What’s Wrong with the Democratic Party
By Larry Johnson on March 7, 2008 at 7:29 PM in Current Affairs
I have a very simple question for your folks and look forward to your comments and analysis. Why is the nomination process so screwed up? Instead of requiring each state to hold a primary, the Democrats rely on a patchwork quilt of elections and caucuses. The caucus may make folks feel good, but it is a stupid unrepresentative system. It only allows people who do not have to work when it is held the chance to participate. By its very structure it is an undemocratic process.
And then there are the states that allow republicans and independents to participate. So count me unsympathetic to the bitching underway about what may happen to the Democrats if this messy process continues to the convention and there is a good old fashioned political brawl to sort out who will be the candidate. Maybe then folks will wake up and decide that a good old fashioned, straight up election open only to Democrats will be the ticket for selecting a candidate. I am up in the air on whether to allow a winner take all formula or proportional allocation of delegates. What do you think?
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
I think it is safe to say that charges of being undemocratic could be brought against virtually every layer of American politics today. Electoral college? Private money to pay for campaigns? Corporate media? Caucuses don’t surprise me at all when viewed through this lens.
Sometimes I am surprised that things aren’t MORE fucked up around here.
Thats because we are not a democracy. We are a federal republic which has democratic elections.
As far as the Dem party is concerned, the process is a large part of the problem but so is the fact the party has been coopted by far-left radicals and sociolists. I yearn for the days when the regular, mid-western style Democrats take back control of the party and throw the loons out. Both parties need to have dem and repub only primaries, not caucuses, but Iowa will NEVER allow that to happen.
I am in total agreement with you regarding the caucuses. It should be secret ballot and all day balloting plus absentee voting. The caucus setup leads to peer pressure and intimidation.
The proportional allocation is what has us in this situation where we still don’t have a clear winner. While it might be more fair, it does sustain the suspense of who the candidate will be when there is more than one highly favored candidate.
The party primary should allow only registered members of that party to vote. Too much opportunity for mischief if members of other parties can influence the outcome.
I agree with most of these points of CABlueMuse’s wholeheartedly. Well said. I lean towards proportional allocation of delegates, though; it is more accurate, and doesn’t allow votes in one state to outweigh those in another. If an election is close, then so be it–I would rather be in suspense than have a system that doesn’t reflect the will of the voters.
What’s wrong? I’ll give Dems a view from someone who’s not a party member on either side of the aisle.
1. No effective leadership. Screw Dean. If he was a corporate CEO, he’d been fired a long time ago, because if he doesn’t produce a profit, out the door he goes — if not from the investors, from the board itself!
2. Being victims and promoting victimhood. What was that famous photo of the DNC seal with a crybaby in the center meant? Ignoring the imagery doesn’t mean it’s ignored by the public.
3. Promoting Darwinism, yet the Democrat election process is more like Intelligent Design. Split delegates, so no one will feel “inferior”. In contrast, GOPers are mostly Darwinists — win and you get ALL of the delegates; lose, you’ll get none. It’s way McCain’s pre-emptive nomination is sealed way in advance.
4. Look at Daily Kos. Is that the face of the Democrat party? If it is, wonder why the public is scared of Leftists more than Hitler, and continue to REFUSE electing Dem presidents.
5. Double-standards. Claim XYZ is racist/sexist and wrong, yet practice racism and sexism in their campaigns.
6. Cannibalization. No other party eats it’s own young and old as thoroughly. The GOP doesn’t even have to do much work, as the “grassroots” for decades just kill and eat their babies after birth.
Those are the basic problems, that keep repeating year after year after each new “wave” of supporters. Denial won’t make them go away. Only looking at the problems and addressing them WILL.
I won’t argue that the super-delegates were a bad choice. Like the Electorial College (and three forms of government) each ensures stability in government. The same can be said of the super-delegates maintaining order, if and when the “grassroots” goes ape, again.
I like your analysis. Straight to the points. DEM primary and DEM Leadership need to be more decisive. It’s lacking. They are wasting time bickering among themselves.
Not much different from what I said three years ago…
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/2/26/91237/8137/256#c256
Traditional conservatives are suppose to remind those across the aisle of the wisdom to not repeat mistakes and all, but never thought it was to save Dems from themselves!
Larry:
I think that the current system makes the Democratic Party look like naive rubes.
Donna Brazile (that oh-so-successful political strategist and campaign manager) seems to think that we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy to try and make the Democratic Party competitive in parts of the country it has written off, was a good one. But not if it means 50 different methods of voting for candidates in a primary.
Barack Obama has one primarily in states that held un-Democratic caucuses. Hillary Clinton one in big-state (delegate rich) primaries. Obama won in states that the Democratic Party will not carry in the general election and yet those wins are what the Obamabots site to as his “winning cross-over” appeal. Well, I think we all know who has been crossing over to vote for Obama in this primary season, and why. We also know that in primaries that are not closed to only registered Democrats, the argument that Democrats are deciding who their party nominee should be is a falsity.
Therefore, there needs to be one “uniform” primary method that is closed to all but registered Democrats. I have less of an issue with distributing the delegate votes proportionally than I do who is participating and what method that participation takes.
I meant won [correction]
I dont even pay attention to that “democratic leader crew,” I have written them off, they’re so useless. Really useless.
And for them to be played like this, by the republicans, after how many years of political warfare, eschewing Clinton for Obama, knowing or ignoring Obama’s toxicity, his connection to Daley, and Auchi, Rezko, it’s no wonder the democrats never win. The republicans did nothing different this time, they set Obama up as the perfect candidate, (just like they did Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale), even voting for him in the primary, and then chewed it down, and the kos types took the bait, again, and here we are, looking at rezko, and whatever else is in the closet, ready to DESTROY Obama, politically..
So, I focus on Bill, and Hillary, and their crew, because they can win, and I do believe they try to govern with the American people in mind, they understand how all the parts fit, and work together, to keep the country strategically sound.
And there seems to be this disconnect between people who can win, the Clintons, and those who can’t, (the republicans, and their flip side, the Kos what? They certainly aren’t democrats). Why?
(The republicans can’t win the greater strategic wars, world wide, once they lose control of an obsequious and limp press. An adveserial, intelligent press does everyone good, it keeps the country politically fit).
The Clintons win, do people think this is an accident?
And I guess this means they’ll get rid of Howard Dean. They need to bring in someone who understands the republican strategy, as there appears to be only one, someone who can counter the republicans while redefining the democratic party, the wet toast like Pelosi, and Reid, and the rest have to go. As does the systemic corruption.
It does seem like a lot of Obama backers are Dems who recently lost or are outsiders: Dascle, Kerry, (Dean?), Brazille, Bradley. Like they’re trying to win a battle they lost.
Very well said. Get rid of Dean, get rid of Donna “Obama” Brazille. I’ve never figured out why Democrats are so against the Clintons when they are the only proven winners against the Republican machine but maybe’s that’s why I’m a moderate independent now.
Yet it’s also a two-edged sword, because Dems can do the same and throw GOP elections.
I like open primaries, as I can vote one way to nominate, and not be held to it in the GE (especially if horrid news was discovered about a candidate since my state’s primary).
Would you prefer to be STUCK with BushIII with a D beside his name, just so you can be party loyal?
Furthermore, each party wants to attract new votes (and know most voters aren’t party members). The only way to do so IS to have open primaries. If I had to register for a party just to chose a nominee, I simply won’t vote at all.
Closed elections deny voters a choice, and their own beliefs, which is often at odds with party platforms (or at least planks in the platform).
I think the best way to attract new voters is for the party base to nominate the best candidate available who fairly represents what that party stands for, then get out and persuade people that is the best person to vote for in the general (yes, I am possibly naive). I fail to see how letting republicans have a hand in selecting our nominee advances our party in any way; and as long as we have open primaries there is no way to stop this.
What stops the Dems from doing the same, again????
Open primaries are very fair. Either side can throw it, at any time.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
I wouldn’t vote in a republican primary in an attempt to determine their nominee, but I’m not concerned if someone else does — I just don’t care — it’s up to the republicans to police their own selection process.
I do care, however, when they are able to game the system by voting in our primaries to try and make sure that the weakest candidate is selected for them to run against.
What about foreign agents trying to throw an American election?
That is very real, particularly in this day of lobbyist influence. It isn’t just Pritzker and Obama, say, it is also China and Obama.
So, how do we guard against this larger problem?
Already done. Ask dual-citizenship Israelis about it………………….
But Dems can do the same. Nothing preventing you in doing the same tactic.
Politics IS a dirty business of manipulating 100001 things to get a win (or make political sausage). If it’s voting for a rival to oust your prime target, so be it. It’s a l-o-n-g time honored tradition.
