Reforming The Primaries

[Prophet 451]

So, for anything else we might say, this horribly extended campaign has pointed out the flaws in the primary system. Obviously, it's too late to do anything about it this time around but in the interests of avoiding this kind of mess next time around, can we have a discussion (a reasonable one) about how to reform the primaries? For my money, I'd like to see a one-day (or maybe long weekend) primary and superdelegate status stripped from the unelected SDs. No problem with the supers who are either elected or have been (i.e. there's a couple of former presidents and VPs in there) but the unelecteds are unanswerable to anyone. Oh, and some kind of formalised system and table of punishments for states who jump the queue.

Your thoughts?

[Connie_Corleone]

1. There's very little wrong with the primary system.

A long primary system is a good thing. You get to know more about the candidates. They get vetted more. You see how each candidate manages their campaigns, during the good times and the bad times.

It's helped me to see that I made the right choice last summer.

It seems to me, the ones who want it changed are supporting the candidate that's losing. How many times has Hillary said that she would be winning if we ran the primaries like the Republicans?

[mrbluto]

5. Consult a physician.

You might have a condition named "Logico-Bizzarous", often referred to as Bizzaro syndrome where everything is it's opposite, but with out consistency.

Seriously - the primary system is screwed up.

What can you say about a process that has contributed so much to a situation where the party that matches the intent and objectives of the electorate much closer than the party it opposes, yet manages to fumble the general election so many times? (or allows it to be stolen.)

[Connie_Corleone]

12. Are you a child or do you just act like one by insulting people?

I don't have time to waste on childish responses. I'll just put you on Ignore.

[mrbluto]

41. So you read one line and decide to ignore?

So there's a bit of snark.

Did you read the rest?

I ask a pertinent question: look at the failures of Democratic attempts to win the whitehouse. These happen despite the fact that the democratic platform more closely matches the practical interests of the general electorate.

It's not a case of "What's the matter with Kansas?" I think we need to ask "What's the matter with the Democratic party's strategy?"

A big problem is the primary system.

One bothersome thing I've encountered in these discussions is the number of people that like to yammer "One person, one vote - no superdelegates" till it sounds like a slogan out of Orwell's Animal Farm.

You'd think, being the smarter, less ossified party there'd be some recognition of the need for a way to handle the selection of a nominee in a more nuanced way than a straight vote amongst Democrats when the office is national and general.

A straight vote makes the perfect the enemy of the good. I'd rather have my 3rd or 4th tier democratic contender win, rather than my favorite choice lose. Everyone decries "backroom deals" that super delegates, or a brokered convention, suggests - but this is politics folks. There must be deals. Sometimes those deals are useless, or less valuable if they are general knowledge.

One of those sorts of deals is "You have a great point, you've done a lot for the party, but you're not likely to win the general election - please; what post, what budget promise, what commitment to what legislation, will you accept not to split our vote on this issue? Otherwise we'll both get nothing. The Republicans will prevail.".

That deal is a lot less attractive if the person who gets elected has to say "God knows why X wanted this {program/legislation/whatever}. As our completely transparent and well publicized negotiates make clear: I disagree with him actually on whether it will help, but since it was a close race versus our opponents and, frankly, I thought it was a minor issue compared to everything else at stake. So I promised to propose this legislation. Here it is."

Subsequent to such a statement elected person looks like a fool or shallow, and person X is now pissed that his program was not genuinely supported. Everyone sees what a "deal" is worth (not much) and no longer makes them - they fight tooth and claw to have the power to compel and dictate terms, rather than negotiate. The party splinters into as practically as many shards as there are individual members. Well, the Democratic party would. The Republicans have an easier job - they don't mind lying to each other, nor paying each other off, nor kicking people out for being RINOs, nor need much nuance for their issues - they seem to love simple (and poisonous) tropes. (guns, god and money boils down pretty easy)

As much as it might seem to be compromise, Not making deals is actually an ethically, morally and intellectually lazy way of preserving one's "purity" and leaving the field of combat to the monsters the current system creates.

