California Democrats call for elimination of superdelegates and caucuses

[IceSpear]

They also called for ending the IA/NH/SC early state monopoly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent news! If only other conventions were this productive, as opposed to rioting and sending death threats. Hopefully it can be a model for the DNC. Good job California.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-california-democrats-call-for-1466362723-htmlstory.html

[IceSpear]

Apparently Washington is considering doing away with caucuses as well.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-democrats-may-ditch-precinct-caucuses

[Xing]

If Democrats with somewhat differing beliefs can compromise with one another, things can get done. When clearly one-sided demands are made, nothing gets done. Rotating the primary schedule is also a good idea.

[Crumpets]

FFs

[Gass3268]

Yeah, look for Christine Pelosi to be a big player in Philadelphia on the rule changes.

Apparently Washington is considering doing away with caucuses as well.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-democrats-may-ditch-precinct-caucuses

Minnesota has already done it. There was some talk for Colorado and Maine. Hopefully we see the start of a trend.

[President Johnson]

Massive FFs

[136or142]

Primaries cost the state money whereas I believe the caucuses are solely paid for by the political parties.  So, some states will likely balk at this, at least initially.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's unacceptable for the Democrats, the party of minorities and urbanites, to give the privilege of going first to Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest and most rural states in the nation.

[President Johnson]

It's unacceptable for the Democrats, the party of minorities and urbanites, to give the privilege of going first to Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest and most rural states in the nation.

I agree. There should be one primary election day; in May or June. That would also lead us to later campaign starts. The campaign is actually too long, it shouldn't start until the election actually begins.

[Santander]

Primaries cost the state money whereas I believe the caucuses are solely paid for by the political parties.  So, some states will likely balk at this, at least initially.

Yes, which is why I am completely opposed to primaries. If showing up and putting in a bit of effort to caucus every 4 years is something you have a problem with, switch to an instant caucus system like the GOP has in many states. The state has no business in paying for or being involved with internal elections of private political parties.

[Lief 🗽]

Great news. Without superdelegates, caucuses, or lily white early states, Sanders' campaign would have been over by March.

[The Mikado]

Abolishing caucuses would be the single best reform we could take at this point.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's unacceptable for the Democrats, the party of minorities and urbanites, to give the privilege of going first to Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest and most rural states in the nation.

Except it's not "the party of minorities and urbanites."  At least, that's not how the party presents itself out of disdain for white and rural voters.

In fact, the reason alone that these are two of the most rural states in the country is enough to justify them having more say in the political process, in my opinion, given the rapid economic decline (and loss of political influence overall) that rural communities have seen.

Of course, this can be reconciled by switching the first contests to diverse states where the rural vote counts.  Maybe Virginia, North Carolina, or Missouri.

Above all, I think I'd prefer a national primary day, though I'm not sure how the logistics would work given that primaries typically have more than two popular candidates running.

[MaxQue]

It's unacceptable for the Democrats, the party of minorities and urbanites, to give the privilege of going first to Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest and most rural states in the nation.

No, it's the party of everyone.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's unacceptable for the Democrats, the party of minorities and urbanites, to give the privilege of going first to Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest and most rural states in the nation.

No, it's the party of everyone.

Yeah, so are the Libertarians.

[Famous Mortimer]

Yeah, look for Christine Pelosi to be a big player in Philadelphia on the rule changes.

Apparently Washington is considering doing away with caucuses as well.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-democrats-may-ditch-precinct-caucuses

Minnesota has already done it. There was some talk for Colorado and Maine. Hopefully we see the start of a trend.

Minnesota did not get rid of caucuses. They are now holding caucuses AND primaries because they are stupid.

[dspNY]

Yeah, look for Christine Pelosi to be a big player in Philadelphia on the rule changes.

Apparently Washington is considering doing away with caucuses as well.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-democrats-may-ditch-precinct-caucuses

Minnesota has already done it. There was some talk for Colorado and Maine. Hopefully we see the start of a trend.

Minnesota did not get rid of caucuses. They are now holding caucuses AND primaries because they are stupid.

The primary better be the binding vote

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Famous Mortimer]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What an awful and logically indefensible opinion.

[136or142]

It's unacceptable for the Democrats, the party of minorities and urbanites, to give the privilege of going first to Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest and most rural states in the nation.

Is New Hampshire still all that rural?  It has a number of medium sized cities (Manchester, Nashua, Concord) and, as far as I know, most of its growth in population is a result of outgrowth of the Boston suburbs.

[Erc]

Yeah, look for Christine Pelosi to be a big player in Philadelphia on the rule changes.

Apparently Washington is considering doing away with caucuses as well.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-democrats-may-ditch-precinct-caucuses

Minnesota has already done it. There was some talk for Colorado and Maine. Hopefully we see the start of a trend.

Minnesota did not get rid of caucuses. They are now holding caucuses AND primaries because they are stupid.

The primary better be the binding vote

It is, don't worry.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What an awful and logically indefensible opinion.

Well some things are certainly wrong with the way presidential nominees are selected. Superdelegates aren't one of them.
I would spend large amounts of money upgrading voting machines nationwide, I would allow the possibility of mail voting, I would institute automatic voter registration nationwide. I just don't see superdelegates as a problem in themselves.
Getting rid of superdelegates is just a feel good move that won't truly make our democracy better. Much more important things can be done to improve our political system.

[Frodo]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What an awful and logically indefensible opinion.

Well some things are certainly wrong with the way presidential nominees are selected. Superdelegates aren't one of them.
I would spend large amounts of money upgrading voting machines nationwide, I would allow the possibility of mail voting, I would institute automatic voter registration nationwide. I just don't see superdelegates as a problem in themselves.
Getting rid of superdelegates is just a feel good move that won't truly make our democracy better. Much more important things can be done to improve our political system.

And those super-delegates are the one obstacle preventing the Democratic Party from nominating its own version of Donald Trump. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Terrible news. I could do away with caucuses (which are fairly useless imo), but otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What an awful and logically indefensible opinion.

Well some things are certainly wrong with the way presidential nominees are selected. Superdelegates aren't one of them.
I would spend large amounts of money upgrading voting machines nationwide, I would allow the possibility of mail voting, I would institute automatic voter registration nationwide. I just don't see superdelegates as a problem in themselves.
Getting rid of superdelegates is just a feel good move that won't truly make our democracy better. Much more important things can be done to improve our political system.

And those super-delegates are the one obstacle preventing the Democratic Party from nominating its own version of Donald Trump. 

Well I will say that superdelegates impart some stability to the Democrats.  Ditching them just because they could theoretically hijack the process while simultaneously losing the benefits is dumb. It's never happened too!

[IceSpear]

This isn't the 60s. Superdelegates will never have the balls to overturn the will of the people, unless the primary is a virtual tie. So having them accomplishes nothing and simply breeds resentment about a "rigged process" every cycle. If PLEOs don't want to have to run for delegate slots, then just allocate them based off the popular vote. Easy.

Just look at the GOP. They could easily unbind their delegates if they wanted to and ditch Trump. But they won't, because they fear overturning the will of the voters would destroy their party. The same goes for the Democratic side, so superdelegates serve no purpose. Even in a scenario where superdelegates don't exist and Dems had the balls to do it, they could just unbind the delegates like some in the GOP are considering doing. There's no functional difference in having superdelegates and not having them, unless you enjoy the constant bitching about it every primary cycle. Do you really think 99.9% of people will care whether the will of the people was overturned by superdelegates or if the will of the people was overturned by the Rules Committee unbinding the delegates? The only part that will matter is "will of people overturned."