tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post5716670298776142047..comments2023-11-02T05:00:36.315-04:00Comments on Democratic Convention Watch: How should the Democrats change their nomination process?Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02126730290750804530noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-90449198718937040112008-06-10T01:47:00.000-04:002008-06-10T01:47:00.000-04:00People who are in need of reelection are the most ...People who are in need of reelection are the most likely to do what is in their own interest rather than in the interest of the party. The superdelegates should be limited to those who have proven themselves as loyal democrats and face no impending elections to sway their vote.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11496495918116529266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-50977208888995306512008-06-09T06:10:00.000-04:002008-06-09T06:10:00.000-04:00Bring back smoke-filled rooms.Bring back smoke-filled rooms.JayZedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14306089220844895011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-53108726310226311682008-06-08T01:16:00.000-04:002008-06-08T01:16:00.000-04:00The super delegate system:Cut the number of SDs in...The super delegate system:<BR/>Cut the number of SDs in half and only rely on people who needs to be re-elected to keep their job - the best way of avoiding back room deals IMOPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246442608723431334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-47066902693867696432008-06-07T21:49:00.000-04:002008-06-07T21:49:00.000-04:00A couple of things I'd like to see Congress do abo...A couple of things I'd like to see Congress do about elections (these are not things the DNC could do for the primaries, nor are they specifically about the primaries, but generally more about the General Election):<BR/><BR/>1. Declare (the general) Election Day a National Holiday. That would give most people the entire day off for the General Election. Mandate that employees get paid for the day off.<BR/><BR/>Also, give the states incentives to declare the Primary Election date as a state holiday, and encourage private companies to observe it. Maybe some type of tax incentive?<BR/><BR/>2. Mandate that election day be a 24 hour process, starting at a uniform time in all jurisdictions, and ending at a uniform time in all jurisdictions. In other words, 6:00 am Eastern, 3:00 Pacific, 1:00 am Hawai'i. Since Friday is the Muslim sabbath, sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is the Jewish sabbath, and Sunday is the Christian sabbath, it makes it a bit tricky trying to do elections on the weekend (my preference). That means it will probably remain on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The only question then would be when to begin and end that 24 hour clock.<BR/><BR/>MikeMike in Marylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-67611193742768365802008-06-07T16:19:00.000-04:002008-06-07T16:19:00.000-04:00THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULES FOR ELECTIONS"The Times, ...THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULES FOR ELECTIONS<BR/>"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 Place of Chusing Senators."<BR/><BR/>The neat thing about the Constitution, that few people realize, is that Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and all the others wrote themselves a back door into doing anything that they wanted as the federal government. There is an exception to pretty much every piece of state power written in the constitution. The question is not "can they do it," but more fittingly, "do we want them to do it."apissedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16808000212802563001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-28783774618713985722008-06-07T16:07:00.000-04:002008-06-07T16:07:00.000-04:00There is a problem with limiting primaries to a si...There is a problem with limiting primaries to a single party, or one party and 'Independents' (aka closed, or modified closed primaries).<BR/><BR/>The rules for a primary are up to state law. The DNC can encourage state Democratic parties to try to change the law to make the primary closed, but the DNC can't enforce it, as it has no vote in the state legislature.<BR/><BR/>That is one of the reasons I favor keeping caucuses - if the GOP in a state wants to set up primary rules so that mischief can occur in the other party's primary, the Dems in that state have a way out of the problem through a caucus where they can enforce Democratic Party member-only participation.<BR/><BR/>MikeMike in Marylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-51995715330341212062008-06-07T09:32:00.000-04:002008-06-07T09:32:00.000-04:00Paul Bradford: The proportional allocation system ...Paul Bradford: <I>The proportional allocation system is great, and I wish states would implement it in the distribution of their electoral votes (I'm sure that once one state did it a case would come before the Supreme Court that would compel all the other states to do it -- the Supreme Court has reliably come down on the side of democracy and fairness whenever electoral questions come before it.)