HOWARD DEAN, tear down this filter and let the voters decide in 2012

[mdmc]

We don't need superdelegates, we don't need delegates. Just let us vote, count the votes, and stand for something. THAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE PARTY.

[saltpoint]

1. He has to babysit an existing system and is doing pretty darned well, IMO.

Agree with you that the system could be significantly reformed, and feel he is the man for that job, but the tenets and tone of that reform can't be imposed this cycle.

Next time, we should consider doing things different.

[mdmc]

28. I think he has done a great job so far

:toast:

[Freedom Train]

2. Exactly.

With one addition: Winner take all. That way primary season won't last this long.

And Hillary would have already been our nominee if we'd had winner-take-all this time, as you are probably aware.

[cali]

3. Obama would have run a different campaign if it were winner take all, a

system I am strongly against. If you love the repuke way of doing things so much, maybe that's the party for you.

[Freedom Train]

6. Winner-take-all is repuke now?

Oh noes, I didn't know our general election system and the Constitution who mandated it were Repuke!!1!?

:eyes:

Moran.

[KittyWampus]

7. Only a moran would neglect to consider the import that money and party machinery would have

in a winner take all system.

We might as well not even have a primary, in that case.

But I could see where a Hillary supporter would like that system. She might have been more likely to have had her coronation and fuck democracy.

Obama had quite a few heavy hitters lined up behind him. Organizational skills that put Hillary to shame. Fundraising prowess.

But it's inherently unfair to stack the deck so heavily in favor of a candidate with name recognition and dibs on the party machinery.

[Justitia]

8. The post was about PRIMARIES, not the GE, & "the Constitution" doesn't say anything about them.

YOU shouldn't be so quick to call someone else a "moran".

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Justitia]

25. Show me where the Constitution indicates a "winner take all" system

Moran, indeed.

[Freedom Train]

27. And yet, we have one

So America's way of organizing a presidential election is apparently Repuke. Who knew.

[Justitia]

29. You're backtracking, trying to cover your mistake & it's not working.

There is no Constitutional provision for "winner take all" in either primaries or the general election.

You called people "moran" over your own fundamental mistake.

If you want to express your own preference for the republican way of conducting their primaries as opposed to the way Democrats do it, fine - but don't try to claim some non-existent Constitutional mandate as an impetus for doing so. And then insult other posters who obviously know more about it than you do.

If you really prefer the republican way of running elections, maybe you are voting in the wrong primaries?

[Freedom Train]

33. Fact: Our General Election system is winner-take-all

Do we agree? Yes, I thought so. Can you explain to me why our GE system is then somehow "Republican"? No, that you can't. So, constitutionally mandated or not (and yes, I'll have to eat that, even though I stand by my moran comment for in effect calling our GE election process repuke), we do have a WTA GE system, and it isn't any more Republican than a WTA system in our Democratic primaries would be. Deal with it.

And, unless you want our primary process to drag on into June everytime (though admittedly it's not all bad), WTA is the way to go.

[Justitia]

34. Once again, your "facts" are wrong - ask Maine & Nebraska for clarification.

So, you thought wrong - again.

Deal with it.

You admirably admitted your mistake on the Constitutional mandate thing, but really, calling other posters "morans" is your larger mistake, especially when they are more informed than you.

The poster DID NOT call our general election process "repuke", the poster was talking about primaries and you know it.

You should re-think being so quick with the "moran" label.

[MattBaggins]

14. The Constitution does not mandate WTA.

Maine allocates proportionally all though the method they use results in the winner getting all anyway.

[patrice]

18. I'm with you on this, cali. NGU! nt

[Kittycat]

11. Winner takes all - ISN'T a 50 state campaign run.

In winner take all, you put all of your money and effort in to only the big states, while ignoring the little states. That's how our party got in to the mess it's in. We need to refocus on the smaller states, rebuilding and expanding our base. That in and of itself is a primary reason why winner take all doesn't work.

[Orsino]

38. You won't see the candidates more than an hour away from either coast...

...and all the "let every vote count" people will see that their votes don't count.

I don't want a nominee chosen by four states.

