What Would You Do to Change The Democratic Primaries for Our Next Election in either 2012 or 2016

[MadBadger]

Depending on which one we have one for. It is obvioius that there is a lot of disagreement on DU about what is fair and what is not fair in terms of the primaries, caucuses, schedule, superdelegates, etc. So, my question to all of you is, What would you do to change our Primary system for the better?

[Eric J in MN]

1. End caucuses for the presidential choice. End the superdelegate system.

Choose the presidential candidate entirely by primaries, which are open from about 7AM to 10PM.

[Vincardog]

2. Remember the Constitution of the USA? IF gives the elections to the STATES

[MadBadger]

4. We are playing dictator here

even though dictators dont have elections.

[Eric J in MN]

7. That refers to the general election. Parties can make rules....

...to select the party nominee.

Ross Perot didn't become his party's nominee by winning primaries.

Plus, the DNC decided on proportional awarding of delegates. The states didn't decide that.

[spongebobsquareshirt]

3. Straight primaries, no superdelegates

And the schedule of primaries should be decided by vote within the party.

[Diane R]

5. Put Iowa and N.H. at the end of the line....they've had their turns.

[CK_John]

6. I would become involved with the county DEM party and get to the 2010 party convention as a

delegate. This is where resolutions for change will take place.

[Johnny__Motown]

8. I would adopt a system similar to what Louisiana uses (as well as other changes)

You should hold one election that narrows the field to the top 2, then some time later hold another that picks the winner.


This would give the "second tier" candidates a chance to stay in longer and have their voices heard.

Also it would remove any "spoilers" at a specific time.



Next, public funding for all elections should be passed by our next president and this should be extended to primaries.


Next, no caucuses and expanded early voting so everyone has a chance to vote no matter what.


I would spread out elections so candidates have a chance to visit as many states as possible. No more super tuesday or anything like it. Also I would not release the results of any contest until all elections were held. Let everyone use exit polls to guess what the outcome was if they want to. No official results until everyone has had a chance to vote.


Super Delegates would be a tie breaker only. this would never happen so they would be functionally removed.

[MadBadger]

9. Here's what I would do

1. Scrap the Caucus system because it is unfair
2. Keep the same style schedule. Have four states have primaries first so that retail politics could flourish first. They should represent the different regions of the US. So basically the same thing, just switch it up. Like involve maybe New Mexico, Vermont, Alabama, and Wisconsin and The same schedule is fine otherwise
3. Scrap the Superdelegate system because it is not really fair either.

[question everything]

10. Give the same weight for each vote.

Whoever gets the most votes gets the most delegates. As opposed to what we had in Nevada, and perhaps in other states, where one candidate won the plurality of the votes while another - the delegates. Haven't we gone through something similar in 2000 when winning the most votes was not translated into winning the most electoral votes?

End caucuses that disenfranchise voters who cannot be at the caucus at as specific time. Stick with primaries that are open all day long and that allow for absentee ballots if someone cannot come to the poll on the assigned date.

Have rotating regional primaries, starting in February and have the next one in each month. And, yes, this includes Iowa and New Hampshire. As most of the candidates dropped before even Super Tuesday, the rush to the front did not help much.

Do away with Super Delegates.

[CalGator]

12. Caucuses are okay as long as they work like this...

The way NM and Maine had caucuses (disregarding the lack of ballots in NM) worked, where you could just vote and leave. Make a person list their 1st, 2nd, 3rd options. If their first option doesn't get the required % of votes, then the vote is transfered to the second, and then the third if even the #2 doesn't meet the requirements. It is similar to immediate runoff voting.

[CalGator]

11. here my plan

Hold Iowa and New Hampshire on the same day, that way there is no guarantee of a front-loaded primary that creates a front-runner (as Iowa and NH have different demographics), then MI and Florida 4-5 days later (gotta make it up to them for losing delegates this year). After that, SC and Nevada on the same day. After that, give a week and let the states decide when they want to vote. Any state that defies the calendar loses half the delegates (similar to Republican rules for the year), and campaigns sign plegded not to campaign there.

Proportional delegates based on % won is okay, but make the threshold higher. Instead of 15%, make it 20%, and 25% after the first six states. That means a blowout of 65-35 will give the winner nearly all the delegates (e.g. 17-3 instead of 14-6).

And you don't have to get rid of the super delegates, but make them a smaller percentage of the vote. Why is a 21-year-old college student a super?!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

13. End caucases, change the early voting states to ones more representative.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are NOT representative. How about a swing state that is more representative?

[CalGator]

14. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states

But yeah, there should be more early states involved. SC is not a swing state. NV was a good pick, perhaps Colorado could be added (as the new swing state in the west)?

[VotesForWomen]

15. one day national primary. nt