home

Now We Can Talk About The Flawed Nominating System

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes Editorial:

. . . A guiding principle behind American democracy is “one person, one vote.” All voters should have an equal opportunity, regardless of who they are or where they live, to affect the outcome. The process should be transparent, the ballot should be secret, and there should be no unnecessary barriers to voting. Tested against these principles, both parties’ systems fall short. Among the most troubling elements:

More . .

Caucuses. These are often promoted as pure small-town democracy. But participants generally have to commit themselves for hours, a sizable burden on the right to vote, especially for people who care for children or sick relatives. There is no absentee voting, so caucuses disenfranchise voters who have conflicting work schedules; who are out of town, including in the military; or who are too sick to travel to the caucus site. The ballot is not secret, which intimidates some voters into staying away or not expressing their true choices. Vote totals are not reported. The parties should abandon caucuses and switch entirely to primaries. . . .

Read the whole thing.

< Good Advice | When Should We Kill? The Inconsistent Penalty of Death >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Now We Can Talk About The Flawed Nominating System | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Iowa, you are on notice. (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:41:08 PM EST
    Your day is done.

    AND New Hampshire (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    The privileged status of the two states is unacceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm for a national primary. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:44:07 PM EST
    No one state is more important than another.  The DNC can seed relatively unkown candidates, give them a chance to prove themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    And how about we do NOT reward (5.00 / 14) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM EST
    candidates who have removed their names from state ballots with votes or delegates.  They get nothing!!

    [ Parent ]
    Toxic act for Dems (5.00 / 13) (#77)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    That was the last straw. I had outrage at many things during the long campaign, but I brushed them off or wrote a few letters and felt relief after a day or two.  They hurt, like the reports from Texas about lock-outs or the Gary Indiana eternal waiting.  And the statements by the DNC mobsters that flew in the face of reality. But I kept thinking "all's well that ends well" and got back to business.  

    Then things were really heating up, and I kept saying THEY have one shot to right the wrongs and do the right thing - May 31st.  So we waited and we wrote more letters and we read the proposals which offered little sign of fairness.

    And then the day came and people were outside protesting Count The Votes and Dean started talking about sexism - finally and there was a glimmer of "the old dem party" that was core to who I am for decades.  And Donna Brazile was all pouty and miserable so I figured there might be a Miracle yet.  But no, it was worse than I thought it could possibly be, way worse.

    I somehow, from all the decades of following MY party, thought it will all HAVE TO work out right.

    But no.

    And I listened to Ickes and every fiber of my core was coming from his mouth.  Everything MY party stood for was at stake.  And I imagined the very air in the room was tingling and his words were cutting through all the deception and they would all have to see this is urgently critical.

    But no.

    What do I do with THAT outrage?

    How do I get over THAT?

    When 2000 happened it was easy to say "they robbed us!" bastards.  They'll see what they did when they realize how much better our candidate is... and even better and more proud to be a dem when we were proven RIGHT.  Bush tanked and Gore was exalted with a Nobel.  Justice for MY party.

    What now?  They ate their own. And they did it with a pre-planned fix that railroaded it the way they wanted it to go.

    That the choice they made was entirely the wrong choice by a zillion light years to me is besides the point.

    That they did it at all is the whole point.

    If some miracle or disaster occurs and they swing back the other way in August and Hillary wins, it is still a huge blot on the party that will take an enormous amount of work and actions to remove.

    For starters - remove the entire upper eschelon.

    Then admit everything, come clean on it all.

    Has anyone seen the LaRouche Video?  He says he has a story to tell about the Superdelegates.

    I'm all ears.  And full of scars that won't heal.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Karen for Clinton, we could be twins (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:54:05 PM EST
    even down to how Donna B looked at that meeting. I so agree with absolutely everything you have said.It has been very difficult to explain this to anyone who asks and I fear all is lost. I've come to agree with BTD about Clinton being VP because to me, she still continues making history. I would like to think that anything can happen, when you wish upon a star and all of that, but the reality is, for now, what is, is and we have to make decisions based on that. I will vote country, not person, not party. Right now, "there's no place like home" doesn't fit anymore and frankly, I don't want to "come home!"

    [ Parent ]
    Ickes (none / 0) (#84)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST
    And I listened to Ickes and every fiber of my core was coming from his mouth.

    Ickes was the guy that put the rules in place and then, with a straight face, declared his own actions a horrible injustice.

    Almost anyone else could call the result an injustice. Not him.

    [ Parent ]

    They did not follow the rules (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:09:57 PM EST
    There is no rule to give any votes or delegates to another candidate who is NOT on the ballot.

    agggggghhhhhh. PUMA.

    [ Parent ]

    what Ickes said at the meeting was right. (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Nessuno on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM EST
    Whatever he supported at first, what happened in RBC hearing was a travesty.  They broke their own sunshine rules and gave delegates won by one candidate to another who was not even on the ballot without any basis in the rules.  So much for the "roolz".  I guess following the "roolz" isn't important as long as Obama is helped.

