The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Changes in the democratic primary system?

    By ocean-kat on Sat, 06/25/2016 - 2:55pm |

    I often wonder if a person's views change with the candidate they support. My opinions transcend the candidate I support. Every thing I'm posting here I not only believed before this primary but I believed long before the 08 primary. If TPM had saved it's reader's blogs discussions much of this post could be found there from ten years ago.

    Do Sanders supporters really want open democratic party primaries? I don't. There is much anecdotal evidence that democrats and republicans have attempted to fuck with the opposing party's primaries over the years. I know democrats, friends of mine, that change their registration with some regularity to fuck with the republican primary. I'm sure that some republicans do the same. In West Virginia according to exit polls 39% of Sanders voters  said they intended to vote for Trump over Sanders in the general. Do you truly want that sort of fucking with our primaries nationwide?

    In most democratic primaries one must go through a process to change one's registration. One must go to the registrar's office and the are cut off dates. It takes research and planning to mess with the primary but some still do it. Open primaries means a person can do it on a whim on primary day. When Bush was running for his second term there was no reason to vote in a republican primary.. He ran unopposed. Do you truly want independents or republicans to be able to vote in a democratic primary on a whim in that situation?

    I think people are exaggerating the influence of super delegates. They certainly didn't stop Obama from beating Hillary in 08 even though beyond political junkies he was virtually unknown to the general public when he started. Once again, both Obama and Hillary got 18 million votes in 08. Sanders could only drum up 12 million. He didn't lose because of the super delegates. He lost because he couldn't get enough people to care enough about him to get to the polls and vote. I like super delegates as a necessary escape valve. They have never overturned the vote of the people and I believe the influence of their endorsement is minor. They would find other ways to convey their support for a candidate, as is the right of every citizen, even Killer Mike gets to publicize his endorsement. But I'm not so attached to them that I would fight to retain the system.

    If Sanders cares about democracy and fair democratic primaries why no discussion of caucuses? Not only are they the most effective tool for voter suppression but as Washington and Nebraska proved, they don't even represent the will of the voters. But for Sanders it's all about him. It's not about a fair and democratic process. It's only about Bernie winning. Caucuses need to go.

    Comments

    I may still have the TPM archive if anyone cares.(I siphoned it down in the Latter Days of Shire).

    If Superdelegates didn't exist, people would do what Hillary did - line up endorsements. No one can change that. Hillary set out to line up all the support she could. Besides a massive lead of endorsements, she got unions and others to back her. What else was expected to or should happen?

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/25/2016 - 10:02pm

    I agree, and I don't understand the thinking behind the proposed changes.  So the guy who isn't a Democrat, dislikes the Democratic Party and has said many insulting things about it; wants rule changes that would favor those outside of that party to its detriment?  Why is anyone even giving this any attention?


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 7:48am

    Good question.  Bernie knew the DNC rules going in.  "Open primaries" is an oxymoron.  The idea of super-delegates didn't come from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC, or Hillary Clinton.  The idea of sore losers isn't new, either.


    by Ramona on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 9:20am

    What do you mean by detriment? What's good about limiting participation in Democratic Party primaries to the 30% or less of the electorate willing to identify as Democrats?


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 10:20am

    The answer to your question is so glaringly obvious I can't believe that you are serious. The person who represents the Democratic Party should be decided by Democrats.  Anyone can join. It isn't exclusive. It just takes a very minor effort.  In fact, the only reason to join a political party is to have a say in it. Or to run for office, and we see that a non-Democrat used the Party's infrastructure, and did very well indeed.  Yes, if Republicans and Independents could have voted with same-day registration, Bernie might have been the ersatz nominee.  Why would any Democrat want that?


