There is a lot of talk about changing the ways the Democrats award delegates. There are many ways to approach this. My question, what would you like to see / how would you set the rules? -- My initial thoughts: - No more Super Delegates - Only one caucus (Iowa, though I don't like that either). The rest should be primaries. Caucuses to me are undemocratic. - Semi-closed primaries. Open to those that are declared as a democrat or independent / no party preference. - More of an award for winning a state. Maybe like 20-25% of the state's delegates. There would still be proportional delegates but should get a little extra for the win. (Unsure, maybe states are like this now?) - The state order of primaries should always be evolving or updated. To always give the same states "first crack" at all the candidates just doesn't see right. Some bigger states like NY, OH, IL, or CA need to be earlier in the campaign. I'm not completely tied to these, just throwing out some ideas. There are a lot of people that have good ideas and I would like to hear them.
Looks pretty good except I think the primaries should be closed. No reason why someone shouldn't be required to be a Democrat in order to help select the Democratic Party nominee.
Had I my druthers, and still keeping to what's sort of possible (meaning the parties have little control over some of these matters, but they could offer incentives to shape state legislation): - No Superdelegates. - Caucus: you're docked 15% of your delegates by the parties. - Primary: 15% delegate bonus. - Proportional delegate allocation for both parties (same rules for everyone regardless of party). - Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada total about 4% of the US population. That's the minimum percent of people who should vote on a single day. So group those 4 together on a single day to open the primary season. - After that, every single Tuesday you would have another 2-4 states vote, each time with around 5-7% of the US population. This would basically be randomly ordered. - However, the very largest states should be pushed to the latter half of the schedule. (You don't want California or Texas, for instance, up front because running in those states can be prohibitive for upstart campaigns). - Hence, with a few exceptions, every week more or less the same number of delegates are at stake. - This system would still take about 4 months. That's OK. - You can quibble about open and closed primaries. Personally, I think nomination contests should be party building affairs, meaning people should be encouraged to join the parties. So I favor closed primaries with relaxed party registration rules.
That's my biggest beef with both parties. I get that Iowans and New Hampshirites take their first-in-the-nation responsibilities seriously, but they are way too unrepresentative of the country to do us much good. And given that Michelle Bachman was anointed a serious candidate after picking up the Ames Straw Poll tells me they ain't doing much good for the parties either.
Don't the state parties make the schedule, the national parties can take away delegates to try to get them in line, but that has not worked out.
State parties can schedule caucuses whenever they want. But primaries are controlled by state legislatures and governors. Hence, the parties have little control over this. All they can do is offer incentives: take delegates away for some things, give extra delegates for others.
I really don't think the rest of the world will take the process seriously until we institute promotion and relegation. Plus, we can't continue to schedule primaries on international match days.
As much as I enjoy a good Footie match I really enjoy watching the tennis greats battling to and fro. Pancho Gonzalez vs Pancho Segura is a wonder. On the ladies side Virginia Wade is really hot!! Ps....just saw them only last week!
No caucuses, no conventions, no delegates. Just count the damn votes. Divide the country into 4 regions, they vote 2 weeks apart, change the order every 4 years. Maybe do that thing where you can also indicate your second choice.
The ideas here would result in lawsuits from the states right? The parties could ignore the state elections and just do their own thing as long as they are willing to pay for them (caucauses are cheaper).
On what grounds? Sure. Like the Democrats do in Washington. But the more likely scenario is that the parties want "X" and the states don't care and just keep doing their thing. This is how it's gone in the past, anyway. As I said above, the parties just don't have a lot of power here. All they can do is punish states by taking away delegates, which they are free to do.
I am fine with what is. Bill was a strong candidate. Al was alright. Kerry was alright. Obama was excellent. Hillary is good. What's to change?
4 sure, the system is set up to keep the crazy like Sanders and Trump out, so you and me like it. So the change needed is different, reps want to fix it so Trump can't ever happen again, lots of people in this thread want to "fix" it so a future Sanders can fully pull a Trump.