      I loved it when Michigan was being discussed and he brought up all the bs the Obama campaign had been putting out and asked if it was true that there was an agreement to take names off the ballot it was agreed that there was no agreement among the candidates to take their names off the ballot.  How many times did we hear that bs spread around?  What a joke the whole thing was.


    [ Parent ]

    LaRouche Video (none / 0) (#122)
    by sociallybanned on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:39:17 PM EST
    I've read recently on HillaryClintonforum.net about that video but I'd just joined there yesterday so I haven't had a chance to read anymore about it. I'll definitely take a look at it.

    [ Parent ]
    Stand By Me - Treachery (none / 0) (#160)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:08:49 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrgsZOxOwlo

    video by La Rouche

    [ Parent ]

    an unknown is more likely to (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    be MORE able to win somewhere or other in a national primary.

    It should have second round however where the two top candidates from the first round can solidfy more than 50% of the vote.   It could all be done in a month.   Like France and their presidential elections.

    [ Parent ]

    there is no way (none / 0) (#110)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:25:20 PM EST
    anunknown candidate can compete in a National primary.  It would take too much money.
    That's part of the reason for starting in Iowa and NH.  Because they are small and anyone can campaign there without millions of dollars

    [ Parent ]
    quite wrong (none / 0) (#140)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:42:06 PM EST
    You would be able to win a local fight or two.  

    However I am not a FAN OF UNKNOWN POLS.  I's a goddamn stupid obsession.  Let these prats prove themselves for a while on the national stage.  

    [ Parent ]

    What if all the candidates (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    had agreed to ignore Iowa and NH instead of MI and FL?  I think we would all be better off in 2012.  Iowa and NH have to accept that a change is coming!

    [ Parent ]
    I had a devious scheme (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    of having a bunch of big states put into state law that candidates competing for nomination in NH and IA could not appear on the November ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:36:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I wish I could agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    but the history of the past eight years seems to indicate that change isn't coming very fast at all.  My question -- what will it take to get change?  I think most of us are aware of the outrageous shortcomings of the present system--no paper trail, caucuses, unrestrained absentee balloting, the electoral college system and, last but not least, the ridiculous Democratic nominating process.  Again -- what do we have to do to get change?

    [ Parent ]
    It's never really been tested like this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    Normally the second finisher has been hundreds if not thousands of dels behind the top candidate.

    I do think it needs to be changed though for other reasons.

    There are better models that cost less, that have proven to produce a better National Candidate than the on ethat the Dems use. 1 winner in 40 years is a sign that the system is no good at picking winners.

    [ Parent ]

    If BO wins in Nov. '08 status quo stays (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by gram cracker on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:11:35 PM EST
    If Obama is elected President in November 2008 the Democratic party is unlikely to change their primary process.  Why would BO want to change a process that favored him?  Only if BHO loses will the primary process change.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd submit (none / 0) (#42)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    that Obama winning or losing should be utterly irrelevant to whether this system gets overhauled.  If he loses, the primary still worked for him.  Why would HE focus on changing it?  If he wins... Well presumably he'd have more important things to focus on, like running the country.

    Ever since the cracks in this primary system was revealed, before it was clear who was going to win, I've been saying that the loser should focus on primary reform. Clinton has enormous clout right now and many (justifiably) angry supported, who presumably would be very motivated to start coming up with solutions at a grass-roots level.

    I'm an Obama supporter and I strongly support fixing this system.  I truly do get it. But the impetus for real change will probably come from the Clinton side. Anger can be a fantastic motivator.

    [ Parent ]

    The Opposite is True (none / 0) (#53)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    Reform is MOST likely to happen if Obama wins in November. He could support a change in the process because it won't effect him at all. An incumbent president gets no more than fringe opposition in the primaries. The Dems have plenty of time for reform before 2016.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure I can agree (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
    I suppose it will depend on how things settle down within the party.  If too many continue to question fairness and legitimacy of Obama's nomination, Obama might fear supporting a reform would be seen as acknowledgment the critics were correct.  

    And I would caution against thinking 8 years is plenty of time.  I think we all believed the process that led to the 2000 debacle would be changed and in 2008 we could be facing some of the same problems again.  

    [ Parent ]

    and we will be less able to complain (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    about them because of the dem debacle.  Count the votes sounds like an empty platitude now.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree except he has (none / 0) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:05:59 PM EST
    no motivation to do so.  He wouldn't have to fight against it because, as you said, it won't affect him.  But he won't care either way, so I don't see him spending a lot of energy on it.

    I can't see Clinton spending a lot of energy on it either.  Next time, she (or whomever) will just take the possible small-red-state effect into consideration in campaign strategy.  It's easier than trying to reform the system, esp. since it means going up against a number of individual states who like their caucuses.  She's more likely to put all her energy into UHC and other policies.

