Am I the only one who feels our primary system is an elaborate hoax.

[Pacifist Patriot]

Maybe that is phrasing it a bit oddly and unfortunately sounds too much like I need a tinfoil hat, but that's not exactly what I mean.

I can't help but feel our staggered primary system disenfranchises voters by default. Look what happened after just two states. Biden was one of the candidates I was considering and even if I lived in SC my options would be narrower. Forget living in a state voting in April (heck, March) or later! Less than 1% of eligible voters are conceivably in any position to direct the party's choice of candidate.

Two state parties wanted their voters to make a difference for a change and look what happened to them.

Frankly, I find the system a condescending joke on the American voter. I've heard all of the financial arguments for why it's done that way and they fail to sway me. Sorry, but in this day and age there is no reason for the focus on two itty bitty states at the exclusion of everyone else. My apologies to Iowa and NH...I'm referring to size and population, not character.

It would certainly be more honest if the DNC locked the doors, picked one of their own, sent up the white smoke and then announced who their nominee was going to be. The process we have is cannibalistic, distracting and resource draining. It smacks of circuses rather than bread.

[sharp_stick]

1. I hate the primary system

It's not only cutting down on options for more than 95% of the population it's way too damned expensive. Imagine what could be done with the money being tossed into idiotic TV ads? Does anybody really pay attention to that shit? I haven't ever changed my mind based on a TV ad or a robocall or any other piece of outright campaigning.

I personally would like to see the country vote for their choice of Presidential candidate based on party affiliation during the November elections of the year prior to the general election. All done, now we can forget about all the losers and get busy fighting the pukes like we should be anyway.

[Bullet1987]

2. There's a lot wrong with our election system...

I wouldn't call it a hoax per se, but it definently is favored for the most well-financed and establishment candidates. Everything from...

1. The Media
2. Superdelegates
3. Election Fraud/Voter Disenfranchisement
4. Etc.

The system is stacked so whoever wins the most in the early states...wins the nomination. As opposed to the entire country having a say.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. I just mean a hoax in the context that it really doesn't accomplish what is commonly assumed.

I really didn't know what word to use. I'm by all means open to suggestions.

[Fresh_Start]

3. I hate the primary system esp caucus

I can't understand why a party would chose caucus when it reduces participation by over 60%.
It makes no sense.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Precisely. I read one of my children's social studies book recently...

and it certainly gives the kids the impression that our democratic process is engaged in the primary system when that is NOT the case. I do not mean to imply it is a deliberate hoax on the part of some individual or individuals. Simply that it is a systemic one.

[Andy823]

27. I don't like the caucus either

I think that many people get bullied into going to another candidate they really don't know much about. I think we need to have a system that allows people to vote in private and for whoever they want. Add the votes up at the end and that's it. I was not impressed at all watching the Iowa caucus this year on CSPAN!

[Lint Head]

6. The candidates are decided before hand by the corporate media.

They are then presented by the corporate media to the public in the order of importance as it relates to the advancement of their agenda. It's not a hoax but the fix is in. The choices should be limited so the ballots will not fill up with hundreds of names.
I do think that the primary elections should be eliminated. Candidates should run and there should be a straight up election. :dem:

[nancyr]

23. My conclusion, too.

The average person (public) gets the honor of voting for the ones who are selected by the powers that be. Other than that, we are pretty much nonexistent and certainly not worth much.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. And that says it all right there.

[Occam Bandage]

30. So, the evil corporatists picked John Edwards in 2004, but hate him in 2008?

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. If I'm not mistaken, didn't they pick Kerry before he picked Edwards?

[Occam Bandage]

45. He was the subject of an enormous fawning media blitz after Iowa, remember?

He ended up being one of the Chosen Two, as Dean, Gep, and the like were forgotten. He won SC and challenged Kerry up to then end.

[rox63]

7. I'd love to see us go to instant runoff voting around the country

Much fairer system.

