Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:33 PM Jun 2016

DNC presidential primary voting reform--where do you stand?

It looks like there will be three broad subjects when it comes to reforming the presidential primary process for the Democratic primary:

1) reduce or eliminate the influence/numbers of superdelegates;

2) get rid of traditional caucuses in favor of more inclusive, higher turnout primary-like voting

3) ban all closed primaries and make all primaries open to independents and Republicans

Which of these do we favor?


61 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
I favor none of these proposals
1 (2%)
I favor all of these proposals
23 (38%)
I favor only proposal #1 but oppose proposals #2 and #3
1 (2%)
I favor only proposal #2 but oppose proposals #1 and #3
22 (36%)
I favor only proposal #3 but oppose proposals #1 and #2
0 (0%)
I favor proposals #1 and #2 but oppose proposal #3
11 (18%)
I favor proposals #1 and #3 but oppose proposal #2
2 (3%)
I favor proposals #2 and #3, but oppose proposal #1
1 (2%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DNC presidential primary voting reform--where do you stand? (Original Post) geek tragedy Jun 2016 OP
#2 is the only one that will be truly considered by each state convention. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #1
For #3, you may have meant to type Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #2
yes I did, fixed. Thanks! nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #3
I support #1 and #2, but I mainly care about #2. tarheelsunc Jun 2016 #4
+1 Garrett78 Jun 2016 #10
Same ... I'm not as concerned about the super delegates. JoePhilly Jun 2016 #23
+3 (my family) Maru Kitteh Jun 2016 #31
Ban caucuses. Keep the rest. onehandle Jun 2016 #5
^^this^^ Sheepshank Jun 2016 #11
I favor national election with one set of rules, paper ballot counted with verifiable audit trail. peace13 Jun 2016 #6
"national election with one set of rules" TwilightZone Jun 2016 #7
I'm Going to say this, as a resident of Ohio and a former poll worker..... peace13 Jun 2016 #9
our election system is a hot mess--actually dozens if not hundreds of hot messes geek tragedy Jun 2016 #12
Agreed TwilightZone Jun 2016 #16
Agreed but there is an Article 2 Section 1 issue right off the bat trying to do anything from stevenleser Jun 2016 #25
True, it would require one of many overdue geek tragedy Jun 2016 #26
Amendments require 2/3 majorities and in both houses Maru Kitteh Jun 2016 #33
Sadly true nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #34
A national election would eliminate candidates that Bernie Sanders from the start... brooklynite Jun 2016 #8
All of the above, plus..... Armstead Jun 2016 #13
I favor #1, #2 I don't feel strongly about either way. I like the more active democracy of the TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #14
rough percentages thus far (combined) geek tragedy Jun 2016 #15
I would say move on with your life AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #17
We're discussing future changes, not the current system/primaries. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #35
I see disgruntled supporters of a winning candidate AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #37
Ban caucuses and open primaries; keep superdelegates and closed primaries (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #19
Seems like an awfully large amount of people like SD's MadBadger Jun 2016 #20
Could reflect primary divisions, and Trump's geek tragedy Jun 2016 #21
The DNC doesn't determine whether primaries are open or closed BainsBane Jun 2016 #22
I understand that, presumably some hortatory language geek tragedy Jun 2016 #24
I would go for a semi open primary like California. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #27
Caucuses are absolutely awful and I don't understand why anyone would still favor them. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #28
I have the warm fuzzies for the Iowa Caucus IADEMO2004 Jun 2016 #29
Superdelegates save us from cults of personality like Trump. Lyric Jun 2016 #30
What about same day registration? democrattotheend Jun 2016 #32
Exponential permutations. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #38
#3 is a bit severe. SpareribSP Jun 2016 #36
I support all 3 (nt)! bigwillq Jun 2016 #39
 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
1. #2 is the only one that will be truly considered by each state convention.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:36 PM
Jun 2016

Democrats actually like those superdelegates and closed primaries. They work.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
23. Same ... I'm not as concerned about the super delegates.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:13 PM
Jun 2016

By and large, super delegates have been found to be, by their constituents, usually by their own electoral success, strong democrats.

And even if you stopped having them ... those same people would still ENDORSE their preferred primary candidate any time they wanted. Go on TV and support them, and so on.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
5. Ban caucuses. Keep the rest.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:45 PM
Jun 2016

No Republicans or so-called 'Independents' should be able to pick the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
6. I favor national election with one set of rules, paper ballot counted with verifiable audit trail.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:52 PM
Jun 2016

Mandatory audits with observers. These in addition to 1,2 and 3 from above.

TwilightZone

(25,428 posts)
7. "national election with one set of rules"
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:01 PM
Jun 2016

The Constitution tends to get in the way of that one. States are given almost exclusive decision-making authority regarding elections, outside of issues covered by laws like the Voting Rights Act.