    [ Parent ]

    The incentive (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Trickster on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:10:48 PM EST
    is simple: the current system is terrible.  Even if you accept the most jaded notion of what motivates candidates, honest-to-God reform that practically nobody can argue with is pretty much guaranteed to curry favor with voters.

    [ Parent ]
    if that's true (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    them there's no one person who will force the issue. If there's to be real change it must come from us, the people of the Democratic party.  

    So... Who's up for starting a blog?

    [ Parent ]

    Could I be blunt? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:29:09 PM EST
    The AA districts and hence voters (and the AA turnout machines) have a lot of clout in the nomination process.  There is no reason they would give it away.  They are one constituency to which Obama is indebted and can't p*&s off.  Plus, democrats are dependent on AA votes and cannot afford to p&^s off that constituency.  

    So, yes, dream on.  But caucuses will stay.  Donna will have a big role in DNC, and the delegation allocation will NOT change.  

    You can take that to the bank.  And don't call me names because I am being honest. These things have to be said in the sun and hashed out.
     

    [ Parent ]

    the argument is that it produces (none / 0) (#90)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    too many losing candidates for us.  I don't mind the boutique nature of a few early contests one Iowa or one NH, but Caucuses and rolling primaries must be ditched and everything should be consolidated into a singular national event.   The string of primaries that roll on from supertuesday are counterproductive and rife with media and GOP interfereance.

    [ Parent ]
    2016?? WTF ever! (none / 0) (#131)
    by sociallybanned on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:02:48 PM EST
    2016?  I don't think so.  Try 2012.  Neither candidate will become reelected.  

    Here is my scenarios.

    Let's say Obama wins the Nov. election.

    Hillary will run in the primaries against Obama   in 2012 and I'm sure the DNC will be pist.  But by then, all of Hillary supporters will no more about how the DNC failed us and the nomination process was as equivalent as the Republicans screwing us in 2000.  I'm referring to the MI/FL primary dates moving up that Wayne Barrett has written about and of course how Obama's campaign chair and mgr's were behind defying DNC rules.  Plus, more crap about Rezko and finally the Republican media will report all the stuff we here already know about the "con man", Obama. And MSM will inform those that do not research on their own as well all here have.

    Those 18 million voters and more (my daughter will be voting by then and I'll be 39) will already know how to make sure Hillary benefits from those caucuses better. I'm sure Obama's true colors will come out and of course his lack of action to withdraw troops will tick off all those young voters that were promised.  Besides, that is the main reason why so many of them jumped on his bandwagon.  I bet we can get half of those voters for Hillary.  (One thing to watch is the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2011).

    It is my prediction he will fail to bring our troops home.  I can bet that he will try to talk about it again or do something right before the 2012 primaries.  Mark my word!  He will in turn fail to get reelected due to this main failure alone. Obama is for all corporate greed and higher tax which in turn will also squeeze our wallet which is a like a turnip that doesnt have any juice in it.

    Let's say McCain wins the election which I believe he will.

    Everything I said above as well applies to McCain.  However, even McCain supporters will get tired of the Republican approach to the economy.  I think both candidates will fail if either is elected.  I do believe McCain will create a plan which may fail through trial and error to apply greener technologies.  I don't think Obama will even attempt one.  I think McCain will begin to clean up Bush's smeared crap all over the world but it will get left unnoticed because of the bitter Obama folks, which in turn , the media will ruin a reelection for him.  

    Most of all, the Hillary Supporters for McCain will be watching closely, not waiting, to fuel what we can use to take aim at in the 2012 primaries against Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    correct (none / 0) (#132)
    by sociallybanned on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    Here is my scenarios?  

    should be Here are my scenarios.  sorry

    [ Parent ]

    If? (none / 0) (#101)
    by rdandrea on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    When!

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
    Your comment reminds me of an argument my husband had with a friend who lives in Iowa (an Obama supporter).  She's very proud of her state's caucus tradition.  He said, "Why should a bunch of hicks have the power to choose a nominee?"  (I do not endorse this view and I hasten to add that my husband is a Brit by birth and a contrarian by nature).  She took it in good humor - we still joke about her being a "hick" - but the question remains.  Why do certain states wield so much power?

    I believe it's time for a National Primary Day, or, at the very least, rolling primaries.  And no more caucuses!

    [ Parent ]

    I think it best to just commit to a National (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:55:46 PM EST
    Primary Day.  The rolling states scenario is just more opportunity for some of these Party bosses to exert their influence.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    A national primary day would be the best proving ground for November too.

    [ Parent ]
    I still like the prolonged primary season (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    I like that candidates get to focus on one or several states at a time and I think the candidates having to slog through it for so long gives them a chance to get real exposure and experience in the ways of campaigning.

    I don't like caucuses at all for all the obvious reasons and I think we've pretty much proven that the super delegate system is seriously flawed.  

    One thing I do like is the proportional allocation of votes. It seems much more fair than winner take all. In fact, if we could figure out how to get all 50 states to agree, I'd like it to be that way in November, too. That way democrats in TX and Republicans in CA for example, would get counted too.

