For 2012: How to change the Democratic Primary rules?

[backscatter712]

It's pretty clear that a few things need to change.

Personally, I think the Democratic primaries & caucuses need to do two things better.1

1. Better represent the will of the members of the Democratic Party.

2. Resolve the contests more promptly, without protracted fights.

First thing I would do is lose the superdelegates entirely. The only votes that count are the ones that come from Joe and Jill Voter. No more back rooms, no more superdelegates - the will of the voters is the only thing that counts.

Second, I would change the schedule. Bring the primaries closer together. Have a few small states go first - to give less-moneyed candidates a chance to earn their way to the top by old-fashioned campaigning. Today it's Iowa and New Hampshire, but I'd rather have the first states be different each time - by random selection, biased towards smaller states - less moneyed candidates will have trouble trying to campaign in California. Also, instead of dragging things out until June, I'd have every state except the first few do their primaries/caucuses all at once on Super Tuesday. If that's too much to handle, then split it in half and do two big bunches of primaries, one on Super Tuesday, one a couple weeks later. But after that, the primaries should be done, and a winner should emerge.

Third, I'd maybe do a few rule-changes, like implementing Instant Runoff voting, so the people who this year voted for Kucinich or Edwards, only to see the candidate drop out early, don't get disenfranchised - their votes then go for the next-rated guy on their ballots. I'd also tighten up caucus rules a bit - require that caucus polls be done by secret ballot, for example.

Just my thoughts.

[Fresh_Start]

1. every voters vote weighed exactly the same

no matter which state they live in

[backscatter712]

3. Good point.

[Johnny__Motown]

4. That's insane...... It isn't our system and would give big states far to much influence

[joshcryer]

7. So you introduce runnoff voting.

Simple, problem solved.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. states should have nothing to do with primary representation

members of the party should be the only entity that count.

[Fresh_Start]

11. I'm for a popular vote for primaries and general election

because unless each voter is equally important its not fair

I don't understand how having one voter's vote worth 2x as much as a different voters vote could possibly be considered fair

[DJ13]

2. Prevent anyone named Clinton from running for office

:hide:

[backscatter712]

6. Nah, just keep the rules fair.

So when she boomerangs herself with yet another attack, let the consequences take effect naturally.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. require primaries

and not caucuses, and CLOSED primaries so that only Democrats can vote.

[msmcghee]

8. The main problem with the primaries is that . .

. . the selection process is drawn out over several months with people from some states making their choices very early on - and with a very unclear picture of how the candidates' abilities and shortcomings will develop in the minds of the voters. The purpose of the nomination process is not a contest to see which states will get to be first to make uninformed decisions - so they can "set the direction" for other states to follow.

I want to make my decision after the candidates have gone through the complete process - not before - so I can see how they conduct themselves, how they react to challenges, how open and honest they are, how well they express themselves extemporaneously, etc.

There's no way to know those things at the start of the campaign. If there was, why have a long campaign at all? You need the full campaign to learn and develop a reasoned opinion. A process that forces some of us to vote before we've observed that full process is a stupid waste of time and money and will almost guarantee that we won't put our best candidate forward.

If someone set out to create the worst possible nominating process - the one we've got would be the one to pick.

[crispini]

10. You know why I hate these threads?

Because, good ideas or not, people always take them in the pure academic sense, you know, if I could fix the primaries any way I wanted to, I'd do this, this, and that. And they never take any of the practical realities of the situation into consideration. Nor do they give one smidgen, nay, one iota of thought to how such changes might actually be accomplished in the real world. In short, all they do is get people's hope up, get people's expectations up, and they ultimately don't any good.

[BzaDem]

12. Here's what I would do.

Popular vote. We can still have delegates, but no more hyper-proportional-madness like we have now, where most districts go 2-2 even in a 59-41 split. Simply give each state a certain number of delegates that corresponds to the turnout in that state, and then award delegates according to the exact percentage in the election. This allows delegates to exist while making it equivalent to the popular vote.

No caucuses. They oversample some groups and greatly undersample others (and in total allow very few people a huge say). Whether or not you agree with this oversampling or undersampling, that is NOT how the general election works. We need to have primary elections so the candidate who actually wins proves his or her ability to win actual elections with millions of people voting.

Let a few states go first -- 4 small states and 1 big swing state. 4 small states to give less-moneyed candidates a chance, and 1 big swing state to make sure states that don't represent the country at all don't pick the nominee entirely. Cycle the states through so the same ones don't always get to pick.

Then have a big Super-Tuesday with about half the states voting (like it is now).

Then have the remaining primaries be 5 per week for 4 weeks, with maybe a 1 week break in between.

Finally, keep superdelegates (80% popular vote delegates / 20% superdelegates). They should not overturn the will of the people under normal circumstances. But, in case one candidate has an unexpected earth-moving scandal that destroys that candidates' electability (and that candidate drops significantly in the polls), the superdelegates should exist to take into account this new information that comes up after the voting takes place.

[backscatter712]

13. No. No superdelegates.

For the "candidate caught with live boy or dead girl" scenario, normal pledged delegates could switch their votes if they wanted (though they'd have to have some way of being held to answer for such decisions so they're not motivated to overturn their pledges without a really, really good reason.) That or another mechanism could be put in place, such as rules requiring a candidate to be withdrawn from consideration if he/she is charged with a serious felony or is otherwise in trouble for misconduct.

But I'm done with the specter of party insiders in smoke-filled rooms getting veto power to overturn the results of democratic elections. Superdelegates have got to go.