Politics is no different than a football game. Each with a playbook that is used to undermine their opponent. Intercepting the ball, and a 99 yard touch down, is just icing on the cake.
Elections aren’t for cheating, the integrity of the process should be honored, the idea an election should be gamed, like the house in Vegas, is revolting. Personally, I don’t want Rove’s candidate in there, I want the most qualified to govern America, not putting forward a specific agenda, no more CEO candidates, government is not a business, (though it conducts business). The last thing we need is another puppet, ala Bush, or Obama, or even Cheney.
Karl Rove and the republican party cheat, I’ve seen less examples of democrats throwing elections the way the republicans did in Ohio, say.
Every voter should be fairly represented, anything else is simply a coup.
Those don’t work.
Been happening since the dawn of man, and will continue until man no longer exists. Denying politics for what it really is (not some ideal that can never be achieved), is a fools errand.
Politics, in itself, is a chess game. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Republicans are voting in the Dem primaries for a variety of reason that don’t apply to Democrats in these same primaries. We’re trying to pick our nominee; they already have one. If Dems vote in the Republican primaries, that means we can’t vote in ours. See the problem?
I’ve seen three reasons why Republicans are voting in the Dem primaries:
1. Some Republicans really are disgusted with their choices in their own party and actually hope Obama will make a real change in the direction of our politics. They will vote for Obama in the general election if he is nominated. They are unlikely to vote for Clinton, however.
2. Some Republicans are resigned to the idea that a Democrat will be elected no matter what they do, and are hoping that Democrat will be Obama because they can’t stand the idea of Hillary. They will vote for the Republican in the general election no matter who the nominee is, but they expect to lose and figure Obama won’t be as bad as Hillary.
3. Some Republicans believe in the Limbaugh theory that Obama can beat McCain but Hillary can’t, so if she is the nominee, they won’t have to worry about losing. We already know how they will vote in the general.
Only the votes of the first group should interest us, and if they want to vote in a Democratic primary, they ought to be forced to change their party affiliation. No one but Democrats should be allowed to decide who the Democratic nominee will be.
I agree with Eurogirl70–require everyone to use the closed primary method of selection. I too have no problem with proportional award of delegate votes, but do it fairly so that insofar as possible no one’s vote counts more than anyone else’s. And why should the national party tell a state when to have their primary? Set time parameters for the elections, let the states decide when to have them and have the national organization only interfere if needed to ensure a fair and honest election is held.
Absolutely no clue how this mess came to be. The caucuses might be held in states that don’t want to pay for an election. Arn’t some of them run by the local party not the state?
And many of them are not even proportional. Areas in which there are few Democrats can get additional delegates as part of ‘party building’, in some states.
The whole mess need an overhaul, with NH and IA no longer automatic firsts.
I blame Howard Dean. Nancy Pelosi showed more leadership today than Dean has. He needs to step in and referee.
He also implemented 50-state strategy to build the party, then screwed up with Florida and Michigan.
As far as caucuses, those have been in place for years and clearly need to be rethought.
I’ve been reading, though, he is surreptiously supporting Obama, and not allowing the FL and MI delegates hurts Clinton.
This is wrong, though I don’t think it was Dean’s intention.
But it is a mess, he mishandled it, and it goes to his skill, and leadership, ultimately.
And I really admired Dean.
Gosh, isnt there one Senator or Rep. who really gets it, does right by the country?
Not since Dale Bumpers retired.
Bumpers was leapfrogged by Bill Clinton. Great man who should have been able to run for highest office.
Possibly, but President Bumpers?
Yes, how awful it would be to have a President named Bumpers. When Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court, Senator Bumpers announced at the outset he would not vote to confirm. Because of his willingness to make a decision, he didn’t have to sit around dithering after the sexual harassment issue arose about whether it was better for his career to piss off women or piss off AAs, which is pretty much where we are now — all our fearless leaders trying to deal with this mess in the way least harmful to their own sorry hides, which has in turn just made both sides believe (correctly) the system is unfair.
That is precious.
A Bumper bumper-sticker.
Alas, the missed opportunities……..
When you want to visit Mr. Bumpers Skeletons Call me I have cleaned a few closets and Liked him but hey I liked Wilbur Mills too.
I think this is just a part of who Dems are. The salient argument in favor of a caucus is that it forces people to make public statements about their support, and favors those passionate enough to show up. That’s a thought process that appeals to activists and partisans.
The salient argument in favor of open party primaries is that you can “get a candidate who appeals to more voters”, something that appeals to those Dems who think running toward the mythic center is the formula to win elections.
Both mindsets are rather silly and lead to a compromised process, but the folks who support this are so in love with their own ideas on the subject I think that’s why the party has just allowed the system to remain as-is for so long.
I think Caucuses are an awful idea. No absentee voting, military members can’t vote. How democratic, you can go die for this country, but you can’t vote in a primary? Lots of working folks may not be able to go, hospital, police, retail, parents with small children, parents without sitters, etc., etc.
It also appears from the problems that I have seen posted in various people that “mischief” might be easier to achieve in a caucus.
I am personally a fairly private person and I can envision a time when I might not want everyone in my precint knowing who I voted for.
Personally I like the private vote. Caucuses suck, at first I found the idea interesting, but like many things on closer examination, not a very democratic thing to do.
Caucuses are a bad idea and someone is always shortchanged. Democrats are not organized correctly as a party. Divisive. Pockets of power and infighting, and not as smooth at running their party as GOP is. Dean has acted like an idiot, and the party will run off the cliff if they disenfranchise Mich or Fla.
Obama is clearly being favored by biggies in party and the whole process stinks. We are back to losing again as if there is a floor fight, or Obamites [as promised] rebel and threaten, etc to desert party, it’s all over.
Kennedy and Kerry have been had, but they’re not the smartest guys on on the block.
DNC and DLC are at odds, and Obama will bring the party down, unless the elders come to their senses, if they have any left.
I will answer your first question posed, What’s wrong with the Democratic Party?
It’s full of Democrats. Pound for pound, the Republicans are smarter and can outthink the Democrats because of the brilliant amount of organizing they have done sine the Powell Memo came out. They have a machine which Senator Bradley described as a pyramid: The base is made up of funding organizations an fat cats; Layer two is made up of think tanks and university chairs that the base has bought; Layer three is made up of paid political operatives and party superstructure which support……;Layer three, the candidate.
Bradley said that the Democrats use a pyramid structure as well except the entire pyramid rests upon one charismatic candidate. They are forever looking for JFK. That said, Bradley turned around and supported the charismatic candidate, Obama. Go Figure.
Item two: I support a national primary election with winner take all. That is the simple part.
The thornier issue is with choosing candidates to run.
Let me add to that national primary the stipulation that it and the general election BE HELD ON THE WEEKEND.
Couldn’t agree more. I’d personally like to see also that voting be compulsory for over 18 as in Australia. Couldn’t elect much worse than in 2000 and 2004 here…
I’m against compulsory voting. If someone is not smart enough or just enough of a good citizen to inform themselves about the issues and what each candidate stands for, I sure don’t want them in the booth picking at random. You’re probably right about “couldn’t elect much worse,” but I don’t want to put it to the test.
I have mixed feelings about it myself, I guess I’m being optimistic and thinking that people would inform themselves a little better if they had to vote. Probably a fairly naive viewpoint admittedly though.
MessyMarcy:
I don’t think that is a valid argument. Although I have heard it before.
The assumption that all the population that don’t vote is ignorant is just not true.
And lots of people vote in the GE aren’t really informed. You would be surprised ! Many don’t know much at all anyway.
Percentage-wise wouldn’t worse I think.
This would only be for the GE and the way is now. The problem I see with the current system is that elections are decisded by few, most of whom have some agenda in mind. But it affects all. Many people that don’t vote are not ignorant or not informed; they just think their vote won’t make a difference. Mandatory voting would rid of that.
What makes Australian elections work properly is the preferential ballot. You put a “1″ next to the best candidate, a “2″ next to the second best, etc. This gives minor parties a chance without splitting the vote. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a whole heap better than US elections.
It would be simple for the DNC to simply make a ‘rule’ that if you don’t have a primary, you don’t get delegates.
It would also be simple to require a person fill out a voter registration form when they register for selective service. Then mail out ballots to all registered voters and have them dropped off. (I live in CA, we love absentee balloting.)
There are many simple solutions but that would make it easier for citizens to participate and be informed. It seems that what is wrong is they don’t want participation. It must be just me…. they piss us off hoping we will go away and leave them alone?
The GOP is run like the military. It works because the ideology of conservatives is to obey leaders. Flare ups are fixed inhouse, sometimes with some understanding; other times sending radicals to the brig.
When the Anti-Gay Marriage agenda was promoted, the GOP cared nothing about the Log Cabin Republicans (the gay wing), and pushed it right over them. The LCP protested, but it never came to fisticuffs.
