Making sure this never happens again

[SoCalDem]

The number needed to "win" the nomination is unnatainable this time around, because the internet has changed the money-raising formula, and candidates who can (and do) raise money to stay in longer than they might "need to", is an issue that's not going away.

The apportionment of delegates in primaries is what's caused the problem.

I do think that a winner-take-all system is unfair, but there should be a larger proportion going to the winners, than is now divvied up.

If we had a fairer way of assigning delegates, we would not be in the pickle we are in.

Perhaps it should start at 50 to 1st place 30 to second, and the remaining 20 divided between all "others"...and when the field has winnowed to just two, the percentages change to 65-35.. and when the winner has 60% or more popular vote the percentage changes to 70-30..

I think that no supers should be ever ever ever included after this go-round..

Party primadonnas can have a deeeeeluxe buffet just for them, valet parking & front row seats..but no special voting powers..

[acmavm]

1. How about we never let the media force two shit candidates down our

throats again?

[gateley]

2. I'm not sure how we can do that --

although I feel that is THE root of the problem.

Even when Ron Paul raised gobs of money they didn't give him equal time with the other R's.

They will only show us who they believe will bring in the viewers/advertisers/revenue. I can't tell you how many people I meet who don't even know that there was a Biden, a Dodd, a Kucinich or a Gravel in the running. :grr:

[acmavm]

4. For one thing I think we should be able to expect our own party to get out

the news. They've just rolled over and played dead since day ONE. Heaven's to Murgatroyd, there hasn't always been this big network of newspapers and radio/tv stations. Candidates ran for election before the days of media consolidation.

It takes VOLUNTEERS, self-promotion, and a public that isn't so fucking lazy.

[gateley]

13. Again,

Ron Paul's supporters were FAR from fucking lazy, and they raised oodles of money. Where is he now? :shrug:

[acmavm]

16. Oh for Pete's sake. Ron Paul was a nutcase.

edit: He was such a clown that he couldn't hide his insanity. His only good point was his very vocal and legitimate opposition to this bloody fiasco in Iraq.

[LWolf]

8. See post # 7. n/t

[kevinbgoode]

5. I agree. . .if the media was more responsible, we would have

actually HEARD from the other candidates instead of watching them get very brief statements while the media focused on their chosen ones.

[ThomWV]

6. We sure didn't succed at that task this time around

Because out of a field that was pretty good to start with what we ended up with are two duds. Thank goodness the Republicans didn't bring out anyone better than the clowns they did.

[LWolf]

9. See post # 7. n/t

[Clear Blue Sky]

3. Why not winner take all primaries?

Hold the primaries on 3-4 separate dates, 10-15 states each date, all within a month.

[LWolf]

7. How about this:

Proportional representation of delegates with no "super delegates."

All based on a primary which operates like this:

No caucuses.

No polling. Of any kind, until there is a nominee.

100% public financing of the campaigns: no donors of any kind, and no outside groups doing any campaigning.

Add to that some sort of fairness doctrine guaranteeing every candidate equal, neutral media time.

It's called an "even start."

Finally, these two things:

Mail in ballots in every state, with one national counting day regardless of when a state actually votes. That counting day to be when the final polls close in the final state. Regardless of when the votes are cast, the vote counting for every state begins at the same time, after the final vote has been cast.

Finally, IRV.

I believe that would produce a nominee determined by democratic principles and a democratic process.

[SoCalDem]

10. In a perfect world, that would be wonderful..but

who would secure all those mail in votes :evilgrin:

My guess is that areas that would favor a certain candidate might "go missing"..

I guess I am too cynical in my old age :)

[LWolf]

11. All voting in my state is by mail.

That's why I thought of it for primaries. The point would be to equalize the process, and I think the constant polling and the early results are part of the problem; it influences people to change their first-choice votes.

I thought of security issues, too. Surely, though, it guarantees paper ballots, at the least, and some security measures can be devised.

[gateley]

12. Looks great!

The networks would hate it! :7:

[LWolf]

14. Wouldn't they?

Would voters hate it, too, without all the pre-selecting and packaging?

[gateley]

15. Probably.

We'd all have to take responsibility to pay attention and think from the outset.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Damn It...Those Pesky Contested Primaries...

I find it amusing to see all the fuss some here and many in the corporate media are making about the delegate process. This system has pretty much been in place since 1972 and now it's become a big issue? Nope...it's the fact we have a very contested nomination and in the long-run this is a very good thing. More people are involved and the Democratic primary turn-out numbers have been off the charts. Instead of coronations to the nomination, we actually have a race here...options, choices and issues to be debated and an opportunity for even more people to get involved.

There's not a damn thing wrong with the delegate process and I believe in the end it will reflect the will of the majority of the Democratic party rather than the "elite". It'll be decided, probably on the first ballot, and I expect that Senator Obama will have the votes to secure the nomination. Camp Clinton's down to their last stands and attempting to stay relevent in both the news and in fundraising. The mumbo-jumbo about delegates is a game that has little chance to suceede...the days of the smoke-filled room are long over. Soon, we will see, not that Senator Obama won't have the delegates, but that Clinton is too far behind to win and the pressure will mount on her to suspend her campaign. Except for the few loyal party aparachniks, I doubt many of the "super delegates" will vote against their states or districts and once these numbers become clearer, the writing will really be on the wall for Camp Clinton. Truth is, I don't see many, except the political junkies, really concerned right now.

The front-loading of the nomination process has created a false impression you need a nominee early...and in many cases those nominees were ordained long before many of the primary voters had a chance to agree. Iowa and New Hampshire decided our nominees. Now it's a national campaign...and this is a problem?