MyDD :: Democrats Creating Panel To Reform Delegate Selection Process

Democrats Creating Panel To Reform Delegate Selection Process

by andrewalker08, Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST

The following press release just hit my mailbox a few minutes ago.

Today the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee announced a proposal to establish a special commission to recommend changes to the Democratic Party's rules for delegate selection and presidential primary timing for future presidential cycles. The proposal will be presented to the Convention Rules Committee on Saturday in Denver.

The 'Democratic Change Commission' will address three issues 1) changes to the opening of the window and pre-window, 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) changes to the caucus system. The goal of the commission will be to ensure that no primary or caucus is held prior to the first Tuesday in March of 2012, with the exception of the approved pre-window states, whose contests would be held during February 2012.

"After the 56 contests in this historic primary season, our party is stronger and more energized than ever before -- with millions of new voters participating. As we look to the future, we must continue to strengthen the process and ensure a fair process in which the diverse voices in our party and our nation have a chance to be heard. That is the essential role that the Democratic Change Commission can and will play, and we look forward to their recommendations," said DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

"Senator Obama is committed to working towards growing our party, improving our nominating process and ensuring as many people as possible participate in the process. Obama believes the Democratic Change Commission is an important and necessary step to achieving these goals," said Obama Campaign Chairman David Plouffe.

The Democratic Change Commission will be appointed by the new DNC Chairman and will consist of 35 members and two co-chairs. Membership will be divided between men and women and will be geographically and demographically diverse. The Commission shall issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than January 1, 2010. The Commission will be established no later than 60 days after the date of the next election of the DNC National Chair.

Tags: Delegate Selection Process, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee (all tags)

Permalink :: 55 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Democrats Creating Panel (2.00 / 1)

Can they fix that problem where the loser gets the same amount of delegates as the winner.

by RichardFlatts on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST

Right after they fix the problem... (2.00 / 2)

...Where the winner of the popular vote doesn't become the nominee.

by andrewalker08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (1.00 / 1)

The winner of the popular vote has become the nominee... oh, yeah, I forgot, you count illegal elections in your tally....

BTW, make sure you count my office pool results... those results are as just as valid as the ones in MI.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ready? lets refight the primary. (2.00 / 2)

oh wait.

the obama campaign and the dnc sanctioned wholesale changes to the delegate process. im sure the fact that the winner (whomever it ended up being) would be decided by superdelegates was troubling to most democrats. not you?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ready? lets refight the primary. (2.00 / 1)

The results of 08 are the results. We live with them and move forward to defeat McCain.

However, it would be totally insane not to realize that this system is wildly flawed, and not want to fix it.

by RichardFlatts on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ready? lets refight the primary. (2.00 / 2)

no arguments here.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ready? lets refight the primary. (none / 0)

refighting the primary is only allowed in those years when you can hold off the general until the primary refight is done. Can't do the one, can't do the other.

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this system is wildly flawed (2.00 / 1)

Indeed. But these "reforms" just move the same old chairs around.

The only meaningful reform will be a national primary day with IRV and the nominee chesen directly by the voters.

But if people must have their old staggered system which eliminates their favorite candidates before they even get a chance to vote for them, then at least decide the nominee by popular vote.

How a party which isn't democratic can call itself Democratic is beyond me.

by Glaurung on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:24:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there you go (2.00 / 2)

we are still using a system that assumes weeks or months just to get a letter from one end of the country to the other. The only reason we vote in Nov and the prez takes office in Jan is it used to take that long to move people and their goods on horse drawn wagons. We are still using tools made for an agrarian society for a technological one. That was one of the main reasons for the EC itself. While it would be a diversion at this time to try to amend the Constitution it is good if the parties can reform their process to reflect a more informed and diverse populace.

by zerosumgame on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there you go (none / 0)

"we are still using a system that assumes weeks or months just to get a letter from one end of the country to the other."