[LostinVA]

8. I agree -- we should have "Primary Day," like Election Day

Plus, drawing it out causes way too much in-party sniping.

[Occam Bandage]

31. As a Clinton supporter, I bet you would.

She'd dominate the field if it were only about money and recognition.

[ramapo]

9. The whole thing is a joke

Months of debates lead up to a tiny percentage of Americans voting which in turn immediately winnows the field of candidates down to a few. The media anoints winners before anybody votes. Hillary was invincible, the next president, and not a vote had been cast. Howard Dean was all but elected too before it became apparent that voters might not feel the same way as the conventional wisdom.

Iowa doesn't even hold a real election, just a bunch of people getting together for snacks. 99% of us don't get a chance to vote for the entire slate that started out running. Biden might've been an excellent candidate. Maybe many agree with that. We'll never know since we're now down to two or three candidates before much of anybody has had a chance to vote.

Michigan has been disenfranchised.

The process makes me sick. The media calls winners and losers while ignoring the fact that even the "losers" get delegates and it is the total number of delegates that matter.

I don't think you could design a worse system if you tried.

[Nordmadr]

51. You hit the nail on one of the biggest things that bother me. It is in

how it is presented to us. Looking at the delegate count, 25, 24, and 18; how can you possibly say this race is even remotely decided when one needs 2000+ delegates?

The system needs to be changed. We should be embarrassed.

Olafr

[L0oniX]

60. And you have to wonder why the media has got the Dems down to 3 and the repukes still have all.

[peacetalksforall]

10. "It would certainly be more honest if the DNC..." Don't you mean DLC?

[fadedrose]

19. DLC makes more sense in this OP

[Kucinich4America]

48. Actually, no.

Because you can't use "DLC" and "honest" in the same sentence. Unless it's in the context that I just did.

[fadedrose]

56. I meant..

the part about meeting in a room and picking a candidate...that's what the DLC did. Honesty wasn't an issue. I think the issuea were money and power.

[peacetalksforall]

11. It was all turned over to Republicans when Republicans bought our the networks.

[L0oniX]

61. The deal with the Devil.

Hillary, Rupert, and the Culture of Corruption
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cohen/hillary-rupert-and-the-_b_20720.html

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

[sellitman]

12. Set up a one day vote.

The same day for everyone. Just like the GE.

Cancel the stupid money wasting Conventions.

Forget the Stupid Delegates who can change the peoples will.

Tell the DNC & the RNC and any other alphabet based group to go pound sand.

[Apollo11]

13. I would prefer some kind of equal rotation system.

Having a couple of states go first does help candidates with less money and less national name-recognition to break thru and reach folks who don't watch cable news every day.

Look at what Mike Huckabee did in Iowa. There are many other examples in US history.

But I agree it's not fair that Iowa and NH always get to go first.

I would prefer a 10 week primary calendar starting in early March.

Divide the USA into 5 regions, with 10 States in each region.

One State in each region is picked at random to be an "early state".

In each of the first 5 weeks you have a primary in one of the "early states".

Then for weeks 6 thru 10, you would have a series of 5 regional primaries.

In each week, the 9 remaining States in one of the regions would vote.

I would also extend voting hours (from noon on Thursday thru noon on Saturday).

That's if and when they put me in charge! B-)


Edited to add - I also like the idea of instant runoff voting.

Each voter would get to number the candidates in order of preference.

But it would only make sense if all States vote on the same day.

So it would be the end of "retail politics" in Presidential races.

[bunkerbuster1]

14. This is far more sensible.

I could be swayed to include some mechanism to ensure that a lower-population state was in the 1st round--not because I'm all that enamored of dinky states determining the first cut, but I do like the idea that a lower-budget early round campaign is more likely to be effective that way.

[harun]

17. A number of variations on what you are suggesting would be

the way to go. I don't like the way it works now. It is basically fake, with the media vetting candidates each step of the way. At the end, people wonder how we get the two biggest corporatist's running against each other each time.

