no tabulators, manual count with all parties involved is the only way to fair elections. Also a count of those who voted as they come out to verify the count a second time.

...actual voting. But I think the place for that is in the general election. My understanding...and I could be wrong...is that parties can choose their nominee any way they want. The current process tries to involve citizens and make it seem democratic, but it actually makes democracy look bad. IMHO.

I agree with the OP, parties by definition do whatever the hell they want.

And if you run current affairs out to their logical conclusion, we could see a single party become so strong that they further skew the rules of the process until only THAT party has a chance of winning general elections.

Just chew on that... the death grip held by the two parties now makes virtually impossible any third party challenges.

What's to stop us from becoming a one-party state?

... of becoming a one party system. I would hope there would be MORE parties/choices, not less.
But my main thought was 'How do we shorten the process, since parties generally choose who they want anyway?' One answer, for me, is transparency. Do away with the primary 'show' and all it has come to entail. Just let parties pick and put up a candidate they support. Period. No pretense.
But I'm not that knowledgeable about these things... 😜

... If a party put one person out there as their nominee, it would stop the competition between same party candidates (think Bernie and Hillary). So they would tear down their own party when going negative or have to soft pedal on important issues. 🎉

To avoid fighting with ourselves and I thought as a kid that conventions were always brokered.
The history is interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

...but with current media tactics and social media, it seems to have backfired. It has become staged conflict and sport/ American Idol/ Survivor competition. IMO, that's harder for the parties to control. It's inauthentic.

except from Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver.

Whoever wins the primary voting will win the nomination on our side.

And we will hear how she cheated through June, and then people will stomp their feet about how she cheated and they won't vote for a cheater.

Except it's all made up, 100% fiction.

So they won't vote for her in the GE, I don't expect them too...

from the leftwing Inforwars crowd.

I suspect she won't declare herself the nominee until she has a majority of pledged delegates.

That's the narrative.

It's baseless, it's off the wall, but it's the perfect excuse to never support her. A whole lot of people (on DU) will be clamoring about it next week.

The primary is close, there is not solid winner really yet it could go either way. That's why this is happening now.

even when the most formidable bad guy wins, it's always by cheating.

they think it's close and could go either way. but that's because they've tuned out all non-booster feeds of information.

the machine and the local unions are behind Clinton here. turnout in the city is gonna smash him

Right out of the Bill O'Reilly school of journalism too.

Hillary Clinton had a head start and is the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment and the DNC.

I expect Clinton to be Democratic nominee and this was determined by our "leadership" prior to the primary season.

Bernie Sanders has out performed expectations; I expected a he would be received like Dennis Kucinich.

The Democratic Party establishment (and DNC) have rules in place that diminish the power of the grass root vote; mainly to preserve position and serve wealth, MIC, and corporate power. So Clinton can lose the popular vote in Wyoming for instance and still get more nominating delegates.

I will have a hard time voting in the general election and probably will not vote for POTUS on principal if Clinton is candidate unless my vote is needed (in California). I see the value of a Democrat in office (and will not vote other than Democrat) but sad that Hillary Clinton may be POTUS. It will not be a good thing for the USA nor the Democratic Party.

I do think Hillary Clinton lacks in character and decision-making ability to be POTUS or CIC.

to understand why Clinton actually beat him. She was establishment in 2008--and lost.

The key is that any insurgent campaign within the party--or from the left in general--is doomed to failure unless it has buy-in from the African-American community at the beginning.

What appeals to the white liberal activist wing of the party will a lot of the times not appeal to African-American voters. And that buy-in is not going to happen after an election begins.

Thank you for the respectfully.

IMHO Sanders is a better candidate for and less likely to double cross the Black demographic than Hillary Clinton, mostly because of a greater commitment to economic justice and a like and longer commitment to civil rights than Clinton.

I may be wrong.

I am pro-Sanders because he is the only choice that is not Hillary Clinton nor a neo-liberal nor neo-conservative and is anti-war.

Hillary Clinton is much better positioned for crony politics and is corporate approval and, as such, is highly likely to be the Democratic nominee for 2016 POTUS (and POTUS in January 2017).

I don't have to like it.

and I'm not exactly thrilled with it--I supported Obama with gusto for a reason in 2008.

our party has a weak bench, and it needs to start developing the next generation of talent. regardless of ideology, etc, we should have done better than these two choices and we are very lucky the Republicans were do dysfunctional. Kasich or even Little Marco would have beat either of our candidates.

We really agree except on candidate in many ways.

I was more excited about POTUS Obama than any politician and election in my life.

But this turned to disappointment even before conformation into office because of his appointments.

I may have been guilty of projection that saw candidate Obama as more liberal and less corporatist.

Still despite my disappointment and criticisms, POTUS has been a good and historic POTUS, just not as transformative as many of us had hoped. I will never understand why POTUS Obama did not employ that surge against "the system" that he had on his election, but that was so long ago now.

...and more about future elections.

relevant term. That phrase came up a lot when California had the blanket primary system (thankfully) overturned.

In some states, you are able to vote for either the Dem or GOP candidate, and in some states you are shut out. When the GE rolls around, the only real choice is the Dem or GOP candidate, and you must pick one of those.

I never really thought about this because I've been a Dem my whole life, but our system really does discourage people from voting who don't commit to either party. It's wrong.

They're not part of the party, they should play zero part in the party selection process.

seems quite reasonable.

...helpful? 😁

I would love EVERY adult in the US to vote - that is a true participatory democracy. Our two party system makes that difficult, and discourages a lot of people since they don't want to pick either one.

Maybe more parties, or maybe no parties? Eventually we may be able to have a hologram of a candidate visit us in our living room, making access a lot easier; would't require the obscene amount of money required to run - which is why we have these parties.

I've been a registered Dem my whole life and will remain so, but lately, my concern is expanding voting access to ALL Americans.

...either. I am also a committed Democrat. But I wish we could find solutions for the problems we face in our Presidential election process, of which there are many. 😜
The primary season has become a joke. It's sad. I'm thinking transparency would help, since most people probably don't understand it that well.