This entire primary process needs to be revised

[RestoreGore]

All it does is breed contempt. There should be ONE primary on ONE day with all states voting. The winner of the popular vote of each state gets that state's delegates, and thereby you have a nominee from that day. There should be no caucuses and no Republicans voting. It is a Democratic primary and as such ONLY Democrats should be voting for OUR nominee. And no superdelegates. If they support a particular candidate then let them vote in their state primary on that day for the candidate of their choice. Also, public funding of elections as well, and money NOT being the focus but ISSUES being the focus. Also, that goes for celebrity, media, and political endorsements. If Oprah or whoever likes a particular candidate they should then vote for them in their state and keep their "endorsements" to themselves. All these endorsements do is fan the flames of competiveness and false impressions. ONE primary, no endorsements, public funding, discussion on issues and solutions and not just ego rallies and hype, and no drawn out TWO YEAR primary seasons. This shouldn't be American Idol politics just for our entertainment. But I suppose we will never see that in this country where money, endorsements, and ego are so much more important.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I agree that there needs to be a single Primary...

Whether it is for one day or for a week. It needs to happen during a time away from winter as well.

[Thepricebreaker]

2. Its been this way forever.. they will never change it

[fadedrose]

15. POLL TAKERS - please do a couple of polls...

I used up my 3 posts and am cheating a bit to ask poll takers who love to do this to take 3 Polls. Not sure I know how.

One - How many would like to see a brokered convention?

Two - How many would like to have a one-day primary vote for all the states?

Three - How many would like to be able to list the order in which they accept the candidates, ie, who they like the most, next, etc. There's a name for this but I can't think of it just now....

Thanks pricebreaker, sorry for intrusion.

[kentuck]

3. Why?

This is exactly the way it should be. Two great candidates fighting it out 'til the end. Would it be better if we just let Iowa and NH choose our nominee? However, I do think it would be improved if we had 3 regional primaries that rotated with each election. They are too staggered and too many as it is. That would make the process more compact and would lessen the friction created by so many primaries on so many different days.

[RestoreGore]

6. Two great candidates?

Sorry, not in my book. And mudslinging on both sides in this has turned me completely off to it.

[suston96]

12. Absolutely. One national primary weekend 90 or 120 days before the general election.

A standardized federal paper ballot for federal offices - President, Vice-President, and Congress.

States can devise eligibility of names on their ballots based on signature collections supporting a candidate - also based on a federal guideline as to the number of signatures required.

[fadedrose]

4. We need to borrow Canada's "Elections 101" book to see if there's and easier way than ours...

[RestoreGore]

8. I'm sure there is. It seems we Americans can't do anything logically without confusion

[Endangered Specie]

11. ummm.. I believe in Canada (and every other country with a system like it)

the party picks their nominees with pretty much no voting primaries.

[fadedrose]

17. Hmm, almost the same as in Michigan

Thanks. I did not know that.

[joshcryer]

5. Add runnoff voting to it and I'm 100% behind the idea.

The point of the proportionate system is so that minorities can be represented. Runoff solves that issue.

[ruggerson]

7. This contest has highlighted the weaknesses - time to overhaul the whole thing

[Orangepeel]

9. Just give it to the person with the most name recognition going in.

The system has a lot of flaws, but I don't think that one primary day is the way to fix it. I want candidates to have time to campaign in an area. I don't want the candidate who is able to run the most TV ads to win by default.

[RestoreGore]

13. They would have time before the primary date

But do they really need TWO YEARS? Give me a break.

[Orangepeel]

22. They would have to start campaigning two years in advance

and by the time the national primary rolled around, it would be two years since they had been to some states.

You follow politics (I think that is a reasonable assumption given that you are posting on DU). Most people don't. If a person doesn't watch cable news or look up politics on the Internet, they aren't really exposed to the campaign except for the few weeks before the primary in their state.

I am in favor of some sort of rotating regional schedule, although I understand that having the same states first all the time makes it easier for candidates to plan their campaigns. But I am against one national primary date. I think it would be a pain getting both parties in all states to agree to a date. But mostly, I think it would be less conducive to allowing lesser known, lesser financed candidates to get a foothold early and earn recognition and donations based on voter to voter contact.

[opihimoimoi]

10. The mega Rich wants it the way it is...easy to manipulate....change will come only if....

The peeps DEMAND IT.....

[Bullet1987]

14. I agree...there's a lot of uncalled for confusion

in our primary system.

[dubeskin]

16. If that's the case

The system would be even more unbalanced. Candidates with name recognition would rise to the top while lesser-known, perhaps better candidates would remain under with less votes. Furthermore, to get the ideas and names across, the candidates would have to campaign all over, and if you think that ads and whatnot started early in Iowa, if this happens, there will rallies years ahead, to raise awareness. Also, funding would be even more necessary because they would have to reach a larger audience faster.

About the endorsements, you can't say "You're not allowed to say who you're voting for." It's the great First Amendment which lets people do that, and it's anybody's right to campaign with a candidate, if it helps get their message across.