The Dems don’t have that type of guts. Their idea of “unity” is literally push their rivals out of the party (1980 anyone?). If you don’t walk THEIR walk, you’re kicked out like a leper.
Want a true base of voters that isn’t one demographic (Far Left flaming liberals that the country is revolted against)? You have to be a tad more friendly. Agree to disagree, but work together. Doesn’t mean you’ll like the other wings (ask Traditionals what they t-r-u-l-y think of Neo-Cons, for example), but you deal with them because they have SOME values you share.
Not this NO COMPROMISES mindset. NOTHING gets done in Washington from strict pole politicking. You’ll alienated everyone, and get a congress we have today — DO NOTHINGS!
Oh, thanks.
Next time I’m looking at Iraq, and Afghanistan, I’ll remember what you said about “republican brilliance,” or more accurately, republican self delusion.
You’re kidding, the republicans have had the advantage of an obsequies press, forty years of tearing down the safeguards that have kept this democracy balanced, via corporate press consolidation. Then they rammed a load of BS down American throats, straight out of the propaganda handbook 101, via Reagan, and fucked up everything that made this country strategically superior, because they are ignorant of the reasoning behind those decisions. They are stupid, and we’re seeing that now in both are foreign and domestic policy. They win elections by cheating. That is not indicative of great organization, or intellectual brilliance.
But in a real contest, where they have to compete, and think?
Well, look around Jim.
They suck.
The Clintons, even with a hateful adversarial press, can kick republican butt, to the curb and back.
So, be realistic, there’s a big world out there, I mean, why did no other administration BOMB the middle east, a bleeding heart?
No, superior tested war strategy said to do so was to lose.
And the one group to do it, the republicans, can’t get out now, it’s so fucked up, they got trolled, are being trolled, by the world…
“Next time I’m looking at Iraq, and Afghanistan, I’ll remember what you said about “republican brilliance,” or more accurately, republican self delusion.”
Think more.
Write less.
The Republican party got Bush elected twice and all you could do was yell at the TV screen.
Get it?
Let me get this straight… a pryamid with Layer One, Layer Two, Layer Three and another Layer Three. Hmmm.
I’m glad you can outthink the Democrats because you seem to be having trouble counting to four.
A cocker spaniel can outthink the Democrats.
Anyone can make a typo.
Fuck off
You should try that other blog: nothirdusa.net
Oh, yeah and being rude won’t bring back your self respect after a flub like that.
You cannot be rude enough to network wankers.
Fuck off.
That is why I like the idea of a double elimination system winnowing down to 3 canidates in first elimination say by the first 20 smallest states using the automatic recall approach followed by a second national primary in the remaining states same automatic recall system, voters list prefered danidates in order of preference best combined score wins.
Scott
Simple answer is caucus’s DNP pay for, Primary’s the states pay for!
The arrogance of the DNP to strip delegates to a State as Florida that is Republican controlled because they set a date which did not conform to the DNP demands is rediculous for two reasons:
Florida tax payers footed the bill for the Primary there!
A Republican Governor is going to follow their decided date, not the DNP’s schedule, after all Florida is paying for it!
Florida is not going to hold two Primary’s because of DNP rules, and foot double billings!
Florida did not follow the GOP demanded dates either and the GOP simply cut the number of delegates, they didn’t arrogantly strip Florida’s voice like the DNP did!
Caucus’s use to do alot in politics, that luster is gone now, no one needs to be told where candidates stand now, that was for days when meida wasn’t so far reaching as today!
Ot a tad, do not forget, Sen Obama managed to sneak advertising into Mich and Florida through cable news advertising, so his statements of not campaigning there is bogus and still he lost by double didget numbers!
Opps as for delegate of winner take all vs proportioned, is simple, Proportioned is the fair way, thus major States won’t be the entire focus of campaigns and forces candidates to fight for every delegate!
This from St. Petersburg Times:
“The danger is, based on the general maturity level of the national party, they are more interested in protecting their authority than winning the election. They may not care,” said state Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller.
Gee, Honey…do ya THINK so?
Hmmmm, punish Florida and Florida could punish the Dems where it hurts…
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/03/seat-delegates.html
Come to think about it, all 50 states and commonwealths need to do just this — as no voter should be shut out of voting.
Want to punish a state for being rogue? Throw out the state’s DNC leaders, as THEY pushed the idea along, or powerless to stop the insanity of their “grassroots” when they become a mob.
I agree Larry..This issue should be examined and Resolved in order for Our Election process to be working in a Fair Way and insure that evryones VOTE Counts..as Intended for Our demcracy..
Here..The State spent 10,milliuon for a Primary conducted mostly with mail in Ballots..
You had to Mark your Ballot as either a democrat or republican..NO OLptions for Independants at all…which Created Anger and Resentment…Many Voters ..25%..did not mark thier ballots and those werte Declared Invalid and thrown Out.. The Primary was only foe Popular Votes and did not count toward Delegates..
We then had a District Caucus’s..Which was the only place where DELEGATES were assigned..and had to go through an extensive process to find out where each Districts Caucus was being held..Mine was in the High School Library ..Third floor..limited Seating..and it was so packed ..people were out in nthe hall..and people actually left because of crowding and confusion..
This whole process..with the wasted Primary..which cost Taxpayers 10 million dollars…Then a District Caucus for delegates..really irritated and Angered lots of citizens..and seems unfair..
I think they should have just had a Primary..evryones name on the ballot…with room for a Write In.. and a spot for Independant Voters.. That would be the Most represenative system where everyones vote counts..
Then it should be WINNER takes All..Then County and State Conventions to pick Delegates..
That would be the Most Fair Process ..so We..The People..Get away from all of the Manipulations that have been built into Our Electorial System over several decades..
i agree that there should be consistency. the whole - let each state decide crap and then a dictated order of when. i say we have one national primary day. people can change parties that day but if they do registration stays in new party in november. so you have to think long and hard. i think there should be a designated start date and a designated end date for the primary. so lets say candidates can announce only on one day. there is like 2 months of campaigning - then one primary day. total state delegates are determined by percentage of total state popular vote… so in a 60/40 split delegates are 60/40. no such things as SDs.
there. done :}
I’d prefer a pick a candidate primary day (to at least weed 8 candidates down to 2 to 3). A mid-primary check in vote day (for “buyer remorse” voters, and those who are just turning 18 so they can vote — why punish mid-year born teenagers their right to vote?). Then the GE (again so those born later in the year can vote).
BTW, there’s independents for a reason, and it’s very unfair to deny them their RIGHT to vote, and force them to pick a party they refuse to join in the first place TO VOTE.
No one is denying an Independent his or her right to vote — that is simply a consequence of their choice to be an Independent. And no more declaring on the day of the election. I’m sick of these Democrats for a day.
Maybe for the primary we could do like some countries that have lst and 2nd choices. And I like the idea someone had of having the elections on weekends.
That argument doesn’t float, in a TWO PARTY system. There aren’t choices that COUNT to win.
So independents pick what’s the best out of the lot, but they won’t subscribe to the inane partisanship.
And, honey, you won’t win ANY election without those independent and cross-over votes now. Elections are too close, because voters don’t see much differences in ANY candidate.
Chrissy, my name’s not honey. Independents make the choice not to be a member of a party. No one denies them anything. If they want to participate in selecting a nominee, all they have to do is register appropriately. Otherwise, they must just be content with selecting from among what is available in November. If they can’t tell any difference between candidates like Gore and Bush, they should feel free to stay home with my complete approval.
I have no problem not participating in the nomination process since I’m an independent. Because in the end, we all get to eat out of the same crappy bowl. And that’s as American as a cold beer on a sunny afternoon.
Election ‘08: Equality in a crappy bowl.
Okay, you got me there.
There wasn’t much difference between the two. Both are party hacks. I don’t believe you understand why the MAJORITY aren’t party members! lololol
And if independents did sit out, honey, Dems will only have had about, maybe at most, 8 presidents in 100 years.
Like that?
It’s no wonder why Dems continue to lose elections.
Ross Perot suggested that there be a news blackout on elections returns befinning on friday with voting allowed both saturday and sunday returns anounced on tuesday with finallity. The idea was to keep AK, HI, American Samoa etc. from being asked to vote when the decision had already been made.
It has merrit mostly I get very tierd of Iowa deciding who I get to have on my ballot. The whole of New Hampshire can burn for all I care!
Scott
ChrisXP,
Can you write a diary sometime about why Independents (like you) will and are voting for Hillary? I think this electability thing is really fooling people into voting for Obama.
I am a registered Republican that is voting for Hillary. I becamd a Democrat for a day to do so. The only reason that I am registered as Republican is that the votes that matter here (School Board, City, Burough, State,) are descided in the Republican Primary. So my wife is regietered as Dem. and I as Rep. so that we at least get some say in local politics.
