What kinds of changes, if any, has Dr. Dean mentioned for the primaries?

[GreenPartyVoter]

I am interested in whether or not he has considered same day primaries and ranked voting ballots.

Has he mentionend anything like this yet? I thought I heard something about changing the states which vote/caucus first, but not really going over to a one-day deal to stop the frontloading problem.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[MercutioATC]

1. Same-day primaries would be the best solution.

...with the "same day" being a Saturday, Sunday, Monday period (a three-day "voting day").

This would give people who work odd hours a fighting chance to vote without having to miss work (and eliminate the battle to declare a federal "Voting Day" holiday).

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I agree.. a l onger voting block all at once.. however one of Teresa

Kerry's kids.. her son, I think.. said that same days would not work because too much money would be spent by all the candidates tryin to win.

But I disagree. I think it is worth it. Along with the ranked ballots, of course so people can cast a vote for the candidate whom they most identify with, and then one for the person they think can win.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[MercutioATC]

3. I never understood that argument...

It's better to spend less money and cater to just a few states than to represent the entire party? ...especially when it's the same damn states every year, and they have no real clout in the general election.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I think the argument is that they want to conserve money by whittling down

the candidate group, but in the end I would say it amounts to what you said.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[AlGore-08.com]

11. The more it costs to run in the primary, the fewer candidates you get

The more it costs, the less likely it is that grassroots, non-establishment candidates can even enter the primary, let alone win the nomination. Instead, major donors will control who runs and who doesn't run and what the platform is - - and what promises winner keeps in office. The only other folks who could mount a campaign would be personally wealthy themselves - - and not just wealthy, super wealthy.

Right now, you can come up with a "bare bones" primary strategy that funds you through two or three primaries, on the theory that if you do well enough in those two primaries, you will win over enough major and small donors to continue on. You can do "retail politics", which means you talk to as many folks as possible, person to person, in those two states. For candidates with ideas, this is really the best way to go, but it's very time consuming, and it does cost money to drive all over Iowa and New Hampshire.

You couldn't do that with a national primary. You'd have to run in all 50 states at the same time - - have campaign offices, paid political ads, and travel all over the country in a very short period of time. Or you'd end up doing what is actually a variation of the swing state model - - figuring that if you campaigned enough in New York, Cali, Florida, and a few other major states, maybe you cold win that way. But either way, the primary would cost billions instead of millions. And you'd probably be blown out of the water by somebody who has a ton of their own money, or a ton of corporate money, or even some yahoo who has nothing but name recognition: a sports star or an actor.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Which is why I am all for equal money for candidates and free and equal

time in the media. (For primaries and general elections both)

The trouble is the only people likely to pass such a measure is an uncorrupted gov't, and we can't get one elected under these circumstance. Between DIEBOLD and the corporations and private donors who liek their sweetheart deals, we just can't win. :mad:

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[paulk]

21. who's going to pay for it?

in the primaries? You can make a case for Federal funding in a general election, but I don't see a case for the primaries.

And does that apply to every single political party's primaries? Should there be a limit on the number of parties and the number of candidates? You're talking a huge amount of money here - there will be a demand for limitations. Who will get to decide the limits?


ed for spelling

[MercutioATC]

30. I agree there are drawbacks, but isn't it more important to look for

true representation? How does that happen when two or three states decide the candidates every election?

Perhaps if spending caps were put on the primaries, that'd even things out a bit.

[madfloridian]

5. Here is some stuff on the commission addressing this issue.

It was set up by Terry McAuliffe.

Here is an article from TNR about it:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050815&s=baer081805

FIXING THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.
Primary Care

"Chaired by political scientist and Congressman David Price and the former Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, the Commission has been meeting quietly every few months across the country hearing from Democrats who are fed up with the current process to pick the party's presidential nominee--or, to put it bluntly, who are fed up with Iowa and New Hampshire's out-sized roles as kingmakers. The complaints are many. These states don't have enough minorities; they lack a large concentration of union members; they are without a major city. Even worse, Democrats complain, because the primary calendar has become so front-loaded with states rushing to the head of the line hoping to catch some of New Hampshire and Iowa's glory, there are scores of states that are voting once the contest is essentially over. Consider that more than half of the delegates needed to clinch the 2004 nomination were chosen by the fifth week of contests in early March; and the actual race was over a few weeks before that on February 17 when John Kerry won the Wisconsin primary. That means that Kerry effectively won the nomination after just 11 states held primaries." END QUOTE

I got blasted for posting this last year. It is why one state where all the candidates can gang up, and another working in NH...the 2nd one...can destroy a frontrunner. It should be a lessons remembered. Instead if one posts about it they are accused of reliving the primaries.