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 11:03am

    Primaries are party functions.  Repeat after me:  PRIMARIES ARE PARTY FUNCTIONS.  Voting in a party primary requires party membership.  Period.  The DNC opened up a can of worms by allowing states to have open primaries.  They blasted into smithereens the entire premise of a primary.   Open primaries make no sense at all.


    by Ramona on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 11:53am

    Again, I might agree if there were any other real option. There isn't. If you want my vote in November, you should welcome my input in the Spring.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 12:37pm

    Mona, technically, parties are not required to have primaries at all; in the good ole' days, party leaders picked presidential nominees behind closed doors. But that's not a democratic way to go about it, and a series of populist revolts from Andrew Jackson to Bob La Follette reformed the process by subjugating PARTY FUNCTIONS to the PUBLIC INTEREST. Our primary electoral system is better for it but still far from ideal, and so continued reforms are needed.

    PS For the record, ocean-kat, I believed in primary reform long before 2008, but I am not so high-minded as to pretend that my opinions are free from political bias whereas everyone who disagrees with me is a shameless hack.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 12:44pm

    Exactly what reforms do you think are needed and why? Are they the same or different than the Sanders proposals? How do you feel about the Sanders proposals and my arguments against them. I am not pretending that my opinions are free from political bias whereas everyone who disagrees with me is a shameless hack. I'm just pointing out that every reform the Sanders camp is pushing would help Sanders. I'm sure you realize you haven't addressed anything in my blog at all. You just came here to insult me.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 12:59pm

    No, I try to avoid that. I came here to respond to Mona's comment, but your asides about Sanders and Sanders supporters annoyed me, so I snarked those asides at the end. Had you left out that stuff and just written a post about democratic primaries, I would have responded seriously to it.

    To your question, I support open primaries and eliminating superdelegates, always have. I recognize that open primaries can be manipulated, but it's tough to do in a large presidential primary, so I think the benefit is worth the risk. I agree that superdelegates have not made a difference in elections so far, so why have them at all? Essentially, the only reason is to allow party leaders to override the popular vote. I agree that caucuses are bad, though I have soft spot for them having grown up in Iowa.

    Ideally, I would eliminate party primaries altogether in favor of a preferential voting system.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:14pm

    I'm a huge supporter of ranked voting but that doesn't change my views on the primary system. I support it mainly because it will make it possible for people to vote for a third party candidate without fear of wasting their vote and giving the election to the republicans.

    It's tough to manipulate the presidential primary process because there are so few open primaries. People aren't likely to spend half a day weeks or months before an election changing their registration just to mess with a democratic primary. But If conservative republicans and independents could on a whim without any restrictions vote in the democratic primary on election day when a republican is running for his second term I think we'd see more manipulation. As I  posted 39% of Sanders WV voters stated in exit polls they planned to vote for Trump. That seems like a major fucking though some of them were registered democrats so it's not a true test case. The extent of the potential problem is still mostly a subjective interpretation at this point but it's not an experiment I want to make.

    I don't see the problem with SD. I think the influence of their endorsement is minor. I can come up with a few scenarios were they would be useful. I think we came close to needing them in 08. But there are other ways to solve potential problems and unify the party. I'm content with ending the SD system if most democrats want that.

    I don't mind a snarky retort in the midst of an argument. I just got a bit annoyed when almost no one addressed a single point from my blog and you decided it deserved nothing but snark.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 2:36pm

    Ranked voting would make primaries obsolete. There were just be one general election and possibly a runoff, depending on the system.

    If conservative republicans and independents could on a whim without any restrictions vote in the democratic primary on election day when a republican is running for his second term I think we'd see more manipulation.

    That's speculation. We have seen people attempt to get people to game the system but no evidence of anyone pulling it off.

    I don't see the problem with SD. I think the influence of their endorsement is minor.

    SDs have had no effect because we haven't had a race that's been close enough for them to sway it since the system was put in place. But it will happen sooner or later, and when it does, it won't be minor at all.

    I just got a bit annoyed when almost no one addressed a single point from my blog and you decided it deserved nothing but snark.

    When you make a provocative remark, people respond to the provocation.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:44pm

    Ranked voting could make primaries obsolete but it's not necessary they do so. There could be ranked voting within party primaries and in a general election. This is what I support.

    yes, it's speculation as I also posted. Open democratic primaries in every state is not a test of reality I'm willing to try.