I would love to see the whole party system die and open up the possibilities for the best possible people to win.
I just like how they do it in GA. One ballot, you pick, and no other fuss.
Hard enough for the poll workers to ensure residents can vote in what precinct, as it is.
I can’t remove my Traditional conservative ideology (and I’m not going to pull an O-Bomba and be a faker), which can irate partisans to no end. Thus, I stick to replying to posts on party sites, and try to state to folks (like here) how conservatives can view things, to help (as you need to know who you’re facing, without the partisan bias getting in the way).
I see w-a-y too much stuff from Dems that are flat out wrong about Republicans let alone conservatives, which hurts more than help. Dems r-e-a-l-l-y need to understand the differences, or you’ll never appeal to the masses, which ARE more conservative than liberal. Too many of you live in liberal enclaves, and think the world has the same values, but it doesn’t. A wake up call is needed, as the balance of government isn’t in place, and it can’t be replaced with extremists (nothing will get done, but gridlock).
Balance is what’s needed, which is the basic reason I’m voting for Hillary. She’s NOT my first choice, but she won’t destroy the government or engage in Constitutional destruction. Compare to McInsane, it’s a sanity check, too.
Who invented these caucuses? I’m trained as a classicist and in Athens (founding of democracy and all) the citizens voted by secret ballot (okay, they used stones but at least they didn’t get lost or torn).
I teach in Boulder and live in Denver and in order to make to my caucus, I ended classes early, drove like a bat out of hell, parked illegally, risked my life on the icy sidewalks (I use a cane) and was finally escorted into a tiny 5th grade classroom, filled with radiant, white upper-middle class Obama supporters, holding their young children up high to witness the historical event.
The Obama precinct captain hijacked the meeting, intent to convert the handful of us who were there to caucus for Hillary. It was the least democratic event I’ve ever participated in (excepting university politics).
I’ve been a Democrat all my life and suddenly I don’t recognize the party. Or maybe it’s been a slow evolution. I feel like a hawk compared to these sappy progressives who want to make clover chains with the jihadists.
I think people should have to pass an exam on current events and when they do, they can vote in primaries.
Winner take all seems fair, but only if everything leading up to it is fair, and that’s the big problem.
“It was the least democratic event I’ve ever participated in (excepting university politics).”
LOL,you got that right.
Now conservatives would actually endorse such an idea if it meant learning Civics 101 (not current events). But then again, we’re the “Darwinists”, who prefer such rigid testing Liberals tend to consider “racist”. Just look at the mess with SAT tests alone. Dumb it down so everyone doesn’t have to feel “inferior” if their scores are lower than “white males”. And let’s not get into AA (you know Affirmative Action).
It’s pretty disingenuous to compare that to these other items, or even results from the background.
Poverty is the no.1 item related to a lot of society’s worst ills, there’s a causative and correlative association.
The Reagan era destroyed education best it could. “Facts are stupid things.”
And it’s NOT cured with handouts.
It was on a decline long before Reagan was in office. I sure remember how terrible the school system was in the 70s. They were h-e-a-v-y in social promotion. then. Known folks who couldn’t even READ get their high school diploma!!
When they first implimented standardized testing in my state in 1981, I scored in the top 20% of the state. I slept through much of school and never even took algebra (bored to tears, despite my IQ is close to 140). My tech relative (who’s Mensa qualified even), just dropped out of school altogether in the 70s. He got tired of teaching the teachers their own lessons (he read comic books in class as relief from boredom). He went ahead and took the GED, and blew some national scholastic records in the process.
Both of us learned not by the help of the helpless teachers we had, but because we were w-e-l-l read. I was reading junior high level books in 3rd grade, for example. Why? Because from 7 years-old I read Websters unabridged dictionaries (a big fat leather bound 2 volume set from the 50s) and the Encyclopedia Britannica (that my working-class dad bought that cost a fortune) as a hobby, while girls were playing with dolls and boys with Match Box cars!!
So please, don’t tell me Reagan destroyed the school system. It was gone from the 70s onwards. Those who did well took the initiative, and didn’t accept “we’re all equals”, nor just accepted dumbed down education as “kewl”.
SO with you here:
and I blame growing income inequality and the insular lives certain people lead.
“The Obama precinct captain hijacked the meeting, intent to convert the handful of us who were there to caucus for Hillary. It was the least democratic event I’ve ever participated in (excepting university politics). “
There is a riveting portion of Before The Storm where Perlstein describes the political education of Clif White, the man who engineered the Draft Goldwater movement. He copied the tactics that the communists used against him in the garment unions in 1930’s New York. Not only did he copy them but he trained ALL the precinct workers. And in secret for one full year before Goldwater declared.
Betcha that the Chicago Machine did the same for Obama. Kids that light in the britches don’t become juggernauts overnight.
It’s amazing how this 2004 darling of the Democratic National Convention is just a common liar that has the power transforms people into Obama-bots or Obamamaniacs or whatever to many of you Senator Clinton supporters.
Guess Senator Clinton’s powers are stronger than Senator Obama’s.
Well, Dario Herrera, another young up-and-comer in the national Democratic party, is spending his days and nights in the Federal prison camp at Florence, CO.
sic transit gloria
And your point is? That all Dem young up-and-comers are bad apples?
Wow! I guess that’s what’s wrong with the Democratic Party. The babies are bad.
Nope. The point is that Democrats long so for a new Messiah (JFK) that they slurp up ANY swill handed them, hoping to be led into a new Camelot.
And the Democratic candidates of mature years who run for anything are from one of three schools:
1. Come, let us Reason Together;
2. Save the Whales! Save the Dolphins! Kumbayah!
3. “I am the MOST like JFK! Camelot is upon us!”
Think about it for a moment (if you’re old enough to remember the 1960 campaign): didn’t Kerry run as JFK redux, substituting Swift Boats for PT-109 and dragging out some old Navy buddies to support Exhibit A?
And, having had their heads handed to them in 1960 by this technique, and having seen Kerry telegraph his intentions since the 1970’s…DO YOU THINK THE GOP WAS WAITING EAGERLY FOR HIM?
The Democratic party suffers from being Charisma Challenged and collectively possessing a Surprising Lack of Imagination.
This game, you see, is Full Contact, No Helmets, No Pads, No jockstraps, Full Cleats. And the way you win it is with sharp elbows, fast thinking, overwhelming strategic and tactical thinking and the DESIRE (as oposed to Willingness) to stomp the other guys’ scrota flat, knock their dicks into the dirt, and walk on their backs.
The Winners get to control the Press Box, rewrite the Rules and pick the Officials for the ensuing game.
Selecting a bunch of lightweights stupid enough to work for and take money and under-the-table favors from a big city slumlord is, and Herrera’s inability to stay away from a whoremonger, reflect, prima facie, a collectively deficient grasp of the concept of Electability.
No, that kind of training would have come via the words, works, and deeds of Saul Alinsky, not the Daley machine.
We differ here.
Nonetheless I am tickled by the irony should it prove true.
Alinksy was the subject of Clinton’s senior thesis.
You Got Me Smilin~Jim..
I think people should have to pass an exam on current events and when they do, they can vote in primaries.
What would the founding fathers say at that thoroughly un-Democratic statement? For shame!
Methinks is Senator Clinton’s precinct captain hijacked the meeting, you would have been laughing at those “radiant, white upper-middle class Obama supporters”. I could be wrong…
That being said, I don’t like caucuses either. It’s a party without good music and good drinks.
T-Steel -
The Founding Fathers were in favor of an informed electorate.
So how do we make sure that the ENTIRE electorate is informed? Should they have to go to election primer class? Take a national test?
And what about time? Can you insure that no one cheats? Etc… Etc…
Sorry. The electorate is already informed. Look at this wonderful site. Just chock full of Senator Clinton goodness.
You get a much better informed electorate if you make all the pundidiots in the media STFU!
Can’t argue with that!
>>> “…radiant, white upper-middle class Obama supporters,”
Given that it was Boulder, were they also carrying their copies of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book?
Bring back the Poll tax while your at it? Great Idea! Literacy testing worked so well before.
Scott
I hate caucuses! They’re terrible for women, the elderly, people who are shy, those who have to work, people with small children.
My state has a primary and a caucus. Don’t ask me why, all our delegates come from the caucus. Five times as many people vote in the primary but it doesn’t count for anything.
Something that’s been in the back of my mind, delegate counts from the individual states are only media estimates, projections. Many of us states don’t even seat our delegates until the state conventions. Delegates drop out, change their minds, etc. In my state’s history this has happened a few times, a candidate wins our state, but by the time we get to the state convention the support for that person is no longer there.
