Perhaps we need to change who is allowed to vote in Democratic Primaries.

[MineralMan]

It's clear that letting everyone vote is unfair to the Sanders campaign, since his opponent has far more of the popular vote overall, across the country. That could be solved by selectively allowing only certain groups to vote and not allowing other groups to participate. Clearly, Bernie Sanders would do better if the following groups were not allowed to vote in Democratic Primaries. We could let them vote, though, in the General election, since many of these demographic groups reliably vote for Democrats then:

1. People of color in Southern red states - Clearly, they should not count because Bernie did poorly among them.
2. People of color over the age of 35 in all other states - See reason above.
3. Women over the age of 40 - This demographic group clearly does not vote properly at all.
4. Men over the age of 50 - It's obvious that this demographic group has a mad crush on Hillary Clinton. Pure bias.
5. People earning more than $30K/year individually - They've got theirs, so they should stay home and let others vote.

By disenfranchising these groups, only for Democratic Primaries, of course, we'd have a much fairer electorate that would improve Bernie Sanders' chances of becoming the nominee.

[virtualobserver]

1. Or perhaps we should just let all of the states vote before we declare a winner.

[MineralMan]

2. We're already doing that. The Nominee will be selected in

late July. All of the states will have voted. We can, however, follow the process and calculate the candidates' chances by using 5th grade arithmetic.

There won't be a nominee until the convention, but it may be clear who that will be quite some time beforehand.

[SFnomad]

8. Don't confuse them with facts, they'd rather stick to ..... #BernieMath n/t

[elias7]

63. Please continue with the math bullshit

Because you're smarter than me, and I only have a 4th grade education, and don't realize that nothing unexpected won't happen between now and then. Proceed governor.

[SFnomad]

64. It's clear you understand your limitiations ... sorry that math is so challenging for you

But when you look at the remaining states ...

Primaries v. caucuses
Open v. closed
How diverse and what type of diversity the states have

It's pretty damn clear that the only bullshit happening is from people that think BS has any chance left at all. But you go ahead and enjoy your delusions ... but that won't last for much longer.

[elias7]

67. Maintaining hope, however slim, is not delusional

i understand you thrive on closure. I do not. I thrive on process.

[SFnomad]

68. Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things ... but you're in unrealistic hope territory n/t

[pandr32]

29. Touche MineralMan!

[jeff47]

55. "We" is not the official DNC nomination.

Pronouns! How do they work?!

[Trust Buster]

3. Bam.....nailed it.....LOL

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Sounds like a plan that would pass muster with the BS Brigade.

Not sure how it would go over with real, grassroot Dems, though.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, I just thought I'd lay out a winning plan for Sanders.

It would work beautifully, I'm sure.

[NurseJackie]

7. Planning ahead isn't one of the campaign's strong points.

They'll shout at that bridge when they come to it.

[Surya Gayatri]

10. Bwaahaaaa! "Shout" at that bridge, loud and long!!!

That'll get you across, for sure! LOLOL!

[LiberalFighter]

20. You forgot pointing finger in the air.

[Surya Gayatri]

22. Yes, the flying fickle finger of fate...

that'll wisk you magically across the aforementioned bridge.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Gawd!!! You must be nearly my age.

I haven't heard "Flying finger of fate" in ages.

[Surya Gayatri]

24. Never missed an episode of "Laugh-In" back in the day,

when I still lived in the States. Always loved the alliteration...LOL!

[LiberalFighter]

30. Flying Fickle Finger of Fate

[Surya Gayatri]

42. Your photo was invisible--link was "dead".

But, here it is, in all of it's glorious, gold-plated fickleness. LOLOL!

[LiberalFighter]

47. That is odd.

It shows up for me. And your link shows with broken link.

[Surya Gayatri]

50. It may have something to do with my ISP address, which is European.

Copyright issues or something?

There are often YouTube videos, etc. that I can't access because of US/European copyright agreements.

This is the message that pops up when I try to "display photo":

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /images/award_fickle.jpg on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

[Codeine]

11. Oh damn.

That's my new favorite phrase!

[Wilms]

6. Is this your alter ego?

You frequently act as if you are some mature voice of reason...not that I really buy that. But you'll also post some really shit-stirring stuff, as if we don't already have truckloads of agitated excrement.

Why is that?

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I am sort of an alter kocker...

[Stuckinthebush]

53. Ha!

[Bluenorthwest]

12. What if we have this series of elections in the various States and then decide the winner?

Declaring victory so far in advance of the votes of millions being cast at all indicates a contempt for those voters who have as yet to vote and for the regions in which they live.

As it is, no one has been disenfranchised by Bernie, and you know it. It is the Hillary campaign that devoutly wishes that my State primary not count at all, they have been calling the election since Iowa.

