How would you reform the primary system?

[RR1997]

I think most of us can agree that the current delegate system is terrible. How would you reform the current primary system.


I think we should abolish delegates and give the nomination to the candidate that wins the most votes. If no candidate gets a majority, then there should be a run-off election between the top two candidates.

What do you guys think?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Each state needs to use the same consistent methodology.

I dont care what it is, and there are advantages to WTA and proportional delegate allocation.

As for the final convention vote, a plurality should win it.

But it needs to be consistent "state to state". The simple logic behind that does not need to be explained.

[Famous Mortimer]

Standards across the whole country.

Elections on Saturdays.

6AM to 12AM.

Instant run-off voting.

Most votes wins.

Five states or territories voting at a time, over 11 weeks, order picked at random.

No caucuses.

No super delegates.

Delegates bound to vote based on how their state voted proportionately, this done only for the sake of being able to hold a convention.

[DS0816]

Yes.

In the Democratic Party, gone would be those superdelegates.

No more caucuses.

Also: The Old Confederacy states would not be, for the majority of them, early in the primaries' schedule. Two or three of those states within the first full month is okay. No more.


Some big changes need to happen in this party.

[Sir Mohamed]

I would give the winner of the national popular vote a few hundred extra delegates.

[Slander and/or Libel]

How would we deal with a decision threshold for delegates if contests are proportional AND delegates are bound? Could each delegate present a ranked choice ballot, except that they have to put their bound candidate at the top, to preserve some individual autonomy for delegates, and have the vote count proceed according to IRV? Or should they just be cut out of the process entirely? If so, how?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Two changes:

1. Make caucuses universal to reward those who actually care about politics

2. Allow people who have multiple residences to vote in all the primaries for which they would be theoretically eligible to (i.e. Mitt could actually vote everywhere).  Since the rich people have to pay all the taxes, they should get more say.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Two changes:

1. Make caucuses universal to reward those who actually care about politics

2. Allow people who have multiple residences to vote in all the primaries for which they would be theoretically eligible to (i.e. Mitt could actually vote everywhere).  Since the rich people have to pay all the taxes, they should get more say.

1) What about people who care deeply about politics but have two young children and can't make it out that night?

2) Gross.

[Clark Kent]

Everyone votes on the same day, use IRV, and only allow party members to vote in a particular primary.

[President Johnson]

Just one national primary, like governors and senators are chosen. Independents chose whether to vote in the Democratic or the Republican primary.

[Illiniwek]

I could be up for something like a rotating-order region-by-region primary system, but I don't necessarily need it.

There is one thing though that drives me crazy that I would beg to change:

I hate all of these different levels of the delegate selection that drag out for months. I would not want to elect a delegate to go to a county convention, who will then elect a delegate to go to the state convention, who will then elect a delegate to the national convention, who then finally actually vote for the candidate. The county and state delegate-selecting conventions just seem like a waste of time. Whether you have a primary, a caucus, or a ND-style convention, just have the voters elect the national convention delegates, based on who they are pledged to vote for on the first ballot.

[MK]

No caucuses and more winner take all states.

Suffle the states that vote .   Iowa wouldn't be 1st anymore something like this  NH and FL then add NY and CA to  super Tuesday. Though I think for the republicans SC would prob be in place of FL. Since its more of an indcation of their base support.   Iowa shouldn't vote until the later months(maybe the same night as Mich).    With this your nominee is pretty much picked by the end of super tuesday unless you have two very strong candidates that are splitting the vote. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Replace state-by-state delegate contests with a nationwide primary, using the IRV.

[Leinad]

As far as I know a nationwide primary wouldn't be possible due to states needing to have their primaries at certain times. Also, I like the idea of a few states going first so that they can closely look at the candidates, and smaller candidates would have a chance at gaining momentum with a cheaper start.

If candidates were forced to run a national campaign from the start, that would put a big weight on the influence of money, would it not? Although maybe non-binding straw polls would have the same effect.

Anyway, state shuffling, to a degree, would be necessary if it's still staggered. I'd say to divide the states into 4-5 regional groupings, and start off with 1 from each of those regions, either at once or in quick succession. The states would be rotated in some way, so it's not always IA/NH/SC/NV going first. These would be purely proportional--no delegate thresholds, WTA thresholds, or CD/county/whatever stuff. If you get 26% of the vote, you get about 26% of the delegates.

Next I'd have a few more states from each region, either going all at once or in quick succession. These would also be proportional, with no WTA threshold of CD/county/whatever stuff, but all would have a minimum delegate threshold of maybe 20%. This would force out candidates who aren't gaining any traction.

Lastly I'd try to have most of the states go at once, in a big super-tuesday-style fashion, but some would probably elect to go after. Either way, the majority of delegates would be awarded here, that way, ideally, every state would have the opportunity to vote when the nomination is still up for grabs. These states would have the option of being WTA, but no state before this could be WTA (again, to keep a candidate from running away with it before these people get a chance to vote).

And perhaps I'd have some sort of ranked-system so that people who vote for candidates that eventually fizzle out can still be represented on the convention floor. For example, if Rubio gets 15 delegates, and two-thirds of the Rubio voters who cared to select a second-preference 2nd'd Cruz, 10 delegates would be bound to Rubio-Cruz, and if the other one-third 2nd'd Kasich, 5 delegates would be bound to Rubio-Kasich. Same for 3rds, etc. The way this would work in practice would be that, for example, a Rubio-Kasich delegate would be bound to vote for Rubio if he's on the ballot, and if Rubio's not on the ballot but Kasich is, they'd be bound to vote for Kasich. That way delegate-selection systems matter a bit less--it's all about the will of the voters!

This could also apply to minimum delegate thresholds--if someone votes for Jeb! #1 and he doesn't hit the threshold, it could go to help the voter's #2 get delegates. And WTA delegates could be bound 2nd to the 2nd-place, so if Trump wins, Cruz is second, and Kasich is third, all the delegates would be bound to Trump>Cruz>Kasich.

I find that system quite pleasing, actually.

[Derpist]

I actually think the Democrats have a pretty good system...

[Blair]

Two changes:

1. Make caucuses universal to reward those who actually care about politics

2. Allow people who have multiple residences to vote in all the primaries for which they would be theoretically eligible to (i.e. Mitt could actually vote everywhere).  Since the rich people have to pay all the taxes, they should get more say.

But Mitt avoided tax

[NHI]

Either make all contests winner-take all, or have a national primary day.

[DS0816]

I actually think the Democrats have a pretty good system...

If you're a Republican of ConservaDem, it's "pretty good."

[RINO Tom]

Either make all contests winner-take all, or have a national primary day.

Not that I particularly care (seems like you would), but as others have pointed out, that would give an even bigger advantage to whoever has the most money.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Ranked IRV, all states hold primaries, elections on Saturdays. All states majority take all, if no candidate gets 50% out of the last three remaining IRV'd candidates, go proportional.

[Nym90]

National primary day on the first Tuesday of May (for all offices). All delegates awarded proportionally by statewide vote.

Yes, having to run a national campaign from the start is more of a burden on resources but in exchange candidates have longer to prepare/run. No need to start the voting as early as it does; six months between the primary and the general is plenty sufficient.

If no candidate receives a majority of delegates, let the horsetrading begin. Convention picks the nominee.

[Kingpoleon]

Ranked IRV, all states hold primaries, elections on Saturdays. All states majority take all, if no candidate gets 50% out of the last three remaining IRV'd candidates, go proportional.

[Mr. Morden]

Abolish primaries, and in fact eliminate party nominations completely (not just for the presidency, but for every office), and decide elections via either IRV or approval voting for all candidates in the GE.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

States go one at a time. No more Super Tuesdays. Everyone gets their turn.

Downticket primaries should be at the same time as presidential, to max turnout.

The GOP should adopt Dem primary delegate allocation rules. 

[Orser67]

Abolish caucuses, ranked voting (but only 2 or three votes), all pledged delegates allocated proportionally by state (no CD) with a small winner's bonus, candidates pick their own delegates, 3-5 state/territories in a regional cluster vote every week between February and May (order determined randomly; any state that defies the order loses 2/3 of its delegates).