To have one set of rules, all states and territories would have to agree on them. Not likely. Some states can't even decide whether to have a caucus or a primary so they have both.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
9. I'm Going to say this, as a resident of Ohio and a former poll worker.....
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:23 PM
Jun 2016

.the system is broken. We have seen it many times this year in States across the country. More will be coming out about the problems. So, we need to work within the confines of the Constitution to construct a system that is valid and accessible to all who are eligible to vote. We need to verify votes and the delivery system. We need mandatory audits across the board. If we don't have these things we don't have an election and what would result is a selection. The States can handle it but the must provide for the above. The Feds aren't shy about handing out money and encouraging black box voting. If it they want these changes they can make it happen.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
12. our election system is a hot mess--actually dozens if not hundreds of hot messes
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:28 PM
Jun 2016

our voters deserve better

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
25. Agreed but there is an Article 2 Section 1 issue right off the bat trying to do anything from
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:21 PM
Jun 2016

a federal standpoint http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html

THE CONSTITUTION
Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Maru Kitteh

(28,314 posts)
33. Amendments require 2/3 majorities and in both houses
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:36 PM
Jun 2016

Does anyone really think the states have any desire whatsoever to do that?

Just not happening.


brooklynite

(94,352 posts)
8. A national election would eliminate candidates that Bernie Sanders from the start...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:10 PM
Jun 2016

There would be no value in small State retail campaigning. Focus would be on large population centers and advertising.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
13. All of the above, plus.....
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:30 PM
Jun 2016

I'd add group primaries somewhat differently.

Have a series of smaller UNSuper Tuesdays that are all representative of more diversity in each batch.

TheKentuckian

(25,020 posts)
14. I favor #1, #2 I don't feel strongly about either way. I like the more active democracy of the
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:30 PM
Jun 2016

caucuses over the driver thru version. They also seem to generally have a liberal bias so I see no reason to discourage them but I can live either way.

3. I favor semi open, excluding only registered Republicans.
If that isn't good enough then at minimum fund your own contest and also forgo matching funds and party label and party line voting in the general.
Wanna be a private club then give up institutional and public support and considerations. Strip the perks of duopoly away.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
15. rough percentages thus far (combined)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:31 PM
Jun 2016

Proposal #1: nearly evenly divided--48% support to 50% oppose
Proposal #2: near-universal support: 98% support
Proposal #3: facing an uphill battle:29% support, 70% oppose

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #18)

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
37. I see disgruntled supporters of a winning candidate
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:36 AM
Jun 2016

Attempting to erase the possibility of any non-DNC sanctioned candidate ever having a chance in a Democratic party primary again.



Not possible though, thank god. The states determine their own type of primary elections, sans DNC.

BainsBane

(53,012 posts)
22. The DNC doesn't determine whether primaries are open or closed
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:12 PM
Jun 2016

The constitution grants states the authority to run elections.

My view is that such decisions should consider the long-term results. The current spate of proposals is because people want to rewrite this past election cycle, but that is short sighted. Those who feel frustrated by centrist tendencies on the party of Democrats should realize that opening up primaries will likely move the party closer to the center. If I had an actual vote on this, I would look at the political science research on the subject. What I would not do is make a decision based on which system favored my particular candidate in 2016.

That said, working in GOTV activities taught me that caucuses are extremely restrictive since so few people can actually attend on the night in question. My own state of MN just passed a law moving from caucuses to primaries, and I am thrilled with the change. Since we have no party registration, there are in effect open--with a stipulation and which party primary one votes in becomes a matter of public record.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
27. I would go for a semi open primary like California.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:28 PM
Jun 2016

I think it is a bad idea to allow Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primary. The Greens in California ran a closed primary, so I would oppose them, too.

In a semi-open primary, those who voted in the Democratic Primary would be registered as Democrats.

Finally, I think same-day registration for those who have never registered before is a good idea.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
28. Caucuses are absolutely awful and I don't understand why anyone would still favor them.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:35 PM
Jun 2016

If a state tried to hold caucuses for the general election, that would never be considered acceptable. Why then is it okay to select a nominee with caucuses?

Honestly, my preference would be to just have a single nationwide primary day and have whoever gets the most votes is the nominee. No caucuses, no state conventions and no delegates at all. Just use popular vote to decide it.

IADEMO2004

(5,554 posts)
29. I have the warm fuzzies for the Iowa Caucus
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:20 PM
Jun 2016

Spending a couple hours every four years with a room full of my democratic neighbors is wonderful. I'm in a small precinct with less than a hundred attending in a big year.

Lyric

(12,675 posts)
30. Superdelegates save us from cults of personality like Trump.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:26 PM
Jun 2016

Caucuses are incredibly unDemocratic and they are discriminatory against people with certain mental illnesses that involve social anxiety, fear of large crowds, fear of public speaking, etc. We get far better turnouts with private individual voting.

Open primaries make it too easy for members of other parties to sabotage the nomination process. Absolutely not, never, no way.

However, I WOULD support a national system like Oregon has, where you can vote entirely by mail. That would increase participation by disabled and elderly people, as well as poor people who can't get time off to go vote.

SpareribSP

(325 posts)
36. #3 is a bit severe.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:33 AM
Jun 2016

Perhaps semi-open to independents, but not republicans. At the very least, there should be plenty of time to change party if closed, none of that New York nonsense.

Also we should reinstate the voting rights act. I live in Arizona and have a lot of friends in Pheonix who tried to vote day of... Enough said, I think

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»DNC presidential primary ...