Here is an E.J. Dionne article about the Price Herman Commission.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51780-2005Feb24.html

"The last time the Democrats revisited their rules in a big way, through a 1981 commission headed by former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt, Price was the staff director. He thought it was his last rendezvous with the obscure. "I never thought I'd look at a rule book again," Price said. "The Hunt commission was a full dose."

But now Price finds himself co-chairing yet another reform body, along with former labor secretary Alexis Herman. Price laughs at the name of his study group, certain to cause the rapid onset of sleep for all but the most committed C-SPAN viewer. "It's called the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling," Price says. "There's not a comma in there."

Unlike some of the earlier models, this commission was not inspired by the results of the previous election. The call for the commission came before last year's outcome was known, inspired by Democrats -- notably Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan -- frustrated that large states such as his own played such a small role in picking the nominee. Its creation was one of the last acts of outgoing Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe."

"The awkwardness here is that many Democrats dissatisfied with the primary and caucus process were worried that an unknown outsider like, uh, well, Howard Dean might leverage early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire into unstoppable front-runner status. Before the party could catch its breath and properly vet the potential nominee, his victory would be assured. The Price-Herman commission will now report to the very same Howard Dean, McAuliffe's successor."


Look up that long name and you will get the names of the mostly DLC type commission members. I say mostly not all. Should be interesting. Howard Dean does not attend the meetings, and he will be presented later with their recommendations.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. The last thing that needs to happen is rehashing last time in terms

of candidate quality. Or even arguing about the quality of next time's candidates.

It is the quality of the system that needs to be under scrutiny right now.

I'll take a closer look at the article you posted. Thanks for putting it up.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[madfloridian]

9. It is exactly why we need to remember.

It IS the quality of the system I was referring to in my post. A system that needs fixing.

There was no way to determine quality of candidate when a tiny state has such power. It is too easy to put all needed resouces there to gain a desired result.

This refers to any candidate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. How do we get in touch with this commission? Or should we pass

our thoughts on to Dr. Dean? Or both?

[madfloridian]

14. Here is a link to the commission page.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/commission_on_p.php

Some of the links were broken after the new website, hope they are fixed. There is an email there to contact them.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Great. Maybe we should submit this as an activist alert after we finish

sealing with Katrina?

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[paulk]

23. why does the system need fixing?

The 2004 primary schedule was foreshortened for legitimate reasons. We would be running against an incumbent President - a recognized candidate who wouldn't need to spend any money running in a primary.

The Democrats needed to avoid a long drawn out primary campaign for two reasons - to save money and to give their candidate more time to campaign for the Presidency.

By those criteria, the 2004 Dem. primaries were a success.

----------------


In 2008 it may well be that we'll have the luxury of a more drawn out primary season, where the early primaries won't have the same impact as this last one.

But I reject the idea that 2008 needs to be changed because 2004 was a failure.

We especially don't need the rules changed by disgruntled party activists still upset over 2004.

[TayTay]

27. A lot of this is murky, there were mixed results in 04

This was brought up in the commission report that I caught on C-Span. The Dems wanted to get a nominee early so that they could rally around that person and begin to build a strong organization. (Rant about building a permanent strong organization independent of Prez year elections put aside for now. LOL!) They got what they wanted, but they also got a very long window between the time the nominee was chosen and the time of the Dem Convention. That was, at best, a mixed blessing. Long lead time also meant a long time for the REpubs to attack the presumed nominee and build up the negatives.