It takes real strength and commitment to persist in an endeavor where you're only going to get 1-2% of it accomplished per year. It's ultimately rash and lazy to stomp your feet about an issue that isn't solved by the first election cycle two after it dawned on you that a problem existed.

Bottom line? IMHO the democratic primary system, while providing admirable candidates, has not selected enough "winners" given the advantages the democrats enjoy. It should be refactored/reformed. The result should not be a simple "50+1" set-up. Somehow the GE must be reflected, somehow there should be a requirement of some sort of a super-majority. That and the publicity and public platform that primary events provide should not be discarded either.

But you put me on ignore Connie_Corleone, so you haven't read any of this, did you?

What a supremely Democratic impulse, this "let it sink" thing, eh?

What if that were standard operating procedure in the democratic party as a whole? Think things would get better? Even if you don't give a person's opinion much weight - do you think it helps to tell them they're not going to get listened to ever again? What sort of message do you think that sends to everyone else who sees such an interaction? Maybe the message is "Don't dare say anything too different from the common opinion unless you have power - otherwise you'll never get listened to again. " This shunning tactic is not a good thing. It homogenizes - It breeds the sort of groupthink that is always shockingly surprised when it meets it's day of reckoning.

As for it's a "Clinton supporter" thing - I heard plenty of people complaining at one point how evil it was for Hillary to use her influence to pack so much onto super tuesday. I don't happen to be a Clinton supporter.

Does your perspective stretch past this one election. Do you really look at the primary system and think there's little to fix?

I actually think your perspective is distorted by your loyalty to the temporary advantages to a favored candidate.

[Prophet 451]

26. Dude, *reasonable* discussion n/t

[ekwhite]

29. Not everyone who supports changing the primaries is a Hillary supporter

Doing things differently in 2012 would make a big difference in party unity, and avoid the Florida and Michigan debacles. The plan endorsed by the National Association of Secretaries of State makes a lot more sense than the system we have now. Look it up at www.nass.org.

[SparkyMac]

2. First -- abolish super delegates

Two - Winner take all in the primaries.

[MattBaggins]

39. No way on winner take all or one day primary

I am a New Yorker and even I don't want either of those two choices. Winner take all? If I wanted to be a Republican I would join them.

[anonymous171]

42. Revolving state primaries. 1 round of primaries should be from each part of the country.

North, West, South, and East. Then choose the states randomly.

[billyoc]

3. I like the system the DNC has now. Any states that jump the queue are stripped of their delegates.

C'est tout, en point.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Why?

First, it's not "a system". It's just an arbitrary and draconian punishment that was used this year.

But why do you like it? Do you think Iowa and New Hampshire should, forever and always, be given primacy in picking our nominee?

[billyoc]

33. I'm not wedded to the order of the states, but line-jumpers must be excluded.

Or we'd need a time machine to go back to primary day next time, every state will jump back another month until the primaries for next year will be held last year.

[MattBaggins]

40. I don't like it and think that should be changed.

I am willing to accept those two states going first and keeping things spaced out a bit. If you think it would be good for NY, FL, OH and CA to tell the rest of the country to F-off and decide the nominee then by all means let's just let everyone go when they want.

[Quantess]

49. It's SO unfair!

New Hampshire always gets to pick the nominee. I live in Oregon, and this was the first primary, ever, where we make a difference. But even this (remarkable) year, all we did was solidify it for Obama. He was already poised to be the nominee.

What makes New Hampshire so special?

If we cannot all have the primaries on the same day, then at least there should be a lottery system. States should be drawn from a hat, deciding the order in which states have their primaries.

[kennetha]

4. Outlaw Caucuses!

Caucuses are no way to run a democracy

[Prophet 451]

7. Well, OK, what's the reasoning there?

What is it about caucuses which makes them undemocratic?

[kennetha]

8. Duh!

Like everything about them! You have to show up at a specific hour and vote in the open! Disenfranchises anybody who can't vote at time certain and disenfranchises those who don't want some mob haranguing them as they vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Very very few people attend them

compared to a primary. A lot of people CAN'T attend them, because they're at a specific place at a specific time. People are pressured for their vote, and they often have to make their vote publicly known.

