Improved Democratic Nomination

[American2020]

Do you agree with the two propositions ?
-Abolition of Super delegates
-Replacement of caucuses by open primaries

[White Trash]

Undoing what remains of the McGovern reforms is necessary too.

[LLR]

Agree with the second, disagree with the first. If - God forbid - Kanye wins a plurality of delegates next time, in a Trump-like fashion (awful statements, only 44% of the PV), we're gonna need 'em.

Also they make it much, much easier to win a majority of delegates what with the Democrats' proportional delegates system and all.

[Figueira]

Agree (likes democracy)

[White Trash]

Also, getting rid of any former DLC members.

[American2020]

Democratic Nomination Mega Tuesday
-Democrats abroad
-American Territories (PR, Guam, VI, AS)
-MA
-NY
-CT
-PA
-MI
-WI
-TN
-GA
-AL
-FL
-OK
-CO
-NM
-CA
-HI
-MO
-NE
-IL

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Make every state hold a closed or semi-closed primary. Keep superdelegates and increase their share of the vote. They provide an insurance policy against unelectable and/or dangerous nominees(It doesn't matter if the voters chose them, a jill stein like candidate should not be allowed to have a serious chance at the presidency).

[Frodo]

Replace caucuses with open primaries -with the sole exception of Iowa.  Also, adopt the rotating regional primary system.

Otherwise, I don't really see much else that needs to be improved.  I like our proportional pledged delegate system (as opposed to the GOP's winner-take-all approach), and the super-delegates serve to prevent unelectables from winning the nomination (and it usually works).  Though I am open to reducing their numbers somewhat.  

[muon2]

Replace caucuses with open primaries -with the sole exception of Iowa.  Also, adopt the rotating regional primary system.

Otherwise, I don't really see much else that needs to be improved.  I like our proportional pledged delegate system (as opposed to the GOP's winner-take-all approach), and the super-delegates serve to prevent unelectables from winning the nomination (and it usually works).  Though I am open to reducing their numbers somewhat.  

An unmentioned problem with a rotating primary or other date changes is who would pay for it. Many states like IL use the date of the legislative/congressional primary as the date for the presidential primary. States don't like to shift their main primary date as it affects the whole state election calendar from filing petitions to post election certification. Moving the presidential primary would force the state to have two primaries at twice the cost to the counties that conduct the election. What is the source of those extra funds for the counties?

[Nym90]

National primary day the first Tuesday of May. All open primaries.

[Beet]

The super delegates were supposed to be the responsible party elders stepping in, in case the masses did something very stupid like selecting a candidate with a -22 point favorability rating under FBI investigation, but they failed. So I guess they're pointless now and can be rid of.

[Frodo]

Another idea that came to mind is to replace Iowa and New Hampshire with Nevada and South Carolina as the first two states that Democratic candidates should cater to.  They are diverse enough to reflect the Democratic Party of today and the immediate future, but not so large (I think) that presidential candidates can't lavish the same personal attention on them that Iowa and New Hampshire currently enjoy.    

[brucejoel99]

No more caucuses, all contests being open primaries, & no more superdelegates altogether would be good.

[Continential]

There should be a nationwide primary.

[catographer]

I like how the current system’s marathon calendar creates an instant runoff-like scenario, with Iowa-SC contests like round 1, Super Tuesday like round 2, and so on until we’re left with one candidate. It’s also good because it allows the race to change so that an underdog can come from behind to win.

Maybe a nationwide, ranked choice instant runoff would be preferable. However, I like the campaigning period between contests so that supporters of candidates who dropped out can have more time to decide who to switch to, instead of being asked to rank their choices immediately.

[Frodo]

There should be a nationwide primary.

That only the best-funded candidate can win.  Which would be a boon for establishment-preferred candidates. 

[atheist4thecause]

Agree with the 1st, disagree with the 2nd.

Superdelegates allow for the Party bosses to choose rather than public. These Superdelegates also put Democratic leaders in tough positions in close nomination elections. Superdelegates would be more acceptable if states were winner-takes-all, but given that delegates are mostly given out on a proportional basis combined with the large quantity of Superdelegates, it's tough for a candidate to dominate enough to overcome the Superdelegates.

On the question of replacing caucuses with open primaries, I prefer open primaries, but this really is something that should be determined by the state. Caucuses work well in Iowa where there is a history and culture of making a big event out of the elections, and this seems to keep the population invested. Caucuses also allow for the re-vote, which I'm not a big fan of picking second choices, but again I think that comes down to state preference. Lets not forget our history, which is that each state exists because it has it's own culture. But, if you asked me to pick one system for the entire country, I'd pick slate primaries.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Agree with the 1st, disagree with the 2nd.

Superdelegates allow for the Party bosses to choose rather than public. These Superdelegates also put Democratic leaders in tough positions in close nomination elections. Superdelegates would be more acceptable if states were winner-takes-all, but given that delegates are mostly given out on a proportional basis combined with the large quantity of Superdelegates, it's tough for a candidate to dominate enough to overcome the Superdelegates.

On the question of replacing caucuses with open primaries, I prefer open primaries, but this really is something that should be determined by the state. Caucuses work well in Iowa where there is a history and culture of making a big event out of the elections, and this seems to keep the population invested. Caucuses also allow for the re-vote, which I'm not a big fan of picking second choices, but again I think that comes down to state preference. Lets not forget our history, which is that each state exists because it has it's own culture. But, if you asked me to pick one system for the entire country, I'd pick slate primaries.

LOL

[atheist4thecause]

Agree with the 1st, disagree with the 2nd.

Superdelegates allow for the Party bosses to choose rather than public. These Superdelegates also put Democratic leaders in tough positions in close nomination elections. Superdelegates would be more acceptable if states were winner-takes-all, but given that delegates are mostly given out on a proportional basis combined with the large quantity of Superdelegates, it's tough for a candidate to dominate enough to overcome the Superdelegates.

On the question of replacing caucuses with open primaries, I prefer open primaries, but this really is something that should be determined by the state. Caucuses work well in Iowa where there is a history and culture of making a big event out of the elections, and this seems to keep the population invested. Caucuses also allow for the re-vote, which I'm not a big fan of picking second choices, but again I think that comes down to state preference. Lets not forget our history, which is that each state exists because it has it's own culture. But, if you asked me to pick one system for the entire country, I'd pick slate primaries.

LOL

What I find funny is that people think going from caucuses to primaries will solve problems. We've seen many states have issues. What we're seeing now is people who want to prevent Iowa from going first being politically opportunistic.

[Hammy]

The only solution is a single national primary, held on the same day (or perhaps over the course of a weekend) using ranked choice voting.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

The only solution is a single national primary, held on the same day (or perhaps over the course of a weekend) using ranked choice voting.

So I've never been able to get a clear answer on this: why can't we operate the primaries like General Election Day?

[Hammy]

The only solution is a single national primary, held on the same day (or perhaps over the course of a weekend) using ranked choice voting.

So I've never been able to get a clear answer on this: why can't we operate the primaries like General Election Day?

I've never understood this either, the way we do it feels childish, almost treating the presidential selection process like some game or sport and not with the professionalism and seriousness it desesrves. It also deprives a good half of the country of any say more often than not as it's usually down to one candidate by the time it gets to some of the later states.