressed.

I think you misunderstand the idea of retail politics. It's not glad-handing, and it's not selling autographs on ebay. Retail politics is grass-roots politics. Candidates have the opportunity to hone their messages by working house parties with 15 people who challenge them and their positions. Small groups of voters do take time off from work to go to pancake breakfasts and rallies and get to know the candidates. It is face-to-face politics whether you believe in it or not. I can tell you that I spent an hour with Dodd and eight other Dems, asking about DOMA and Iraq and NCLB and habeas corpus. That is retail politics, and it's worth something.

Having early states come first may overrepresent them in a sense, but having a national primary would ensure that people in smaller states and their issues would never be addressed. I mean, why bother? If they don't have a lot of delegates, they're not important. No one cares if WY and ID have no television ads; people should care if the system is built to cater only to issues that concern the populations of the 5 biggest states.

And no, external events have less of an effect in a protracted primary season. Yes, there can be effects, but they flatten out over time. That's part of the reason we schedule the primaries the way we do.

Subdividing the calendar is the fairest way to handle the primaries. It certainly seems unfair to those outside of smaller states in terms of which candidates have opted to drop out, but it's really the best way for the candidates to be given a fair shake and for them to be able to consider what their presidency would mean to all Americans. Less-funded candidates can actually put together a good campaign in a state like NH for $800K. How far would that money get them in a large-market campaign? A day? A half-day? Even worse, the media would have a huge amount of control over the process and whose message reached the population. There's an awful idea.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

[VolcanoJen]

23. No. In fact, this primary season has been the most exciting anyone's ever seen.

There's something that's downright American about having to spend a year in New Hampshire and Iowa, shaking hands, meeting in diners, photo-ops with livestock, and what-not. It's so Norman Rockwell, and it makes our presidential selection process unique in the world. It is a good thing that a few small states get to take a look at all of the candidates close-up long before we get a shot at them.

And this year, the first two states turned in a split decision. Nevada and South Carolina followed, and once again, split decision. I feel strongly that this year, save for the MI and FL debacle, the system is working. It's very democratic, that they may very well end up voting in all 50 states and the protectorates. I fail to understand why anyone would want this over with so quickly.

[LWolf]

25. I'd like to see the following:

100% public financing, with no donations of any kind, and no campaigning by any outside groups.

All polling outlawed.

No more caucuses. One vote per registered democrat.

IRV.

Whether everyone votes the same day or not, definitely count all the votes on the same day, so that no early returns affect votes in other places.

Hand-counted paper ballots.

A fairness doctrine, with equal, neutral media time for all.

This year, the only thing I can do with my vote in late May is vote against whichever candidate is leading in hopes of forcing a brokered convention and getting a candidate that is not either of the current two.

Frankly, any protests about "voter's choice" can be embedded where the sun doesn't shine; too many voters had no voice or had their voice limited by others for them already. The only way my vote is "equal" to an early primary voters is if it helps to force a 3rd choice.

[quakerboy]

28. I dont care for the one day primary idea

I think that there is some value in seeing a campaign progress and in watching how campaigns and candidates react as their approach either produces results or not. How they deal with a setback, real adversity not merely polling points, can tell you a lot about the person you are considering voting for.

However I do not care for the random nature of it, nor the arbitrary Early states. I think that it should be a bit more coordinated and that the order of voting should be changed each election. Along with some SERIOUS campaign finance reform. and Media reform thrown in for good measure.

[Aussie leftie]

30. I agree 100%

The Democratic Party officials who have been elected into office should be the ones to vote for who will lead them in the next general election. Sometimes being too democratic can be detrimental to the end game.

Look at the money that would be saved which could be used in the general election.

Its not that bizarre a system, we do it in Australia.

[eridani]

31. National primary =corporation primary

It will require really huge expenditures to compete nationally on a single day. Why not rotating regional primaries or the population based Delaware system?

[Bonobo]

34. Are yens from Pittsburgh?

[davidpdx]

35. I agree with changing how things are done

but the problem is the individual states have to sign on. I'd like to see the primary spread out over several specific days like a regional primary. Oregon was one of the smart states that decided to stay put in regards to their primary day. I'm glad we didn't mess with it.

[DerekJ]

39. Yaaaah suurreee.

You also believe that all of a sudden that caucuses are undemocratic, and that States are free to break the rules and be unpunished.
The system that doesn’t work for your candidate is unfair. I see that.

Let me tell you this, the 50 state strategy managed to bring millions of people to the democratic party, energized the young, gave people the time to actually evaluate the candidates, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of the highly recognized. It has included many states, including red states in the process. Many of those states haven’t made a difference in an election for ages.

Sorry I don't agree with your premise.

[krkaufman]

40. Yes, the nomination process could use reform

... but trying to change the rules in the middle of this year's process should not be allowed.

As for the suggestion of a one-day instant run-off nomination, I couldn't agree less. Such a single-day election would almost guarantee quadrennial selection of the candidate with the most name recognition, or the candidate with the biggest fundraising advantage. Much is to be gained by a slow ramp-up in the election process, allowing a lot of candidates to do grassroots, low budget campaigning in just a few states... where the message has the edge over money and simple name recognition. I *do* feel that there would be benefit in rotating the initial states.

As for other states moving their primaries up, many did... to Feb 5th, creating Super Duper Tuesday. Only Florida and Michigan violated party rules by moving their elections forward beyond Feb 5th.

As for only elected representatives choosing the nominee... this would disenfranchise Democratic voters in Red states, where getting Democrats elected is more difficult. Over time, this would lead to complete atrophy and eventual extinction of the Democratic Party in these states.

[F.Gordon]

43. I'll certainly throw my KICK in on this

And a piece of REC candy. :9

Put the Caucus System in the Antiques Road Show, do away with Super Delegates, and have closed Primaries.... winner take all. Just my .4 cents
:hi: