all mail-in ballot voting, rather than have the state administer the election. Now, I don't have a problem with that, but others might think that might open up some cans of worms and other vermin.

In caucus states, the party already pays for the caucus expenses. It could easily pay for mail-in ballot voting, too, and have ballot drop-off points at the same places the caucuses are now held.

That would be affordable, but would probably lead to concerns about ballot counting if the party handled that.

It's all sort of complicated, isn't it?

And decouple from all state elections, you can use classic dedazos, or divination for all I care. You want to do entrail reading, go for it.

Just don't pretend it is actually democratic. I wish you well by the way. Sooner or later the party base will again revolt, or move on to another party l

who wants to be a part of that organization can join and contribute if they wish. persons who self select themselves out of the process can sit in the corner and whine

as I said, you pay for it. I don't care what you do.

Cue the incoming "but what about Independents". Well, know your states rules for when you need to change so that you can vote in either Repub or Democratic primary and then change it back. I'm good with all of those OP. Very good.

form additional parties. I don't care. But, party primaries are party functions. You want to participate? Join the party or figure something else out to do.

I want my party's presidential nominee chosen by my party. I don't care if you really agree with the party's goals, but you'll need to declare yourself a member to vote in the primary. It's the party's nominee, after all.

Re-institute that party. Wonderful idea!

Database access and fundraising policies/procedures would need to be addressed separately, as an addendum I suppose. But this is a great start!

members. Any other databases should be developed and stored on candidate's computers. All candidates would have access to the overall party membership data. No candidate should have the right to access another candidates specialized data though, so that data should be stored on the candidate's hardware, IMO. With cloud storage so cheap, it should be no problem to store even that massive amount of data.

Federal laws on fundraising are just fine. Keep those and make candidate develop their own fundraising data structures.

Sorry, but if a nominee is the nominee of a party, that candidate should be part of that party, and so should the voters. Until we eliminate the party system, that's how it needs to be.

You're advocating for party boss control... lessons learned from '68 convention refute your angling back to that...

'Switch every state to primary elections, rather than caucuses - This would provide a much fairer measure of Democratic voter sentiment'

That coupled with this

'The entire process should aid the Democratic Party in selecting its own nominee. It should be our party's nominee'

and this

'require the super delegates to vote en masse for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Since that has been the practice in the past, it should be required in the future. If more than two candidates run, the super delegates can act as they wish to eliminate a convention deadlock. '

This last bit is the KEY...
here's why,

MM's claim 'super delegates to vote en masse for the candidate with the most pledged delegates' should hold to convention VOTE, but he doesn't make the statement that PLEDGING should be held off UNTIL convention... what's happened in the 'past' and to be carried over to 'future' is exactly what occurs this cycle... all those SDs pledging BEFORE a single primary vote has been cast

Which NULLIFIES or renders all his points mute....

SDs are party bosses or establishment, we agree on that correct?

But let's continue....

'These rules are already part of all states' convention rules, and call for expulsion of those who violate them'
Nothing stated about making the rules across all states more uniform and simplified... the reasons for disruptive behavior is due to lack of clarity and too complex of rules base

Layering more rules and committees gives more control back to those that make the rules... again party bosses

Then there's this bit

'Primaries should be held in larger groups of states - We have 50 states, plus about 6 other jurisdictions who send delegates to the convention. Divide those by 8 and hold 7 primary elections, equally spaced during the primary period. For each primary date, select states or jurisdictions in a way that represents all regions of the country on an equal basis. Each of the 7 primary elections would have 8 states or jurisdictions, scattered across the country and distributed among states with different populations. This would prevent skewed results by avoiding grouping states with similar demographics or other similarities on a single election date. 7 primary dates to cover the entire field.'

The 'expedite' it bit, imagine the lack of vetting a 'speedier' primary process would pop out a nominee... this just allows the party bosses to craft a packaged narrative around a specific nominee, slap on the SD pledge tag to that nominee, spin that nominee out for a quick fly by to the public and news... vote through quickly and viola...

Remember when Bernie started out at single digits and was labelled a 'fringe candidate'? If all these 'rules' that are being advocated here were placed into the actual process... how do you perceive this current cycle would actually play out? same or different?

But the main bit I want to point to is that vid I linked here... 'grassroots' prevention

Do you believe Bernie, and his campaign are considered 'grassroots'?

Who or whom is DNC talking about in that vid? what's their def of 'grassroots'?

nothing to comment on about my reply?

Your post is very interesting. What function do you see for the superdelegates under that scenario? (I came home hot and tired and settled down with a vodka on the rocks, so I'm not at my sharpest at the moment.) Should we just eliminate them? Who should be a superdelegate if we keep them?

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/history-of-superdelegates



I propose this example to work from, and develop a better process/system

http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections

"Wisconsin is considered the birthplace of the presidential primary. Under the leadership of Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette, elected governor in 1900, Wisconsin became the first state to require that all candidates for public office be subject to a vote of the people. La Follette proudly observed, “No longer in Wisconsin will there stand between the voter and the official a political machine with a complicated system of caucuses and conventions, by the easy manipulation of which it thwarts the will of the voter and rules official conduct.”


sums it up quite nicely...

"Superdelegates make a mockery of representative government. Even without them, the current presidential nominating process remains far from perfect. But at least regular delegates are, for the most part, bound to the candidates chosen by their state’s voters. When queried in exit polls after the Texas and Ohio primary elections, almost two-thirds of those questioned favored letting Democratic voters choose their final candidate. To do otherwise is taking a giant step backward."

Make each state a primary and OPEN... always the 'talk' of bigger tent, then let's prove it by actually opening the tent up...

at least.

The states make a lot of decisions the parties have to abide by, including whether primary or caucus and when they will take place, though the parties can apply pushes and pulls to influence that a bit. Should the people of the state have a say in this, and if so, how to do it so the majority doesn't give an advantage to one party?

The parties themselves... They are private organizations, they form to maximize the power of their members' individual voices, and heir function is to get as many people who share their basic orientation to government elected to office as possible. By their very nature, their purpose is not to further pure democracy; people who join them choose to give up some of their power to vote directly for the power of the group. If we make these changes to party structure and processes, will that weaken the purpose of parties, which is to further the goals of their members. Who votes on this? Only members, or, since the purpose seems to be to open up parties, should independents be able to have a say?

Each of your proposals seems to lead somewhere down a road but stop before the job is done. Is the real reason we're talking about opening the parties up and weakening their ability to protect their interests to eliminate parties? We've been a mainly two-party nation since our establishment, and not by law. It's been a very long time since I read why.

read through your reply a couple of times to make sure the 'vibe' I was getting wasn't off or incorrect, the 2nd pass just validated the first

So here goes...

STATES, at this point of our nation's existence and humanities progression, we have basically moved past 'state' identity to a national identity and closing in on a global identity... but to your point, 'Should the people of the state have a say in this', I believe that the 'state' is becoming more of a thing of the past in terms or what the NATIONAL DEM party is, and that's what we are really talking about... the people of this nation and more specifically the GE is what matters most and currently the disparity of how each state runs their process in election cycles actually suppresses voter turnout, it's time to modernize, expedite and minimize the hurdles to voters to voter booth. We also need to make each 'state' more uniform across the nation as we are a much more mobile species and uniform rules allow for easier transition between that moves. The goal of any and every primary is to allow a more democracy based process to vet and nominate the strongest, most DEM ideological candidate

Your next point... 'The parties themselves... They are private organizations', you're correct, so we get to the point of establishment vs regular party members.. which leads to this 'form to maximize the power of their members' which members are we 'maximizing' power of? SDs aren't 'regular' party members, they do not have the regular party members best interests at heart... this point 'get as many people who share their basic orientation to government elected to office as possible' we disagree on that comment, establishment and SDs aren't vested in 'getting as many people who share' I point out the lack of the 50 state GOTV plan, the lack of interest in more open primaries to get more independents voting with DEM. The movement away from liberal / progressive ideology by party establishment also is of note, but that's a discussion aside from this one...

Your other point within the 2nd point... 'If we make these changes to party structure and processes, will that weaken the purpose of parties' making changes is how we progress, we are and should be progressives at heart, embracing change for the better, we only 'weaken' the power of those that control the thing, and it that is to the betterment of the party then the establishment needs to understand and step aside, those that obstruct what the majority of the DEM body want... well, what would you define that as?

The last sub point within your 2nd... 'Should independents be able to have a say?' Yes they should, it goes to growing the tent, I would counter with what are your reasons for 'why not?' Since winning the GE is the goal increasing the tent is the only way to accomplish that

Lat point... 'Is the real reason we're talking about opening the parties up and weakening their ability to protect their interests to eliminate parties' Is a two party system in the best interest of the people in this nation? what about a more diverse increased parties system? this accomplishes two things at once, one it forces the parties to always cater to the members from a bottom up, rather than a top down system and it forces parties to always look to bigger tent mentality and operation, if either of those two aspects aren't tended to then that 'party' will wither and die and a new one will grow or another will absorb

Just because something is, and is carried over through time doesn't automatically validate it, we should always have a motivation to making the party better for the majority of members not just the select few

Is a two party system the best option just because it 'is' since establishment of our nation?
I would counter it is not the best option...

extremely interesting. But just because of that I have some doubts about how applicable some of this is to any election in the near future. And reading your post reminds me that I'm basically a strong liberal, progressive Democrat who has learned over a lifetime that electing people who share my goals for our nation and keeping strong conservative ideologues, and other intrinsically incompetent and/or antidemocratic factions unsuited to governance of a highly complex and diverse democracy, out of office are the most important political things I need to do for myself and my descendants. With that in mind...

we have basically moved past 'state' identity to a national identity and closing in on a global identity... Not yet, basically or otherwise. Although I see my country through national eyes, at least a full half of Americans are strongly committed to state identity, rights and power. It's huge for most of them, as huge as religion, innate xenophobia, and innate fear of totalitarian government (fear is a big factor for many in this group). Plus, those rights are written into our Constitution, right from the beginning. If you are right that our nation is developing a strong national identity, it isn't nearly complete enough yet.

As for an international identity, that is the greatest political fear of all strong conservatives, most of whom are strong nationalists, and also strongly xenophobic, and even rather paranoid on the whole subject. The Tea Party at its height, had settled into a more "modern," "hipper" version of the John Birch Society, which itself is still active. Those people may change names, but they're not going anywhere and their votes count as much as anyone else's -- more in that their fears get them out for elections in really in high numbers.

The Supreme Court also has a say, states v. private organizations and much else. I do remember that it struck down a voter-approved California initiative to require all elections be by primary, though I don't remember why.

50-state GOTV: That's a strategy than can lose or win elections. You want it to be an ideal, but to parties trying to elect as many of its people as possible, with yes weight given to strategically important positions like the presidency, it's just a strategy, to be used sometimes and set aside others. Those party members in passed-over states are always free to leave the party or be glad it's working for their interests overall. As always, it's their choice; if enough want a 50-state strategy, the party will have to consider it.

Open primaries: I've already stated my worries that these could be used to take over parties and effectively disenfranchise their membership. I am for making registration, changed registration, and voting as easy as possible, but otherwise I am now, given what has happened in this election, for closed primaries.

Do you realize that the "Tea Party" movement was thought up, organized, funded, and directed by people like the Koch brothers and high-paid political operatives working for them? Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few tremendously wealthy anti-regulation-for-them people. What is to prevent someone with great assets and the benefit of studying the Sanders and Trump phenomena from gathering many of today's disaffected into a new movement and using them to take over the Democratic Party and running a brighter shinier candidate--of their choosing--next time around? Party rules can be the savior of our democracy even as they limit it.

Although they are different blocks, I don't really buy your basic frame (through which everything else is considered) that "establishment vs regular party members" have intrinsically different interests and that SDs don't have the latters' interests at heart--to a critical degree. Many of our party's strongest progressive liberals are those who have worked for decades to advance progressive goals while "regulars" sat around on their thumbs. They have records, remember. This isn't air dreaming. Barney Frank, for instance, is a real person and a real progressive.

And again, remember, people join political parties of their own choice to maximize their own power; if the leaders are betraying them, nothing is easier than to simply not vote and leave the other party. To fulfill its purpose, a party must have a population of people who are very knowledgeable and competent in leadership positions. As we see from some of the new Sanders' factions' attempts in Nevada and in various counties to change rules and get themselves voted into leadership positions, ignorance almost guarantees failure. But next time around, if they stick, they will be the new Sanders or whatever it'll be called "establishment."

Where we are together is in believing there is plenty of room for improvement. Our "representatives" like their jobs far, far too much. Most hate the idea of going "home." They want to live their lives as DC insiders. Although many factors go into that, the biggest of course is all the money and power in DC. To that end, they spend most of their time sucking up to the wrong people, i.e., anyone who isn't us.

Ultimately, though, I believe your intense focus on the need to reform the Democratic Party and its electoral processes is fundamentally, and profoundly, misdirected.

Imo, we need to concentrate on reforming campaign finance and special interest intrusions of various sorts to get money and inappropriate influences out of politics. Significant goals are also to put the candidate selection and marketing industry out of business (with it to shrink our two-year long/every-two-year election cycles back to a few months). If we make accepting money for any reason illegal, including any more than is required to get the necessary signatures to get on a ballot in the first place (strict controls on donation size there!), most of the rest of the problems will shrink dramatically, and we can get on with the rest of the job of cutting this new class that thinks it should run the country down to size. This means taxpayer-funded campaigns for all candidates who have qualified, of course.

But the first of course is that we have to win the presidency and control of the Senate so we can appoint people who feel as we do to the Supreme Court.

Why would you 'doubts'? Do you not believe in the people to rise up and force change? Your reply is rife with 'top down' perspective rather than bottom up

'Not yet'... we hear this over and over, it's lack of political will, very few politicians willing to take a risk

again with the red and blue jersey, two party crap... 'at least a full half of Americans are strongly committed to state identity'
My point is we as a species are moving or have moved beyond this only two sides thinking, beyond red and blue teams

'As for an international identity, that is the greatest political fear', economics refutes your premise... multi national corporations have pushed past this as well as our ability to reach across the globe with internet and media... it's political parties that hold us back, creating false narratives and allowing the MSM to reinforce it...

'Plus, those rights are written into our Constitution, right from the beginning.' I highly doubt the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be 'static', they understood that humanity evolves and so should the governing document that we as a society built as it's foundation

'it's just a strategy, to be used sometimes and set aside others.' I disagree, again bigger tent, what you propose is, again, only to maintain a two party system 'always free to leave the party or be glad it's working for their interests overall. As always, it's their choice; if enough want a 50-state strategy, the party will have to consider it.' This is why people don't like either party establishment, it's just within this cycle that the threshold to 'protest' was meet on BOTH sides and you are seeing the outcomes.. Choose to continue to ignore it at your own peril

'Open primaries: I've already stated my worries that these could be used to take over parties and effectively disenfranchise their membership' Again, closing the doors to protect establishment is a losing strategy in the long run

'Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few' this is establishment's ruse on both sides, you nailed it

THIS ' Many of our party's strongest progressive liberals are those who have worked for decades to advance progressive goals while "regulars" sat around on their thumbs.' COUPLED WITH THIS 'Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few' is to the 'WHY'... 'regulars' as you call them were suckered into a belief that the establishment was looking out for their best interests whereas the reality was establishment was only looking out for their own interests... lulling the 'regulars' occurred on both sides, within both parties... activism thresholds were finally met this cycle, the 'revolution' if it is to be called such... has begun

I disagree... 'Where we are together is in believing there is plenty of room for improvement.' this is the WHY of my disagreement with you using your point 'Those who flocked to it and stayed were suckered big time into serving the interests of a few', the continued 'Not yet' which culminates to this 'Ultimately, though, I believe your intense focus on the need to reform the Democratic Party and its electoral processes is fundamentally, and profoundly, misdirected.' my 'intense focus', interesting perception, clearly shows where you might be on the 'regulars' and 'establishment' ladder... final nail 'fundamentally, and profoundly, misdirected'.. I'm on the right path, the majority of liberal / progressive thinkers agree with me

together. I was pretty sure I would end up considered "Democratic establishment," but that is not as dreadful an insult to me as it is to you. We need improvement, all right, but overall I believe we're the only party fit to govern these days and that we are fit to govern.