Maybe you are. The rest of us are using cell phones and email.

"The only reason we vote in Nov and the prez takes office in Jan is it used to take that long to move people and their goods on horse drawn wagons."

That was back when inauguaration day was in March. Now it's in Jan. in order to give the new president time to form a government.

But neither these statements nor the rest of your response bear any relation to my comment that the Democratic Party should choose it's nominee by direct vote.

by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you saying the nominee will be... (2.00 / 1)

...The junior United States Senator from the State of New York, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?

She's the only candidate for president that meets your "winner of the popular vote" qualification.

Here's one of many popular vote tallies:

Hillary Rodham Clinton - 17,857,400

Barack Hussein Obama - 17,584,510

Source: The Green Papers.com

In light of these facts, I reiterate my statement that the Democrats' delegate selection process needs to reflect the will of the people and the will of the people is clear; 272,890 more people voted for Sen. Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee than did Sen. Obama.

by andrewalker08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying the nominee will be... (none / 0)

Who won the popular vote depends on how they're counted. I seem to remember that there were four different ways.

by Glaurung on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying the nominee will be... (none / 0)

under that theory, some people count more than others. You want to eliminate the right of states which think caucuses work to hold those caucuses, and send the results to the state conventions, where any procedural problems may be corrected? Why is your right to force a single election on a single day more important than their right to want to do their business in their state differently? I have read the research reports of various Clintonlike factions seeking to abolish caucuses and am seriously underwhelmed with what I have read. Are you planning to pay for that primary you like, since each state has to pay for its own and primaries are much more expensive than caucuses?

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (none / 0)

yeah we should use the popular vote...then california and new york can decide who runs for president.

"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"

by epiphany on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (none / 0)

You're thinking like a Republican, where states mean more than people. They always put up those electoral maps that are almost all red as proof that Americans are Republicans -- but most of the map is just empty space. The fact that Democrats win just as many PEOPLE who vote, in the places where most Americans live, is irrelevant to their world view.

Counting the people is democracy.

Counting the states is republicanism.

by Glaurung on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (none / 0)

Counting the states is constitutional. You planning to amend the constitution to provide for a popular ge vote being controlling?

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (none / 0)

I'm talking about the Democratic nominating process choosing its nominee by popular vote, which has nothing to do with the Constitution.

But as part of that I was pointing that breaking people into blocks is a republican trait rather than a democratic one.

I've never understood why so many Democrats disapprove of democracy -- especially within their own party.

by Glaurung on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (none / 0)

You should look into the national popular vote movement. States decide how to apportion their electors so states pass legislation giving their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. This only takes effect once enough states to control a majority of electoral votes has passed the legislation. It's an interstate compact, it's constitutional and would be much easier to accomplish than a constitutional amendment.

by Quinton on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right after they fix the problem... (none / 0)

the problem I have with people waving what they they think should be a governing, overarching concept or theory, like the much abused 'democracy', is that so often it is used like the flag to make thought cease, practicalities be ignored, and to smother dissent as undemocratic.

While more people turn out to voting machine primaries by percentage than they do to caucuses, voting machine primaries have most of the same problems, physical access, scheduling problems and the like, and they even share those with ges. the problems special to caucuses have not been clearly argued, with evidence rather than bald assertions intended to obviate the need for evidence at all.

For example, have the current caucus-deniers presented evidence from any campaign year other than this one for why caucueses should be abolished. And have they presented any evidence that the problems cannot be remedied by any method less than abolition. No.

And what do they want to do with all the jurisdictions that like and keep using caucuses. Suppress them with a wave of the democracy flag and a mutter that machines are more modern, as if it did gore any good in 2000.

by Christy1947 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great, great news! (2.00 / 1)

i saw this mentioned in the tubbs jones press conference - she was supposed to be involved in this. good on obama!