</I><BR/><BR/>While it's off-topic, I think the parenthetical is off. While the Supreme Court has intervened when it comes to individual voting rights (equal populations in districts, race), it has consistently stayed out of many other areas, dismissing issues such as gerrymandering as "political questions."<BR/><BR/>I don't see a winner-take-all system for electoral votes subject to a successful challenge. After all, Congress itself isn't apportioned that way. If a party wins each district in a state by one vote, that party gets 100% of the representation in Congress despite getting barely 50% of the total vote--and those who did not support that party do not have a claim of "disenfranchisement." They got to vote, but they just lost. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply regarding how a state allocates its electoral college votes too: winner-take-all is not disenfranchisement, it just means one side wins and the other loses.<BR/><BR/>To see a clever way of adopting a national popular vote system for president without amending the Constitution, see<BR/>http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-10836393093682954622008-06-07T08:08:00.000-04:002008-06-07T08:08:00.000-04:00One thing that I haven't seen discussed is the peo...One thing that I haven't seen discussed is the people who hold multiple roles. For example, there is no way that anyone who holds a paid or senior advisory position on a campaign should serve on the DNC concurrently. Just think how the whole FL/MI process would have played out if Terry McCauliffe (Clinton campaign chair AND former DNC chair who threatened MI the first time they tried to pull this crap) and Harold Ickes (senior Clinton advisor AND member of RBC) were not involved.<BR/><BR/>I agree that SD, if they were to remain in place, should only be those elected to their positions. However, I believe that another class of delegates, maybe with a half vote, could be some of the other current SDs like the pres and vp of Young Democrats or chair and co-chair of state parties. NO fundraisers, bundlers or 'distinguished party leaders', whatever the heck that means!<BR/><BR/>I also agree that the primary contests should only be open to Democrats and unaffiliated/independents (I would suggest that same mix for the Republicans as well). Of course, unaffiliated/independents can only vote once! This would be easier if both party contests were held on the same day in each state.<BR/><BR/>As far as caucuses go, in theory, I believe that they are a good thing. However, I have never lived in a caucus state (east coast/midatlantic area) so I am not familiar with the actual process.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06802160033004609095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-63759421553885138962008-06-07T05:43:00.000-04:002008-06-07T05:43:00.000-04:00apissedant-Yes. The Thursday thing is from my reta...apissedant-Yes. The Thursday thing is from my retail experience. Us grunts do notice a couple of things. People are out of the house more later in the week and this keeps the people involved from not having to give up so much of their weekend. I didn't think any other's plans were bad or good. I am just wanting to keep this simple, unlike our tax code.suzihussein22https://www.blogger.com/profile/09712964666338020304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-17161124424647565582008-06-07T03:03:00.000-04:002008-06-07T03:03:00.000-04:00apissedant,You must remember that the threshold is...apissedant,<BR/><BR/>You must remember that the threshold is for EACH Congressional District, and separately applies to the state. A candidate could get less than 25% is several CDs in a state, but get a statewide vote of 40% or more. Even with a 15% threshold with this years rules, Clinton lost a district in DC by getting less than 15%, and Obama lost CD-5 in KY by an almost 10-1 margin. Overall, though, it wouldn't have made much difference except in DC (Clinton would not have received 3 delegates, and she also would have lost all 6 from Hawai'i she received). There probably are some others, but they are spread far and wide.<BR/><BR/>I'd be willing to change it to 25% statewide, and 15% in each CD.<BR/><BR/>As to a minimum, there already is an effective floor of somewhere around 5% - the delegates are apportioned by whole number, then whoever has the greatest number after the decimal point gets any extra delegate. And remember, I said 0% ONLY when there are 10 or more candidates, then gradually lift it as the number of candidates decrease.<BR/><BR/>These are not points that I would argue very much about, as I think the front-loading is the much more serious problem, which needs to be addressed very clearly, and very firmly, so that states spread out the vote over the 'primary window'.