And the results don't match the actual will of the voters - look at Texas.

[Prophet 451]

17. OK, so what replaces them?

I mean, are we talking about removing the existing caucuses and putting standard primaries in their place?

Of course, I'm not sure how you deal with that weird system Texas has.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. I actually like Texas' system despite the fact that it is weird

Caucuses are a great way to build state parties. Granted they are very unfair to those who can't show up. IMO all states should have primaries but if they want to have caucuses as well a very small portion of their delegates should be apportioned by the caucuses. That way it is more democratic but you can still have that small incentive for people to attend the caucuses as well.

[ekwhite]

31. I would disagree

Caucuses are inherently democratic. Like the New England town halls, they harken back to the original Democracy, Athens, in which people would gather together, discuss the issues of the day, and vote on them. Caucuses can encourage negotiation and compromise among neighbors, and force people to justify and defend their choices, not just vote unthinkingly.

The problem with caucuses is that they are just not workable on a larger scale - they require face-to-face contact that is not possible in a large urban state. Certainly, caucuses would fail miserably in a state like California, but they have worked well for many years in Iowa. Let the states decide what type of voting system they want.

[rpannier]

6. Dump the SD's all together

Make the primaries refelct the actual vote of the state.

[ruby slippers]

9. only allow voters to vote in the party they registered in for the last

six months and then don't allow them to switch back for another four years.

[Alcibiades]

11. I like that one

I don't think a lot of party leaders will go for that, however, because I don't think they like would the idea of preventing a voter from registering as a Democrat under any circumstances. There's also the problem of who acts first, here. This would have to be done under state election laws and not by the parties.

[Prophet 451]

19. Problem there...

...is that although it locks out the Repub pot-stirrers (which I'm all in favour of), it also locks out the late-deciding independents.

[ruby slippers]

38. not if you allow Indies to vote either party and not change their parties

for four years either. Everyone should be an Independent in my opinion. Forget the parties.

[Alcibiades]

10. The length of the primary does ensure that all states "matter"

One of the problems has been that so many are discouraged early on. A longer primary means that candidates can stay in the race and hope to do better in later primaries. It also means that candidates have time to go around and campaign in different states and regions.

This is the first time in my lifetime that we have had a candidate who does not want to take it to the convention for strategic reasons, but who is actually deluded about their actual chances of winning. Most of the time, the problem is that the election is resolved early and that the later states don't matter. This time around reveals a hitherto unknown benefit of having a later primary: yes, when the nomination is sewn up early (as they have been for our party in recent years), states with late primaries don't matter, but, on the other hand, in those years when the primaries are close, there's a greater chance that your state can become decisive.

We do, however, need to ditch the superdelegate system. Early on, the Clinton campaign developed a strategy revolving around these delegates, and their support (often given back when she was "inevitable") has enabled her campaign to game the system, giving her an artificially high number of delegates, and thereby sustaining her campaign, even when it had become clear that most of the party's voters had buyer's remorse. The whole point of the superdelegate system was to prevent the sort of debacle we have had this primary season. Maybe one fix might be to prevent superdelegates from declaring support for a candidate until about a month or so before a given state's primary or caucus.

The queue jumping issue isn't usually a problem, though I think we are seeing the system imposed this time around becoming the de facto solution.

[Prophet 451]

20. My problem with the length of the primary season...

...is actually most obvious this year in that the candidates use up their actual *points* within the first couple of months and thereafter, you're down to mud-slinging. The other problem is the reverse of the normal situation. Whereas normally, the early states decide the matter, this year, we're getting to the point where smaller states are getting a disproportionate influence on the system.

[Bucky]

13. One big national primary would benefit the fat cats' favorite & doesn't allow for grassroots surges.

I'd like to see the following forty year experiment: arrange the states into 10 region primaries, then allow them to draw lots to determine the first year's primary schedule. After that, they'd follow a rotating schedule, so that each region has an equal chance of being the one to have the "first say" in who we nominate.