    I made several reasonable arguments with a couple of pointed questions that could be considered provocative. You responded with nothing but an insult directly addressed to me. If you're proud of that there's no reason to defend it. It should be obvious to everyone that you quite justifiably put me in my place.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:58pm

    It seems difficult for new candidates to become known in a no-primaries only-general scenario, there'd be less detail on Democratic issues replaced by demagoguing on hardened anti-GOP cant, we'd run into Citizens United money issues much earlier in the election cycle, and despite our best intentions I see us likely to have 2 Republicans ina runoff, but the last one might be too cynical.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:00pm

    I dont see why preferential voting and primaries are exclusive.

    Open Primaries are super easy to manipulate when your party has a shoo-in: you get as many of your party to vote in the (peceived) worst possible way in the other party's primary. Thus many Republicans say in the south voted for Obama over Hillary thinking he'd be easier to beat. (no, don't need to debate its effect - just an illustrative example).

    Superdelegates can prevent a Donald Trump meltdown and a self-destructive Brexit. A bit undemocratic, but sometimes the masses surge to the Bastille without much of a gameplan, and heads do roll, for better and often for worse. And they reflect some lasting constituency of minorities, labor, etc that can get shortshrift in any given election. A bit of favoritism for loyalty and party building can be good. Too much can smack of corrupt crony "establishment". Nice if people can try to detect the difference, especially non-party regulars.

    "Open Marriages" like Open Primaries may look at first glance as attractive, but most people after a bit of reflection settle for the old fashioned closed ones, even if they fantasize a bit.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 3:40pm

    A destructive Trump like candidate winning the primary with a plurality is one reason for the super delegates. I like SD also for a situation that almost happened in 08. Obama clearly won the pledged delegates and no one clearly won the popular vote. The win clearly went to Obama. But if Obama had barely won the pledged delegates and Hillary had clearly won the popular vote the democratic party would have had a big problem. Emotions were so high and neither side would accept solutions that each would see as the other stealing the election. Perhaps the party could have worked it out without the SD. But they would have had the power to force Obama and Hillary to negotiate a solution acceptable to most people.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 5:17pm

    Although I do agree that manipulation is a risk with open primaries, I don't even think it is the point that should be the deciding factor.  Democrats should be able to decide who can have input as to who represents them in elections.  Caucuses are not good for the party and should be eliminated. End of discussion.

    You pointed out some examples of tax-payer benefits that are conditional.  I thought of some others.  

    -- The FAA is federally funded, as is the TSA.  I think we probably all agree that it is a pain to take one's shoes off before boarding a plane.  I have a metallic shoulder replacement, and if a particular airport only has a metal-detector screening I have to get felt up -- boobs, crotch, you name it! -- if I want to fly.  We can't even take a simple water bottle on board.

    -- Want a US Passport?  Your application is checked by a federal employee and is reviewed at the Department of State.  You have to get your picture taken, you have fill in a form and meet all their criteria, and you have to pay $$$. All kinds of hard stuff to do if you want to travel abroad as a US citizen.

    -- You have a gun?  Cool.  Just try to take it in to a court room or Congress.  

    Oh, I'll stop because I am basking in the glory of having just personally installed a Nest thermostat after getting an electrician's estimate of $200!  I feel like a genius!  I can control it from my phone!  


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 7:17pm

     Caucuses are not good for the party and should be eliminated. End of discussion.

    While you and I have reached that point others have not. At the moment at dagblog we're at: Are caucuses good or bad for the party? Beginning of discussion. And: Are open primaries good or bad for the party? Are SD good or bad for the party?