<BR/><BR/>New Hampshire and Iowa going first raises a lot of ire from many, but if handled properly, they could be made irrelevant if handled properly. My suggestion is, if they still keep going first, to gradually reduce their delegations until they become laughing stocks with their (by-then) irrelevant beauty contests. At that point, no serious candidate would worry about participating in them unless and until they concede. Granted it would take a few cycles, but cutting them off cold-turkey might make them even more intransigent. The only question is when they would cave - 20%? 30%?<BR/><BR/>MikeMike in Marylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-88585287641500658772008-06-07T01:57:00.000-04:002008-06-07T01:57:00.000-04:00Mike!!!Finally!!! We disagree!!! Almost complete...Mike!!!<BR/>Finally!!! We disagree!!! Almost completely! You posted one rule that is puzzling. You said that with two candidates, there should be a 25% requirement for viability. This seems silly, because with only 2 candidates, that mean if one candidate gets less than 25%, then the other candidate actually gets 100%. Are you sure that's what you want? 0% requirement for a field of 10 is also quite silly. This last time we had 10, and the top three candidates all broke 20% in the first state. There can still be a threshold, though maybe not 15%. Gravel is not a viable candidate even if there are 100 candidates. Many, many, many more complaints... but just thought I'd throw those two out there.apissedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16808000212802563001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-83608631415196738992008-06-07T01:46:00.000-04:002008-06-07T01:46:00.000-04:00tmess2,Have you seen the movie Recount? It claims...tmess2,<BR/>Have you seen the movie Recount? It claims that they couldn't request an entire state wide recount because it was forbidden by state law. They required to go to each voting district individually.apissedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16808000212802563001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-16188099586016865982008-06-07T00:48:00.000-04:002008-06-07T00:48:00.000-04:00Before reading the other comments, here are my tho...Before reading the other comments, here are my thoughts. If some or all my points are repetitious, sorry, but I'll present my thoughts, then discuss later, if necessary.<BR/><BR/>1. Should we scrap the superdelegate system?<BR/><BR/>Yes and No. Superdelegates should ONLY be those who have faced election (current Representatives, Senators, Governors, former Presidents and Vice Presidents, etc).<BR/><BR/>Those who have NOT faced election for their current position should NOT be a superdelegate. That means NO DNC members, NO former DNC chairpersons, etc.<BR/><BR/>This does two things - current elected officials are more in touch with the needs and thinking of the citizens they represent. Former Presidents and Vice Presidents know better than most what the office of President involves. DNC members (for the most part) are not elected, and can say they know what's going on (and some actually do), but many are completely out of touch with the electorate.<BR/><BR/>One more thing about SDs - if one participates in any way with a campaign of a candidate ('state chair', finance, organizational, etc., they should be automatically eliminated from being a superdelegate.<BR/><BR/>All the above measures would reduce the number of SDs by at least 1/2, and the remaining SDs would be more in touch with the electorate, without having an apparent or real conflict of interest in whom they endorse.<BR/><BR/>2. How can we improve proportional allocation?<BR/><BR/>Does it need improved? Maybe double the number of CD delegates, but at .5 vote per delegate. Fold the PLEO delegates into the statewide delegates.<BR/><BR/>3. Is there a way to keep states in line in the future?<BR/><BR/>Any state that violates the 'primary window' automatically gets a full delegation at the convention (if they want to send a delegation) with ZERO votes for the year in violation, plus a 50% reduction of votes at the succeeding convention, WITH NO APPEAL. If a state violates two 'primary windows' in succession, the penalty would be zero, zero, and 25%.<BR/><BR/>4. Are we always going to have a situation where Iowa and New Hampshire get primacy over the other states?<BR/><BR/>This one is somewhat tricky, as it is state law that determines the date of the primary, although the party can hold a caucus on another date if the state primary date is not favorable for the state party.<BR/><BR/>Ideal would be for the some (but not all) of the smallest states to go first. Those states are (from smallest):<BR/>District of Columbia<BR/>Vermont<BR/>North Dakota<BR/>Alaska<BR/>South Dakota<BR/>Delaware<BR/>Montana<BR/>Rhode Island<BR/>Hawaii<BR/>New Hampshire<BR/>(Besides the above, there are 10 additional states smaller than Iowa.)