Should Primaries/Caucuses Just Be Eliminated?

[NashVegas]

Seriously, I'm not sure I see the point anymore.

Remember Gary Hart? He was but one of many great candidates that got ruined by the so-called "public vetting."

How many candidates has the Dem party put up since then, pretending the Democratic voters were to decide among them, but in reality, the cards were stacked at the beginning and the DNC wanted us all to *think* the candidate was majority's first choice?

My feelings, as of now, toward the Democratic Party is: you boys just go ahead and make your little backroom deals, and tell me who you're willing to go to bat for against the BFEE when you're done.

[MoonAndSun]

1. I would think that the process would be smoother and allow the "people"

to select their candidates by having one big fat primary nationwide, say sometime in April or May. That would give candidates time to really go around the country and talk to the people about their vision of what they want to do. And I think that forcing the FCC to allow the candidates free air time would also be a big help in getting the candidates messages out to the country.

It's just my humble opinion.

[jsw_81]

2. A question

If we eliminate primaries and caucuses, then who will select the nominee? The guys in the smoke-filled rooms?

[NashVegas]

5. Yep

Those guys.

[sangh0]

16. Like it was so much better in those days

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

17. I'm Not Sure Anymore

I used to think not, but look where we are.

The guy running unopposed in the primaries (Bush) has a $130 million war chest he can spend wherever he pleases, and doesn't have to worry about back-biting in his own party, doesn't have to worry about that back-biting splitting the ticket the way DU is currently acting.

Doesn't have to worry about other campaigners digging up dirt for his GE opponent to use.

I think I'd rather have the party bosses duke it out amongst themselves and say 'here's the guy' than subject the rest of us to the pretense we have a say.

[question everything]

18. Take your post and replace Bush with Clinton

in 1996.. At least, that part about "back biting his own party."

If you are the incumbent you usually do not have to beat anyone in primaries, the exceptions were Johnson in 1964 - and I am not sure we had this system in place - and Ted Kennedy in 1980 running against Carter.

[NoPasaran]

14. Probably be non-smoke-filled rooms these days

Still it sounds like a bad idea to me.

[quinnox]

3. I think caucuses have some serious problems

It should either be all primaries in every state, or something more radical, a straight across the nation popular vote for the Democratic nominee.

I'm not sure if Repubs and independents should be allowed to vote for this, maybe it should be among Democrats only. I can see pro and con arguments on both sides though.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Open primaries and all caucuses should be eliminated

Open primaries allow Republicans and independents to skew the results; the primary season should be like a big family discussion about a major issue confronting it. Caucuses take away the anonymity of the vote, thus allowing yet more groupthink herd-mentality to have sway.

The purpose of the primaries is essentially one of exploration and information gathering. To do anything that keeps us from a pure assessment of what party members think and want is conterproductive.

[rucky]

6. Yes...and I'd like to see something like IRV be implemented

It'll take the nastiness out of the process & help even the playing field against outspending the other guy.

[NashVegas]

8. Not To Mention

It would take out the money requirement for the primary season.

[cheezus]

7. Caucus everywhere on the same day

Registered Democrats (here in ND we don't register, so we'd have to come up with something to find out who the democrats are) should go to local caucuses. The local caucuses will name delegates to go to regional caucuses, who name delagates to go to state caucus, who name delegates to go to the national convention.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Primaries should be eliminated to make the process more democratic?

:wtf:

[LuminousX]

10. We should move to regional primaries

Combined with guaranteed TV time for each campaign that meets certain public funding requirements over the region.

[dontstopthere]

11. open primaries

are important to both pukes and dems.
for instant we dems voted Bob Barr out of his primary in GA.

[question everything]

12. That's why having four or five super primaries

in a rotating order is a good idea.

Some years back the than CA Secretary of State (R) was suggesting this and now the MN one (also R) is suggesting the same thing, keeping Iowa and N.H as the first ones, according to tradition.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4336810.html

That vision is being aggressively marketed by Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, in her new role as president of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), comprising the states' top election officials.

(snip)

For years states have been leapfrogging each other to be first on the election calendar, resulting in a "dramatic front-loading of the process" that is leaving states like Minnesota out of the loop in the nomination of major-party candidates, Kiffmeyer said in a recent article distributed to Minnesota news media.

[MaineDem]

13. I'm in favor of voting on one day...or at least regionally

Leave it up to the states to decide primary or caucuses but it's way too drawn out now. Have everyone decide at one time.

Remember, we don't vote for the candidate, we vote to apportion delegates to the convention.

[KT2000]

15. Keep primaries

and get rid of caucuses. They are a mess and often do not represent the popular vote. In my state the only people who can vote in the caucus are those who can show up 10 am Saturday morning on 2/7. It then goes from precinct - to county - to legislative district - to state. After that we know the delegates. Absurd!