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. As far as I can tell, your suggestion certainly make a lot more sense.

[DaLittle Kitty]

15. Nope! But It Is Close To it...

[bunkerbuster1]

16. In my whole adult life, this will be the first Presidential primary I'll vote in that matters.

Just happenstance; up until now, I've been in a state whose primary was in June or in March, but now it's Super Tuesday. And I've been voting since 1976!

And it's possible that by Feb. 5, it'll be mostly determined already, anyway.

I agree with you, the system's broken and is in dire need of repair. I guess the good side is, the recent weirdness is a direct result of a lot of people feeling disenfranchised, so even though everything's being compressed and happening way too early, at least some change has been afoot.

Let's hope they get it right in 2012 (and they'll need to start planning this right about now in order for it to be made right by then, methinks.)

[LynzM]

18. Yes, it's ridiculous.

That the candidates should be "chosen" by 2% of the states, or whatever tiny percentage, is ridiculous.

Why not have national caucusing with final tallying, all in one night? Or plain old primary voting, everyone on one day?

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. Well from what I'm being told...

face to face time with candidates is so vital to our process and it's impossible for small names with small budgets to break through if we were to open it nationally. Of course, this assumes that a change in the primary system doesn't also need a change in election funding, media coverage, etc. I'd say they go hand in hand.

[China_cat]

22. I don't know why they don't do away with both primaries

and the electoral college, put ALL the candidates on the ballot and let the voters really choose.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Side question, but I'm always curious if the cost of conventions is worth the...

return to the cities hosting. That's just the cheapskate in me though.

[China_cat]

46. I imagine it is.

Having seen what our local spent on just 3 people going to what amounted to a local convention (union in Jacksonville, convention in Miami). Hotel expenses, meals, and driving (when gas was still under $2/gal) came to $11,000 and some change for 5 days. And that was being frugal. Last year just our president went to the convention in Las Vegas and it was more than that just for him with flights, etc. (That's in expenses paid by the union...no telling what he spent out of pocket)

So if you're looking at those amounts just for a couple people, multiply that by the numbers of conventioneers then add in spouses, significant others, extras along for the ride, some families, and media, and yeah, both the cities and the states (through sales and hospitality taxes) make out pretty good.

[ladjf]

26. I wouldn't describe the primary system as a "hoax" . But, I would

say that it does a poor job of selecting the nominees. The best system would be the one that involved the greatest sample of American voters.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. As I said above, it's a clumsy word and doesn't necessarily imply...

intent to fraud. Simply that it's a systemic hoax by suggesting something that isn't true. For example, my son's social studies book uses the primary process of an example of Americans' ability to participate in the democratic process. It promises something it doesn't deliver.

[ladjf]

47. I see your logic and agree. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

28. Would you recommend a national primary?

[Occam Bandage]

29. That would, of course, make it *entirely* about money.

[wyldwolf]

35. How about a regional lottery?

4-5 geographical regions of the country. A lottery is held to see which one has their mini-super tuesday first, then second, then third, then fourth.

This would prevent candidates from camping out in Iowa and NH for years. Not knowing which order the regions would hold their primaries until, say, the last two weeks before, candidates would not be able to pump money into front loaded primaries.

[Occam Bandage]

36. So long as there are two solitary states first, sure.

When you only have one state, it diminishes the importance of money and increases the importance of personal appearances and message. The more states you have voting at once, the greater the effect money has. On the flipside, the fewer states you have voting at once, the fewer people get a meaningful voice.

[wyldwolf]

37. do you mean ahead of the regions or two states within each region... and why?

[Occam Bandage]

39. Either way. Personally, I'd like to see

Ohio go first, as I think it's the most representative state. A lottery might have something as ridiculous as a NY-NJ prelude or a CA-OR prelude. In the first, Hillary would have had such a huge advantage in the early states that you might as well just forget the rest of the primary. In the second, the audience is so large that you might as well make it a national primary.

As for why I want a few states to go before everyone else?