<BR/><BR/>Most, but not all, have much lower media costs, so would be better for the unknown, underfunded, candidate to be able to campaign and become viable. If they can get some attention in an early primary, they might be able to, at a minimum, have some influence on the campaign and campaign issues, even if they are not successful in eventually winning the nomination.<BR/><BR/>The problem with DC is that although it is small population and geographically (67 square miles), it is enormously expensive for media (DC metro area is greater than 5.3 million in population).<BR/><BR/>For Delaware, the media is centered in Philly, also very expensive.<BR/><BR/>Alaska presents some problems related to weather and geography, especially if campaigning is in January or February.<BR/><BR/>Rhode Island's media is mostly from Boston, another very expensive media market, although Providence media might be enough for campaign purposes.<BR/><BR/>Maybe make a rotating basis of the smallest states (plus DC), and any state that holds its primary in the first five more than two consecutive cycles gets a certain per cent deduction in delegates (10%?, 20%?). Increase the penalty for each consecutive cycle until the state says "Enough!".<BR/><BR/>5. Is there a way to assure that pledged delegates will vote for the candidate that they are assigned to?<BR/><BR/>Change the convention rule so that such delegates who want to change must receive the permission of the entire state's delegation to do so, or some other 'check' on the switch. One such situation where a pledged delegates could want to switch is where a candidate becomes untenable for the nomination (such as past or current 'notorious' action that becomes known late in the process), but doesn't drop out, and the delegates switching would be the only way to stop such a nomination.<BR/><BR/>6. 66% of the delegates were chosen over a fifteen day period and, later, we went six weeks with no primaries at all. Is there a way to 'smooth things out' so that delegates are chosen in a more orderly way?<BR/><BR/>Award bonus delegates to those states which hold later primaries or caucuses. Set a limit on the number of primaries per month, on a 'first-come, first served basis' type of incentive. Anyone who then presents a plan to hold a primary in an 'oversubscribed' month would be awarded fewer delegates. First late applicant would get 10% fewer, second 20% fewer, etc. This would encourage the states to get their act together in a timely manner without trying to 'outgame' the other states on dates.<BR/><BR/>Also, if they present a flawed plan that is rejected, they go to the end of the line. All other states get to present their dates and plans. Then the DNC would go back to the revised plans. If the states lose their preferred date, tough. They should have presented a plan that would pass muster in the first place. The rules are somewhat complex, but not impossible to navigate.<BR/><BR/>Also consider giving some bonus delegates to those state that 'fill' holes in the schedule. Ten bonus delegates to a smaller state would be worth a lot.<BR/><BR/>7. Are caucuses really democratic? Should we continue to allow them?<BR/><BR/>Yes, they are democratic, and Yes they should still be allowed. They are similar to the New England Town Meetings, where all concerned citizens participate in the town's business. Those who are interested in participating will make the effort to participate; those who want to complain can do just that - complain. But it doesn't mean we have to listen to the complainers.<BR/><BR/>Also, they give a means to states to have delegates if the Repigs set the primary date outside the 'primary window' (as happened in Florida [WITH Democratic complicity]) this cycle. The state could have the 'beauty contest' primary as mandated by state law, but the delegates would be chosen per party rules.<BR/><BR/>8. Is the 15% threshold for viability a good idea -- would it be possible for voters to express 'preference' so that if their candidate isn't viable they can vote for one who is?<BR/><BR/>The viability threshold should be adjustable, depending on the number of candidates, but not eliminated. The more candidates, the lower the threshold (no threshold if 10 candidates); the fewer the number of candidates, the higher the threshold. With two candidates, the threshold should be in the 25% range.<BR/><BR/>If, in a 10 candidate field, one candidate gets 5% of the vote, the candidate must make a decision whether their candidacy is viable. The financial backing they receive will help to determine that. It will also be shown in later contests whether that candidate has a message that the voters are willing to consider, and if not, the candidate can withdraw. If they don't, it's the candidate's decision as to whether they continue or not, if they want to go into debt, how they campaign to get the message out without financial support, etc.