You see the nation's troubles arising from problems with the Democratic Party and believe the fix must start there.

I know the nation's problems overwhelmingly result from the conservative right's slide into extremism, and with it the dismantling of restraints on money in politics that was engineered 100% by the right over our opposition.

We need to wind this up, but please take a look at this. This is the ideological pattern of the U.S. CONGRESS since 1879. That cluster of lines at the bottom reflects legislative behaviors of Southern Democrats, Democrats, and Northern Democrats. Today's Democratic caucus is now more liberal than it has been in a century.

Now take a look at what's happened to the GOP caucus. They now espouse ideology that when we were young not only was far right of mainstream conservatism but in most cases was not even considered respectable in the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

'I was pretty sure I would end up considered "Democratic establishment," but that is not as dreadful an insult to me as it is to you.'

It is what it is... I believe ideology always wins out over party... party is just a stakeholder in time, a 'flag' placed along humanities cultural timeline... ideology sustains, party does not

This bit 'only party fit to govern' is the problem, you're mired in party over principle, or ideology, ideology should govern, not party
This DEM party has drifted so far away from the initial stake placed into that cultural timeline that those that adhere to party or the establishment have missed it or worse... ignored it

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/pp-2014-06-12-polarization-1-04/

the 'extremes' are growing both in number and power, no longer 'marginal'

The reason as I see this, is both side's establishment base beat the 'not now' drum... and in the end people are getting to and past the threshold on activism to change that dynamic, and either establishment will step aside or be pushed aside

This election cycle should be a clarion call, as I see it, you and other like minded folks aren't heeding that message

blasting through a conservative defense of over 60 million voters coached and buttressed by most of those who control over 80% of America's wealth. But go to it, HE, and good luck.

I'm blasting through DEM establishment

HRC is republican light in ideology, too many issues that she's being forced to the left on

Simple enough, ne?

the party. Then, you get one vote. We'll go to mail-in ballots, sent only to party members if you don't want any state funding. That's what caucus states do already. We can shift that to primary elections.

Some very solid ideas there.

I'm sure people will be offering changes or refinements. That's how things happen.

You know, there will probably be a discussion of all of this kind of thing before 2020. It will start at the convention, I'm sure. This is all part of the party's' rules discussion.

The states only come into the picture if they have to run traditional elections. The parties could institute a completely difference election process for the primaries, maybe using mail-in balloting, with ballots sent to party members. Now, that would upset some people's apple carts, for sure. If they wanted to vote for the party nominee, they'd have to join the party. Wouldn't that be something?

The convention committees have no control outside of the convention.

I think if all primaries are closed, some independent groups will file lawsuits requiring the party to pay rather than the state. I have no idea if such a group would be successful but if so, it would cost the Democratic Party too much money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Already, states that use the caucus system pay for their own party process. Mail-in ballots would work just fine, but I doubt people would like that who weren't willing to join the party officially.

That would be affordable for every state's party. One mailing of ballots and some sort of ballot counting system. That's how the caucuses work, so it would just be an extension of that.

I'm not sure political parties would have the resources to accomplish this.

Caucuses don't involve the same costs that primaries include. For one, the hours needed is less for caucuses. Don't know if caucuses are manned by volunteers or if the workers get paid.

If primaries are funded solely by the party then they would be responsible for mailing and counting of the ballots. Not sure if there wouldn't be a lot more complaints about it being rigged than there is now. They would also decide who would receive the ballots based on what the party decides. If the party is going to have control of the primary election then they wouldn't need to recognize any state laws that require petition signatures or even require them if they weren't before and state parties would be able to decide who is eligible to be on the ballot.

Would this only apply to Presidential elections or all offices in a primary? If this will be part of the voter's voting history then it would require the local election boards to input all of the data. Will that cost the local government more doing it this way? The data would be needed to determine who receives a ballot. Currently, I could go into the database and pull out only voters that have voted in the last 3 presidential elections that has voted at least once in a Democratic Primary and has not voted in any Republican Primary. If the party run primary is not integrated with the local election board then that would become difficult.

Attendees are asked for donations to cover costs, but are not required for participation. Wherever possible, venues are sought that will donate the space. Being active in party activities is a labor of love, and most who are active also make donations to the party. However, those who can't are welcomed equally.

The cost of operating elections would have to be calculated, but labor costs would be low, due to volunteers, for sure. I'm not competent to estimate such costs.

As someone that has been involved in the assignment of election workers since 2008 it is not easy. Even when they are paid. And we only fill the positions for the Democratic Party.

People who are not "real" democrats can still register and democrats, therefore a closed primary doesn't offer any protection. Whatever you do to make that registration process more burdensome to discourage those who might switch, you also burden those who honestly intend to be and vote for democrats. The net result is fewer voters, not better elections.

Kind of like those stupid photo ID laws--burden with zero benefit.

see the objection, frankly. You sign up as a Democrat and vote in the Democratic primaries. How would anyone know what your true allegiances were? No sweat, no strain. If your ethics don't prevent you from lying about your positions, then there you are.

Same nonsensical argument the voter ID people use.

Of course they can do that ... if they think ahead and plan ahead. However, closed primaries prevent that type of "impulsive" drive-by manipulation.

The "not-real" democrats you speak of will at least need to make an effort, in advance, within the registration deadline period, in order to try and disrupt.


Speaking for myself, it was very easy to check the little box that said "Democrat". Not burdensome at all.

It's good for you that you encountered no difficulties, but that is obviously not the case for everyone.

It's quite easy.