When you only have one state, it diminishes the importance of money and increases the importance of personal appearances and message. The more states you have voting at once, the greater the effect money has. On the flipside, the fewer states you have voting at once, the fewer people get a meaningful voice.

[Pacifist Patriot]

43. If all other factors remained the same, of course.

It's a systemic problem that requires change in all manner of ways at all levels of the process.

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. Not necessarily. As I said, the process would be a lot more honest if...

the party leadership themselves simply chose who they wanted to represent the party rather than going through this charade of implying the voters have much, if any, say. Seems like a huge waste of time, energy and resources at present.

[CK_John]

32. Yea, but it is the only hoax in town. n/t

[Steely_Dan]

33. No Argument Here n/t

[Bonobo]

34. It is NOT...

elaborate. Just a simple hoax really.

[Eurobabe]

38. It completely sucks...

We need a rotating regional primary set up, or something to that effect. But then again since the media whores choose our candidates anyhow, what would change. It's pathetic. :mad:

[winston61]

40. Well, DUH!

They laugh at us, we just bitches for the Dems and Repukes.

[sandnsea]

49. People needed to be involved months ago

I know it's frustrating, but this is the way the process has been for a while. While some people were complaining about the drawn out primary, others knew there was a good chance it would be over by Feb 5. The time to get involved was last August. You can give money, make phone calls, write letters, from any city in the country. The vote is the beginning of your civic duty, not the end.

[philly_bob]

50. Wasn't it a populist reform away from party bosses making decisions in ...

the proverbial smoke-filled rooms?

[PATRICK]

52. Combination of reforms

and gaming in every fashion imaginable. Nothing new there but the state Dems have fallen badly for GOP stratagems to spread chaos into the process to their advantage. I'd say it is very messy and complicated in which the first two states HAVE fulfilled a fair role of sorts despite the gaming and disenfranchised states have blocked a pernicious GOP influence on pre-agreed Dem rules. People at the grass roots have to
have some recourse when their legislative Dems let them down instead of letting now impotent rage get merely deflected toward the national party.

Should the primary system be better? Certainly. It is shown that it might be the ONLY democratic election process Americans will ever get. Will it this be gamed anti-democratically frantically by every power, every campaign? More than anyone will ever prepare for or sometimes even take seriously enough.

Everyone tries to game a system. Rigging is also apparent. So is democracy. the name of the game this year is to keep democracy alive in our terribly threatened system. Keep it imperfectly alive, not foolishly expect it to be ideal. There is no democratic choice in the fall except to preserve democracy or not. The remnants of democracy are grumbling trough a party process troubled both normally and from horrible assault. It is all we have left and certainly not something to cheer about naively if it produces a game winner instead of an engaged people's choice.

[ThoughtCriminal]

53. It is a farce than cripples us

I would honestly take some effort to design a worse system.

[Perky]

54. God I hope you are the only one

The level on conspiracy and the number of conspirators it would take is mindnumbing. keeping them all quiet anout it would be impossible.....Move On

[Pacifist Patriot]

57. Read my explanation of the word hoax above.

[VotesForWomen]

55. the whole system is a joke, but most people here on DU don't even want to change it significantly. n

[LWolf]

58. You are not the only one.

I would recommend:

A staggered primary schedule is fine, as long as paper ballots are used and no ballots in the nation are counted until the last vote in the last primary has been cast.

All polling should be banned.

No corporate media debates. Debates on CSPAN or PBS or both, that give every attendee absolutely equal talk time and allow them all to answer every question.

Absolutely equal, 100% public funding for all candidates that qualify for the ballot.

Finally, IRV or some other ranked voting system.

[knitter4democracy]

59. After today and voting in a meaningless primary, I entirely agree.

Hillary may have won today, but I think it's more important to look at the voters who stayed home in droves.

This primary system is a morass. It sucks up money and spits out the corporation-friendly candidate. Screw the voters and the grassroots. We don't mean shit to those in power.