[MineralMan]

16. Well, that is, in fact, what we'll be doing, isn't it?

We have five more primaries on Tuesday. And then more later.

[sadoldgirl]

13. Even though Bernie won in our closed caucus state,

there were so many complaints about the system,
that our legislature is working to change it to an
open primary one.

All I can say: Good for them!

[MineralMan]

17. Yes, indeed. I'm in support of changing Minnesota to a

primary state for presidential elections. So are my districts' state legislators. So is our Governor. So are, in fact, the legislators of both parties. It will pass, and 2016 will be the last presidential primary determined by caucuses.

I'm all for the change, and always have been.

[stone space]

33. A closed caucus seems to work fairly well here in Iowa.

[Triana]

14. . . .

1. MANDATORY Automatic registration for every eligible voter upon voting age or getting a DL - If a person doesn't want to be registered, must opt out. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
2. MANDATORY 2 weeks of early voting. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
3. MANDATORY same-day registration. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
4. MANDATORY Federally standardized ballot form for Presidential election or Presidential primary. Down ballot races and referendums MUST be on a separate sheet than Presidential or Presidential primary ballot. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
5. MANDATORY paper ballots, hand-counted -- or OPEN SOURCE code publicly vetted and audited by third party (not employed or known to entity which built the system and non-partisan) on-site on election day of electronic systems if used. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
6. MANDATORY number of voting places open per/some number of people. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
7. MANDATORY allowance of out-of precinct voting. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
8. MANDATORY paid day off for every employee on election day. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.
9. MANDATORY NO voter ID. Instead, Federal election inspection and UN monitoring every state, every Presidential election, to ensure laws are followed and fair processes were instituted. 800 number for each state to report issues and anomolies. Investigated IMMEDIATELY, on-site. If not, election will be nullified and new election held. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law. Part of #5, above.
10. MANDATORY and not least, PUBLICLY-FUNDED ELECTIONs only. NO private money given to ANY politician for their campaigns - no exceptions. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.

forgot to add:
11. MANDATORY OPEN PRIMARIES. EVERY STATE. Governors cannot overrule this. Should be Federal Law.

THIS is how a country that WANTS people to vote, would conduct an election.

Otherwise? Oligarchy. Establishment control. Establishment thumb on electoral scales. Meddling. Cheating. Bribery. An AUCTION, not an election. THIS is what we've got. It's a goddamned JOKE.

[Snarkoleptic]

15. ^^^This^^^

All this talk of importing democracy...crazy stuff!

[Sweet Freedom]

18. Thank you

[MineralMan]

21. And how do you plan to make such a thing happen?

We have 50 states, each with it's own election laws. That's one of the things that remains of the states' rights concept. Getting such a nationalization of elections is something that could not possibly get through Congress. In reality, it would require a constitutional amendment. I cannot imagine the states ratifying such a thing.

Now, the federal government could declare a November date as Election Day National Holiday, but only for elections involving Congressional and presidential choices. I think that would be an excellent idea. But, even then, as with all other national holidays, private businesses would do as they please, and most people would still be at work.

Elections are run by states. Within states, they are run mostly by counties. What you're suggesting is simply not going to occur. However, you can work in your own state to institute such changes, and I recommend that.

[Triana]

25. "We have 50 states, each with it's own election laws."

THAT should not be. Period. That every state "does it's own thing" in regards to elections is UNACCEPTABLE and it doesn't work. Clearly.

First step to fixing the mess: ELECT BERNIE SANDERS. Why? Because he GIVES a damn about this issue.

THEN clear out CONgress and replace them with a majority of non-millionaires.

Restore and enhance the VRA just so. Yep. It will take YEARS.

But the Hillary "we can't do that it's too haaard!" doesn't wash.

NO excuse for America not already having it all in place IF it's really any sort of representative republic or democracy.

But it isn't. And do you know why it isn't? Because TOO MANY people said: "we can't fix this it's too haaard!"

And I'm sorry but we don't NEED ANY MORE OF THAT.

Election 2016 is an IQ test.

With Hillary, We've already FAILED.

And your snarky comments are no more valuable (or 'doable') than mine on fixing elections in the US. At least mine are reasonable and make good sense and would help EVERYONE to vote, no matter who they support. And that's what you're purportedly criticizing isn't it?

Otherwise, here we are:

[MineralMan]

28. I'm a realist. I deal with what IS, not what SHOULD BE.

I'm too old to think I'll see sweeping changes in how we do things. I also think everyone on DU is too old to expect that.

We have an election THIS YEAR. That election will take place, and I will participate in it. With luck, everyone who can will also do that. The choices we make THIS YEAR will affect us all for at least four years.