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST

Tips and recs for reforming delegate selection (2.00 / 2)

by andrewalker08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST

Come on, htta's easy (2.00 / 2)

Caucus: suppress them, or at the very least let people vote when they arrive and leave right away. The current system is discriminatory against the elderly, the handicaped and generally speaking the working people.

Superdelegates: supress them

the end.

by TaiChiMaster on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST

Re: Come on, htta's easy (1.00 / 2)

The caucus system is pure democracy in action! Where else can you get your voice heard in such a forum. Everyone who has attended a caucus thinks it a great thing! It truly empowers citizens and empowers the party...

But, you should be able to add absentee voting and such for people who can't be there... that should appease the Clintonintes who want to destroy the democratic activists and make sure the party is run byy corporatist DLC types...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (2.00 / 2)

I will not dignify this trash comment with a response.

by TaiChiMaster on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (1.00 / 0)

How is it a trash comment? There is no question that Clinton supporters blame the democratic activists for her losing, so part of their goal is to limit activist influence in the future...

Was it the term, Clintonistas that bothers you? If so, I apologize... I didn't realize that it was considered to be an offensive term... I apologize if that was the case...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (2.00 / 3)

Sure, caucuses are pure democracy for the young and healthy without other obligations.

But, if you're elderly, disabled, don't have transportation, work at night, have young children who need to be put to bed, or are a caregiver for any of the above, caucuses effectively disenfranchise you.

And your little swipe at Clinton supoorters aside, Democratic activists should be the ones who care about full participation in the process the most. Otherwise, they're just behaving like elitists who think that they should make the decisions for the entire party.

by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (none / 0)

Caucuses actually increase participation, since where else can you directly speak up and make your case to hundreds or thousands other voters why your candidate should be elected! It is empowering, not disenfranchising... it increases participation, encourages party building, not discourages it...

The only way it should be "fixed" is by allowing absentee balloting, for those who can't make it to the caucus... that way, you get the best of both worlds...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (2.00 / 1)

Sure. If caucuses can accomodate absentee ballots. But then, what would make a caucus any different than a primary?

by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (none / 0)

I repeat my comment posted above about charges that caucuses discriminate against elderly disabled, etc. Charges inflammatory and easy to type. Proof difficult. Kindly post proof that it works as you claim and has done so in years other than 2008. I read some of the partisan reports(you don't like Clintonista but I have not seen others post such claims and reports)and they make the charge but don't provide any proof that it either happened in 2008 or in any other year.

People are also barred from primaries for the reasons you cite but you don't object to that.

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (none / 0)

Of course one can't "prove" that, it's impossible to prove the negative or measure who isn't there.

And no, primaries do not discriminate against any of those people because primaries are held all day long it only takes a few minutes to vote, and employers are required to give time off for voting, which means virtually every person with mobility can make it to the polling place at some point. In addition, primaries allow absentee ballotting, for all the people who can't physically be there.

by LakersFan on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (2.00 / 1)

Uprated solely to rescue a non-troll comment.

by Dreorg on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, htta's easy (none / 0)

On caucuses, charges easy, providing evidence hard. Please provide evidence.

On abolishing superdelegates, good luck. Do you really think the professional Democratic political class is going to disenfranchise itself?

the tough question is going to be what to do about the insistence of Iowa and NH to go first.

i'm not sure, but I may be responding to the post before this one.

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats Creating Panel To Reform (2.00 / 3)

It isn't as black and white as some people make it out to be. Some states have caucuses because they can't afford primaries; some do it out of "tradition." Obviously the voters in those states have been tolerant of such systems, so who knows, maybe they like them.

Frankly, I think the most important reform would be to create a rotating cluster of states that go first in each cycle and thereby abolish the Iowa/NH monopoly.

by rfahey22 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:29:20 PM EST

Re: Democrats Creating Panel To Reform (2.00 / 1)

If Iowa loses the top seat then it will be easier to have a sensible conversation about farming and ethonol subsides and indeed stopping the production of at least corn based ethonol completely.

by Quinton on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reform? How about dismantle and replace? (2.00 / 2)

Any system that allows groups of folks to get together and shut out other voters of the state in order to determine who the nominee will be is not at all Democratic in any meaning of the word.