Some folks won't notice that box for legitimate reasons (failing vision for one). Sometimes people miss the deadline for legitimate reasons (illness fro one). Sometimes the states screws up (AZ and NY voter purges or cases all over of registrations wrong in the state records).

There are some real world problems that will keep a person from checking a little box, so the burden I'm talking about isn't just that little checkbox.

The fact of the matter is that the more hoops you make voters jump through, the fewer voters will make it to the end. Disenfranchisement is the price you pay for every single obstacle, so those obstacles had better be worthwhile. A closed primary is not worthwhile.

I just don't want to get a situation, a la Operation Chaos, where people who are not Democrats are deliberating voting in Democratic primaries in order to create problems (possibly under instruction from a Rush Limbaugh type).

You always see tons of people talk about crossing over, but hardly anyone actually does. Folks who are energized enough to go to the primary generally want to vote for their own team more than being a sacrifice for the other.

Several states have open primaries and while you can certainly see indications that some voters are crossing, it's not a lot. If two candidates are neck-and-neck they might be able to lean the race one way, but the two candidates were neck-and-neck--no weak candidate to spoil the race with. OTOH, if there is a truly weak candidate, a small number of crossovers (or even a fairly large number) can't flip that race.

Limbaugh and crew have always been all bark and no bite.

Work to make absolutely, positively, completely, definitely sure that a Bernie Sanders never, ever happens again.

Oh yes, that's one thing my mind is resting easy about.

He could still run under the system I described. He'd have to join the party, of course, but he did that anyhow. My plan would just simplify the process and make it more uniform from state to state.

But, that's OK. It's just an idea I tossed out there. You don't have to agree with it, after all.

process he agreed to follow be altered just to please himself. if you want to be an independent, be independent

Would you rather he had gone Indie? Hill would end up 2nd or third if his dems left the party to elect him

How did that please himself? I do not comprehend your thought process -what one thing has the DNC done for Bernie that he needed? He was a dem all his life, but one unwilling to be bought so he wore the big I. Nothing undemocratic about that

But if you had titled this...

"How to never allow a candidate outside the mainstream to win"

would this really have been all that different?

I am fine with Rule 1. I would like to have been a part of one just once as it seems interesting and fun, but it's only fun for those who can make it.

Rule 2. Change all to semi-closed. If the big concern for many is Republicans coming and choosing the nominee, this eliminates that. It also allows Independents who lean Democrat to take part in the process. These same Independents will be needed in the GE and if they want in to our processes it could be the gateway to them joining the Party full time.

Rule 3. I know 7 seems like a lot. But they start so soon and many are before the first state has voted. I'd prefer to see them back heavy.

Rule 4. No Supers. Ever. One person, one vote. Not one person, 10,000 votes. If someone wins the proper number of delegates, even if it's Mickey Mouse, the people chose the candidate. No group should be coming in to save the day because they "know better".

Rule 5. Sounds fine.

Rule 6. Would be ideal, not sure how practical. Getting 50 states to agree on when they should vote in clusters would be difficult.

Like I said, you put a lot of thought in. I'm Rec'ing. But I don't necessarily agree.

as a discussion starter. Since I started the discussion, my ideas were the first one's stated. Others are weighing in.

We should improve the superdelegate system, perhaps limit it to people who themselves have been elected by the people, such as sitting congressmen, etc. Or other changes. (Superdelegates are inherently undemocratic, but so are delegates of any kind.)

BUT, the vote en mass thing would make it worthless for trying to stop a takeover by a dangerously charismatic or hopelessly unelectable leader, and without that what's the point? Trump should make us very afraid. Just imagine if an inspiring, uncreepy version of Cruz ran as an anti-establishment, anti-Democrat on our ticket next time, was enormously well funded by our enemies, and had learned really valuable lessons from Bernie going before?

2. In addition to closing the primaries, we should open up registration/enfranchisement as much as workable as a balance, making it as easy as possible to register and change registration up to, say, a week before, for instance.

3. All those elaborate multi-step processes, such as in Nevada, should be done away with. One primary, one convention.

We have them in Minnesota, too, but we're moving to primaries and the caucus and convention thing will just be for local and state office party endorsements. The state convention will handle all of the delegate allocation, based on the primaries, starting in 2020.

Changing the party registration thing is fine with me. We don't even register with party declarations in Minnesota. However, our caucus and convention system requires an affirmation of agreement with party goals. You have to sign that. We also have same day registration in Minnesota. In primaries, you can vote only for one party's candidates.

very serious anti-democracy problem with caucuses. Thanks. Boy, I'm really hating caucuses!

Same-day registration? Are electronics and databases up to the job? There is a grave tendency to NOT correct much election tampering if it has already taken place, an electoral version of possession (of the victory) being 9/10th of the law, so it seems wise to hold the line where there is still time to check and safeguard properly.

Although most of us Democrats really believe in making voting as accessible as possible to as many as possible, imo political operators have become so sophisticated and well funded, and some special interests so committed to winning at any cost, that safeguards against election theft have to be made a priority.

Too few people participate, by choice or out of necessity. It's not a fair way to measure opinions. As a party organization thing, they're great, though. It's a way for anyone to become part of the process and take part at many levels. For example, at our precinct caucus, everyone who wanted to be a delegate to the convention at the next level was able to be. Several people went to that convention for the very first time, and it was fun to see them learning the process and actively participating.

But not for presidential nominee selection. Not a good system.

mention what should be known. As I was typing I was thinking how I'd always thought attending a caucus would be great, but have always lived in primary states. We prefer to stand in line on polling day, not too long of course, with others to vote. It makes it more of a ceremony, but it's not exactly the same.