<BR/><BR/>Additional -<BR/><BR/>The rules should reward those states that hold primaries later in the 'primary window' (NOT later than last cycle per current rules). Maybe something like:<BR/><BR/>January and February - no bonus delegates<BR/>March - 10% bonus<BR/>April - 25% bonus<BR/>May and June - 40% bonus<BR/><BR/>However, in no case would more than 25 total delegates be added to a state's 'original' delegation. Thus a state like California could only gain 25 bonus delegates, not 148 for holding a primary in June (this year it has 370 pledged delegates - 40% would add 148 for a total of 518).<BR/><BR/>Any state larger than the 10th smallest state holding a primary earlier than March would get a 10% deduction in delegates.<BR/><BR/>MikeMike in Marylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-48712360151561132052008-06-07T00:45:00.000-04:002008-06-07T00:45:00.000-04:00One note about closed primaries. The current rule...One note about closed primaries. The current rules suggest that state parties should try to have closed primaries. However, most state parties aren't willing to undertake the necessary litigation to force reluctant state legislatures to adopt rules authorizing closed primaries. <BR/><BR/>In my state, even among committed Democrats, I hear reluctance to their choice of primary ballot being recorded, much less a requirement that they register by party. (We have no party registration and do not keep official records of which party's ballot a voter takes during the primary.) Traditionally, there is no support in our legislature for efforts to require party registration.<BR/><BR/>Basically, every four years, the state party here has to convince the RBC that we have put our best efforts into trying to get some record of party preference of voters and doing our best to make sure that Republicans don't participate in the Demcratic Presidential Primary.tmess2https://www.blogger.com/profile/06331751179859344009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-58311341094695984042008-06-07T00:37:00.000-04:002008-06-07T00:37:00.000-04:00There is absolutely no basis for a supreme court c...There is absolutely no basis for a supreme court case based on differences in how states award electoral votes. The Twelth Amendment makes it quite clear that the selection of electors is a decision for each state legislature. <BR/><BR/>There is no constitutional requirement that a state even let the votes have a say in the selection of electors. If a state wanted to split electors based on the membership in the state legislatures, that would be completely permitted by the constitution.<BR/><BR/>The only reason that the Gore case had a federal dimension was the claim that a state (Florida) was not treating all voters in that state equally in violation of the equal protection clause. (The decision to only request a partial recount will go down in history as one of the biggest legal blunders of all times.)tmess2https://www.blogger.com/profile/06331751179859344009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-86244932285183182832008-06-06T22:48:00.000-04:002008-06-06T22:48:00.000-04:00soft, did you read any of the plans that are actua...soft, did you read any of the plans that are actually there? There is one or two that I like, that don't preserve the Iowa NH rule. I don't know about your Thursday thing, but other than that I'm on board.apissedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16808000212802563001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-39436191856389239862008-06-06T22:35:00.000-04:002008-06-06T22:35:00.000-04:00Should we keep SDs? Some of them. What about just ...Should we keep SDs? Some of them. What about just the Senators and Governors? Nobody should be able to buy into it. <BR/><BR/>Should we change the primary calendar? Yes.<BR/><BR/>Start with 5 states on the 3rd Thursday of Feb. Make 3 of them states that "go Rep." Then 2 weeks later, start having 5 states run primaries every Thursday. Rotate all states every 4 yrs.<BR/><BR/>Why Thursday? I think more people would come out if it was later in the week.<BR/><BR/>Keep the PDs committed to the outcome unless their candidate drops out and doesn't endorse someone.<BR/><BR/>Encourage voters to write-in a candidate if they're not confident about the choices that are on the ballot. The current system seems a little arbitrary, which is why my husband stays independent.<BR/><BR/>dmx had a good idea about correlating primaries with the Rep.suzihussein22https://www.blogger.com/profile/09712964666338020304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-77342621259409637352008-06-06T22:32:00.000-04:002008-06-06T22:32:00.000-04:00I'm not democrat nor republican just the typical m...I'm not democrat nor republican just the typical middle of the road voter. I think thats why democrats haven't won more elections. This is a democracy and super delegates should be voting based on their state popular vote. Super delegates should be representatives of their state or city popular vote. If Clinton won any state by vote then this should be followed by super delegates regardless of the way they feel. <BR/><BR/>Hate to say but looks like a republican is getting back in office.....DNELLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17195314204011942138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-27568423041107343892008-06-06T21:24:00.000-04:002008-06-06T21:24:00.000-04:00josh putnam,You've done an excellent job with your...josh putnam,<BR/><BR/>You've done an excellent job with <A HREF="http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/05/tales-from-kennedy-school-symposium-on.html" REL="nofollow">your 'site</A>! I am SOOOO impressed with the level of intelligence on this thread.