Every voter in every state should have a ballot that is counted in making their state's determination, no if's and's or but's about it.

Superdelegates? Get rid of them. No one should have 2 votes on the nominee, with one of those votes weighing decidedly more than the rank and file average citizen, I don't care who they are, how long they've been a party big wig or how many dollars they have earned.

Winner takes all in states delegations? Drop it. Make every state be counted by district, and level the playing field. That stops the 'big' states from having all the say, and gives the 'little' states the ability to have some importance.

Whatever happens, the 'elite' caucus method has to go, or some folks will forever see the party as a party driven and controlled by the few.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST

Re: Reform? How about (1.50 / 2)

Caucuses are much better than primaries.

1. You get the intense activists, not just the low info voters.
2. Second choice can be factored into the decision making process. Say what you will about caucuses, but I like the second choice part, because let's face it: most primary voters have very weak preferences between the two candidates (which makes sense, because both candidates are Democrats). You might as well let people express their second choice. That would be a cool way to do balloting in primaries as well (pick your #1 and #2).

by Dale Johnson 007 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reform? How about (2.00 / 1)

'Low info voters'.

Yes, by all means lets make it so that the 'low info voters' have no say in how their country is run, their taxes spent or their children sent to war. Your statement alone stands as the most egregious example of what is currently wrong with the country in toto.

'Let them eat cake'.

The 'intense activists' have absolutely NO RIGHT to dictate to the rest of us (well, not us since I am no longer a registered Democrat but now NPA) how our country will be run. Next, folks like yourself will be asking for voting rights to be removed from 'low info voters', and well, that would leave Democrats just as bad or worse than Republicans.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reform? How about (1.00 / 1)

OH yes, I'm definitely an elitist. I wish that folks who didn't pay attention didn't bother to vote. I'd rather lose to an army of politically active conservatives than continue to decide elections based on sillyness like, "Hey, I remember her name from the 90s!!!"

by Dale Johnson 007 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reform? How about (2.00 / 2)

Odd, I had no idea that any Democrat would even admit that they prefer that any American simply sit home rather than vote.

Democrats are THE party of blue collar folks, some of whom fit that 'low info voter' smear you use, and have helped elect Democrats for decades.

Also, your swipe at a great Democrat is simply proof that you may well be 'low info' yourself.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reform? How about dismantle and replace? (none / 0)

The suggestion that caucuses are elite is an upper class control comment. What caucuses do is to give regular people a chance to ask questions and get answers, and listen to other people on the same point before they vote. and the 'other people' are their neighbors and not advertising agencies.

Your comment about intentional disenfranchisement is also off. People have the same problem getting to caucuses as they do to primaries and all the reasons cited against caucuses affected my local polling place for the recent Democratic primary. Of course, my primary had an additional problem as there were no public votes, and a whole lot of election districts in black communities had zero votes for Obama and exactly 118 votes for Hillary Clinton. You can't steal votes taken in public in front of witnesses, We don't have a paper trail either.

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Changes are needed, but lets fix REAL problems... (1.50 / 6)

I am not in favor of just throwing out the caucus system without a lot of thought about what is replacing it, who bares the cost of the primary, etc.

I have been going to caucuses for years in in WA state, and they always have worked fine for all involved, fine for the party.

This year, because of the interest, there were about 10 times as many people, as it should be.

And, I saw just as many working folks, old and poor for Obama as I did for Clinton.

I think this "everyone that is poor and in a wheelchair or had trouble getting to the caucus" was a disenfranchised Clinton supporter is a myth, blown up to the size of a Macy's day ballon by the usuals...