There is also a big problem with 'front-loading' the primaries. There is some inverse logic going on here. Iowa caucuses and then NH has it's primaries. Other states want a bigger share in deciding who the nominee will be, so they move their primaries closer and closer to NH's. This has the reverse effect of making NH more and not less important. The decision made by the Iowa and NH voters slingshots into a decision by the other states without sufficient time for any reflection. The process becomes self-confirming.

This is not always a good thing. There is something to be said for a longer and more meaningful primary season in which there is at least a two week window between NH (or whatever state's) first primary and the next primary. This might actually give the next state time to reflect and time for any 'Stop so-and-so' movement to coalesce. (Hey, this is democracy. Stop So-and-so movements are very democratic stuff and damn interesting to boot!)

The other thing to ponder is whether or not a shorter primary season really allows the candidates to air out all their issues, for better or worse. In the last election, there is an argument to be made that Kerry might have been strengthened as a nominee if he had had to fight it out longer for the nomination and defend himself in a longer and tougher nomination process. (Not intended as a slur against anyone. The idea is to strengthen any Dem nominee and inoculate them against later Rethug surprise charges.)

[KharmaTrain]

6. It's Fluid In Our District

I was emailing with some friends who are involved in local campaigns and there's a sense of not knowing which issue will play at the ballot box next November.

Too many events have played out over the past year, and who knows how many are going to happen in the next year. It's hard to strategize on just one issue since the polls have vascilated as our district has been affected indirectly by many factors.

Most of us agree the big ticket next year will be the economy. If oil prices remain high...the effects will ripple across as higher and higher prices for months to come. It's a slow, silent squeeze each family feels differently and there needs to be some message that connects this pain and then some message of hope or alternative to the status quo.

Iraq also will play big, and the only thing I know at this point is we'll still be there in a year and I suspect whatever "progress" is made will be accompanied by several thousand more dead and injured. If this situations continues to deterioriate, as I suspect it will, it will be an important issue...but also one that can be passed over on a local basis...giving Repugnican congresscritters a pass. This card had to be played carefully and crafted into the unrest caused by the economy and other uncertainties.

One wild card we haven't begun to explore that is now very much on the table is one I never thought Democrats could address..."Security". Katrina scared a lot of people as many could see a similar disaster in their area and wondering how safe they'd be...how long they'd have to sit on their rooftop or sleep on a highway overpass before help arrived.

Right now the Repugnicans are burning the village. We have little power other than our voices and our ability to document and network. My hopes are this will result in the most energized Democratic, Progressive and Liberal base that I've seen since the 70s and an effective network to finally answer the right wing lies and distractions.

Cheers...

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Well, in terms of general elections the biggest obstacle will be

DIEBOLD.. then after that will be the presentation of the message and messenger.

But for the primaries, obviously message and messenger ranks highest. But I sitll say it would be sensible to review the primary process to make certain that the messenger selected is really the one everyone everywhere most agree on.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[KharmaTrain]

12. You Play With The Cards Your Dealt With

I'm in an area where we use electronic voting, but those doing the counting are Democrats. I've stated many times, the way to make Deibold a non-issue is to elect Democrats on the local level to oversee the elections. But that's another issue.

No one has a crystal ball as to how the landscape will be a year from now and to try to set a specific issue is not what needs to be done.

Right now it's just trying to reach out to many who are awakening to the things many of us here have known for years and subtly, gently and effectively showing them a different way. Fighting among ourseves, which I know can't be helped, with whose the messenger can lose some opportunities in the long run for some short term gains. We've got so much mess to clean up in Washington, it's not going to be what problems to fix, but where to start.

I hate when I read about races where there still aren't Democrats running or there isn't some kind of organization going on. Or the debates and flames that rage here as to who is a good Democrat and who isn't. If we win Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, then we can determine the pecking order. Right now the priority is to stop this kleptocracy and its enablers.

Cheers...

[mrdmk]

16. Same Day with Proportional Voting

This is what I had said back in August:

link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1997794#2000672

<snip>
If the Democratic Party is very serious about reforming the way they select the candidate (Actually Mr. Dean was not the first person to bring this issue up, it was a DNC Commission), the party will also need to think about the way their candidates for office. Many have proposed to have all of the states vote on the same day, that is a good one. The idea that will be proposed on top of this is Proportional Voting. Many people are stuck with the idea of one person one vote, or caucus selection which is a joke out of the stone age.