I agree that the Democrats should completely eliminate caucases, have secret ballots, voting places open all day for Democrats only. Lanny Davis, former White House Special Counsel, makes the best argument regarding super delegates and I agree with him. We created them for situations like the one we’re having now: when no one candidate gets all the delegates needed for the nomination, the super delegates can be the deciding factor. We need them to be independent and use their best judgment to appoint the most electable candidate, to appoint the candidate who will best represent the party. Because the primaries tend to attract the most STRIDENT, shall we say, of the party, who don’t always show up for the general election, we want to make sure that the rank and file Democrats who will vote in the general get the best candidate. I think the most important thing is that they remain independent because they’re not chosen to represent different parts of the country equally. So to expect them to vote according to where they’re from, or where they currently live is ridiculous. I realize there is always the chance of corruption within this system, but hey, that’s politics, right? We have to hope that all along the way there exists some higher moral and ethical code alongside the inevitable corruption. My two cents. Oh, and go Hillary.
I’m a Hillary supporter too, and I read and was very impressed by Ferraro’s article about how and why super delegates came into being. It just doesn’t seem like it’s working out the way it was planned, however. They don’t seem to be exercising independent judgment — too many of them seem to be susceptible to bullying. Maybe the rules should be changed so they have to shut up until the convention. Rather than being a stopgap measure to save us voters from our own bad judgment (a concept I find rather patronizing), they seem to be just adding to the chaos. And who gets to choose them? I realize many are elected officials or former elected officials, but who decided Donna Brazile gets to be one?
And to add, they vote in secret.
Without votes cast in secret, bullying will be the norm — and that’s VERY undemocratic.
It’s why voters are allowed to NOT reveal their political ideology, and even voting booths are free from prying eyes.
Voters vote in private; the same should be with super-delegates.
I agree…EVERYONE should be voting in private, especially the superdelegates.
Donna just looks great in Spandex and a cape!
(1) no superdelegates
(2) no caucases–all primaries
(3) all closed primaries
(4) proportional allocation of delegates on a statewide basis–i don’t care about congressional districts–they have nothing to do with it–i don’t care about favoring “rural voters”—a voter is a voter, and every vote in the state should count the same–15% threshhold to discourage fringe candidates
(5) bonus delegates (5%? 10%?) awarded to winner of majority or plurality of votes in state
(6) schedule of primaries set by DNC–with rotation of order cycle by cycle–enough with the anti democratic primacy of the rural blowhards in Iowa and NH
All right!!! I nominate freemansfarm to immediately replace Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and everyone else now running the national party. I think it is evident from the &*#%ed-up state of our present nominating process, freemansfarm is easily smart enough to replace them all.
Please add in absentee voting. We are mailed our ballots or pick them up. Fill them out. Mail them in or drop them off.
Can’t live without my absentee voting. No lines, no crowds, no parking problems.
As a independent who leans towards the Democrats I say Bravo!
Such a proposal would put a end to the GOP and corrupt party insiders gaming the system and make it more Democratic.
Just about what I had planned to say except your plan is better than mine and more well thought out. I too want my absentee ballot though.
Unfortunately this plan of yours is far too well thought out, commonsensical, and fair to ever be implemented by the leadership of the Democratic Party.
We don’t choose our President by caucus, so we should’nt be choosing our nominee by one.
Repubs shouldn’t be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries because of their “cheat to win” mischief making ways.
Independents should only be allowed to vote once, for either the Dem, Repub or independent candidate.
Eliminating caucuses would be a good start to cleaning up the Democratic Party. Assuring that Republicans were not influencing the outcome would be essential to an overhaul as well. How to ensure that rural communities are not overwhelmed by the cities and rural areas are not given excessive weight is a problem that needs to be studied.
An even better way to select a candidate would be to:
Use a format like that new show where all questions are pre-asked and answered with the aide of a polygraph machine!
Kermit and Cookie Monster then give the questions to the Candidates who are strapped onto a Balistic Missle!
Rules are simple, answer incorrectly on 5 of the 50 questions asked and the button is pushed and the losing candidate is forever gone!
Now one stipulation is Obama is banned from pressing any buttons, because he makes mistakes when doing so and this is after all rocket science politics!
LOL, he’ll go for the yellow every time, perhaps he is mistaking yellow for GOLD.
Mel you are a riot: that is just great!
I’m for popular vote, no registration same day, at least two weeks, and mail in ballots to save money. I’m for having them all on the same day too. With a second vote for the top two.
Boy howdy.
Absolutely get rid of caucuses. They are profoundly undemocratic.
I lean towards closed primaries, proportional representation.
Rotate the order of states’ primaries. I do think there is some logic to having a couple small states go first, just because that kind of “retail politics” enables voters to get a really close look at the candidates in a way that is tough to do in a large state. But I’m sort of agnostic on that point.
I don’t favor a “national primary.” The candidates’ performances over the course of a long campaign really does show what they are made of.
“I don’t favor a “national primary.” The candidates’ performances over the course of a long campaign really does show what they are made of.”
I have really never had an opinion one way or the other about a national primary; but your point is well taken. As this campaign has gone on, my views have become more set in some ways, but have changed considerably in others. And some of the changes are on issues I consider very important, so you have convinced me of the correctness of your position — sorry all you get is my gratitude for enlightenment.
You’ll never convince me on the small state going first issue, though — after their really close look, Iowa still picked Huck??
The age old problem though is that Too many people are then asked to go to the polls oith only one name on the ballot.
The Democratic Party has too long been a national irrelevancy. I’m beginning to fear it’s forgotten how to take itself and its mission seriously anymore.
There used to be Platforms that guided the elected members, provided a grounding and rallying point. There’s no overt common set of principles or positions that themselves unify and provide identity or meaning to being a “Democrat”.
Once upon a time the Democratic party was the ruling party in a majority of state and local governments and a real governing party nationally. That hasn’t been the case for twenty years or so. Not having to govern, to be responsible, the DNC and the party’s elected officials seem to have gone all navel contemplating on us, devolved into thinking “process” replaces principles and that organizing is about structural apparatus rather than educating and communicating with the electorate, with the citizenry.
The Democratic Party got here through a lack of something intestinal more than structural, the Democratic party has been lost in the wilderness. I fear it has lost even faith in itself and its own base. Least ways too much process attempting to fill a void made by the guts and smarts it lost.
That’s a sign of Communism.
The leaders are navel gazers who have wonderful ideas (never means tested them, but hey, they’re great on paper and folks love a great story!), and they allow their “Meowists” (here “grassroots”) to rant on how great the party is, making sure to browbeat every message from their party’s little red book. Those who don’t confirm, they send their Commissars in to help amp the propaganda. If that dosn’t work, they send in their paramilitary police to either send their brethen to stalags for “reeducation”, or execute them in the public square (how DK does it with their little photochopping rituals of public shaming, for example).
The Democrat party got to be where it is today, because they allowed kids without any iota of politics be their voice. The leaders are just more interested in cheap votes (even if it’s registering dogs and dead people as voters), and keeping these surges happy. If they riot and burn down their own neighborhoods, they accept no responsibility, blaming the GOP or anyone else, instead (who aren’t stupid enough to riot and burning down their own house in the process). If the kids get unruly, they’ll just sit back and smile, because by gosh, they have a surge of one-time votes and maybe, just maybe it’s enough to win an election!
There’s a serious problem with the Dem party top down. Instead of rooting out the losers, and reining in the “grassroots”, they allow the losers (who don’t win elections, mind you) to be their winners, and the “grassroots” openly spank their party for free even on the party’s dime, in the name of “democracy”.
In 1789, the French also called their process “democratic”. What did they get for 20 years, instead?
Want Dems to be presidents and have a more local voice? Revamp the party. Take Rove’s playbook and use it against the GOP, even. Purist ideology espoused here (e.g., closed primaries) will just bring 20 more years of mayhem, since it hasn’t WORKED for 20 years.
Definition of insanity is to keep repeating what doesn’t work, hoping it will, after all!
national primary. if party regulars feel the need to go wear funny hats and get drunk in some city, they can do that too, but the candidate ought to be selected by a closed national primary.
The single most important thing to abandon is this languid nomination, state by state schedule. It should be a national, one day primary.
“Retail politics” be damned.
If a candidate hasn’t built national stature enough to compete in and win a national primary then they’ve absolutely no business being considered for the highest national office.
Correct.
The current election system was geared for a day when information wasn’t widely available. Today over 90% has a TV, and even more a radio, to listen (even if they can’t even read or write) what the candidate positions are and their platform.
Having one big party day to elect their nominee, will also reduced the cost of these elections — now going to be over 1 BILLION dollars if this isn’t reeled in!
I’d prefer three big party days, but if one is the choice, it sure beats repeating this MI and FL chaos again (as it’ll happen in the future, as it’s a bargaining chip).