    [ Parent ]

    proportionanl has its flaws (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:37:22 PM EST
    i could support the proprtional allocation of delegates with some adjustments.  There should be NO districts with an even number of delegates because the winner had to get over 65% to gain an advantage.

    And, I have a problem wirh allocating delegates to a district based on previous election results.  Delegates should be allocated to districts based on the number of registered dems in the district compared to other districts.

    [ Parent ]

    Please Explain (none / 0) (#125)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:40:18 PM EST
    Why allocation based upon registration rather than voting results? Why would we provide disproportionate voting strength to areas where the registered Democrats either don't vote or vote Republican? And what about states that don't register by party?

    [ Parent ]
    Totally Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:24:28 PM EST
    A national primary day is a terrible idea. It's likely that the candidate with the highest name rec wins and there isn't sufficient time to vet the candidates over a series of contests.

    Here is my reform agenda:

    1. Study the results of the caucuses after the November elections. Did the Democratic Party build stronger organizations in caucus states in the primaries that benefited the party in the general? We shouldn't just throw out caucuses without some detailed analysis of pros and cons.

    2. Divide the US into six geographical regions. Set up a system for retail politics on the front end with six states -- one from each region -- that each get at least one week's attention from the candidates. I personally have no problem with Iowa and New Hampshire going first. But the other four should rotate. This retail phase should run from Jan 1 to April 1.

    3. Follow the single-state races with six regional primaries for the remaining states that are spaced at least one week apart. This wholesale regional phase should run from April 15 to June 15.

    4. Reexamine the DNC's rules on the proportional distribution of delegates. Consider a system of winner-take-all at the Congressional district level.

    5. Reexamine the DNC's rules on superdelegates to determine if the nomination should be based entirely on pledged delegates from the primaries or keeping the current system.


    [ Parent ]
    cuacuses should be (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:40:57 PM EST
    required to have absentee ballots if they want to continue.  I have heard that some states who have caucuses do provide absentee ballots.

    Any voter who wants to participate in the process should be able to and without absentee ballots, a caucus doesn't allow full participation.

    [ Parent ]

    OK, Except... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:45:08 PM EST
    A caucus is a party building exercise, not simply an election. The point is to deepen voter engagement in the party beyond the relatively passive act of voting. Now, with the Web it might be possible to achieve that same objective without the caucus. But such questions should be asked before simply abolishing caucuses.

    [ Parent ]
    There are other ways to build the party (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:04:34 PM EST
    Plenty of states don't have caucuses and they have plenty of party-building.  Most of the big blue states are primary states.

    [ Parent ]
    Bully the party (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:08 PM EST
    I just want a few policies to be principles.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with most of what you say (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
    except for the caucuses. I think we need to eliminate them. They are too easy to game and too exclusionary. They are also not a good test of how a nominee will fare in the fall.

    There are other ways to build the party. The downside of caucuses outweighs their benefit, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    it would need a first a second round (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    just so a hijacker can be countered.

    [ Parent ]
    how do you address the argument (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    of name recognition if you only have one day?

    [ Parent ]
    How do you get elected Governor (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    of California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Illinois. ..  .? They don't hold primaries by county.

    My response, frankly, is "too bad." Elections cost money, and if you can't raise enough to be competitive in a national primary, that's your problem.

    [ Parent ]

    actually regional candidate would (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    be able to run a good regional strategy.

    You could easily see a califonian dem chancing their luck on the day.  Especially if it was a winner take all sort of state.

    But you point is good, who cares if they can't raise the money. We end up with the top two money bags anyway no matter what.

    [ Parent ]

    What I don't like about a national primary (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:42:20 PM EST
    is that I think an extended series of primaries really does test candidates and vet them in a way that a national primary does not. I like the idea of eliminating caucuses, making primaries closed and using some sort of system of rotating primaries, whether regional or through some other criteria.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess it (none / 0) (#24)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    does take away the advantage a regional candidate would have if their region was early...I could get behind the one day deal, especially if it does eliminate the need for delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    If it goes to a national primary day... (none / 0) (#40)
    by thinkingfella on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    then there will be no momentum, and the candidate with the most name recognition wins. I get the philosophy behind one day, one vote, all votes count the same. But that's not the best way to test candidates under continuous pressue.

    Beware of unintended consequences...

    If we had a national primary day in 1992 then Bill Clinton would have been just a blip in history. Our nominee would have been Tom Harkin, or Paul Tsongas, in all likelihood Bush sr. would have served a second term, and we would have missed out on having one of our greatest presidents.

    Doing the entire primary in one day would make a state like mine (California) very powerful, and would make smaller states effectively powerless.

    I'm completely open to changing the formula for the states order, and I even like the idea of basing the order on the previous years turnout, but I am completely opposed to a national primary day.