My satirical suggestion that started this thread is ridiculous, and intentionally so. Your suggestions are equally ridiculous, but apparently not intentionally so.

This year's elections will happen based on the rules that exist. That is what we have to work with. We can be pissed off about those rules. We can complain about them. Neither thing will change any of them this year.

No President can change the basic structure of our government. That requires far more agreement than any President can assemble, from Congress to the very people who vote in all of those 50 states.

I'm a realist. I don't deal with fantasies, except satirically. You might do something else. I don't know.

[Matt_in_STL]

43. This post shows you are slinging shit and not serious

You get a well thought out, well reasoned response to your snarky (generous term) OP and instead you cry about how it can't be done and it isn't realistic. These are good suggestions and, just because you don't find them realistic, doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. We have a history in this country of fighting for what's right, even if it takes years and costs blood and tears to get there.

You can be a quitter but we would be better served as a country if you kept that whiny shit to yourself and let those of us who are willing to fight for everyone do just that.

[MineralMan]

45. Thanks for your kind advice.

I'll take it under consideration.

[Kittycat]

32. Excellent post, and

That picture! I pinned it to my Twitter feed for a couple of days when I first saw it. Such a moving example of where we are as a country right now.

[Kittycat]

26. 6. Condition: distance and population factor

Mandatory # of polling locations per x threshold and no further than X apart. Distance to travel should never be a limitation to casting a vote. If extreme rural conditions exist, every effort should be made through outreach to assist those individuals with mail in services.

[Triana]

66. Agreed. n/t

[Trenzalore]

65. Mandatory Paid day off for election day won't work

Trains, busses, hospitals, etc. hell even getting gas in your car is required for election day.

[unc70]

19. Thanks, Triana. MM, I am disappointed in you

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

MM, I am disappointed at your "sarcasm". You are usually much better than this. Maybe you have been spending too much time in the HRC group. I don't know.

Thanks Triana for giving s calm and reasoned response. Your strong statement should be the end of this thread, but probably won't.

[think]

27. You mean like purge a list of voters? We would never do that in America.

[Duckhunter935]

31. It is posters

and her supporters like you that reaffirm my choice not to vote for her. It is my vote and others will choose how they vote. I will vote in all of the down ballot races though.

[MineralMan]

34. Everyone will vote as they choose to vote.

I encourage you to do just that. I hope you'll think carefully about your vote and then vote for the better candidate for President.

But, I can't, and won't, tell you how you should vote. You're an adult. Vote as you think best. I'll do the same.

If you vote based on what some screen name on some web site posts, then I suggest that you think more about how you vote and pay less attention to anonymous screen names.

[Duckhunter935]

36. People like you are just the icing on the cake

It is more than one or two, it is her surrogates, her basically breaking at least the e spirit of campaign finance laws by directly coordinating with her superpacs. I know her positions for at least this week, I think. I know they will shift as the money will talk louder than than anything I could say. It is a good thing that my state does not matter so it is an easy choice for me. I feel sorry for the ones that think her positions are now set and she will get a damn thing done with a Congress that despises her.

[MineralMan]

40. Well, you're likely correct about Oklahoma.

It's unlikely to go for a Democratic candidate for President, regardless of who it is. So, by your own admission, your vote probably will not be part of the decision. I think that's unfortunate.

I'm fortunate in being able to live anywhere, since I work for myself in providing content for my clients. So, I've chosen to live in places where Democrats generally win. I find he environment more to my liking. I've been in Oklahoma several times, but never for very long. I don't think I've ever considered living there.

It is a shame that your state doesn't matter in Presidential elections. I can't help you with that, since I don't live there. It's a pity.

[Duckhunter935]

48. Well I do

And I will vote to change, just not for her.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. Except it's been the Sanders campaign that's been pushing so hard

to allow everyone to vote while the Clinton campaign is trying to make sure they don't. The whole primary system, if you can even call it a system, is stupid and is designed to make sure that the party pooh-bahs still control the nomination process. The old smoke-filled rooms are gone but they've come up with ways to give the people the illusion that they choose the nominee. Yippee! But then the superdelegates come in and bigfoot the whole process anyhow. DWS made it very clear that the purpose of the superdelegates was to be sure the establishment tools didn't have to face competition from hoi polloi; her exact words were that the superdelegates "exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists." How's that for democracy? We don't need no stinking grassroots activists!

Your premise is completely ass-backwards, not to mention insulting.

[Duckhunter935]

37. Typical

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. That was informative. Care to elaborate?

[Duckhunter935]

49. Of the Clinton, DLC machine

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Oh, OK.

[AgingAmerican]

39. Moronic OP

[MineralMan]

41. Well, thank you.

[Punkingal]

44. I don't know why you think it is productive to post a snarky OP about voter disenfranchisement

On a site that was started in the first place because of a stolen election. Neither Bernie nor his supporters want anyone to be disenfranchised. I have heard nothing but silence from the other candidate, though.