<BR/><BR/>Do you agree with me that it's an ecouraging sign that the <A HREF="http://www.nass.org/" REL="nofollow">Secretaries of State</A> have taken an interest in this issue? As you say, it's very hard to make fundamental changes; but the fact that a bipartisan group of state officials who actually have some power is looking into this matter gives us some hope for improvement. It also points the way to make changes without federal intervention.<BR/><BR/>That said, I had a ball this year! Democracy, warts and all, is such an engrossing study.Paul Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05909980933490841056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-20737781744666300092008-06-06T21:21:00.000-04:002008-06-06T21:21:00.000-04:00> The advantage of spreading things out is that th...> The advantage of spreading things out is that the country actually pays attention for a significant period.<BR/><BR/>No, the real advantage is that it gives the candidates an opportunity to visit more states. If there were only a single national contest, the candidates would only ever visit a handful of states with the largest populations. If they were regional contests, then they would only visit the largest states in that region.<BR/><BR/>For example, both Obama and Clinton spent time on Montana and South Dakota. If a national/regional system was used, that would never have happened. There'd be no reason for candidates to visit any of the smaller states.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08542687837320348044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-32473066231353046312008-06-06T21:00:00.000-04:002008-06-06T21:00:00.000-04:00david (3:20p),I don't think I was actually being s...david (3:20p),<BR/><BR/>I don't think I was actually being <I>sarcastic</I> but I did bend over backwards to be <I>provocative</I>.<BR/><BR/>You say: <I>Uh... Maine and Nebraska already split their EC votes. Haven't seen a Supreme Court Case on it yet.<BR/></I> <BR/><BR/>You're absolutely right! But we haven't had an actual example of the EC votes splitting -- and besides, awarding EC votes by CD isn't the same as awarding them proportionally. If a big state like Texas or California adopted a scheme where they split proportionally on the state level we'd see some attention brought to the matter -- and, yes, I do believe that there would be a court challenge if one state went in that direction and the others didn't. The minority party in any state could effectively argue that they'd been disenfranchised by winner-take-all.<BR/><BR/>Since you bring up Bush v. Gore... if we'd had proportional allocation in the 2000 GE (let's set aside the 'viability' requirement) the result would have been Gore 264, Bush 263, Nader 11. (Yes, I wasted several hours figuring this out). Nobody would have gotten a majority BUT we wouldn't have landed the election in the lap of the House of Representatives, either. What would have happened is that Mr. Nader would have spoken to Mr. Gore and traded some power in the Gore administration in return for 11 Electoral Votes.<BR/><BR/>An Al Gore administration, tilted slightly toward Ralph Nader, would have been infinitely preferable to a George W. Bush administration tilted toward the religious right.<BR/><BR/>You, like most of the posters on this thread, actually seem to know what you're talking about so I would be delighted to see a response to this post.Paul Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05909980933490841056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-27520919521258394992008-06-06T20:25:00.001-04:002008-06-06T20:25:00.001-04:00Here's my observation. All the posters on this th...Here's my observation. All the posters on this thread are doing an excellent job of expressing their own ideas but not such a good job of responding to other people's thoughts. C'mon! We really should try to get into a <I>discussion</I> about these things. We're only talking about <B>the future of democracy</B>! And the people here on DCW are actually people who give a poop.<BR/><BR/>tokar (12:07pm) wrote an excellent 7 point analysis and concluded:<BR/><BR/><I>7) If we just scrapped the scheduled primary system and went with either a national primary or a six-regional primary, we would not have to worry about all this crap. 1 day, 1 vote total, 1 winner (or 6 days for a six-regional primary).