In our state, we have a primary that votes for President, other offices, and state convention delegates. At the state convention the state delegates vote for the district delegates going to the national convention. The district delegates vote for at-large delegates that go to the national convention during at the state convention.

At least one state elect their district delegates for the national convention at their primary.

season without that imprinting, but now I will remember it. How funny that Georgia is more "progressive" in this respect than Washington, although, without reading the history my first thought is that it's likely to have been for the wrong reasons.

of making sure the counting is fraud-free in the primaries (livestreamed hand-counting, perhaps?).

I like the idea of groups of primaries, especially if each set has a sampling of states from different regions. Instead of early votes in all the southern states, we could have one from the South, one from New England, one from the midwest, one from the west coast, etc. And maybe there could be some rotation states from one election to the next, so that certain states don't have undue influence.

I don't agree with closed primaries, however. Open primaries, along with referendums and recalls, were introduced as progressive democratic reforms in the early 20th century and they remain more democratic than the alternatives. I think all parties should be required to have open primaries and that they should be held on the same day using the same ballots. I don't see why independents should be either disenfranchised in the primaries and/or taxed to support elections in which they are not allowed to vote.

My point on item 2 is that if both parties eliminate Independent's, you face potential blowback in the general election, or they form a third party. I would rather see only one primary vote per person. That would prevent someone voting in the Dem primary on one date and then being able to vote in the GOP primary after that. They get one and only one vote. The idea is to attract and retain those people into the party.

Splitting primaries on different dates opens up some opportunities to cheat, I think.

one primary.

If parties are financing it they would also be responsible for mailing out their own ballots. The parties would be responsible for deciding the criteria used to determine to receive a ballot. There would not be a central location to check for it.

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

My counterproposal: 50 states (+ DC and territories) send ballots by mail to registered Democrats two weeks prior to a due date. Voters complete the ballot; return the ballot by mail; and the ballots are counter (and the counting is reviewed by an independent accounting firm). The first vote would be held in early FEBRUARY; a second vote if needed in early APRIL; a third if needed in June. Whoever gets 50% + 1 vote first wins.

in all states, though, and not all states have that. A similar idea might be to use ranked choice voting, which could easily trim the candidate list down. We use that here in Minnesota, but just for city elections so far. It had its detractors, but has been pretty well accepted so far. It may get expanded to other races, as well, over time.

In states where there is no Democratic Party (or comparable, like the DFA) registration available, voters could simply request ballots from the state Democratic party. I would encourage the party in those states to get laws passed allowing partisan registration.

Other DUers sing the praises of ranked choice. I think it makes worlds of sense in local elections -- especially for things like school boards (i.e. pick up to 3 from a list of 9).

Since the Democratic Party uses proportional method that would be good. It is not a matter of winning a state that determines whether a candidate is the ultimate winner.

Doing 3 or even 2 mailings would put even more of of financial burden on the party with costs. It would likely cost more starting with the 2nd ballot than it does with an election that is mostly at the polls.

I propose we directly elect the nominee.

I don't think the SD process is the mess that many seem to believe it to be, so I don't think any major changes are required. The lack of understanding of why it exists, how it has operated in the past (including 2008), what it is really intended for, and when those delegates really vote are more of an issue than the process itself. Not that it can't be changed - it's just not the problem some want to perceive it as.

That minor nit aside, excellent list.

They don't say anything about the unbound delegates that the Republican Party has which is nearly the same.

People unfamiliar with the SDs think that they have a major impact.

Now maybe, maybe it should be refined. For example, SDs do not count if a candidate does not have 40 or 45% of the majority of pledged delegates.

That's a great idea. It's my club and you're not welcome. We already have people voting against their own interests so let's make it worse by disenfranchising almost half the country.

Also, national primary and shorter season. They are supposed to be working instead of campaigning.

There is evidence they've been hacked. There's been demonstrations on how easy it is to hack. There has been a case in Arizona where a guy had a 1099, paid to do hacking of vote counting. These vote counting machines are crap. Many don't even have a paper trail. Every system should have a paper trail and some random subset should have hand count audits, with public viewing of the counting (video uploaded to the internet as well as in-person viewing).

Current audits are poorly done and often don't match the machine vote counting (probably because it is hacked). There seems to be no quick remediation and no consequences for "shenanigans" - certainly not anything that deters it. So this needs to be addressed.

We need paper ballots, exit polls, UN monitors, whatever it takes to prove the vote counting isn't being hacked. Until we can prove the vote counting is aboveboard I prefer Caucusing. It's less likely to be hacked. There's no point in voting or having a democracy if it's fake because our voices are taken away from us on hacked vote counting machines.

As for closed primaries: Fix how somebody becomes a member. What do you think is the appropriate time to be in a party? 2 weeks? 6 months? a year? Make it universal. Then you have to have a way to make sure that strip and flip isn't happening. How do you do that? My daughter had her affiliation changed recently. She registered this year. Got a mailing and it was Democrat. She couldn't get to her caucus so missed that and then last week she got a mail and now she's listed as independent! The databases and/or employees maintaining them are substandard. I don' t think it was election fraud because the primary for our state was already over. It was just crappy handling of her affiliation status. What if it had happened before the primary? Provisional/affidavit votes are a joke. Before we have closed primaries we need to ensure that Democrats get to vote. No fraudulent changing of affiliations or purging. Until then I think closed primaries are just a way for the ethically challenged (and some idiots) to disenfranchise people.