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 7:37pm

    Caucuses - bad (voting should be as easy as possible and private).  Open primaries - bad (Only party members should choose a party nominee.  The general election is open to all).  Super delegates - good (bet the Republicans wish they'd thought of it).


    by barefooted on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 7:49pm

    Black and Hispanic minorities expressed that the Superdelete system was preferable to competing with their own party for convention slots. Caucuses are rather undemocratic and require publicizing your preference, and seem to give new candidates like Obama and now Sanders a better chance = fresh blood. The best number of debates is debatable - the Republican circus got to be rather boring, the Clinton-Sanders debates lost a bit of steam in the latter debates but were overall much better. The flareup over a glitch in voter database access and a one day suspension was probably not a huge longterm issue. What are the reforms we seek? Open primaries?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:18pm

    There are other solutions to ensuring black and Hispanic delegate representation. I agree about caucuses. The Democratic debates were better than the Republican debates because the candidates were better. The initial number and timing of the Dem debates was atrocious.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:20pm

    I agree there are other solutions to protecting those rights, but the folks who want to change things need a large view of what they might be breaking while "fixing" something. There are lots of compromises and little gives and takes.

    Number of debates was probably a bit low - how many do you think ideal?, and they eventually worked out more; timing of debates was largely irrelevant in the age of trick play/replay and internet streaming and YouTube archives and people blogging about it. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 5:34pm

    Yes, I know they don't have to have primaries, but when they do, they're set up as party functions.  We have two major parties but we could have 10 parties and each of them would be entitled to choose their own candidates in their own way.  I doubt we'll ever go back to the old convention selection system, but I really don't see an argument for open primaries.  Party members should be able to choose party candidates without interference or the threat of ambush.  That seems far more democratic to me.


    by Ramona on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:20pm

    As with past primary reforms, the argument for open primaries is that they are more representative of the voting public. In the current system, a small subset of the population selects two candidates for president, and then everyone else chooses between these two. That's not very democratic.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:24pm

    Sure, they could evolve into non-partisan primaries, where no party has a lock on candidates and candidates could come from anywhere, with no loyalty to any group (wait, that's Trump and Sanders), but right now, this year, it's a battle between two major parties.

    You might not agree that the current party system is ideal but that argument doesn't answer the questions about allowing anyone without an affiliation to vote in a Democratic Party primary.  How far does it go before it's no longer a primary for party candidates?


    by Ramona on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:56pm

    I might agree with you that the Democratic Party nominee should be decided by Democrats if more that two parties were viable. It's not the case. And suggesting that it requires a very minor effort to join your party is offensive. What you're actually asking of me is that I lie. In order to participate in my state's Democratic Primary I must "declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2016 Presidential election." I won't do that.

    So you don't want to hear my voice in your primary, but come November I sure as hell better vote for your team. And if I don't, If instead I vote for Jill Stein or write in Sanders or sit it out and my state goes red, somehow it's my fault. Well fuck that. But please, tell me more about the glaringly obvious reasons it's detrimental to the Democratic Party to allow me to participate in its nominating process.

    As for your question, I don't know. I'm not a Democrat. You'll have to ask some of the millions of actual Democrats who voted for Sanders to be the nominee, ersatz or not, why they wanted that.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 12:29pm

    Thanks for a well thought out response. You and Wolraich have said better all the points I might have tried to express so I will just agree. I am also not a registered member of the Democratic Party. I believe that under our current national election method I have a right to have my vote counted towards my first choice to be on that national ballot. I will add one legalistic point. I believe that since the primaries are, in most cases, paid for by tax money there is no justification in those states for a private club to deny me my vote because I won't join their club. If a legal case were made to demand open primaries or else tax funding of those primaries would be withdrawn, and the case was shown to have the legal merit I believe it does, I would contribute to an organization that was taking on that fight. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:58pm

    Taxes can support multiple insurance exchanges, and you're welcome to enroll in any, but you can't just switch at will - you have to wait for an open enrollment period to change.

    Taxes support schools, but you're limited to the district where you live or where you're assigned - you can't just pick the school where you or your kid/grandkid might like to go.