<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I see what you mean, but don't you think there's a big difference between a 1 day national primary and a series of primaries spread out over time? The advantage of spreading things out is that the country actually pays attention for a significant period. Currently, we vote for about five months -- that's about the length of the football season -- and heaven know we pay attention to THAT!<BR/><BR/>shawn (12:40p),<BR/><BR/>You really have a great sense of humor. You were <I>joking</I>, weren't you?????<BR/><BR/><BR/>fidelus21 (1:13p) said:<BR/><BR/><I>1) I would not say scrap the superdelegate system in it's entirety. It is a good idea to reward prominent democrats in the party with a voice of their own.</I><BR/><BR/>I might agree with you if the prominent Democrats actually expressed a voice of their own. Some did, of course, but so many flocked to Clinton in the early stages or to Obama in the later stages that I'm convinced that the majority of superdelegates made endorsements based on political considerations rather than on honest preference. And a huge number of them simply hid out until the choice was obvious (what happened on June 3rd was 'herd mentality' at its worst.)<BR/><BR/>The voters, on the other hand, voted for whomever they liked whatever the consequences.Paul Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05909980933490841056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-9465945479497066492008-06-06T20:25:00.000-04:002008-06-06T20:25:00.000-04:00The IA / NH thing is an obsolete tradition, but it...The IA / NH thing is an obsolete tradition, but it's better to start with a few non heavyweight states (keep these two plus one randomly chosen among the small to medium states every 4 years). <BR/><BR/>This first warm up round should ensure diversity, but the total allocation of delegates should follow a rule similar to 45% end of 1st month, 80% end of 2nd, 100% end of 3rd.<BR/><BR/>When I wrote direct democracy one person one vote (above), I meant primaries and delegate allocations the state level only.Stephane MOThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16814448452457333863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-44052536751069106112008-06-06T20:24:00.000-04:002008-06-06T20:24:00.000-04:00paul,Obama really didn't put forth much of an effo...paul,<BR/>Obama really didn't put forth much of an effort at the end. Also the states involved were less friendly to him. You are correct about the good press coverage though. Had he not won South Carolina and Iowa at the beginning, he would have been killed. Remember the national polls at the beginning? He was getting crushed by double digits nationally, those two wins shot him up, plus the sort of back door win in Nevada.apissedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16808000212802563001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-21514825827306716022008-06-06T19:57:00.000-04:002008-06-06T19:57:00.000-04:00rob goodspeed,Thank you for leading me to this exc...rob goodspeed,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for leading me to <A HREF="http://www.nass.org/" REL="nofollow">this excellent website</A>. The Secretaries of State make a convincing argument that caucuses and primaries should be spread out evenly over the course of the five month primary season. It's good to know that there's bipartisan support for reform. Clearly, one of the biggest problems with the current system is the fact that it's "frontloaded". In fact, <I>(any Hillary supporters out there will be interested in this!)</I> I believe that one of the chief reasons Sen. Clinton lost is that the primaries were frontloaded.<BR/><BR/>How do I come up with that? Well, let's consider the fact that Sen. Obama had excellent press in the beginning of the primary/caucus season but around the time the campaigns in Texas and Ohio got underway things started to turn against him (and in favor of Clinton). <BR/><BR/>Let's look at the stats: During the first 47 days of the race, Obama won 53.30% of the pledged delegates (even when you count MI and FL at half-strength) and Clinton won 46.51%. Then, in the remaining 105 days of the campaign, Clinton won 51.99% of the vote to Obama's 48.01%. A simple algebra equation demonstrates the fact that if the primaries had been evenly distributed instead of frontloaded, Clinton would have won the majority of pledged delegates by a tally of 1714.5 to 1693. Presumably, the superdelegates would have made a different decision if she'd taken the lion's share of pledged delegates. She might even be our nominee today (Yikes!)<BR/><BR/>Thank God the primaries were frontloaded! ;-)<BR/><BR/>Even though I'm an Obama supporter I realize that he dodged a bullet this year -- but if we actually care about <I>democracy</I> we ought to support reforms that spread the delegate selection process out in a more sensible manner.Paul Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05909980933490841056noreply@blogger.com