That the Democrat party would even THOUGHT of disenfrancising millions of voters based on arcane rules, they show to the world what politics is about to this party leadership — and it’s anything but democratic!
Yay! One super-dooper Saturday! Now of this I get to go first, no I get to go first b.s. We all go first.
Only if the federal government will fund public transportation to the polls for the day, country wide (I know states will balk at the idea, as public transportion is a red-ink loss of state funds).
Where I live, there’s no weekend bus service for over half of the county, for example. Which means, no votes from the very folks the Dem party claims to represent!
Just cheaper and less of a logistical mess to have elections on work days. Those who can’t make it to the polls because of work, can just vote as an absentee (avoid the lines all together!).
I think free public transportation for Election Day is a terrific idea. We have like a 3/4 service on the weekend with bus service ending at 5PM. If we had a Super-Dooper Saturday with free public transportation then that transportation should run as long as the polls are open and one hour after to get every body home.
Nice dream. Half they people in my town don’t even think that public transportation is necessary. Hey, they got their gas-guzzling SUVs to get around with so why would anyone need to take a bus. (Or in my case, choose to take a bus. I’m pro-choice in that area too.)
Sorry, I meant to say we have 3/4 bus service on Saturday with no service on Sunday.
Don’t even get me started on the crappy public transportation in our town. It stinks!
What of Saturday Sabeth folks (Jews seventh day adventist, etc if sunday is not appropriate why is Saturday? That is why Perot suggested both days and even thought that friday afternoon should be considered. Cost is cheap if it gains civic involvement.
Then there is just the Vote Scam thing of stolen elections going to the higest bidder to deal with,
Scott
I’m okay with proportional allocation of the delegates, but only if it accurately reflects the popular vote totals.
Some states allocate delegates district by district, so that the popular vote winner could get less delegates than the second place finisher.
Either way, we need all 50 states (plus the territories) to be on the same page rule-wise. And we need either regional primaries (on a rotating order) or a national primary.
As for delegates let the states apportion delegates any oddball way they like but not to a Nominating Convention but to a National Electoral Convention. Have all the infighting you want over ideas and drinks.
This is not my idea. I wish it were. A poster over at Truth Dig came up with it. It is not the complete post. I have tried to indicate this with the use of ….. Anything in quotation marks is from this posters post. He crunched a lot of numbers too. I have omitted those by and large.
START QUOTE
“……..If the Democrats had a primary system that was more straightforward, and the winner of the popular vote won all the states’ pledged delegates, then Hillary Rodham Clinton would currently have 1430 delegates, compared to Barack Obama’s 1205 delegates. Why does this matter?
This is where “electability” in the general election comes to play. The general election employs a winner-take-all-electoral-college-votes systems, it is not parsed out by congressional districts.
I indulged myself and looked at the numbers by electoral college.
If this were the general between the two, Hillary would currently have 219 (267 if you count FL and MI) electoral college votes to Barack’s 193.
Out of these Hillary would have won 121 in ‘blue’ states (CA, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI) and 98 in ‘red’ states (AZ, AR, NV, NM, OH, OK, TN, TX).
On the other hand Obama would have won 86 in ‘blue’ states (CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MN, VT, WA, WI), and 107 in ‘red’ states (AL, AK, CO, GA, ID, IA, KS, LO, MS, NE, ND, SD, SC, UT, VA). …………..
As you can see, a winner-take-all scenario best mirrors the electoral college.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CURRENT FORMULA OF THE DNC DOES NOT MIRROR THE GENERAL ELECTION FORMULA, HENCE WE ARE STUCK WITH A COMPLICATED METHOD, THAT IS PROBABLY THE REASON WHY THE DEMOCRAYS HAVE FAILED TO DOMINATE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTESTS IN RECENT HISTORY.” [caps mine]………..
END QUOTE
This person may be on to something. By allocating our delegates by a complicated and proportionate system the candidate we come up with is similarly diluted and is not reprsentative of a true majority. This could also explain why in poll after poll we see a majority of Americans have positions on issues more closely aligned with the D party yet we lose so many elections.
I know proportionate sounds so democratic, so noble, so good. But one person one vote is pretty darned democratic too.
Basically I think the D Party needs to do away with proportionate allocation of delegates, only Ds (and maybe Is, (I am not sure on that one) vote - NO crossover Rs. Maybe a national primary, or maybe 4 regional primaries. If states still want to be first the regional contests could be rotated.
No caucuses. Rget are not democratic at all and are too easily manipulated.
Bottom line is we need to do business differently than we are right now.
Why folks in the know are TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE BICKERING that delegates don’t even matter — the EC DOES!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the missspelling in my post.
Rget should be They. Makes more sense that way.
There are so many things that would take awhile to elaborate… In the meantime Newskeek reposrrts (from Bill Nelson in FL) that a deal is close to re-do the FL vote by a mail-in system.
Personally I do not like this one bit; I do not trust any “loose paper” system after the TX caucuses tricks from obama people
I want ballots in sealed boxes or machines.
Hey, can you imagine Obama supporters volunteering in the Post Office?
So, I hope the deal fails. If they want to to a do-over the they should hold a proper primary and find a way to pay for.
But they should really they let the results of the FL January primary election results stand as valid.
The FL vote was forced onto the people by the Rep.
Legislature to no fault of party leaders.
It is absurd to punish the FL voters for this.
The Dem. Party has accepted other states to change their primary dates. Was SC which voted in January one of them ? Anyone knows/remmebers?
Caucuses aren’t primaries. They’re a CHEAP imitation with too great a possibility for intimidation - the very opposite of democracy.
They’re perfect vehicles for those unburdened by manners.
Secret ballot is how voting in this country is supposed to be done. It’s how juries vote. It’s how one votes in the GE.
If a state is too cheap to have a primary, then it shouldn’t be allowed to have some half-assed deal that convolutes the nominating process.
Winner take all disenfranchises voters, so I’m against it as well. However, the delegates should be awarded fairly.
Open primaries are nonsensical. It’s about THE PARTY.
Allowing Independents and Opponents to help choose the candidate is idiotic.
Even without intimidation (or plain old fear/pressure), caucuses are ridiculous. They take forever, there’s not enough room to sit (not a minor issue for people with disabilities or even people who aren’t feeling well), there’s never enough parking, people have to work, get babysitters, it’s insanity. Only a tiny fraction of the voters who would participate in a primary will be able to participate in a caucus for one reason or another. Hell, plenty of people who show up actually leave too early due to the inconvenience and chaos. Then there’s also teh issue that not everyone who comes is a known quantity. By the time the assignments are handed out, most people have left, so just about everybody has a chance to make it to the next level. Some guy says he’s for Hillary, but if he’s lying and he plans to cast his vote for Obama (provided he makes it all the way to tehhe nat Convention), there’s not a damn thing that can be done about it, its his right. It’s not a way to pick a dogcatcher.
If the goal was to get the best canidate for the job there would be no parties. We would vote in a primary for three possibles then in the general for a winner. auto matic runnoff rules (List canidates in order of preference, if there is no clear winner then the one with the highest score wins.)
Fairly opens the possibility for a Ross Perot, Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, etc.
Scott
Larry, I am strongly opposed to caucuses: it’s undemocratic (who wants to stand up and as it has happened this year sustain being bullied by your neighbors?. I want my vote to be secret : I’ll share it with whoever I see fit and actually respect.
More importantly, it disenfranchises a LOT of voters. Look at WA and the sheer number of people that vote in the primaries versus caucuses. Who can stand there for hours and/or miss work ? Most cannot !!
So I am all for primaries. Independents could vote but registered Republicans shouldn’t.
Now comes the hard part: winner takes all or proportional allocation of delegates ? I am not so sure. None seems ideal.
Proportional allocation seems better. But there is a lot of gerrymandering going on.
What is a sure no no is the the Texas hybrid system and what is worse of all is their way of allocating delegates according to the number of people that have voted in a previous election. That seems outright illegal ?
I am all for a mandatory voting system for everyone in the GE. I think hoosing a President is not just a right but a civic duty.
I live in texas and let me tell you, the “Texas Two-Step” is one giant pain in the A$$! The caucus doesnt start until all the voters have finished in the precincts and sometimes that means starting the caucus after midnight! Guess who that favored? The young college aged starry eyed Obamabots who didnt have to get up at 5 am the next morning to go to work like the rest of us. And god forbid those of us who were over 50 and had been at work all day, then stood in line to vote couldnt deal with waiting up half the night to caucus! Was there ever a doubt about who would win the caucus? Not to us. Hillary is the best hope we have to beat the republicans in November. By all means, lets choose the most unelectable candidate based on crap like this and then we will have another 8 years of the glorious republican heaven on earth we are all trying to deal with now!
