Democrats Seek Revamp of Primary System

December 31, 2009 10:15 AM

A group of high-ranking Democrats has voted to approve recommendations that would revamp the Democratic Party's presidential primary process, in part by eliminating the unpledged superdelegates that caused so much consternation during the last election cycle.

The Democratic Change Commission, which is led by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, was established at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. It was formed following the hard-fought battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the party's nomination, a contest that many worried would be decided by the so-called superdelegates who do not have to vote based on their state's primary or caucus results.

Under the Democratic Change Commission recommendations, those superdelegates would become National Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official delegates – and they would have to vote based on the will of the Democratic voters in their state.

The commission is also recommending that presidential primary voting and caucusing not take place before Feb. 1st in the future. In 2008, the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses took place on January 3rd........

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/31/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6041641.shtml

The caucus in my state was horrible, not to mention that it required attendees to be available during a brief two-hour window on a day when many people had to work.

At least not until the electro-fraud machines are gone.

Though I will agree that caucuses should be held on Saturday evenings. You'll never get a time that's convenient for absolutely everyone, but that's probably the best solution for maximum inclusion.

I'd rather take my chances with the machines, that's how bad it was. I'd definitely prefer a paper ballot, that's for sure. But if you'd been at the mayhem and railroading nightmare that was my caucus, you'd probably feel differently. I was not allowed to speak and anyone supporting Hillary was shouted down. People left. The rules were abandoned and thrown to the winds. I mean, it was a freaking nightmare (and I didn't really mean to hijack this thread to re-live it). I left in tears.

The DLC team tried to force a unanimous Kerry vote, but it wasn't gonna happen. Not in a precinct that was pretty much an even Dean/Kucinich split.

2008 was very orderly here. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was an Obama win with a respectable Hillary turnout. No other options available by that time unfortunately.

and it was the Dean people who tried to railroad us. All they did was get more people to switch to Kucinich. Then they tried to get the local radio station to believe that votes for Dean were stolen and that Kerry didn't really win our precinct (untrue; I was there). It was the darndest thing. I think the same people came back in 2008 on steroids!

to each other. By the time my state voted in the primaries, my first AND second choice had already been forced to end their candidacy. Even if a lot of people do not think those certain candidates stand a decent chance of winning, I would still like the right to vote for my first choice.

A full primary season with just two candidates (as happened in 2008) was ridiculous, but at least that was slightly better than in 2004 when the DLC and the media declared Kerry the "winner" before 75% of the country had even voted.

Nor should Iowa (a state owned by MonSatan) and New Hampshire (which had Diebold problems in both 2004 and 2008) always be the first to decide. What would truly be fair is this.....

1) No primaries or caucuses at least until April of election year.

2) From April to June have primaries and caucuses each Saturday evening (for maximum accessibility)

3) Take July off and have the national convention in August. If there is no clear winner after the primaries, the winner is decided at the convention.

4) Order of primary elections will be rotated every election cycle so all states get the opportunity to be "first" (and giving a candidate the initial boost) and last (putting the winner "over the top")

5) Public financing would obviously be a requirement of this new and more fair system, to allow all candidates to compete in all states, unless they chose to drop out voluntarily. Number of votes should make that determination, NOT number of corporate sponsors.