    [ Parent ]

    How about getting rid of caucauses, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    holding only primaries, keep a similar primary campaign schedule like the one in place...and make each state winner take all?

    [ Parent ]
    In CA, be an A-list film star. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Or campaign finance reform for primaries (none / 0) (#91)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    at the very least.  The small states say that running a primary election costs too much money.  How about public funding and mail in ballots for starters? That would cut the costs for candidates and make it possible for the lesser known to get a chance and mail in reduces costs to the state.

    [ Parent ]
    One day? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:45:46 PM EST
    The campaign wouldn't be one day, it would probably be a year. Unless the DNC put a limit on early campaigning and spending.

    This year, as has happened before, the supposedly unknown guy won the first contest. So it is hard to make that argument.

    The party could level the playing field by sponsoring a debate series in each region of the nation and limit spending. Perhaps all donations to a candidate for the primary can go to an escrow account at the DNC and they disburse it to the candidates.

    I would also like to see winner-take-all primaries. Ballots could have a preference where the voters rank their choices and an instant runoff was used, the candidate that reaches 50% first should win the state.

    [ Parent ]

    I hesitate to say this, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:23:09 PM EST
    but many other  countries use a preference system, and it does seem to work well.  In fact, my first votes were cast in another country where we used paper and pencil to vote, had a preference system, and where votes were counted by hand and the results announced within 24 hours.  No delegates, no superdelegates, and campaigns lasted only six weeks.  

    But -- what would us political junkies do for entertainment then?

    [ Parent ]

    How about this (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:22:41 PM EST
    We could have a national primary day and in this scenario one could allow states with X amount of delegates decided to do a winner take all as a way to off set the big states advantage of having extraordinary number of delegates.  That way it would pay off to not ignore all the small states, because if you take Montana for example We 17 delegates and we could do a winner take all that way you could net all 17 delegates.  That I think would increase the power of small states.  

    However my ideal scenario is we would have a national primary day or broken into no more then 4 dates set far enough apart to stop momentum and the nominee is decided on the Popular vote, with the requirement that they get at least 40% of the vote. to get the nomination.  

    [ Parent ]

    Never mind the state itself. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    Do you remember the endorsement of Des Moines Register for Hillary?  We were so excited.  

    On the other hand, the Des Moines Registrar pollster came up with a poll, with a new voter participation that never panned out, but generated tons of positive press and momentum for obama.  

    The latter is a very dangerous precedent, and I believe hasn't taken the attention that it deserves.  Pollster can manipulate poll results by varying their turnout models, and hence give a huge boost to a candidate.  I believe they have started to cherish and use their influence (like media) and objectivity is starting to go out the window.  

    My point is, forget the state of IA.  A tiny newspaper in Iowa and its chief pollster have way too much influence.  They can practically choose the president.  

    [ Parent ]

    I read it because you asked me to, (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by suisser on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    despite the fact that it's sitting here next to me having gone unread all day.  I have lost all respect for the NYT.  The coverage of the campaign has been opportunistic and self-aggrandizing. This I expect from the cable news, wasn't prepared for it from My Paper.
    And why do this, "It takes nothing away from the achievements of Barack Obama. . .  to take note that the system for choosing the parties' nominees is seriously flawed."  ?  
    Does it not? Really?

    the corporate media and press (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:46:48 PM EST
    gave Obama a free ride - the same corporations that sold us Bush in 2000 and the Iraq War.
    The same corporations the public relies on for polling data.


    [ Parent ]
    This is the NYT's idea of serious coverage (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Nike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:10:47 PM EST
    They refuse to offer substantive analysis, until too late. We did get some really nice assessment of the "brilliant," "inspired" type fonts used by the Obama campaign, plus a fine account of the "deep" meaning behind Michelle's purple dress. It's just embarassing...

    [ Parent ]
    NOW the NYT can be "objective".... (none / 0) (#123)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:39:26 PM EST
    Another presumption: we all have Alzheimer so they feel they can go back to their "journalistic" mode and, voila, nothing happened! Ha! Some of us have the mind of an elephant: forget nothing.

    On another note, what's with the sleevless garbs? is this dress for success, or what?

    [ Parent ]

    Caucuses definitely need to go, (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    but a national primary is not the solution - in fact, I would argue that to bring up these two things anywhere near each other is to guarantee that the caucus system will prevail.

    Why?  Because if we have learned anything from this primary season, it is that voters actually like feeling that their votes count, that the issues of their state and their community matter on a national level; if we have a national primary, it will be only the biggest, delgate-rich states that get any attention.  And, in my opinion, that's wrong.

    I'm not sure what the answer is - some kind of regional plan that rotates from cycle to cycle, maybe, but still - on a regional level, there will be more campaigning in Pennsylvania and New York than there will be in Delaware, and I'm pretty sure Delaware voters would like to have some attention.

    A national primary is not a good idea.

    What you say is demonstrably untrue (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    If it were true, Obama would have been finished on Super Tuesday, having lost most of the big states. But he was not finished, because he paid attention to the small states.

    Democrats who run for Governor in big states and ignore the rural areas also tend to lose.

    The argument for a national primary is pretty much the same as the argument for a national popular vote election in November. Make every vote count, and make sure that every vote counts the same.

    [ Parent ]

    What I say is a matter of opinion - mine - (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    based on what I have seen over the last months of this campaign, and what I have seen developing over the 9 previous presidential campaigns I have lived through since becoming old enough to vote.

    The reason Obama spent as much time as he did in the small states was because he could, and it was part of his strategy - how much time would Obama have spent in Nebraska, or Idaho or South Dakota or Montana - or even Iowa or New Hampshire - if we had a one-day, national primary? And would that be a viable strategy under a national primary scenario where there are no caucuses?  I think not.

    As for your other points - any candidate for governor who wants to win will pay attention to all the people of his or her state, but running for governor is not like running for president.

    And while making sure every vote counts is what it should be all about, and I will grant you that most candidates make some attempt to set foot in all 50 states in a general election campaign, I'm pretty sure the real attention is spent on areas with large populations.

    I also shudder to think how much farther out the primary campaigning would have to start, and how many more hundreds of millions of dollars it would take for anyone to be able to make it through to a national primary day.  Money could become the only bright-line test for being a presidential nominee - and I'm not overly fond of that possibility - it's close enough to that as it is, and I am more convinced than ever that money cannot buy the best candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    But in REALITY (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by owenaprhys on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:40:11 PM EST
    Obama WAS finished after Super T, but the MSM and the DNC didn't want that to happen.....

    [ Parent ]
    Not strictly correct (none / 0) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    Obama paid attention to the early small states.  If all the states voted on one day he would not have been able to get the momentum the small states gave him to build up his name recognition, etc.

    The GE is all on one day and I would be surprised if Obama spent any significant amount of time in any small states between the convention and the GE.  He certainly won't spend more than token time in any of those small red states.

    I think the caucus trick is something that could only be really successful once.

    [ Parent ]

    We're forgetting one thing... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    Obama was selected, and in the process, disenfranchised 2.3 million voters. He did not win.

    [ Parent ]
    The term momentum is a buzz (none / 0) (#151)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:22:30 PM EST
    word for good press.  The press does not need to tell us that the momentum is with candidate X and that candidate Y is fading. That kind of momentum is media manipulation. The pulic just needs to hear the candidates and then make up their collective minds.

    [ Parent ]
    you make a good point (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    but I still think the fairest solution is 5 or six regional primaries spread out over 4-6 month period of time.

    [ Parent ]
    Several Secretarys of State (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by imhotep on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    including Washington's Sam Reed are discussing a rolling primary system.  Nothing was decided for this election cycle-obviously.
    But taking the caucus system away from the Party bosses will be very difficult.  That system gives them a lot of power and you know what they say about power.

    [ Parent ]
    Or over a 3 month period. too much money (none / 0) (#97)
    by hairspray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:49:35 PM EST
    in this election.  A total waste.

    [ Parent ]
    Reward voter turnout? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Knocienz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM EST
    I agree on the national primary. The expense requiring all candidates to commit to 50 state campaigning would force years of fund-raising.

    Not sure about the regional plan (just imagine when the deep South has the first round vs when the North East does)

    The whole Iowa/New Hampshire argument comes down to  how they take their responsibility so seriously, so why not reward states that show that they take it seriously? Use voter turnout in the General and Primary elections in the last X cycles to set that state's date.


    [ Parent ]

    I think that's a great idea (none / 0) (#142)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:48:09 PM EST
    It might even encourage voter turn-out - Americans like to compete at stuff.


    [ Parent ]
    If candidates agreed to campaign in every state (none / 0) (#20)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    And if the primary were held in June...
    I don't see why that wouldn't work.

    [ Parent ]
    "Campaign" would be (or is) (none / 0) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:13:52 PM EST
    an elastic term and relies on good faith.  Instead of doing no campaigning in some places, candidates would just do the minimum -- holding a press conference at the airport during their layover to a big state, for instance.  

    Pledges regarding campaigning weren't held to this year, so I don't have a lot of faith in that for the future.

    Rolling primaries on some basis other than region seems like the best idea, along with the bite-size chunks idea.  Voter participation is a good idea, and would give all those caucus states an incentive to become primary states of their own accord, since otherwise they'd always be last.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so (none / 0) (#147)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    A local candidate would be able to really upend a superficial attempt to airport it in.

    We get the two money bag candidates every time anyway.  

    So I'd be willing to see what they would do if the whole thing were decided in a night and theyn finalized a month later with a duel between the top two...

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm, wonder why they (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    "sat on" this article.

    One of the most important guiding principles of this democracy is stability.  Complaining about unfairness during the process was subordinated to the good of the rules and the stability of the nominating system.  