More about Caucuses: here is something worth reading if you can:
It is a link to a blog by Ann Althouse and seems interesting. Take a look if you can:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-results-so-different-in-primary.html
Althouse is a paragon of stupidity.
Maybe MrMurder; I really don’t know her. I was linked to her article and it is worth reading it. It is noty about her but rather describes pretty well the miserable tricks of Obama supporters in TX and has some interesting testimonies from people on the ground.
My apology to you, it was a pretty well written piece. Unusual that.
By Althouse? Unusual? That at the very least.
I am trying to click but just knowing it’s Althouse is making that difficult.
Jesus Christ!! Is this any way to elect a nominee? Democrats deserve to lose. They are so stupid and corrupt. I have been a dem all my life and it is one of my biggest regrets. On my death bed when someone asks me if I have any regrets, that is what I will tell them.
“I was a stupid democrat.”
Andy -
I thought that it was very insightful and well-written. Thanks for sharing.
I jusr read Bert post above. It is true the GE is winner takes all. So that might be a better thermometer
in choosing the right candidate. I wrote above that
proportional alllocation “might seem” more democratic.
But I do worry about gerrymandering and there is a lot of it going on…
For those of you wwho have a “geek” in you here is a provocative article by the American Mathematical Society Is voting Really Fair ?
Tell me what you think:
ttp://www.ams.org/ams/mathnews/voting.html
1. Divide the country into four districts. Starting in January, on the last weekend of the month the District 1 primary will be held. February, District 2; March, District 3; and April, District 4. (this will give candidates time to campaign in each district) District primaries can be alternated every year so that District 1 is not always in January.
2. Every vote is counted and the winner wins by popular vote. Have closed primaries. Have paper ballots so there will be a backup in case of a recount. No computers. Fill in bubbles with black pens and put ballot through a scanner.
3. Don’t need a convention for either party and the election takes place on November 4 with two weeks early voting. Use the electoral college and winner takes all.
The process should match with Congressional districts.
I think they should go 5 months, 10 states a month (all on same day), each month with around the same number of delegates. Primaries of course. Closed. Rotate the schedual every election cycle so that everyone gets the chance to be in the first. If I had my druthers I would make all the primaries mail in to avoid the media’s disgusting exit polling coverage. I miss waiting and hoping.
Winner should get 75% of a states delegates, with the remaining 25% divided between the other candidates. No super delegates.
If I had my druthers I would make all the primaries mail in to avoid the media’s disgusting exit polling coverage. I miss waiting and hoping.
Can I kiss you for that statement? Awesome idea. Have to remove the media. They make everything into a “Made for TV” movie.
Smallest states first, build to a climax otherwise I totally agree.
The Democratic Party, my Democratic Party, ceased to exist years ago. My Democratic Party was the party of Bobbie Kennedy and Scoop Jackson and William Proxmire and Hubert Humphrey. All great Democrats who remembered it was most important to be great Americans first. What we now call the Democratic Party is simply a collection of doctrinaire factions and radical interest groups. Concepts like compromise and doing what’s best for the party and the country aren’t even in their vocabulary. Our elected officials are spineless and self-serving. There isn’t a statesman among them. The incredibly disfunctional nominating process has succeeded in whittling the field down to the two weakest and most divisive finalists. JFK and FDR couldn’t be nominated for president by this Democratic Party. The base has become a collection of bullies and punks who are completely intoxicated by their own self-appointed power and misdirected sense of superiority. What unbelievable hubris. Look at the discourse on kos and Huffington Post. It’s nothing short of the internet version of mob violence. The genie that the likes of Olbermann and Moulitsas and Huffington and others let out of the bottle isn’t going back anytime soon. It wants blood. Lots of blood. This will finish very badly.
At this point I’d love to see a real effort to try to put together a group of centrist and center-right Republicans and centrist and center-left Democrats to try to forge a new alliance. Form a new third party. Let the remaining left and right wack jobs have what’s left of the Democratic and Republican parties. Maybe something will grow out of the Unity ‘08 effort. If it does happen I’d join up in a heartbeat. But I’m not holding my breath.
I think I need a beer…
JFK and FDR couldn’t be nominated for president by this Democratic Party.
AMEN! And make that two.
You’re spot on. The current Democratic party is living off the efforts and reputation of men long dead like FDR, Truman and others.
And like you say FDR and JFK couldn’t get elected in todays Democratic party.
The activist base is something else - mostly white upper class twenty somethings who don’t seem to work for a living and are disconnected from the trials and tribulations that most working class Americans face every day.
They care only for their agenda and ideology. Lysenko would understand them.
And the GOP is no better. Eisenhower would be labeled a socialist and booted out by today’s moral and mental pygmies that populate it.
Well said. No more than Ford or Eisenhower could be a Republican today.
Plus us Dems are good at bringing knives to gunfights.
True. And we don’t even bring sharp knives…
Yeppers.
Why are Dems good with bringing knives against firearms? Because they want to kill the 2nd Amendment and consider a knife for defense is just as good!
If you can’t win at 100%, Dems, settle with 60%+ if you can. Change is bad overnight, but so good over time (it means tests the ideas, too).
Okay, so I just got home from dinner with fellow Clinton supporters. Tomorrow, Colorado holds the county caucuses. The one for Denver County starts at 930am and is held in the convention center because they expect so many people.
My dinner companions are delegates for the county caucus and have to be there by 6am to line up because it’s first-come first-served. If the place fills with Obama delegates, then the Clinton delegates don’t get seated. Is this legal?
There were a flurry of phone calls during dinner from the Clinton state offices reporting that some Obama supporters had volunteered to be Clinton delegates in order to get in to the county caucus and sway the vote. Apparently the state offices keep track of who’s for whom.
This all seems so far fetched to me, on the one hand, but on the other hand, given all that’s gone down during this primary season, I completely believe it.
But the important thing is that caucusing allow such doubt and confusion to infuse the whole event. It’s so undemocratic.
“6am to line up because it’s first-come first-served. If the place fills with Obama delegates, then the Clinton delegates don’t get seated.”
It’s one of the tactics White learned in the 30’s that I previously mentioned.
“Is this legal? “
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Obamas team knows how to game the system. How is it that experienced campaigner Hillary put together such a team of putz’s that they do not know How the mechanics work better than the New commers?
It has been a sadly botched campaign by a smart lady that should have known better.
She is still my girl, but I am angry with the team.
So I made all the way down to the basement. *crash* *bang* stumble Oww! ..where is the light down here?…cha click…ahhh some light…WOW! Will you look at that! Not one person mentioned the goobs of money that warps reality down here in the basement of politics.
Campaign dollars above 10 dollars should be declared.
1 dollar,one vote. Nationally primaries over a 3 day weekend. No MSM calling elections until the state certifies the results.
No “Lord of the Flies” caucus’s
Many good ideas posted but how do qualified candidates and ideas get heard?
Words matter
Actions matter
but Money…Money makes the world go round.
Thanks Larry.
Great point, TeakWoodKite. How many potentially excellent candidates have been denied the opportunity to lead as a result of funding?
Jim Marcinkowski’s lack of backing/funding from the Dems comes to mind.
Should the Democratic Party be more autocratic and tell the states exactly what to do and when to do it? I agree that some form of regional primaries makes sense. Not so sure about the winner-take-all method. (The electoral college votes are NOT determined the same way in every state. Look at Nebraska.)
The reason the nomination is taking so long is the high quality candidates. It is not an easy decision for the voters. And why is it getting nasty now? Maybe because nasty works - ask Rove.
There is bound to be more third party candidates than Nader in 2008. Maybe not anyone older, though.
Off topic - did you know when Pandora released all of mankinds’ evils that hope remained in the jar? Lots of different opinions about that…
So it’s fair to say that everyone is completely satisfied and in favor of caucuses - just kidding.
Primaries ar strange beast. I am not truely in favor of the party system as such. I would best like the instant runnoff system in a double elimination contest. I will keep on dreaming.
What is wrong with the party is total isolation of candidates. We need anouther Huey P. Long to ahow us the way!
Scott
Here’s the problem with Dems in it’s ugliness.
Now Florida does have a Republican governor and state government. Okay, I can see how partisans can even resent it, but the governor also has to swallow GOP pride and do what’s best for his state, too (as it IS his state regardless). Remember FL is being punished by the GOP as well, for moving up it’s primary date. They will be going to their convention with 50% of the delegates, instead. So he IS more sympathetic than outright partisans may want to admit — THE WHOLE STATE WON’T BE FAIRLY REPRESENTED AT TWO CONVENTIONS!!
So instead of taking the olive branch and do with a compromise, this is the response…
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/08/State/Ideas_floated_for_Dem.shtml
The Dem party IS leaderless. It’s a ship without a rudder OR captain. Instead of pushing the DNC to get off their stupid butts and settle the matter — even coughing up the money to get this thing over with, if need be — they just idle, like a car in a garage going to nowhere!