[crispini]

24. I agree, one day primaries are not the way to go.

It would make money paramount. Probably not what we want.

[RestoreGore]

26. And money isn't paramount now? What a laugh

[crispini]

28. at least now, Kooch, Biden et al, made it to some of the debates and got some hearing.

you think they would have ANY chance of getting heard in a one day national primary?

[AtomicKitten]

18. Chaos is the cover for fraud.

It's much easier for an election to fall off the back of a truck when there is chaos. The fact that very little has changed since the judicial coup d'etat of 2000 is proof positive of that.

[Johnny__Motown]

19. Insane, a national primary will simply be a name recognition poll.

By spreading out the contests you force the candidates to campaign n states that they would not go to in a national primary. Only the "big states" will matter and all the smaller states will be ignored.

The only change I would consider would be to not release any results until all contests have taken place and then hold a run off between the top two candidates. The results of each state influence the rest of the process and this is the real problem as I see it.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. If we'd had a one-day national primary

Clinton would've won in a landslide.

[bowens43]

21. There is nothing fair or democratic about winner take all.

[PATRICK]

23. Finally

some sane discussion for the future. I think it is always great to see a system so thoroughly tested. It is painfully obvious much of the system, notably the caucuses and the late states was not really prepared to function for a real contest and huge new numbers of voters. It was becoming atrophied and gutted of democratic relevance. All the traps ruining the process have been sprung, the shameful fear of the GOP money advocating for a truncated swift primary and the piteous MSM debate formats going on and on and on
have been on glaring display. The money and the falseness and most of the unfairness must go.

Instead DU supporters are narrowly raging in the two personality cult contest as per MSM wet dreams. Thank heaven for the engaged voters themselves.

Some of you answer is boldly simple. Some of the parts are extremely contingent on consistent reform throughout the process(as Florida and Michigan's "reform" primary dates show). The sneaky way to end the electoral college itself is an incomplete end run that can be entirely gamed by the GOP(especially in California). One day voting without stringent measures will favor the rich, the name recognition, the establishment set ups and be almost entirely a media campaign with less grass roots and people involvement on the ground. In effect the early campaign will be establishing these incumbent like advantages by those with influence and means.

The money corruption has to go as radically as possible. Runoffs in such a huge process and some checks and balances and variety are wise. I am afraid the essential and simple reforms might be lost in the rush after this year to tinker with the complex maze we know have in place. Obviously the Obama administration will not like letting the caucus systems go nor offend all the various state and party. Such small adjustments and wranglings are so daunting and consuming as to miss major points.

And here, on this site, so voices are even raised about such a vital task and opportunity. I hope the next DNC will take the Dean steps to the next level and dare to try for the goals behind your suggestions. Looking ahead is also taking care of today. It is a vast part of what we are fighting for, not just against any rival we are trying to put down.

And I wish people would try to remember that the candidate failings we hate so much are part of their entrapment in the big money election scene. It is not in their heart, nor intention and they are not so darkly intimate with the worst of this element as cynics would have one believe. Hopefully the party will complete victory with real reform and get out of the traps forced upon them. it is all human institution and subject to change. Not to continue reforming positively is to let it change, naturally, for the worst.

[crispini]

25. the primary schedules and methodologies are controlled by

a combination of state parties and state legislatures. If you're interested in change, being involved with your local and state party is the way to go.

That said, I agree that there are problems. I would be in favor of rotating primaries to ensure every state gets a chance to go first. The problem is that the DNC actually has very little power. This is why we need to hold the line on MI and FL. Otherwise it will erode the DNC's power even further.

[yewberry]

27. Disagree.

I completely understand the impulse, sure, but I think it's a really, really bad idea.

For candidates:
A national primary would effectively knock out less-funded candidates at the outset. Only candidates with massive (corporate) funding could afford to compete on a national stage. No more Kuciniches, no Gravels, no Dodds, no Bidens, no Richardsons, no Vilsacks. They will all be forced immediately into the largest, most expensive media markets in the country because that's where the big delegate numbers are. Even worse, the media would have even more control over the process and the candidates.

A national primary would end the practice of candidates being able to practice and hone their messages on a small stage. Candidates wouldn't be able to build their organizations from the ground up, but would have to find a way to create support structures essentially from nothing.

For candidate selection:
One national primary would produce less-vetted nominees, and we'd have less of an opportunity to see the candidates in unscripted events. Retail politics would be dead.

Also, external forces could amplify and distort the outcome of a single primary day. Imagine if an event like 9/11 took place shortly before the primary--in this race, we would have been guaranteed a Guiliani vs Clinton GE. A terrorist attack in another country would drive up the numbers of whichever candidate was perceived to be strongest in that area, or a serious weather event in the home area of a candidate could create a surge in their numbers.

For the electorate:
A national primary could breed even more contempt. Voters outside of CA, NY, IL, FL, PA or TX wouldn't have access to the candidates and their issues would never be addressed. Instead of small states having the first say, large states would get all the say.

Yes, we need to change, but a national primary day would create more problems.