You don't really care if your OP prompts a productive discussion, though, do you? It serves it's purpose very well as it is.

[Contrary1]

62. Evidently, you forgot...

It's only the Bernie supporters' that are hurting Hillary's chances in November.

Also, you can post all the insulting remarks you desire to stir up more crap, as long as it is followed with this:

[northernsouthern]

46. Wow way to imply racism.

Maybe Hillary would do better if her party could just go around and employ hate crimes like racism, sexism, bigotry, etc as a simple tool to help her gain power in the system at the expense of the victims? If she could cheapen it and use it as a divisive tool? Perhaps Hillary could also block the votes of the youth, the poor, people in the north, independents...oh wait she is already doing both of those things because she is a hollow person filled with anger and lust for power that rejoices at the death of others. But to put it a way you will understand...

To help Hillary win, since all her bribes, electioneering and general corruption are not paying off we should block the following...

1. People of color or any race for that matter in Southern red states that voted for Bernie - Clearly, they should not count because Black Hillary voters are the only voters we care about in our overtly racist tone, after the elections though we can go back to crossing the road when they walk to close to us.
2. People of color under the age of 35 in all other states (oh and all Asians since we seem to have forgotten about them, you know the group that represents the largest f@cking population on earth, and includes people that have family that comes from the middle east all the way yo to the Bering Sea and everything in between - See reason above.
3. Women under the age of 40 - This demographic group clearly does not vote properly at all, since only real women vote for Hillary, the rest are promiscuous women there for the beefcake (that is right in the Hillary camp we ACTUALLY tried sl@t shaming women in an argument about sexism).
4. Men under the age of 50 - It's obvious that this demographic group has a mad crush on Bernie Sanders. Pure bias.
5. People earning less than $30K/year individually (because they are poor) - They have not got theirs so they should stay home and let others vote...oh wait actually they should keep working since poor people work jobs that often have less benefits and could not take the time off to vote.

By disenfranchising these groups, only for Democratic Primaries, of course, we'd have a much fairer electorate that would improve Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the nominee...but as it stands now she will need the people she bribed to knock her over the top.

P.s. your post is race baiting, ageist, and sexist...but I am sure you knew that.

[Duckhunter935]

51. This ^^^

[That Guy 888]

56. I think they're worried about California and really Grinched off that Bernie's Whoville isn't crying

Maybe the racism charge is an attempt to "Correct the Record"™ and get those horrible sexist, racist, unicorn/pony wanting, bernie-bros to realize NO - WE - CAAAAN'T1!eleven!!

And then of course to vote for the candidate that's working real hard(it's hard work)* to unite the Party, Hillary.





*The more she campaigns, the more she reminds my of King bushy the nothingth, with Brock as her Rove.

[Jim Lane]

69. Nice takedown of a straw man argument.

I was going to post just my subject line but, upon reflection, considering the poor understanding of logic out there (in the world and on DU), I think I'd better give a link for "straw man".

[beachbumbob]

52. I'm still chuckling as sanders supporters say what a great idea!!!

[azurnoir]

57. so tell us would you like to change Minnesota's?

[MineralMan]

58. Already working on that.

The state will change to a primary system for presidential elections, beginning with the 2020 election year. The legislation is already in the legislature and will be signed by Governor Dayton. It has bipartisan support in both houses, and will almost certainly pass.

If those primaries work like our current ones for state and local offices, voters will take the ballot that best represents their party affiliation at the polling place. Our same day registration, of course, will be in effect.

The primaries will be open primaries, in that voters select which party's ballot for themselves.

The resolution supporting this passed at our State Senate District 67 convention and in all of the other ones I know about.

All of this reflects Minnesotans' concerns over the small, less than representative turnout at the 2016 caucuses. In my own precinct caucus, for which I was the chair, we had only 58 votes in the presidential preference election. My precinct has roughly 2300 registered voters in it. It's easy to see that the caucus turnout was not a representative one. Too few people showed up, and I can attest to the fact that the attendees did not reflect the demographics of my precinct.

So, that's what Minnesota's going to do. I'm fully in support of that change.

Thanks for asking.

[azurnoir]

59. yes after Hillary's decisive loss in MN the laws need to be changed or not

myself I am for openness in the process

[bkkyosemite]

60. Not true I'm gong to be 70 white and voting for Bernie...

why do you believe the lies of the polls.

[frylock]

61. Perhaps more than a very small percentage of Americans should determine..

who we have to vote for in the GE.

[passiveporcupine]

70. You are so full of shit, how do you even get away with posting this bullshit?

This should be a hide! If only I did that, I'd be all over this crap.