This system would break up the monopoly that Iowa & New Hampshire have enjoyed for the past forty years since their contests became a big deal, but still allow for the little surprises that come from giving ordinary voters a voice in the system.

Of course now, good luck getting fifty state legislatures to go along with a system like that.

[Prophet 451]

22. I like that one

Of course, as you say, the chances of getting the states to agree to it are pretty much nil.

[ekwhite]

32. What you are essentially talking about is the NASS plan

www.nass.org

[happyslug]

37. The present system favors the fat cats.

Fat cats just have to spend their money on the early primaries and get whom their want in most cases. As the "winner appears", more money goes to the "winner". Thus the "Fat Cats" know they have the best advantage if they donate early. Obama and Hillary BOTH spent much of their money upfront to push all the all candidates into "Defeated" Status. As "Defeated Candidates" they could NOT raise the money needed to stay in the election and forced to drop out. Thus it is who spends the most money early that wins the primary system, and this year that was Hillary, but Obama was #2 in money early on (And is #1 in money now that he appears to have won the nomination). People "invest" money into campaign of people who they think will win, NOT in campaigns that appears to be losing (This Hillary's present problem since she is close but #2 in delegates).

The better solution is to dilute the advantage of such "Fat Cats" by having a one day National Primary day. In such a situation people who are strong in one region of the country can win in that area. We can then force the Conventions to do what conventions were design to do, PICK THE CANDIDATe from among the winners in the Primaries.

For example, Edwards would have won a lot more delegates in a one day primary then he did over the time period he had to do so this year. It would have put him in a stronger position to have the candidate actually selected to support more of the things he supports (Included Universal Health Service, something Obama has refused to do for it requires MANDATORY participation to work and Obama's plan includes that the plan be "voluntary").

I am sorry, Conventions should be where we pick candidates NOT primaries. There is no way any candidate can make himself know to the Country without support of "Fat Cats" in the present system (You need money to run). By permitting candidates to pick what states they want to run in, you can get a mix bag out of the primaries but that can be resolved in the Conventions.

Let make the Conventions more than a good time bash, lets make it mean something i.e. where the candidate is to be selected out of the people who have shown their have support in various parts of the Country.

No this will force most states to reduce the number of signatures to get on the ballot (Through you can solved this by permitting just write in votes). Another solution will be if you are on the ballot in ANY state, ALL other states must put you on the Ballot. This avoid the situation like I had in Pennsylvania where The person who was my first choice to vote for, Edwards, was NOT even on the ballot (Do to the fact he had suspended his campaign do to a lack of money).

Yes, there are problems with one day primary, but those problems are NOT caused by who has the most money when the campaign starts. Hillary had the most money, but Obama was #2 and that is normal, the people with the most money tend to win early and often in the present system. This year, for the first time in decades, two candidates survive the primaries with a chance at getting the nomination. This may very well go to the Convention, so that the people who will probably run this campaign at the local level will pick the Candidate. That is a good way to select the nominee and a National Primary day will provide the same.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. That will just allow the fat cats to pick the candidates in a backroom at the convention

Which was basically how it went before 1972. That was the old fat cat system. Money and front loading are the new fat cat system. We had a brief 20 year period between 1972 and 1992 where a darkhorse candidate could get the nomination by knocking on doors in Iowa and New hampshire. By the time we had the next truly open primary (2004), candidates were rejecting public financing and it became necessary to spend millions to win even in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I don't know what the perfect solution is, but I don't think we should return to the days when delegates to the convention picked the nominee instead of voters. I do think that all candidates should adhere to party imposed spending limits.

[happyslug]

57. Even today the delegates pick the nominee,

There is NOT law requiring them to vote for the Candidate they are pledged to, and that pledge ends after the first ballot.

My point is to force the Fat Cats to spread they money around. Don't give them a candidate on the cheap. I am sorry it is hard to cut out the Fat Cats, they have the money that any candidate needs. My point is by having a one day primary, the possible candidates can be large in number and the Fat Cats by the shear number of candidates can NOT dominate the process. The present system favors the Fat Cats, they can give money to all the Candidates, indenting all of the candidates to the Fat Cats, and then back the winner of the early primaries, cutting off the rest. Thus when it comes down to the big primaries only a select few (and in most cases one) candidates is already the "winner".