Gonna probably get flamed, but all this angst abot the primary rings very hollow to me, because I see who is bearing the anger and why?

I don't think anyone with an axe to grind should be in charge of make wholesale changes to the rules.....

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST

....but lets fix REAL problems... (2.00 / 1)

"I see who is bearing the anger and why";

Odd, I haven't seen many angry responses, but I have seen some folks making good points about the process. I also see who is supporting the status quo, and I suppose I can assume why, just as you assumed the flip side of the coin.

About 'anyone with an axe to grind being in charge of changes', the diary states that the Obama campaign and the DNC are calling for the comission to act. Suppose that knocks the legs from under that grinding table.

No matter how much folks support 'the process' of a caucus, no event that utilizes the actions of anything smaller than the registered voter base of the state, district or precinct is truly representative of the voters and doesn't in reality give every person an equal voice. It's a throwback to times when some folks were kept from the process by way of trickery, like Jim Crow.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ....but lets fix REAL problems... (none / 0)

You're missing something here. In no primary anywhere under any rules is the difference between its turnout and the GE turnout anything less than huge.

And comparisons to Jim Crow are obnoxious. Nobody is being murdered to keep them from going to a caucus.

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also ..... (2.00 / 0)

don't see why you were HR by anyone, must have been a misclick. I may disagree with what you say, but I don't find it offensive, and your opinion doesn't merit the HR, so I uprate just to offset.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Changes are needed, but lets fix REAL (2.00 / 3)

That's lovely that you saw old, poor and disabled people at the caucus, but that's really not the problem. The problem is all of the old, poor, working or disabled people you DIDN'T see at the caucus because they couldn't attend.

by LakersFan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Changes are needed, but lets fix REAL (none / 0)

Changing the voting method does not change the obligation of candidate factions and the local party to see about getting those who need help to get to the voting mechanism, to get to the voting mechanism. Local parties do that all the time. the voting mechanism used does not change that.

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Changes are needed, but lets fix REAL (none / 0)

So people should only be allowed to vote if they are beholden to a campaign that will make sure they make it to the caucus? That does sound like big city machine politics.

Apparently you think the opinions of elderly people in convelescent homes, and people who have night jobs are less important than the opinions of people who have mobility or work during the day.

No thanks. I prefer democracy. The kind where everyone has a chance to vote, whether they have the ability to make it to the polls or not.

by LakersFan on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats Creating Panel (2.00 / 1)

Well, all I know that idea for keeping caucuses the way they now stands really sucks big time! It is an undemocratic process...period!

by Check077 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:13:39 PM EST

Re: Democrats Creating Panel (none / 0)

"Well, all I know that idea for keeping caucuses the way they now stands really sucks big time! It is an undemocratic process...period!"

Again, based on what? Your candidate lost?

I am ALL for change, but if I believe ANYTHING about this election so far, it's ONE fact completely.

There would be barely a peep about the caucuses from the Clinton crowd had she won them, as did Bill playing by the same rules...

Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!

by WashStateBlue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats Creating Panel (2.00 / 1)

Are you for real? you can say that with a straight face? what kind of "democrat" are you?

by TaiChiMaster on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats Creating Panel (2.00 / 2)

Apparently the kind who believes in 'crashing the gate' as long as it's not the 'gate' of the beloved caucus, where the few go to dictate to the many. Sort of like the hated 'DLC' running the party or 'Management' running the union. Anytime that the option is closed to even one member of a political party to have their vote counted, it's a sham, no matter how they do it.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats Creating Panel (none / 0)

Do you live in a state that uses caucuses? Have you ever been to one? Or are you talking about bending around other peoples' lives because of theory, yours being superior if abstract?

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats Creating Panel To etc. (none / 0)

by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:16:11 PM EST

Here's MY reform (none / 0)

Dump Caucuses
Winner takes All or
Count every Vote
Hold all primaries on the SAME Day

by nikkid on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:48:00 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.