Make primary day and GE day a holiday. Have voting at every elementary school, unless its very rural and then the high school. No gaming the system by reducing the polling stations. Early voting can be on weekends preceding the primary/GE. The schools should be available or can be made available.

Superdelegates: why are lobbyists supers? If you want to make sure a candidate has been in the party a certain time frame then great. However, this election has shown how Supers can be bribed essentially. They are being used to prop up the entrenched candidate instead of choosing the candidate most likely to win in the GE which was supposed to be their purpose. I think they should be tossed. We may nominate a damaged candidate for our side because she is so entrenched with the Supers, not because she is our best hope.

The biggest thing that gets me is that we know a lot of "irregularities" happened this year, but virtually nobody gets caught and it just happens again the next cycle. Election fraud should be investigated like it was a bank robbery. People caught caging, purging, stripping, flipping, electioneering, giving out false voter information, etc should get the same penalty as robbing a bank. Hackers should have a stiffer penalty, since they effect the whole precinct (or more). Those who collude even bigger sentences. Every victim should have a quick and easy way to fix the situation so they can vote and have their vote counted before the official tally.

Easier to participate.

Nobody is disenfranchised by data errors in with their party registration. (In the AZ primary, people who had been Democrats for decades were told they were listed as Independents and could only vote with provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are usually not counted.)

People who don't think of themselves as Democrats yet probably will after voting in a Democratic primary or two.

There is no party registration here. And not just MI. There are many states without party registration. So, as I call myself a big "D" Democrat, and I always vote that way, I have no documentation for that because state election law precludes it.

Tell me how your plan works here.


Frankly, I think all primaries should be open primaries. I suspect that you want them closed solely because such primaries seemed to favor your candidate this time.

That and the fact there is currently no legal way to close the primaries in states like MI, I am against them.

(Or in any of the other states without party registration.)

Start with answering that question and we can go on from there.

The party then holds closed caucuses and runs them like they were primaries to include early voting, mail in voting, etc. etc. etc.

So long as the party runs it and pays for it, the state of Michigan can take a flying leap.

Require them to register to vote twice.

Sorry. I cannot go along with that. It is a very, very bad idea. We want more voter turnout, not less.

My position, automatic voter registration and open primaries everywhere!

And it is the same in several other states without partisan voter registration.

What about this do you not understand?

I oppose restrictions to voting with every cell of my body.

My best to you.

In any state like Michigan, this is how the Democratic Party should conduct the nomination process.

If you do not have the commitment to join us, you do not deserve the ability to participate in our nomination process.

I strongly support moving to a closed caucus system where all participants must register with the party. It can be made easy, just sign up by a certain date online. No muss. No fuss. It weeds out the outsiders.

Who get no say in who gets to run for office. And BTW, the plurality of voters do not register for a party when they are able to do so. And not all parties are on the list for party registration even when it is available in a state. And again, many states have NO party registration BY LAW!

Apparently you are okay with that disenfranchisement. I am not. Closed primaries are an utterly fucked up idea.

When a state has an election you let everybody participate. Period!

edit: my best regards to you.

And states do not have any rights to say how a party will pick its nominee.

Hint: no candidate can win without independent voters. Let everybody have a say.

And again, I will support no electoral system which limits the right to vote. If it does not include everybody, it is not worth defending. We've been through this battle before, and restrictions have historically lost, unfortunately at times at great cost.

I cannot buy into such things as you and MM suggest.

We have to agree to disagree on this issue, hopefully respectfully.

Nobody gets disenfranchised because if you want to vote in Democratic primaries, simply join the party

or the other twenty-some states which have no party voter registration?

A suggested solution -- make them register twice, once to vote, and once for the party -- is fucking useless.

Face it, my friend. Your position ironically disenfranchises the very people that you want to vote. Why? And again, how will that work? Nobody advocating all closed primaries explains that, let alone how to make it work in states like Michigan without disadvantaging Michigan and its voters.

Face it! Admit it! This is all about Hillary not doing well in open primaries. It is the same reason why Hillary supporters don't like caucuses. Of course, an all closed primary system would allow the national and state parties more control of how and who gets on the ballot. Let that sink in for a second.

If one wants the Democratic Party to calcify and not expand (but fossilize) one might take on exclusionary policies like a universally inane and unworkable closed primary system.

I dread for my party if this is what is wanted by the "elites", who apparently know abso-fucking-lutely nothing.

And people post about the GOP destroying itself. I know of no better way of destroying a political party than to be exclusionary.

Thank you for your responses.

Whether with the state where states do such registration or with the party in states where there is no party registration, it's all the ame.

I am literally a card carrying Democrat and will always be one regardless of the state in which I reside.

And in some twenty-some other states!!!! BY STATE LAW!!!

There. I've run rings around you logically (Monty Python -- couldn't resist).

That kills your establishment party only closed primary system where the public is excluded.

If one has an election, whether a primary or otherwise, everybody gets to vote. PERIOD!

It really is that simple.

And although I have been a Democratic Party delegate multiple times and a county party officer, I was never issued a secret decoder ring. I just worked my ass off to elect Democrats. No special decoder rings. The proof was not a membership badge, it was what one accomplished.

What do you people have against the public voting? That's right. You think that they would likely not nominate your particular chosen candidate. For that, the rest of us have to suffer.

Open primaries everywhere. Let everybody vote, not just the select chosen few. And Hillary supporters are always talking about all her votes! As long as they are the right kind of votes, one would presume.

Sheesh!

As always,

A state party has every right to require registration with the party in the state to be a member of the party and there is not a thing the state can do to stop it.