    And of course, the MI/FL debacle.  If the states had been fully restated, Obama would not be the nominee now.

    do you think the outcome would (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    have been any different?  I think the SDs would have just used the same old line about the roolz. Having said that, I wish they had started talking about this earlier and talked about it nonstop since that is what it will take to change the system.

    [ Parent ]
    The results were (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    to give us Obama. The system has to be looked at for change.

    I will say that the video linked gave me the best laugh of the day.

    [ Parent ]

    Rules (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by PamFl on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principals are."   FDR

    [ Parent ]
    What about vice principals? (none / 0) (#75)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:58:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Again, (none / 0) (#78)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:05:27 PM EST
    people will vote based on perception, as BTD so aptly pointed out.

    Few in the otherthanblogs world will not be influenced and repubs who want a victory in November will remain firmly in his camp.

    It has to be Obama who wins people over.

    Does that scare you?

    [ Parent ]

    Not everyone (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    thinks the system is flawed, I gather.

    Did those who won...whose candidate won...this time, think the system was flawed and needs changing?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    It's now 'their party.'

    I doubt any more party changes are in order.

    Change ends when you cross the finish line.

    Another Obama person here (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    who thinks the system should be changed.  I would hope that any intellectually honest person would have to admit its badly flawed.

    Specifically what we need to do is a subject for genuine debate, but that it needs to change is beyond doubt in my mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Flawed vs Needs improvement (none / 0) (#48)
    by Knocienz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    My favorite candidate didn't run (Gore), but of the two that stayed standing the longest, my preferred candidate won.

    Despite that, I strongly agree that the system needs improvement. I think I can legitimately do that without holding those flaws against any of the candidates who navigated the system as it was/is.

    And yes, now that Obama has gained initial control over the party (which will only last if he wins the GE) it will be one of his many responsibilities (and Dean's) to improve the system.

    (it is so hard to make it through this without a sports metaphor)

    [ Parent ]

    It is flawed (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbwalkup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    I am an Obama supporter, and I would agree that the process is "flawed".  Personally, I have always thought it would make sense to have a calendar where states vote in reverse order of size, so that candidates don't just concentrate on winning big states, but have to consider the tradeoff between making a big bet on a large state (the "Rudy" strategy) versus trying to build momentum through early states.  I think that primaries are almost always better than caucuses (although they are more expensive to run) and that proportional rather than winner-take-all primaries better represent the will of the voters.

    However, there are a lot more issues to think about than just caucuses vs. primary and timing of contests.  Here's a short list.  Try to think about how you would answer without thinking of the results from this year:

    1.  Fully open primary vs. partially (Dem & Ind.) open primary vs. closed primary

    2.  Apportionment of number of delegates

    3.  Delegates from territories.

    I can see an argument that all contests should be closed primaries, that delegates should be apportioned based upon the number of Democrats who voted/are registered in each state, and that all Democrats, even those who will not be able to vote in November, should have their voices heard.  I would call this the "Elect a candidate who has the strongest support in the party" argument.

    I can also see an argument that all contests should be fully open primaries, that only states (and DC) that have electoral votes should count, and that their delegations should be proportional to their votes in the Electoral College.   I would call this argument the "Elect a candidate who has the widest appeal to general election voters" argument.

    I'm sure many others could provide reasons for why various permutations of these variables, as well as others, would be more desirable.  It is important to remember, however, that a lot of these decisions are made by state governments, not the Party.

    I certainly hope that the whole process can be re-examined after this year's confusion.  

    And after that debate, we can figure out what to do about "Super Delegates" :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure what the answer is (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Amiss on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST
    but I am definitely against a caucus system ever again. I also agree with the above poster who stated  that if you take your name off the ballot, you will not get any votes period. I do not like the idea of Donna Brazile et al deciding for me who I voted for. Biggest farce I have seen in recent years was the RBC meeting and decision. Absolutely disgusting. So they took someone else's vote this time and gave it to their preferred nominee, next time it could be yours.

    Getting rid of caucuses is the most important (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by rjarnold on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    reform. I don't think any other problem can completely skew the election results like the caucus system has.

    I don't get this part (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Manuel on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    There are other issues to consider. The Democrats, in particular, should have clear rules for how states will be punished if they violate scheduling rules -- as Michigan and Florida did this year -- so the party does not end up making up new rules in the middle of the campaign.

    I thought there were clear rules.  They weren't followed.

    Rotating regional primaries (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    I'd support that so that there could be a primary process, as opposed to a one shot deal, which would really disadvantage relatively unknown candidates.  4 regions voting about a month-6 weeks apart.  That would also save candidates money and time with concentrated campaigning.  And all primaries of course.  No more caucuses.  And there should be pr for delegates, but with a significant slate of at-large bonus delegates that go to the winner so that a candidate that consistently wins states can pull ahead.

    rotating primaries (none / 0) (#162)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
     To quote Time mag Aug 2007

    "If a silver lining emerges from the Florida-DNC standoff, it might be a consensus on a new arrangement, like the rotating regional primary schedule endorsed by the National Association of State Secretaries of State — the people who actually have to run these elections."