    This kind of arrangement seems pretty Civics 101 - am I missing something?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 3:59pm

    Yes, you are missing that the right to vote comes before the creation of the Democratic Party and preempts their current privilege to control that right. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:11pm

    What right to vote? Until the 19th amendment, senators werent even chosen by direct vote, instead by legislators. States determine elections, not US government, and neither parties nor any other arrangement are mentioned in the constitution, aside from general election for president.

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 5:26pm

    But please, tell me more about the glaringly obvious reasons it's detrimental to the Democratic Party to allow me to participate in its nominating process.

    I did, twice. Once in the blog and again in a comment. If you disagree with my reasoning address it. But please stop pretending I didn't clearly explain my reasons.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 2:41pm

     I am of the opinion that the small risk you describe as a reason for closed primaries does not warrant the large damage done by restricting voting to a certain group whether that group is chosen, appointed, or self-selected.  

    The current politics have convinced many people that the choice between Sanders and Clinton is as, or almost as, significant a choice as that between one of those two and Trump. Voters should be able to wait until the moment when they have their hand on the lever to decide who they wish to vote for. I am not saying that the ideal voter would often be one who was still indecisive until the last instant but weighing different expected outcomes from either candidate which might win can make the choice a close call and the tipping point evidence one way or the other might come very late in the process. A rule set up by a group of insiders whose strongest motive was to have outsized influence on who the candidate would ultimately be should not override my right to vote for my choice on voting day regardless when I made that choice. 

     Do you have an opinion on my legal question? Does, or should, the fact that an election is funded by tax dollars mean that anyone and everyone should be entitled to participate on an equal basis or should exclusive rules set by insiders be allowed to limit who I can vote for if I hadn't decided by some arbitrary date? The fact that voter rolls have been so mishandled resulting in so many people being wrongfully disenfranchised in ways that cast doubt on the validity of the reasons and thus the motives of the bureaucracy involved should also be considered since those rolls could be done away with in open primaries. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 3:38pm

    Small risk? Progressives complained long and hard about "Blue Dog" dems,, and now they want right-leaning Bundys, neocons, libertarians and tea-partier independents to shape the nomination? They managed to make Trump the GOP nominee - I imagine they can make him the Dem choice as well.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 3:45pm

    Quite a leap.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:05pm

    Yeah, small risk, really? If the republicans opened up their primaries in 2012 and every second term that a democratic president ran unopposed I would have voted in the republican primary to choose the one easiest for the democrats to beat. I've never done that because changing my registration every four years is too much of a hassle but if I could just do it on primary day I would and so would lots of other people.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:29pm

    I'm not a lawyer lulu so I have no idea what the outcome of a court case on your issue might be.

    If sanders was running unopposed for a second term as president and the republicans had open primaries would you vote in the republican primary? I would. I would vote for whatever republican was easiest for Sanders to beat. Maybe that's just me. Maybe I have no honor. But I play by the rules I'm given and I play to win. Climate change, abortion rights, civil rights for minorities, women, and LGBTG, voters rights, gun control etc. are much more important to me the any ethical considerations about voting in an open republican primary to facilitate a democratic win.

    If it was easy to just vote in an open democratic primary what % of republicans do you think are like me? Are you more like me or are you more ethical than I am?


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:44pm

    Admire your dogged persistence on this OK.

    Counting up the number of personal pronouns in responses by your critics above, 18 in one, 12 in another, leads to the conclusion that the self focus/egocentrism level in evidence is so remarkable, that changing opinions with rational argument, is on a par with attempting to knock over the Empire State Building with a baseball bat.


    by NCD on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 4:29pm

    I've been pretty clear that my analysis is subjective.  When I see my detractors state that: If Sanders was running for a second term as president and the republicans had open primaries I would not vote in the republican primary to facilitate a Sanders win. It wouldn't be ethical. Until I see that I stand by  my subjective analysis that republicans would fuck with open democratic primaries during a second term republican presidential run.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:25pm

    I guess you've been clear enough, but it's really just speculation. You're worried republicans and right-leaning independents will fuck with the process if given the chance. Show me some evidence beyond WV exit pollsand your own motivations and we can talk  And you think caucuses should go. I agree they're a weird way to do it, but you misrepresent the scenario in Washington. In order to participate in the unbinding primary in WA you have to declare that you are, in fact, a Democrat. 17% of eligible voters were willing to do that despite its not counting for anything. The Clinton Campaign enjoyed overwhelming support. So what? Washington does elections differently. Don't know or care about Nebraska.