[MattBaggins]

12. Except for winner takes all

the last so called reform we need is to copy the Republican winner takes all system. We don't need candidates with mile wide inch deep support. As a New Yorker I actually like the idea that my voice doesn't drown out Montana.

[mdmc]

36. I would want a winner take all system until we can get rid of the

electoral college

[jaxx]

4. Just one day?

Are you asking for a pre-election election? When all the candidates are on the ticket early on, not allowing them to develop their platforms along the way? Just vote and the hell with what happens after that? Interesting that this would take away the rights of states to caucus or vote as they choose.

[mdmc]

30. No. I am saying we should vote for candidates, not delegates

Votes could be via caucus or ballot, I don't care.

I just want the 'delegate' filter removed. We don't need it.

[SoFlaJet]

5. what WILL be interesting to see

is if Hillary and her surrogates will try to make the changes they've been saying should be made or not to our dem presidential election process. Will they try and outlaw caucuses? Will they TRY and install a winner take all? Will they wield enough power after this cycle to insist on those changes?

[MonkeyFunk]

9. How could she

"outlaw" caucuses?

[MattBaggins]

17. they should revamp caucuses

Have more of them. As many as peole wish to organize and fund. Just have primaries on election day for the actual votes.

[patrice]

21. Caucuses are inherently a more responsible form of the franchise. They contribute to community

building. If people fear having their vote known, we need to work harder on the relationships between the factions that manifest themselves in the caucuses.

[MattBaggins]

26. In theory they are all that and the bag of chips

but as all utopian concepts they tend to have problems in the real world.

[patrice]

35. I know about their warts; I was there this year and I saw what happend in '04.

I believe in education and organization.

[Rex_Goodheart]

10. Baloney

Given the stupidity of staggered state primaries, some so early that candidates are not properly vetted, or so early that swings in public consensus are not properly captured, the Democratic Party is very wise to maintain a body of superdelegates to stand as a last resort against unelectability.

Suppose Obama was caught having sex in a public restroom... should he STILL be the nominee?

[AllentownJake]

15. If that happened

Pledged Delegates would switch.

I still support the Supers I just want them to be only elected officials not DNC party members. I want them to be accountable to someone for their vote as well. Replace all the party chairs with County Executives or City Mayors.

[AllentownJake]

13. I disagree

I think the system worked this time. Sure it lasted long but we registered 3.5 million new democrats which will help in congressional and senate races in all 50 states. It may have been trying on all the parties but do we really know yet if we hurt our chances in November?

Lets not throw the system out until after November. Than we can do an autopsy.

A popular vote contest would make this a TV campaign and not a retail campaign. Places that saw the candidates would never have gotten to see them.

Nope I like the fact that Obama and Clinton saw the entire country they would be elected to serve.

[MattBaggins]

20. More whistle stops

less pastorbating

[patrice]

16. COUNT THE VOTES! nt

[stillcool]

19. Howard Dean?

Don't you mean the "Democratic Party"?

[patrice]

22. I respect your point, but there seems to be a few questions about WHO we are right now.

I saw this headed our way months and months ago with the first rumors of higher-rates of Crossovers.

[nomaco-10]

23. It is the fairest way ....

Say you live in a state like Indiana. Should a candidate be winner take all just because they won by a percentage point? What about the 49% of the people that got out and voted, should their voices and votes be nullified?

I live in a state that was fairly solid for Clinton, but I got out and voted. It didn't occur to me to stay home because I thought my vote might be the vote that gets Obama that one more delegate in his column. My vote mattered.

[ekwhite]

31. There is no doubt we need to reform the primary system

I like the National Association of Secretaries of State plan - rotating regional primaries, with the order of the regional primaries chosen by lot. We do need pledged delegates, not superdelegates for two reasons: first, to conduct party business at the convention, and second, to allow us to choose another candidate in case of an unfortunate accident or late-breaking scandal of the live boy or dead woman variety.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Not Howard Dean's decision to make

The DNC would have to make that decision.

[mdmc]

37. yes,

and let his voice be heard. DNC! Chairman Dean!