I am sorry, crooked deals are how things get done. When Johnson forced through the 1964 Civil Rights Act he made so many deals with individual Senators that you would be shocked (Mostly to keep the bill from being killed by the Filibuster, but some to get the Filibuster stopped). The same thing with mos bills, Otto Von Bismark famous comment "To make Laws is like making Sausages, it is NOT for weak stomachs". Can a Candidate operate within such a system, the Convention is the best place to see that happen NOT the primaries.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Backroom deals are what gave us the '68 convention...

They are fine for passing legislation but cause serious problems when they are the primary method used to pick the nominee.

[anigbrowl]

50. Your argument makes no sense

You say fat cats just spend lots of money now to make the other candidates look weak before the Iowa and NH primaries. If they had a national 1-day primary the exact same thing would happen. You'd end up with 10 candidates at the convention and endless floor-votes being made on the basis of a brief acquaintance, and nobody would be happy but the eventual winner. The long primary system is as much a demonstration of how the candidates would run their administrations as anything else.

Sorry, I see why you're not fond of the current system but your proposed alternative is open to all kinds of dreadful abuse.

[happyslug]

53. A successful President is one who works with others.

The present system does NOT reveal that ability. The present system rewards those who can raise the most money, get the most supporters (Even if no where near the Majority) and spend the most time on the campaign trail as opposed ot what he or she will do in office, work with others especially Congress to get things done. Thus in a Convention the winner will be someone people can work with for they had work with him or her in the convention. After several Conventions the candidate will be someone who had worked with others in several conventions. Sorry the present system gives us people who, on the surface, are popular, but whose history of working with others is then (And the ability to work with others is what makes a great leader, just look at Lincoln and FDR, both picked in Conventions do to they ability to work with others when other candidates were much more popular).

[theboss]

16. I actually think the length is just about fine

My concern about the length of the process has nothing to do with it lasting until June. My concern is that Hillary is going to force it to last until the end of August.

One thing I would do is look at the proportional breakdown of delegates. I'm not sure if "winner takes all" is the right way to go, but it seems silly that a candidate can win a state and get only a two or three delegate boost. I think there needs to be some sort of locked in advantage for winning a state - say 10 to 20 percent of all delegates as winner take all.

This idea may actually have helped Hillary, which is fine with me even though I support Obama.

[Prophet 451]

23. OK, that's reasonable

Some kind of reward for winning the state, yes?

[theboss]

34. Absolutely.

I think it's pretty stupid that Hillary could "win" Indiana and only get a +1 boost.

I also think it's pretty stupid that Hillary could lose Georgia by 37 points and still come out with 26 delegates.


I would like a rule that winning the state gives you 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at the outset. And make the rest proportional.

Eliminate the super delegates and I think that is a pretty 'fair' system. It gives you proportionality which forces candidates to engage all the states, while still rewarding a win.

[wellstone dem]

18. Get rid of the super delegates, everything else is fine.

[theboss]

21. The Super Delegate rule proves how stupid the proportionality rules are

We have set up this insanely intricate system for fairness in the actual primaries - so fair that it pretty much guarantees a tie in a close race.

Meanwhile, we have this utterly undemocratic super delegate process on top of it.

Explain how these two approaches make any sense in tandem.

[Prophet 451]

24. I actually like the proportionality rules

My problem with the superdelegates is that although the elected ones are democratic (since they can be made to account for their vote), the unelected ones don't have to answer to anyone.

[NashVegas]

25. The Extended Campaign Isn't the Problem - The EARLY Campaign Is

The early campaign makes the selection process all about the donors. Pols work behind the scenes for a full year, raising money before voters have any chance or reason to start getting excited.

Then half of them drop out before February, guaranteeing the boredom of all but the most heavily invested.