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1656632,00.html

    I definitely feel that the calendar of the primaries should be taken out of the hands of the DNC, in order to avoid manipulation.

    Also believe that the system used should reflect that used in the GE-that is, if the President is chosen by electoral votes, then it should be based on electoral votes, if chosen by popular vote then based on the popular vote and so on.

    Having a GE based on electoral votes, and primaries based on a proportional voting system, is a contradiction in terms, and makes it more difficult to choose a winner.

    Would be nice to keep New Hampshire out of tradition....

    [ Parent ]

    National Primary Day is a bad idea... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:41:52 PM EST
    at least for now.  Over the last few months the remaining candidates have improved their skills and developed their thinking on the issues.  Obama was not very good in the first few debates but he learned.  Hillary was not a great stump speaker but she learned.  And the citizens evolved, too.  I think the NY Times idea was a good start.  

    Caucuses smack more of back room arm-twisting politics instead of democracy.  Get rid of them.  Superdelegates are not a bad idea as a check on mobocracy but tell them they can neither commit or endorse until the convention.  And any state that violates primary rules, punish them by cutting back the number of superdelegates but don't screw the voters.  And make it a rule that no superdelegate can appear as a guest commentator on media shows more than once a month unless they are an elected official.

    I agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:24:59 PM EST

    A national primary day is a bad idea.  We lave a long process now, but we learn more about the candidates as a result.  

    [ Parent ]
    the dem always loses in November (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:54:24 AM EST
    always.

    Clinton in 1992 was an aberation who won inspite of the primary SYSTEM.

    [ Parent ]

    Is this the same NYT page... (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    ... that called counting FL and MI the nuclear option?

    The DNC definitely needs to fix the system somehow. Here are my suggestions.

    Caucuses have to go. Primaries only.

    Don't let the process go from January to June. If you do, don't fret and call for people to drop out because the process is going on for too long.

    Everyone who voted in favor of the Michigan delegate-stealing formula needs to go. They show an arrogance and anti-democratic nature that has no place in the DNC.

    Enough of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

    No more superdelegates. The popular vote split evenly, the pledged delegates split 51-48, but the superdelegates decided the race by splitting 55-45.

    No more of this nonsense about delegates per congressional district, and it being a big deal whether a district has an odd or even number of delegates. Statewide apportionment only.

    If Obama wins, we can use 2012 to test things, since nobody will seriously run against an incumbent president. Unless he screws up badly, in which case we have bigger problems.

    Not sure that'd be a good test. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Llelldorin on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    The current system seemed to work well enough until we hit a really close race. If Obama's elected this year, anything from caucuses to primaries to a nationally televised drinking competition will appear to work in 2012, since he won't face a serious challenge for the nomination.

    (Similarly, the old "state legislators name delegates" system seemed to work well enough until 1968.)

    Whatever we do, we have to game out how it'd work in various situations. What would happen in a tight two-way race with lots of regional heterogeneity, like this year's race? What about a three-way race? A race with a strong candidate that inspires a "stop Candidate X" backlash like 1988? I think the calls for winner-take-all primaries that I see above make that mistake: they try to "fix" this year's nomination process in a way that'd be a real mess in a three-way race.

    If we decide to eliminate caucuses (which we frankly should), we also need to work out two crucial details: How do we pay from primaries in states that aren't willing to run them out of their own funds? (We might have to work out some sort of in-party vote-by-mail system if states refuse to help.) How do we replace the party-building role that caucuses play? (Remember, in red states, caucuses give you an opportunity to actually meet fellow Democrats. Primaries are much fairer, but they're also very isolating.)


    [ Parent ]

    worked well enough (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    2 winners in 40 years is working well?

    [ Parent ]
    Some people might say (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    that 12 out of 40 isn't horrible.

    But then, of course, eight years out of the 12 have now been trashed by the powers-that-be.  (We'll not talk about the remianing four.)

    It's really quite stunning.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, what's the goal? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Llelldorin on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:07:26 PM EST
    What is the goal of the system, to pick a winner or to pick someone who reflects the will of Democratic voters? Those aren't necessarily the same goal!

    The pre-'68 system was designed to pick winners, and to hell with the will of the voters. If we were still in the pre-'68 system, neither Obama nor Clinton would even have been considered. Why take a chance on a woman or a black man when there are "safer" choices?

    The current system appeared to more or less reflect the will of the voters until this year. The problem this year is that it didn't just reflect the party split--it actually amplified it due to the arbitrary way that the rules were imposed, and due to the total hash that the superdelegates made of their role (they managed to deeply offend both sides at various points through the campaign, and totally failed to fulfill their intended rôle in diffusing intraparty feuds).

    [ Parent ]

    Mail-ins over caucasses... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:13:16 PM EST
    would achieve at least three important concerns: 1. avoid the expense of a primary for smaller states; 2. would be more vot