primitives discuss changing the primary system

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511888004

Oh my.

Actually, something similar with what the primitive's suggesting has been proposed before.....at past Republican presidential conventions.

Funtatlaguy (579 posts)    Tue May 3, 2016, 07:52 AM

My plan to revise the primary system.
 
No Caucuses

Five primaries held every 2 weeks representing different parts of country.

I would prefer having these every second Tuesday or every second Saturday.

E.g.
Start the first Tuesday in February with Iowa, N.H., S.C., Nevada, Montana.

If the Iowa and New Hampshire people freak out, let them go first on Tuesday and the other three then go on the following Saturday.

Then 2 Tuesday's later, 5 more states from different regions.....and, so on...and so on.

After 20 weeks, all 50 states would have voted.

2 weeks later, all U.S. Territories and D.C. vote.

All states should use the Presidential primary dates as the same date for their state and local primary election contests. This would drive up voter turnout and save the states from having to have multiple elections. 

No caucuses; agreed; they allow the fringe extremist elements to name a nominee.

The past Republican proposals suggested, as this primitive does, five scheduled primaries, spaced two weeks apart, making for a ten-week primary season.

The difference being the Republicans have proposed that the states with the fewest electoral votes go first, and then the states with the second-fewest electoral votes second, and then the states in the middle third, the medium-large states fourth, and the biggest three or four fifth.

FSogol (30,138 posts)    Tue May 3, 2016, 09:33 AM

2. Your plan is foolish. It allows for a DNC takeover of the entire process.
 
Currently each state makes a decision such as open or closed; primary or caucus; date etc.

Even though I hate caucuses, it is up to each state to decide. I live in a state where we do not declare a party when we register, but have no problem with limiting the selection of Democratic candidates to Democrats.

The only reform needed is to add some standards to how early must you register, can 17 years old register and vote in primaries if they'll be 18 for the GE, etc.

Well, after seeing what a mess of things the Bernie bullies have made with the Democrat party, I think it'd be a pretty damned good idea to let the DNC take over the whole (Democrat side) process; there'd be no downside to it.

Joob (636 posts)    Tue May 3, 2016, 09:48 AM

3. I'm torn between liking Caucuses and Not. I've only voted once and it was at one.
 
I liked how we could have an open discussion and make cases for our candidate if someone was undecided still and just being around people happy to vote regardless of who it was for. I like that we got to choose delegates from within our own districts and it was decided by voting. ( extra voting! ) It seemed very democratic and I loved it! Seeing people who rose up and spoke for their candidate the best is how we chose ours.

However, if a candidate didn't have enough votes then they could get all the delegates and that makes sense in a way, because we're representing a district but it felt like maybe the people with less votes for their candidate left with nothing.

However, in a way I see that as a small little election and encourages more voters to show up.
No one left angry or sad everyone enjoyed it and was happy. I made a friend that was supporting Hillary.

I guess I still got some questions about it.

Like

1: How do other states choose delegates? I heard of some way and know it's different, how is that more democratic

2. Did all the votes really count or is that just another way to choose delegates? Because if you think about it.. I saw online people choosing delegates on a paper for Bernie or Hillary. Wouldn't the ones with the most votes still win except no meet and greets? Like I did?

(though I'm pretty sure the delegates from my district and WA in general have three phases)

^ Is that the part where it gets weird? I've tried researching this...

[Carl]

None of either partys "elite" will surrender their fiefdoms.

[GOBUCKS]

No caucuses, no primaries except straw polls.

The party's state delegates should be selected by people with skin in the game at a state party convention. That system served us well for two hundred years.

By making the election a show business travesty, the current system has shown how easy it is for lunatics and demagogues to hijack the nation, as long as they can entertain the mob.

[USA4ME]

There is no really good way to do it, but I would like to see them find a better way than the one now. I would think all primaries, proportional delegates that are assigned via the primary vote (No "politicing for delegates at a State convention" that will vote for candidate A on the first ballot but who really likes candidate B and will vote according on the second and third ballots.), and you have to be registered with the party for at least one year before you can vote in that parties primary (exception: you just turned 18 or just became a US citizen within that one year).

The one thing that's become painfully obvious this election on the Republican side is that the "party elites/donor class/leaders/whatever you want to call them" really hate conservatives, especially social conservatives. The Dems already told them to take a hike years ago. Now the R's are doing this "let's get past these moral issues junk and just focus on economics", and that's a recipe for disaster.

Moral decline = it doesn't matter what you do economically -- you, as a country, are done.

[Ralph Wiggum]

The DNC & RNC still run too much, sadly IMHO.  Oh well...tis what it is.

[SVPete]

I realize CA doesn't get much "love" hereabouts, and with reason (but there are two apt single-word retorts: "McCain" and "Romney"), but  once again CA's primary will be irrelevant to the Rs and probably irrelevant to the Ds, because it's held in June. The last time CA's June Presidential primary was relevant was in 1980. Pro and con cases could be made for caucuses vs. primaries or winner-take-all vs. apportioned (e.g. by Congressional district), but scheduling primaries and caucuses over a period of four months is lunatic. It basically disenfranchises, for the Presidential race, the voters of the states whose primary or caucus is scheduled in the last 3-5 weeks of that time span.