    Really the message I get most clearly from you is you don't want me and independents like me participating in your party's primary. If I were a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat I might be worried about sending that message. But hey, it's your party.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 5:17pm

    I think I was the first person here to acknowledge that it's all a subjective analysis. Until we test it nationwide during a year with a second term republican candidate we won't have definitive objective data. It's just speculation for me to state that I believe that any possible benefit of open primaries from left leaning independents will be out weighed by conservatives fucking with the primary when a republican candidate runs unopposed. But I thinks it's a pretty rational expectation. Do what you want. Vote for Stein or what ever if you think that's best for the country.

    In order to participate in the Washington and Nebraska caucus and the primary you have to register as a democrat. The number of voters participating in the caucus was a fraction of those who participated in the primaries in those states. And the outcome was reversed. The evidence is clear across all caucus states the caucuses depress voter turnout. The evidence in Washington and Nebraska is clear that in those states they didn't even reflect the will of the voters.

    What is your argument for keeping caucuses?


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:37pm

    In theory caucuses have a lot of good to be said for them. They work somewhat like a ranked voting system when for instance a preliminary vote is taken and the second largest voting block of supporters of candidate "B" make their case to other smaller groups supporting a losing candidate "c" and attempt to bring them over to B so as to beat "A' and arrive at a coalition agreement on the candidate that has the highest average support. Also, in theory, people would interact with more of their community and close neighbors which might have good affect. Nevertheless, caucuses have been shown beyond doubt to limit the number of voters that participate and so I agree completely with you on that issue. Get rid of caucuses and for the same reason get rid of closed primaries. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:49pm

    I quite frankly don't want republicans or conservative independents helping to choose the democratic nominee. I'd choose democrat only low turnout caucuses over open primaries. Why exactly do you want republicans to have a voice in choosing the democratic nominee?


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:57pm

    Caucuses limit the number of voters that participate because:

    1)  caucusers  have to be party members, and

    2) they require that participants have the ability and desire to donate hours to the process (that most working stiffs simply cannot do), thereby eliminating the Democratic base.

    Closed primaries limit the number of voters because:

    1) people who have nothing invested in the Democratic Party, or refuse to join, can't vote

    2)  1 is enough


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 7:39pm

    I don't know about Nebraska, but you're wrong about Washington. We don't register by party here. The only time you are required to declare your affiliation in writing is for the non-binding Democratic Presidential Primary. 660,000 Washingtonians participated--17% of the electorate. I don't know a one of em.  It doesn't count and everybody knows it. Similar results were observed in 08, FYI.

    There was a second term Republican in '04 if my memory serves. John McCain had the nomination sewn up by March 4 in 08. What happened after in the Dem contest? I think you've created a boogeyman.

    I don't have an argument for keeping the caucuses. Like I said, they're a weird way to do it. Having said that, I don't find the argument that they somehow favor one candidate over another  to be credible,

    And just so there is no doubt, I'm convinced Clinton won the nomination because more voters supported her candidacy than Sanders". By millions.

     


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:53pm

    Ok, I don't know the details of every state primary rules. 660,000 declared democrats voted in Washington and gave Hillary 54% in a meaningless primary while 74% of 220,000 voted for Sanders in the meaningful caucus.You're telling me that those 220,000 might not even be democrats. You're ok with that? You think that's good for the democratic party or the country? Look kyle, even with the bullshit caucuses Hillary smashed Sanders in a landslide so I don't really care about it for this election. But really, you like caucus and primary results like this?