Having all of the states vote on the same will take out the argument of who gets to go first, end of story. Candidates will have to visit all fifty states, they will also have present their issues from a level playing field and some other benefits. Hopefully it will take some of the Corporations out of picking the candidate for us by far including the media. The Corporations will not be able to flood one candidate with a lot of money and see him/her lose, and the media will not be able to put on a show with a horse race. This in it self will represent America in total.

Proportional voting will be new to the U.S.A. but not new to the world. Some countries already use this method. How the voter cast their vote is with a numbering system. Their favorite candidate is #1, the next favorite is #2, then #3 on down the line. You can just do #1 and stop there or stop anywhere on the list. There are several ways of counting either by elimination or assigning a number to the level of choices.

The arguments for both of these ideas to be put into place is that there will be a fairer representation of your vote, meaning that maybe your first place choice did not come in, but your second or third did. Yes the count will be will be more difficult to count and may take longer, but with a verified paper trail and a computer that should not be an issue. And you can count on the Corporations and Media bitching to high heaven, I say let them. You want fairness, here it is.

Side-note: This voting procedure on the national level will let in minority parties, the Democrats and Republicans will not let go of their hold on power that easy.
<end of snip>

This will help end the few picking a candidate for the many. Will this happen, maybe if we can get past the naysayers with their own agendas.

btw: In the above link, there are links further explaining voting methods.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yeah, that thread was what prompted me to start this new one.

[mrdmk]

18. I just e-mailed the DNC Commissioners again

Thank you for bringing this up again.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. With everything else going on it is easy to lose sight of this subject,

but we can't let that happen. In the end fixing the election system will get us better officials, which in turn will give us better policies. And if we had better officials and policies, we wouldn't be living in the nightmare we're in now.

[mrdmk]

20. Agreed n/t

[paulk]

22. the argument against same day - 50 states is simple

candidates have neither the time or the money to wage a 50 state primary campaign.

At least in Iowa and NH, candidates get to go one on one with potential voters - and they can afford to advertise. Iowa and NH afford a dark horse candidate a chance - a 50 state campaign would do the opposite. The candidate with the most money and biggest corporate backing would win the 50 state scenario every time.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Well that 's the point isn't it? To stop letting corporations buy every

office they want and instead let the people decide who they want?

I still say there has to be a way to beat the front-loading issue. Even if they don't go over to same-day, they could still consider the ranked voting option. It would help at least somewhat.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[paulk]

25. but, that is my point - a 50 state same day primary

would cost so much that the only candidates who could compete would be those with the kind of major resources only a corporate candidate would have.

The front loading issue can be fixed by allowing more time between Iowa/ NH and the second wave of primaries. Like it used to be. That would seem to be a pretty easy fix without overhauling the whole system. In the past the winner of Iowa or NH has rarely gone on to win the nomination (unless they were an incumbent). What happened in 2004 was outside of the norm.

Ranked voting would be good - although I doubt it would change very much. In Iowa, at least, a caucus is sort of a "ranked voting" system anyway.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Well here is what I am thinking.... we know some candidates do fade

away, esp after there seems to be a clear frontrunner. But if they stay on the ballot even if they don't make appearances after they semi-drop out, with ranked voting people can still cast a vote for them rather than feel obligated to vote for the front-runner because he/she has been practically coronated.

I should think it must be very frustrating to vote at the very end of the primary process and see your favorite candidate(s) have faded away due to lack of money and media coverage. Remaining on a ballot that has ranked voting allows for those early candidates to at least have some chance left. What could it hurt, really?

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[paulk]

28. one thing it could hurt

is party unity - or at least the perception of party unity.

The whole purpose of a primary is to pick a candidate - and then the party unifies behind that candidate. That's why people drop out when it becomes clear they can't win.

There would be little purpose to a primary if the winning candidate emerges so damaged from the infighting that it reduces their chances in the general election.



-----------------


I could see ranked voting in the general election, where people could vote for a third party - but the more I think about it - I really don't see it as useful in a party primary.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Party unity would come after the primaries end. That is when to unify

behind a candidate.

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm