Article about potential reforms the Democratic Primary process

[Gass3268]

Suggestions to reform the Democratic Primary process

Article makes some good points:
- Doing away with or scaling down the number of super-delegates
- Ending closed primaries
- Limits on the number of primaries that can be held on the same day
- A more rational, transparent process for setting debate schedules
- Ending caucuses

If Sanders has enough delegates at the convention, he could and should try to make a push for these reforms to the nominating process.

[Lief 🗽]

Every contest should be closed. If you can't even check a f[inks]ing box then you shouldn't have a say in the party's nominee.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Suggestions to reform the Democratic Primary process

Article makes some good points:
- Doing away with or scaling down the number of super-delegates
- Ending closed primaries
- Limits on the number of primaries that can be held on the same day
- A more rational, transparent process for setting debate schedules
- Ending caucuses

If Sanders has enough delegates at the convention, he could and should try to make a push for these reforms to the nominating process.

I doubt Sanders will do away with the part of the process that even gave him the ability to compete at all.

[Mehmentum]

I agree with ending caucuses and reducing super-delegate influence.  I don't care either way on debate scheduling and closed primaries.  There are good arguments both for and against closed primaries.  The debate thing is just not important.

But I do disagree on the number of primaries that can be held on the same day.  Days with multiple primaries are an important test for a campaign's infrastructure.  If a campaign can't handle 5 primaries in one day, how are they supposed to handle 50 states in one day for the general election?

Obviously, its not really fair to hit a campaign with a huge number of primaries out of the gate, which is why the first month of the process is very slow, with only 4 primaries that are highly spaced out.  This gives underdog campaigns a chance to get a foothold by appealing to a single state's voters.  But eventually the candidate needs to prove he/she can run a larger scale campaign.

[Gass3268]

Every contest should be closed. If you can't even check a f[inks]ing box then you shouldn't have a say in the party's nominee.

If you are going to stay closed you should at least allow same day registration and switches. I thought Democrats preferred a more easy and open voting process?

[Gass3268]

Suggestions to reform the Democratic Primary process

Article makes some good points:
- Doing away with or scaling down the number of super-delegates
- Ending closed primaries
- Limits on the number of primaries that can be held on the same day
- A more rational, transparent process for setting debate schedules
- Ending caucuses

If Sanders has enough delegates at the convention, he could and should try to make a push for these reforms to the nominating process.

I doubt Sanders will do away with the part of the process that even gave him the ability to compete at all.

Probably not, but it would be a good compromise to make with the Clinton side in order to get some of those other reforms. Personally I want caucuses gone yesterday.

[Xing]

I agree with those ideas, as well as rotating the calendar, so that it's not always the same four states that go first, and states like Montana aren't always last.

[Vosem]

I think one thing this year has demonstrated, on both sides, is the need to shift to an all-caucus format.

[beaver2.0]

We should keep caucus'.

[RFayette]

I think one thing this year has demonstrated, on both sides, is the need to shift to an all-caucus format.

Agreed.  That being said, I favor closed caucuses on the Republican side and open ones on the Democratic side.

[muon2]

There are already delegate penalties and bonuses based on the date of the primary. So rather than ban caucuses and closed primaries, the party can alter the delegate allocation for the type of vote.

Caucuses are the least voter-friendly by the nature of their hours of operation so they would get proportionally the least delegates. Closed primaries involve fewer voters than open primaries, so closed primaries would get proportionally less delegates than open primaries. That still leaves the choice up to the state, but with delegate penalties as fewer voters are likely to participate.

[Slander and/or Libel]

There are already delegate penalties and bonuses based on the date of the primary. So rather than ban caucuses and closed primaries, the party can alter the delegate allocation for the type of vote.

Caucuses are the least voter-friendly by the nature of their hours of operation so they would get proportionally the least delegates. Closed primaries involve fewer voters than open primaries, so closed primaries would get proportionally less delegates than open primaries. That still leaves the choice up to the state, but with delegate penalties as fewer voters are likely to participate.

I like this idea a lot. It's a bit like creating incentives through the tax code, but you know what? That might actually work, rather than trying to dictate the shape of the thing from on high.

[IceSpear]

I agree with all of this, except for ending multiple primaries on the same day. I don't think that would be logistically possible anyway, since so many states hold their presidential primaries in tandem with all their other state primaries.

Semi-closed/semi-open primaries would be better than open in my view. I think everyone can agree we don't want Republicans ratfyucking in our primary.

[IceSpear]

I agree with those ideas, as well as rotating the calendar, so that it's not always the same four states that go first, and states like Montana aren't always last.

This too.

[beaver2.0]

Semi-closed/semi-open primaries would be better than open in my view. I think everyone can agree we don't want Republicans ratfyucking in our primary.

How would that work in states with no party registration?

[Gass3268]

I agree with all of this, except for ending multiple primaries on the same day. I don't think that would be logistically possible anyway, since so many states hold their presidential primaries in tandem with all their other state primaries.

Semi-closed/semi-open primaries would be better than open in my view. I think everyone can agree we don't want Republicans ratfyucking in our primary.

I could live with semi-closed/open primaries.

[windjammer]

Suggestions to reform the Democratic Primary process

Article makes some good points:
- Doing away with or scaling down the number of super-delegates
- Ending closed primaries
- Limits on the number of primaries that can be held on the same day
- A more rational, transparent process for setting debate schedules
- Ending caucuses

If Sanders has enough delegates at the convention, he could and should try to make a push for these reforms to the nominating process.

I oppose ending closed primaries. Let me be clear, the NY rules are ridiculous. But if there are open primaries everywhere, republicans might try to screw the democratic nomination one day. And I think that primaries should be deciced by members of their respective parties.
So I guess I support the following compromise: let people change their political affiliation until one week before the primaries.

It's really important to end the caucuses too, truly an abomination.

[jimrtex]

Semi-closed/semi-open primaries would be better than open in my view. I think everyone can agree we don't want Republicans ratfyucking in our primary.

How would that work in states with no party registration?

In Texas, voters affiliate with a party on election day.

[Oak Hills]

- Doing away with or scaling down the number of super-delegates

I'm not sure I agree with this. I mean, I would like to see that nomination reflect the will of primary voters, but it does make some sense that elected and party officials should get to attend as delegates, and I don't think their existence really does any harm. Plus, I actually think superdelegates helping to resolve the nomination at the convention in the case of inconclusive primaries with multiple viable candidates through the end might actually be good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, it seems logical that actual party members should decide the party's nominees. On the other hand, I sympathize with those who have candidates they like in both parties and want an opportunity to vote for them, or those that want to cross over in places where winning one party or the other's primary is tantamount to election (That applies more to local and state races, but presumably the rules would be the same in each state for those and presidential races).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't think that's a good idea. It makes sense to let states have days to themselves early on (to help underdog candidates), but by the late stages that would just make the primary process too long.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think I agree with this, though it's rather vague.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally agree with this one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Every contest should be closed. If you can't even check a f[inks]ing box then you shouldn't have a say in the party's nominee.

I would be reluctant to getting rid of open NH primary. It's a good way to get an indication about a  candidate's appeal of indies.

[beaver2.0]

Semi-closed/semi-open primaries would be better than open in my view. I think everyone can agree we don't want Republicans ratfyucking in our primary.

How would that work in states with no party registration?

In Texas, voters affiliate with a party on election day.

That's how it is now in Virginia, essentially.  You choose which party to vote for.

What would the change be?

[IceSpear]

Every contest should be closed. If you can't even check a f[inks]ing box then you shouldn't have a say in the party's nominee.

I would be reluctant to getting rid of open NH primary. It's a good way to get an indication about a  candidate's appeal of indies.

I wouldn't mind keeping Iowa as the only caucus either. muh traditionz after all. And I doubt they'd play ball and get rid of it anyway. No excuse for any other state to have one though.

Of course, most people will forget about all of this anyway just like they did after 2008. Then start bitching again in 2020 and/or 2024 when they have a dog in the fight/conflict of interest, making it pointless. sigh

[Blair]

Every contest should be closed. If you can't even check a f[inks]ing box then you shouldn't have a say in the party's nominee.

[izixs]

Every contest should be closed. If you can't even check a f[inks]ing box then you shouldn't have a say in the party's nominee.

Oddly enough, that's maybe not the problem. More of my friends who had checked the box have as of yesterday found out they couldn't vote in a primary because somewhere in the system it had become unchecked. Keeping closed primaries prevents folks who consider themselves Democrats, who vote Democrat, and who registered as Democrats from participating. What more, there are lots of independents who are more reliable Democratic voters than some people who are registered as Democrats. Having open primaries also encourages people to get in the habit of voting fro Democrats. If you do it in the primary, you're very likely to do it in the general. Can't do it in the primary, why even show up to vote in the general? This party doesn't seem to care what you think.
 
Its absurd to exclude people due to clerical error (or worse) and its absurd to cut out people who we need in our coalition from having a say in it. Fine, force them to reregister as Democrats, but allow same day registration in that case. But if you don't have it, let it be open. Grow the party and stop thinking of independents as the enemy.