    Most states have closed primaries and some of those with open primaries still have some restrictions. The fact that republicans haven't been able to mess with closed democratic primaries isn't evidence that they wouldn't if they were open.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 8:21pm

    The Democratic Party does not have to make rule changes to accommodate the non-Democrat who lost the primary.  It doesn't matter about any other arguments.  It is perfectly legitimate to exclude those who do not have Democratic Party interests at heart.  


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 8:38pm

    Then why don't you do that in more than half of the states? I think you want the rules changed mor than I do.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 2:42am

    Again, 34/59 or ~58% are closed or semi-closed. I don't know where you got your facts, but they're wrong.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2...


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:14am

    Most states don't have closed primaries. At best it's half. And sure, I'm okay with those results. There were wildly varying results all over the country. The candidate who garnered the most support will be the nominee. On many levels the system worked fine. On certain other levels the whole primary season is a sham. Nothing new here.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 2:52am

    Kyle, it will vary by state. It will easier happen in firm locked-up states like in the south, but the worst results will be in (Democratic) battleground states where a Republican has things wrapped up and decides to go trolling the Democrats. Of course this can happen the other way too.

    Look, I so far don't have a problem with transgender folk using their newly ascribed bathrooms, but I'm not for as a general rule mixing male and female together, even though supposedly somewhere in France they supposedly do. We have distinctions, and I like highlighting those distinctions, and then coming together and fighting it out. I'm not for a mass of indistinguishable porridge, and I suspect the Republicans being more rabid and focused on ugly results would easily triumph in a grand mixed-up foodfight political cafeteria.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 12:28am

    Take it up with your party. The funny thing about this particular post is how upside down it is. It isn't independent voters like me demanding that Democrats open their primaries. It's the faithful who are making the strongest arguments for change. Currently the Democratic Party offers open or semi-open primaries and/or caucuses in more than half the states. Mine is one of them. I'm happy to take advantage of it as long as that's true, but I'm not sure how much I really care. What I do support, generally speaking, is any move which weakens the duopoly. Not a fan.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 2:39am

    Of course not. I didn't write this post for you or for independents. It's Sanders who is pushing for changes so I decided to introduce the subject here for discussion. You're only involved because you decided to weigh in and pretty strongly I might add. Kinda like you cared.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:21am

    ".Do Sanders supporters really want open democratic party primaries?" Your words, not mine. And yes, I like how my state does it. I hope the Democratic Party here doesn't change a thing.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:13am

    Well yeah, Sanders is pushing for changes using the support he got in the primary as leverage. So one of my questions is whether Sanders supporters here support those changes. What's your point?

    I hope that eventually Washington state, and all other caucus and open primary states, will eliminate the caucus and use a closed primary. But I've wanted that for decades so I don't expect any change anytime soon


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:42am

    ".Do Sanders supporters really want open democratic party primaries?" Your words, not mine. And yes, I like how my state does it. I hope the Democratic Party here doesn't change a thing.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:13am

    No, 34/59 contests are closed or semi-closed, or ~58%. (" Currently the Democratic Party offers open or semi-open primaries and/or caucuses in more than half the states. ")

    " What I do support, generally speaking, is any move which weakens the duopoly. Not a fan. " - weakens the duopoly & strengthens what? Not a fan of weakening something without no outcome in mind. You got something better, out with it. Otherwise we muddle along with the current compromise.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:19am

    Okay. Not how I counted, but I'll take your word for it.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:19am

    You're welcome to recount, full listing here.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:32am

    My father, lifelong Republican, voted for Obama in the primary. I never figured out if he actually liked him a bit or was peeved with the GOP in the primaries, but come November he voted for McCain, so I figure he was taking cues from Rush Limbaugh to fuck with the Dem primary as did others.

