A truly RADICAL concept for the 08 cycle Democratic Primaries

[Stinky The Clown]

I know, I know .... 06 ...... I'm with ya ...... but if you can't multitask, sign off this thread and sign up for a remedial thinking course.

What if the Democratic Primary were run with only pooled funds? This is to say, run the primaries on a model of what full public financing of political campaigns might look like.

My general notion is this:

The candidates would pledge to take only funds that are provided them by the DNC. The DNC would get those funds by assessing a 'tax' on the candidates in line with their federal election commission filings and be at a rate that would mirror what the candidates would otherwise have spent on the primaries.

For example, if Governor Hiram Harumph were to raise $20,000,000 by the filing date, and historically, Gov. Harumph would be expected to spend $14,000,000 in the primaries, that's how much he'd give to the DNC for their Primary Account. If Congressman Bluto, by similar measure, has $3,000,000 available and would have spent $750,000 in the primaries, that his 'tax'.

These funds would be pooled and distributed **equally** to all primary candidates in measured amounts based on some baseline qualifications to run in the primaries.

This would, of course, require each candidate, rich and poor, to subscribe completely to the notion of public campaign financing and be fully behind the experiment. Clearly the 'rich' ones have more to lose financially, but perhaps the most to gain by their simple endorsement of what is, for all the world, the MOST democratic way to run an election.

Obviously there are many details to work out and obviously this would not be easy at all. The purpose of this thread is not to debate the details, but rather to discuss the merits of the concept.

Please bat this around a while.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. to my mind, it is a good idea

I would add this to it: all Democratic primaries are held on the same day, or by regions; the idea being that every Democrat gets a say in who is nominated. If we did it regionally, there would be less fuel lost as the campaigns were waged-but I think it would somehow have to be weighted so that the first group wouldn't be the one who really decided upon the candidate. I have always lived in a state with a later primary, and really have not had a chance to vote for my candidate, and have felt left out.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. ".......... and have felt left out."

I feel your pain. I'm in the same boat.

I've always wanted to see some such system. A few 'super-primary' days

[Snow]

3. It's an odd system we have

that asks New Hampshire and Iowa to decide who should be the democratic nominee, just considering the demographics of those two places compared to the demographics of democrats in general.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. That's true, but

what do you think about he concept proposed in the OP?

[Snow]

10. At first blush, without a whole lot of thought, I like it......

It would seemingly simplify things, perhaps reduce the role of the media consultants who have been losing so many elections for democrats while taking tons of money. It has a feel-good communistic taste to it as well, and that can work if done right.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. 'Communistic"

I think I know what you're saying, but I'd prefer to see it as little-D democratic.

[Snow]

12. Hmmm. Maybe "collectivist"?

bit of semantic freight to that word communist, but it's more precise, isn't it?

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I rather prefer egalitarian

but that's just me ......

[welshTerrier2]

5. OK ... this is war ...

you lousy stinking clown!!!

are you stealing my ideas?

check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2633514#2633593

just kidding, of course ... glad you raised the issue ...

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Hahahahahahaha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That goes back to my other thread today .... I tend not to read much of what appears to be pure advocacy posts.

I swear on my dog's grave I didn't steal that and make it a thread.

Would "GMTA" make you feel better? :)

[welshTerrier2]

9. welllllll ...

OK ... you're totally credible with me ...

frankly, i'm glad to find anyone who's on the same page ... if someone did want to "steal" my ideas, that would be more than fine with me ... the focus has to be on the "grape"; not on ownership and ego ...

and, as one who communes with canines, sorry to hear about your dog ... hope you have a new one ...

[SheilaT]

6. Interesting idea.

And a good one, which is probably why it won't happen. However, it would be nice to see some of the 'back of the pack' candidates, the ones who can't raise much money but who have very interesting ideas, have a real opportunity to put themselves and their ideas out there.

The real big change, though, would come with the loss of the early campaigning in those first few states where the candidates spend a lot of time (Iowa, New Hampshire, a few others) and whose citizens always get a chance to meet all of the early candidates up close and personal.

How about as a slight variation on your idea, about five states get to go early (February or so) and the five change every year? Again, a decent idea (at least I think so) and one that will never happen because the current early states like it this way.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Your idea has a lot of merit

Surely some compromise is possible.

Here are some, just off the top of my head ......

Include Iowa in round one series of primaries and NH in a round two

or

Limit the funding just for Iowa and NH

or

Put Iowa and NH in a mini-primary season with 'pooled funding' and then let the primaries go back to normal for the rest of the season; rotate the other states that get to be part of the mini-primary.

Again, these are all just concepts.

[Radical Activist]

14. but, but, but

then the media wouldn't be allowed to ignore certain candidates in their coverage and handicap the race for us based on how much money they raised! Scary.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Yeah ... knocking knees .....

.... and they'd also be forced to cover the very story of publically financed campaigns. And be *forced* to compare the democratic Democrats to the Banana Republicans. How do they spin *that*?

What will they tell the children?????