If I was a Dem I’d be pissed off beyond a belief, and would either hold protests at the state capital, or just vote for another non-party candidate in disgust.
How can your OWN PARTY abuse you like this, and you take it like candy????
God. They can get 400 protesters BUSSED in to protest a Republican comment, but can’t get 400 protesters to the state capital to protest being NOT represented at the convention…
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/28/Pasco/Democrats_pumping_up_.shtml
Totally backwards! The Democrat party is killing itself top down!!!!
I just realized the link I gave you above is missing the “h”at teh begining. So here it goes again:
For those of you wwho have a “geek” in you here is a provocative article by the American Mathematical Society Is Voting Really Fair ?
It is very short. Tell me what you think:
http://www.ams.org/ams/mathnews/voting.html
Duh!
Apparently kids are just learning political science not taught in school, let alone basic marketing you learn from experience, not in class. :rolleyes:
You can see this play out exactly on TV with the “exit” poll results, calling elections even before they’re finally counted. The media isn’t doing it for themselves only, but is trying to persuade the remaining voters in later time zones, their would be candidate lost. Psychological intimidation.
ChrisXP:
No, no that’s not the point of this. Maybe the Newsweek article helps. If not I can really send you the real stuff
This is not based on political science (soft “science”) but rather on true mathematics and statistics (hard science).
The experiment is gear to a different voting system that could better reflect the real choice of voters; which the current one doesn’t.
It is not for media purposes or anything like that.
PS: the Newsweek article is below.
Don’t get me started about how mathematics can be used as a political tool and how it has messed up physics, and especially cosmology. Case in point where math is being regarded higher than observational evidence (which is the PREMIERE source of the scientific method). Thus born, not only the Standard Cosmological Model (the “big bang”), and the hocus-pocus behind “global warming”.
So no, I don’t regard math as a “hard science”, just another political science that’s soft on facts!
ChrisXP, you really have no clue what you are talking about…What a bunch BS…. But I forgive you; you were probably traumatized at school with Math.
Leave it there will you? No point in embarrasing yourself any more.
Go back to politics…make some more sense there.
Andy, you don’t know what I know (especially since I am an amateur astronomer, and follow especially the cosmology dilemnas). Your opinion here is uninformed, and has as much basis as O-Bomba on national security. hehehe
Yeah, I suggest that you stop now from embarassing yourself.
…Ripley’s getting the flamethrower out just in case…
Well, what I do know is that what you wrote is BS.
And yeah!! it shows you are indeed an amateur
:-) 
BTW: An Obama supporter I am definitely not; should know that by now if had been reading my posts.
My apologies for trying to make you think outside the box.
You talk a big game, Andy. Let’s see if it’s not just hot air!
1. Prove my original statement that science hasn’t become a political tool (when it always had been, but now it’s even polarized).
2. Prove that my statement that observational evidence isn’t being trumpeted by math majors — and Establishment stiffs — in their belief that’s harder “evidence” (thus, throwing the scientific method itself out the window).
3. Prove that the SCM isn’t false, when observational evidence is strongly questioning the theory.
Drive by “your stupid” comments don’t apply, answering the questions logically can.
Gosh you are definitely full of it…
You don’t prove negatives: Logic 101. Nor do I have to
waste my time with “your statements”.
Go bait someone else.
Typical O-Bomba reply!
Psst…You don’t know regional dialect, either. Down South we use double negatives a lot.
BTW, I didn’t usher any bait, I did ask you to prove your opinion. Otherwise, it’s worthless, as much as O-Bomba’s rhetoric.
Debate tip: don’t accuse, unless you can back up your statements. Because, honey, I sure can!
Not my opinion ChrisXP, not my opinon at all..
As HRC says: my basis is knowledge, experience and hard work. Obama didn’t get all the academics
Prove it.
Stop talking like O-Bomba, and put words to action.
hehehe
Now, in relation to my post above;
by the American Mathematical Society Is Voting Really Fair ? http://www.ams.org/ams/mathnews/voting.html
Here you have a 3 seconds test you can do: 3 different methods to choose your favorite candidate: click and submit and see ther results….(scary?)
http://www.amstat.org/mathandvoting/index.cfm?fuseaction=Main
Here you have a Newsweek article that came out in relation to this. Again is short and in a layman’s language
http://www.newsweek.com/id/105586/page/2
PS: starting on Page 1 might help
http://www.newsweek.com/id/105586/page/1
Thanks Andy, I’ll check it out.
Have you seen this from Scientific American?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=markets-predict-outcome-better-than-polls&page=1
No,but I’ll check it out; thanks Taters !
pfft…. Michigan came up with a plan for what is called a ‘firehouse’ primary where the polls would be open for 6 hours, Obama rejected it.
Clinton’s Carville guaranteed $15m to cover costs of firehouse primaries in FL and MI and challenged Obama’s Wilhelm to do the same on CNN. Wilhelm was blindsided.
Checkmate?
waldenpond:
I am not familiar with “firehouse”. Can you explain; is it like a shorter primary or a longer caucus ? Or..
I heard yesterday there were trying to agree on a main-in primary in FL
(Bill Nelson’s comments)
Any news on this?
Thanks !
So what does Obama’s camp propose ?
Larry, RE:
“The caucus…is a stupid unrepresentative system. It only allows people who do not have to work…”
Here in CA there’s no caucusing. I’m grateful. To me it seems like a synthetic creation of a temporary PAC. People are perfectly capable of organizing their own PACs on their own time without the DNC institutionalizing it. I say throw it out. It’s dirty bathwater, and there is no baby to save.
So that leaves ballot votes and whether to allocate the results proportionally or winner take all. There’s valid arguments on both sides. In this case, the patchwork approach of “[making] folks feel good” is fleeting at best. It basically allows those who run the game to control the rules, based on the convenience of those with the most power. Even Vegas gambling has standards fairer than that.
I think the best approach, whether we allocate proportionally or winner take all, or a compromise, is to use a standard that’s applied equally across the board. The Dem leadership needs to face the fact that they simply cannot be all things to all people.
On another level as a perspective, here again in CA, there’ve been recent efforts at proportional allocation of electoral college votes in the GE, instead of the present winner take all. The problem is that only a handful of other states do this. Proportionalizing CA would have a sledge hammer effect on the GE, because the number of electoral votes is close to 2nd-TX and 3rd-NY combined. It would allow a small group (if they succeed), to affect the GE outcome, by changing the rules in only one state.
Another perspective; the office of president itself was originally designed to be proportional, with VP being the one who got the 2nd highest votes in the GE. While George Washington hated political parties as a concept, we’re stuck with them anyway. Likewise, the proportionally elected VP process quickly fell by the wayside.
There’s value in proportional representation, but it can’t apply to everything. It has to be balanced with other kinds of fair standards.
[...] What’s Wrong with the Democratic Party [...]
This democratic party does not represent a democratic process at all. As you mentioned you have those un-democratic caucasis that disfranchise most of the voters - they should be banned! Then there is this proportional representation business that will keep us without a nominee until the convention - and we might lose this since we only have 2 months to compete against McCain. Let’s make it as simple as possible - winner take all in all states. If you would have had that in place we already would have a nominee and would be competing against the repub. And then you have the DNC’s Howard Dean stripping Florida and MI of their delegates! What an idiotic thing to do! We have to seat those delegates - we won’t win in November if we don’t - I for one am from FL and is they disfranchise me I have vowed to vote for McCain - the democratic party doesn’t care about the vote then I don’t care about their party!
The state’s “rights” hogwash allows plenty of room for hanky panky in our elections. What is the problem with a consistent and uniform election system across the nation?
I guess that leaves less room for hanky panky and that is a problem for many people who want to steal elections.
Former President Jimmy Carter has said that the U.S. does not meet the Carter Center’s election standards.
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1996.html
Whatever you do, Kathleen, don’t wave that flag. It’s a red cape before bulls. Because not only the GOP will rally against it, so will the Libertarians and other third parties. They all take a v-e-r-y strong position with State Rights.
Rally calls that will cause a 1992 backlash will be…
1. Talk of not respecting State Rights (major no-no in the South, especially).
2. Talk of amending the 2nd Amendment.
Some things just isn’t touched, without a ugly, and literally bloody street fight.
“Talk of amending the 2nd Amendment.”
What the hell is wrong with the right to keep and arm bears?
Or Bare Arms? (per Dan Whitney)
Nothing..
Both My Bears Have Arms..
When Guns are outlawed…Only Outlaws will Have Guns..
“The correct moment for your Adversary to learn that you are armed is when he sees your muzzle flash. If your training is rigorous and you apply the lessons that you have learned, he will never hear the report.” - Grizzled old Firearms Instructor (long since dead), long ago, in a place far away.