How Do You Feel About The Nomination Process?

[ThomWV]

I don't mean this to be a political question, I'm not concerned about the individuals who would be President. I'm wondering how you feel abut the 'process'. Does it make sense to you to have Elections in some states and Caucus in others? Do the "Debate" formats work to give you better insight or do they simply allow candidates to mask their faults? How about the money race and television spots - do they serve you well enough? How about the number of would be candidates? What do you think about mud slinging, does it every provide any value? How about them 'pundents' do they enlighten you or leave you wondering what in hell they think they are talking about?

Tell me how you feel about this process we've got - does it serve you? If you could improve it what would you do?

[tekisui]

1. I would get rid of Caucuses, Superdelegates(or greatly limit their influenc)

and come up with a different schedule.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Yes, yes and yes. I'd like run-off voting for the primary and eliminate the whole delegate thing.

Caucuses - suck. - Not democratic.
Superdelegates - suck. - ibid.
The schedule - sucks. - unfair favoritism to unrepresentative states. (Iowa and New Hampshire, for Pete's sake?)

I'd simply like to see the whole delegate system abandoned and install a run off voting system.

Basically, keep it to a schedule of a few states (but not always the same) in the beginning, then trickle more states in the following weeks to allow a shake out to occur.

At the end, if one candidate doesn't have 50% support, then have a second election of the top two, majority wins.

It's time to abandon the electoral system as well...

[Virginia Dare]

2. I think we need a national primary election day...

there needs to be a definitive start date and a definitive end date to the primary campaign, and I also think there needs to be a spending cap put on campaign funding.

[tekisui]

6. The spending cap would be required, for sure, if we had a National Election Day.

A National Primary Day would favor BIG BUCKS, otherwise.

[Virginia Dare]

7. Definitely..

I think every serious candidate needs to be able to play on the same field. It would come down more to strategy than money. Of course there would be problems with that system too, and they would probably just pander to the big states like California, New York, Florida and Ohio. Nobody would give a crap about Iowa or New Hampshire again. Perhaps it could be broken down into regions, and spread out over a few months.

[Staph]

4. I'd like to see ....

a series of regional primary/caucuses. Let each state choose their own election method (I would personally prefer an Ultimate Frisbee competition between the in-state campaign staffs.)

Allow New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada to keep their early dates -- January preferably. Then divvy up the rest of the country into four groups -- not necessarily geographically. We could be divided into rust belt vs. urban vs. rural vs. border states. Each group has their selection contest in February, March, April and May, alternating who comes first every four years. If the groups are carefully chosen, then the candidates could actually compete on issues that are important to a particular area or group of voters.

[Virginia Dare]

8. That sounds reasonable...

I don't like a system where people have to drop out before the primaries are over though. There definitely needs to be a spending cap for each leg of the campaign.

[Romulox]

13. No go. Why should some voters be more equal than others?

Also, why should the early states be the four, RED states you've mentioned? What about small states that the democrats actually have a chance of winning in November???

[sam sarrha]

5. it is worse than the rigged election process

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. We need regional primaries

with the order rotated each Presidential election cycle. It would save the campaigns money (less travel time between states, and some shared advertising as media markets often overlap to adjoining states) and give each region a chance to "shine in the spotlight" of being first at some time or another. The primaries would come within two weeks of each other, so that it would be less likely that candidates would drop out, too.

[PRETZEL]

10. I would most certainly change the "winner take all"

part of the process. Proportional delegating to the convention would place the entire process into greater importance. As is stands now a candidate in the primary (as in the general election) needs only to win a small but largely populated states to garner either the nomination or the victory in the general election. That places too many of the smaller, less populated states in increasingly less significance overall.

[LiberalFighter]

14. I'm not clear by what you mean.

National delegates from the states are proportionally slotted initially. It is based on turnout in previous elections based on votes received by the Democratic candidate. At that point the states are proportionally equal unlike a 1 vote per state. BUT then there are penalties and bonuses. Penalties for holding elections sooner than allowed. Bonuses for maintaining their primary at their usual date or later. States also receive delegates if they have Democratic Governors, Senators or Representatives.

Republicans give a flat 10 delegates per state plus the number of congressional districts times 3 and then build on that.

[PRETZEL]

15. I guess I should have made sure before posting,

it does seem that the Dem's have indeed gone to proportional delegation.

I stand corrected.

[Romulox]

11. It's undemocratic, rigged, and the early process is dominated by tiny, REPUBLICAN leaning states

Is it any wonder that the process tends to put through the absolutely most conservative democrat?

Why are 3 of the 4 early primary states RED STATES??? :shrug: And then we complain we've only won two presidential elections in 30 years. :think:

[LiberalFighter]

12. Rotating regional caucuses and only party activists

Voters don't have a right to the primaries or caucuses. It is a party issue and it is up to them to decide how they want to nominate their candidate.

At best the primaries shows a preference of some of the voters because they are no where near 100% of the general election turnout.

[Myrina]

16. No. IMO we need a 'National Primary Day'.

All for one and one for all - enough with the beauty contests and candidates whoring themselves around "whichever state's turn it is this week" then never looking back after the primary ... let's get policy papers & free televised debates spread far and wide all at once so candidates and their handlers can't "craft their message" to a particular audience or state/area, and do away with the need for the media blitzes (and campaign money needed = favors owed to donors) in those same particular demographics/ states/areas.

JMHO.

[Tesha]

17. In my dream, we would have a National Election Day with instant-run-off voting or some similar means

In my dream, we would have a National Election Day with
instant-run-off voting or some similar means

There would be a brief campaign. there be *ONE VOTE* using
a means like Instant Run-Off voting or ranked voting or
even "acceptance" voting, and the winning candidate on
that one day would become the next President.

Our current primary system (in both parties) seems to
frequently choose abominable candidates so we are always
left voting for "the lesser of two evils" in November
rather than anyone we can actually believe in. The
mechanism I'm proposing would also greatly diminish
the power of the two duopolistic national parties and
allow the occasional fresh face to emerge along with
their fresh ideas.

Tesha