There a lot of people unhappy with the system for different reasons. Direct popular vote is the most democratic, and my suggestion would have the whole thing over in 6 weeks of voting. I think people would love it.
I live in Mass, close to New Hampster, and lemmie tellya, having the first primary there is the STUPIDEST #&^%$@! eye-dear yet. Same thing with Iowa (props to the Michelle Bachman comment above). These two states are the most "important," yet least representative of the country as a whole. Why should a candidate pretend to give a shit about ethanol and farm subsidies and visit a friggin diner on Lake Winnepesaukee? Because if they don't do at least reasonably well in those states, it is going to be very tough to stay in the race. They need to do like the European qualifying groups do for major tournaments. Divide the states into 5 categories of 10 each: Big-Ass States (the ones with the most delegates like Ohio, Calif, NY, etc that also have a varied population and industries); Southern States (since they seem to be an entity to themselves); Western empty states (the ones with more cattle than people; Densely populated Northern states (Mass, NJ, Conn. etc.) and some other grouping for the rest. Throw them all into pots and do a random draw. Each voting day will be in several random states from these groups, so candidates who do well will have to appeal to a pretty broad cross-section of the country. As for the states setting their own timetable, what prevents an arms race? Hawaii decides it wants go go before NH and Iowa, so they pass a law. Then Indiana sez, Nuh-uh, I want to go first, so they do it. Then Kain-tucky decides to get smart and pushes their primary so far in advance (like 3 years) that no one can trump them. No, the Feds need to say, "do it our way or you get NO delegates."
This would be sooo hated by TV stations and nespapers, though. They make a lot more money the longer (and more insufferably) this thing is dragged out. So long as there's this kind of money to be made, we won't see any really sane proposal going anywhere.
Naah, you could still have all the debates and stuff in the run up, but compress the voting into a shorter time period. Four months of voting is ridiculous in this age of instant communication and easy air travel.
Doesn't demand an end to caucuses, which are pretty much inherently a form of voter suppression. Golly gee, I wonder why ...
Did Bernie ever officially join the Democratic Party? When I was a kid I wanted pony. Everyone else had pony. Even Nana had pony. They all loved pony. I had no pony!
Yeah, super delegates suck, but man... don't you think the GOP wishes they had them some super delegate love to throw around 'bout now? I have no problem w/ there being safeguards to protect the nation from possible destructive decisions. FFS, you can get 'Merikans and any other nation's ppl to vote for just about anything. 1/3 of Americans want a national registry for all Muslims! (read it on msnbc today) I hate the caucuses. Parents of small children are screwed b/c the events take place during the witching hour when 95% of all meltdowns happen, when the majority of sicknesses hit after exposure at daycare, etc. So that's 2 votes narrowed down to 1 if any.
I just checked. Today, even after the final primary in Washington DC, The Green Papers says that 116 superdelegates have not yet weighed in with a preference. I'm not opposed to superdelegates. (I bet the GOP wishes they had some. Then maybe they could have stopped Trump!) But if you've still got more than 100 superdelegates who haven't made a public choice even after the primary process is over and done with, then you've got way too many superdelegates.
The main thing I'd like is consistency and uniformity ... We're picking a federal leader whose decisions generally transcend state lines. A president's biggest influences are in foreign affairs, leading the country in war, vetoing/signing bills and nominating justices. All four of those things affect me the same as the guy that lives in Iowa or New Hampshire. Let's just have a level playing field. I'm a little more torn on independents participating. I understand the rationale of keeping this a party building exercise. But I'm also alarmed at the complete collapse of party affiliation in this country. We complain about this country being too partisan, but then we disenfranchise people who chose to stay independent. Perhaps instead of super delegates being free agents, they can be guided specifically by the independent vote. That's right ... maybe independents can count as 3/5ths of a vote ... or maybe just 0.5 of a vote to keep the match simple. This way you skew influence towards party loyalists, but still remain open to outsiders. After all, what is the point of a political party if it's not open to attract new participants, even if those participants decide at the last minute.