It doesn't fucking matter what the law says, the state has no right to tell a party it cannot register members itself. Political Parties are private organizations and membership cannot be restricted by the state. Yes, you cannot register THROUGH THE STATE in Michigan but the state of Michigan has absolutely no power to stop the Democratic Party from privately registering members and holding binding caucuses to determine nominees at all levels. In fact, for the state of Michigan to do such a thing would be a flagrant violation of the first amendment.

In fact, you can register with the DNC. I am. I carry a DNC Card as a national member of the Demoratic Party.

Closed party run primaries everywhere. To fuck with non-Democrats having any say on our nominees,

Who thinks that that is a good idea?

You might as well go back to smoke-filled rooms and/or caucuses if you are going to do that.

A two-tiered system would cripple turnout. And it is totally unnecessary!!!

What harm is done by open primaries? I mean other than the national party endorsed candidate might not win.

That's right. There is no harm as she'd likely win anyway.

What do you have against the public choosing the candidates?

I am not a member of the DNC because I am too poor to donate and I do not particularly like the way they've been doing things. I tend not to encourage bad behavior, especially in my own political party.

Peace!

Democrats are the only people who should determine Democratic nominees. Fuck the shenanigans from Republicans, Socialists and all other non-Democrats.

I thought so from the beginning.

I've enjoyed our colloquy. Thank you for being polite and persevering.

Understand that I have been for open primaries for decades because I do not believe in disenfranchising voters and I support party outreach, not party exclusion. And your system for states like Michigan is utter lunacy. I am not likely to change my mind on this.

It's late and I have to put my head down.

Thanks again.
My best to you.

As a further note, you are not now nor will you ever be a friend to me.

Over intraparty political disagreements.
Silly. Petty actually. Part of the problem here these days.

Good night.

I have literally hundreds of acquaintances.

I have a limited number of friends, but each and every one is a true friend.

I measure friendship far deeper than silly interactions on an internet message board and have never formed a friendship online.

Since you and I will never ever meet in IRL, there is no way possible for us to ever become friends.

Getting rid of the caucuses is a priority for me.

Those evil, terrible, ne'er-do-wells MUST be cheating. Somehow.

Caucuses can allow early voting. Caucuses can allow vote by mail. There's nothing saying that Caucuses must be run like the Iowa Caucuses. Any state with open primaries required by law, the party can still pay for closed caucuses that they run like a primary vote.

And get Iowa and New Hampshire away from the beginning.

but would rather have a straw poll at caucus after the speeches etc.. There was way too much browbeating at caucus this year..

The down side of caucus is that people who are working etc do not get to participate.. and that is not fair..


So rethinking it.. an all day primary with a 2 hour caucus for those who want to do party building.. but if you can't make it you could still have your vote counted..but even in that caucus.. have the straw poll so no one can be browbeaten into a vote they are not comfortable with.. (first time I have ever experienced that.. it was uncomfortable to say the least)

People vote on a secret ballot basis at the caucus for their preferences, and the votes are counted by hand, in person, during the caucus. Those who are there can observe the process as they choose. Some attendees come, vote, and leave, though.

Still, attendance is too low to truly represent the wishes of the registered voters in the precinct. This year, there were only 58 votes, in a precinct with about 2300 registered voters. Very unrepresentative.

I ended up leaving caucus after O'Malley was not viable..because it just got to be too much.. so if this is the way it is going to be going forward.. I would rather it be primary or straw poll.. You are so right.. 58 is not Representative of the voters in your precinct.. Its a changing dynamic... that is for sure..

In reality we have a single party in the US - the Corporate Party. It has two wings, one of which gives lip service to a bunch of feel good social programs and, the other which now nakedly appeals to the nativists and bigots among us.

But neither of these two sub-parties has any intention of wresting control of the government from the hands of banks, corporations, globalism and the ultra wealthy and restoring it to the people.

Consequently, a list of "reforms" that effectively makes the Democratic wing of the corporate party more exclusive and less small d democratic is a waste of time.

And carefully select who has the right to vote.
Wouldn't want the wrong kind of people voting.

(Sarcasm)

Thanks for posting and sharing your suggestions.

Sounds good to me.

Open caucuses, because elections should be decided by people willing to get off the couch, and as a party we thrive by attracting independents, not shutting them out.

The DNC should act as independent mediator to help the various campaigns arrange debates in coordination with media, and not threaten to punish candidates that participate in debates without DNC permission.

Fuck the superdelegates.

"Uniform decorum rules" = "Roberts rules of order". Any chairperson failing to honor those rules should be summarily removed.

Set caucus dates (since caucuses don't need to be coordinated with state election personnel) such that the five states which voted in highest percentage for democrats in the last presidential election goes first, followed by the next five and so on. The nominee should be selected by states which might vote for him or her.

This has the merits of:
1) bringing independents to the party
2) giving the early lead to the candidate with the greatest apppeal to states which might support them in the general election
3) return the appearance of impartiality to the DNC
4) fucking the superdelegates.

Get to run. If you have not been a member of the party for at least three or four years you should not be able to use the party to run.

NT

election, drop delegates and the convention becomes a celebratory crowning of popular vote.
Via mail or via internet using a pin number as your ID. It cant be more hacked than it already is today. Voting will cost less for everyone. No more finding ballots in dumpsters and results can be seen nationwide as they are counted. Everyone is a registered voter at their 18th birthday, then they register with a party. No one is discriminated against or disenfranchized

You did not have to stay at the caucus site you made your selection then could leave. They also had online and mail in voting for it. Here is an article about it.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-07-internet-voting_x.htm