    Sure I'm happy to expand the party, including folks who dont vote completely like me, but I'm not thrilled about catering to the political enemies of the Democratic Party's rough ideals or tenets. Our candidate is welcometo pivot to the center for the November elections. It seems strange that progressives think that independents are largely liberal or that an open welcome of non-affiliated voters wont lead to pivoting to the center-far right in springtime. Isnt the complaint already about too much "Republican Lite"? And the tea partiers et al are much better about getting to the polling station than the youth vote. Caveat Emptor.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 5:47pm

    Yes, we've fought and fought for years to move the party to the left. We've purged many of the blue dog democrats. Now some independents think opening the primaries will move us farther to the left? I doubt it.I'm more afraid that a break up of the republican party will move some moderate republicans to join the democratic party and undo all the work we've done to more it left.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 6:41pm

     

    I might agree with you that the Democratic Party nominee should be decided by Democrats if more that two parties were viable. It's not the case. And suggesting that it requires a very minor effort to join your party is offensive. What you're actually asking of me is that I lie. In order to participate in my state's Democratic Primary I must "declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2016 Presidential election." I won't do that.

    The number of viable parties is moot in this discussion.  Since there are only two, and you want a voice, pick one, and join the party and speak up, vote, do whatever.  But the Democratic Party should not have to make rule changes simply because there are only 2 viable choices!  If you don't consider yourself a Democrat, then I personally don't think you should be a part of the decision as to who will represent the Democratic Party in an election.  Your last sentence indicates that you want to participate in the nomination process of other political parties as well.  Regardless of what you want, the Party has the right to set its own rules, and if you want a place at the table you have to make the very minor effort it takes to do that.

    So you don't want to hear my voice in your primary, but come November I sure as hell better vote for your team.

    No, I would hope that you would evaluate the nominee of every party and make a choice.  The reason I am a Democrat is because they come closest to what I believe in.  If you think the GOP, Green, or Libertarian are closest to what you believe in, why would I want you to have any say in who the Dem nominee is?

    And if I don't, If instead I vote for Jill Stein or write in Sanders or sit it out and my state goes red, somehow it's my fault. Well fuck that. But please, tell me more about the glaringly obvious reasons it's detrimental to the Democratic Party to allow me to participate in its nominating process.

    As I have said, if you care about who the Democratic nominee is, you should join the party.  To your comments below about primaries being tax-funded, and therefore everyone should be able to vote in them.  If you think it is too onerous (or insulting, or limiting) to register as a Democrat to vote in its primary, do you also think it denies your right to vote by having to register to vote in the general election?  What is the difference?  As a tax-payer, you are not prevented from voting in the Democratic primary.  You simply have to do what is required to vote in it. Should people of voting age who don't pay taxes not be allowed to vote?

    I pay taxes for schools but I no longer have children who make use of them.  If I want to take a book out of the library I have to apply for a library card even though I pay taxes that support the library.  People who don't own cars still pay taxes that maintain roads and bridges.  The list goes on.

    I think we will just have to agree to disagree, but I don't think the "tax-payer" argument is one that will fly.  I certainly do hope the DNC will keep its sanity and eliminate caucuses and open primaries.  


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 5:59pm

    CVille, your patience is admirable.  I'm with you on this, totally.  I think the DNC bent over backward to accommodate Bernie's independence, and part of it was allowing more open primaries than usual.  I don't know how the numbers match up with open primaries in other presidential years, when we didn't have someone outside the party running as a party candidate, but Bernie himself declared as a Democrat in order to run.  Why shouldn't his supporters do the same thing in order to vote for him? They can always change their affiliation after the election.


    by Ramona on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:24am

    What do you mean by detriment? What's good about limiting participation in Democratic Party primaries to the 30% or less of the electorate willing to identify as Democrats?

    In most democratic primaries one must go through a process to change one's registration. One must go to the registrar's office and the are cut off dates. It takes research and planning to mess with the primary but some still do it. Open primaries means a person can do it on a whim on primary day. When Bush was running for his second term there was no reason to vote in a republican primary.. He ran unopposed. Do you truly want independents or republicans to be able to vote in a democratic primary on a whim in that situation?


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/26/2016 - 1:05pm