[Prophet 451]

27. Granted

The problem with American politics, both in primary and GE, is that the only people who can afford to run are the hugely rich or those with access to them which shuts out the truly gifted in favour of teh conventional (I like Obama but he's hardly a maverick). Winston Churchill could not get elected under these circumstances, nor could any of teh Founding Fathers.

[ekwhite]

28. I agree the primaries need reforming, but your plan won't work

The problem with a one-day primary is that it will favor the big name, big money candidates, and disenfranchise the small states. I would rather go with a series of regional primaries. The National Association of Secretaries of State has come up with such a plan. Take a look at it - I would like to see the Democratic party endorse such a plan.

[Prophet 451]

30. Well, I was spitballing there

Just kicking out an idea to get things started.

I will read their plan but it's about 20 pages and I'm working at the same time...

[newmajority]

35. If any election reform, either primary or GE does not begin with smashing electro-fraud machines

..then it would be pointless.

Until those machines are gone, there will be no truly valid elections. We could always do a caucus in every state instead of primaries, but we would still be stuck with them in November.

I don't care if the primaries start in January or in June, as long as you can actually vote.

[Prophet 451]

36. Well, obviously n/t

[msallied]

44. The superdelegates are the only thing wrong with it.

[MarjorieG]

46. Current system allowed an insurgent campaign to build past known brand advantage

So I think the proportional delegate selection good for the process. The Clintons have had an almost twenty year history in these states and an amassing of power. The insurgent Obama had to be amazing, but the system allowed for him.

Caucuses are more transparent than electronic voting, and citizenry at its most expressive of Democracy.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Reforming the primary system is a lot easier said than done

The current system is far from perfect. But the fact is that it's a lot better than the system we used to have where candidates were picked at the back rooms at the convention.

One day primaries make money too big of a factor and that means outsiders don't have a chance. The redeeming factor of the current system is that it gives outsiders like McGovern, Carter, and Hart a chance to actually get the nomination. On the other hand, it's an obscure system and arguably undemocratic in many ways.

[msallied]

51. Very true. And election reform in the USA is next to impossible.

Because so much happens at the state or district level. A widespread reform would cost untold amounts of money and would put burdens on states that simply do not have the money to compete with bigger, more lucrative states.

[loyalsister]

48. Local control

I know it may have a conservative ring, but hear me out.

Given the local determining factors, and local traditions, I am very sure that this issue is not something that should be decided at a national level.
I live in Missouri, we vote on Super Tuesday and have open primaries. I am satisfied, myself. I do not think that I need to convert Iowa, however.
Aside from that, states and counties control elections.
Whatever system is designed must be be put in place with cooperation between party leadership, and states. Ideally, people will be heavily involved at the grassroots level as well.

That said, I think that agreements that provide for maximum voter participation need to be made and honored .

I don't know the answers, I only have opinions of what should be taken into account.

[msallied]

52. I agree completely.

I made a similar sentiment above. There simply is no way to fairly institute a blanket reform when we're talking about 50 states and 538 districts to contend with. Each state should have the system that best matches what is best for its fiscal and demographic makeup. As with anything else in America, real change starts from the ground up.

[DemVet]

54. One day national primary system, proportional delegates, majority wins, NO superdelegates.

That's my proposal (and has been for some time now) in a nutshell.

[Prophet 451]

56. But...

...As was pointed out when I kicked the idea of a one-day primary out upthread, that gives an advantage to whichever candidate is backed by the powerbrokers.

[mrbluto]

59. It also wastes an opportunity to get coverage.

The MSM would love to have Democratic efforts wrapped-up in a day or week or two.

The length of the primary system has at least one benefit - it creates a number of events that induce coverage and publicity for issues the MSM would love to gloss over.

I'm no fan of how long the primaries last, but any replacement should take into account what it's replacing. (and try, or at least consider trying, to replicate the good things)

[Orsino]

55. Lottery for state primary dates.

Give each state a one-or-two-month window for its primary/caucus, with each state party required to sign onto this process before the drawing of dates, cutting in half the total number of delegates for violations of the window, and possibly removing the superdelegates. This is intended to prevent states' trying to make themselves more important either by jumping the gun or by holding out until the end of the primary season.