2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMorningfog's Proposed Primary Reforms
Last edited Fri May 20, 2016, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Join in agreement. Add your own. Poo-poo mine.
Many of the nomination issues have been laid bare this cycle. Problems have come to the fore and to a head. To me the greatest problems center around the undemocratic aspects or quasi-democratic aspects. I tend towards greater democracy, more power directly to the voter.
If it were up to me (and rightfully no one has ever asked me) I would propose the following changes:
1. No caucuses. Caucuses are undemocratic, antithetical to the concepts of one person one vote and private vote. Caucuses would be better left to history.
2. No super delegates. 15 per cent of the nominating power rests in the unbridled discretion of 714 individuals. Over 23 million people have voted, more will next month, yet collectively their votes carry only 85 per cent compared to the 714 individuals.
3. Semi open primaries and same day voter registration. We should not be afraid to allow and welcome unaffiliated voters to join in our nomination process. The number who would go through the effort to sow discord is negligible. What it does is indicates to the unaffiliated or new voter that we hear them and are with them. It's a down payment on the general election.
4. Allocate delegates equally. However it is done must be fairer than the metric used now. Now, some states and votes within that stars are more heavily weighted or diluted than others.
Those are my main four.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)No superdels. Popular vote takes nomination.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)No to three...no open primaries....want to pick a dem candidate register as a dem...in a timely fashion...otherwise the GOP gets involved.
msongs
(67,441 posts)if you are REALLY independent why are you voting in a party primary to begin with
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)No. 3 - Registration rules are decided by each state, not the party.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Especially caucuses. What a stupidly archaic affectation.
Adamantly opposed to 3.
Not convinced 4 is anything like a problem, but I have no strong feelings either way.
My ideas; change the order the states vote in -- small blocs of states voting every other week or so with some kind of rotational timing. Take the bizarre power to control primary timing away from Iowa and New Hampshire.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)1. Caucuses are a relic from the past that should have been gotten rid of years ago. Also, caucuses allow for too many possibilities for shenanigans and corruption to take place, as we have seen this year.
2. Super delegates are like a hidden pocket Ace and the perfect instrument for corruption, shenanigans, and rigging, and should be abolished, no ifs ands or buts!
These are the first two reforms that are critically important, both to a return to democracy and to get rid of corruption. The next ones are not as important and are debatable, but still interesting and worth considering.
I would suggest that ALL states go to a winner-take-all system when it comes to delegates, I think this would stop this process from dragging on for months and months. Other first world nations don't have elections that start and last for nearly a whole damn year, or more.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
Joob
(1,065 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I have no idea what four means it sounds like you were drunk when you posted it.
The last one I see as a problem but don't have the solution. So it may have come out jumbled and drunk.
The number of pledged delegates each state get in a given year is determined by a formula based on the number of Dem representatives from the date, how reliably democratic the state votes in the general and population. The result is that the weight of a voter in one state is greater than that of another.
LiberalFighter
(51,084 posts)The method used to allocate delegates is fair and equitable.
The rules of the Democratic National Convention call for the following formula to be used in determining the allocation of delegate votes to each jurisdiction sending a delegation to the Convention.
Each jurisdiction with electoral votes is assigned a number of Base (delegate) votes based on an "Allocation Factor" multiplied by 3,200 [Call Rule I.B.] arrived at through a calculation involving the following factors:
State's Democratic Vote (SDV): The jurisdiction's popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012). Source: The vote totals for 2004 and 2008 below were obtained from FEC.gov on 24 November 2010. The vote totals for 2012 were taken from The Green Papers 2012 General Election Presidential Popular Vote and FEC Total Receipts by Party on 17 January 2013.
Total Democratic Vote (TDV): The total popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012).
The state's Electoral Vote (SEV) averaged over the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012).
The total Electoral Vote of all jurisdictions (538).
The formula for determining a jurisdiction's Allocation Factor is:
Allocation Factor = ½ × ( ( SDV ÷ TDV ) + ( SEV ÷ 538 ) )
The number of Base votes assigned to a state is Allocation Factor × 3,200 rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions 0.5 and above are rounded up).
To summarize, half of a jurisdiction's base vote is determined by the number of Presidential Electors assigned to that state and half are computed by the number of people who voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last three elections.
States are and should be weighted. Why should a state like Texas receive more delegates than New York when Democratic turnout is lower?
TX * 26,059,203 * - * 9,669,461 * * * * 147
NY * 19,570,261 * - * 13,456,847 * * * *247
CA * 38,041,430 * - * 22,874,243 * * * *475
The delegates allocated to southern states were less than other states with comparable census population but had higher Democratic turnout. If a candidate is going to win the nomination weight should be given to states that are likely to turn blue.
If delegates were allocated based on census population Clinton's margin over Sanders would be larger than what it is now. Using 4,051 as the total delegates and the win/loss percent the delegate count would be roughly Clinton: 1,859 and Sanders: 1,482. A spread of 377 instead of the current 272 pledged delegate advantage that Clinton currently has.
She also won every state with a census population of 10 million or more with California still up.
procon
(15,805 posts)1. the states might have something to say about that.
2. the superdelegates function as party watchdogs. As long as the two part system exists, the party will want safeguards or we'll the same influx of nutjobs that have plagues the GOP. Modify their power, sure, but keep the oversight.
3 4. again, the state will have a say so in parts of this too, and red states aren't going to cater to the demands of the DNC.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Then I thought better of it because the last thing we need in this particular primary and this particular situation is more being ugly to each other.
I'll sit here and refrain the fuck out of saying what popped into my mind, and hope others do likewise.
DU is better than this.
Skink
(10,122 posts)Any ticket and no ID needed. If you are inside the borders vote.
