Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sunnymentoaddict

Your ideal primary process.

Recommended Posts

Currently the DNC is struggling on how to create a fair primary process without having the field being overly crowded::some fear the DNC is already placing its thumb on the scale with the recent debate rule changes, while others fear the DNC is doing little to properly handle the historically large number of candidates.  If you were the Chairman(or woman) of the Party, how would you handle the 2020 Primaries? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Currently the DNC is struggling on how to create a fair primary process without having the field being overly crowded::some fear the DNC is already placing its thumb on the scale with the recent debate rule changes, while others fear the DNC is doing little to properly handle the historically large number of candidates.  If you were the Chairman(or woman) of the Party, how would you handle the 2020 Primaries? 

Abolish publicly-funded primaries for the two major parties (but no other parties, I might note), and end State and Federal electoral agency involvement in those Primaries. Repeal all basing ballot access by having to be nominated by a party that has won there before (Oklahoma comes to mind), and end "sore-loser" laws, or proposed laws, barring those who lose or withdraw from one party's candidacy from running on another party or independent label in the GE. Make party nominations for ALL parties, regardless of current or past electoral success, a private party matter funded by the party. The Primaries, which don't even exist on paper, Constitutionally-speaking, should be de-emphasized as much as possible, and not used as yet another media circus and as another corrupt, rigged mechanism that keeps the Duopoly paramount over all other groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Firstly I'd move up the primary dates to range from October-Feb.  The two year long process of running is ridiculous, and it's followed by a short sprint for the presidency.  

I'd also want to divide the Primaries/Caucuses into 5-6 distinct days.  Regionally (that rotate each cycle)  Region 1 1st Week of October, Region 2 1st week of November, Region 3 1st week of December, Region 4 1st week of January, Region 5 1st week of Feb.  This allows candidates to minimize spending while maximizing their time.  The regions would be divided largely evenly based on delegate count.  I'd like to see the threshold move based on number of "qualified candidates on a ballot"  that could be determined in a variety of ways, but number of donations, regionally probably would work.  5 or less candidates could be 15% threshold, 6-9 10%, 10 or more 5% threshold.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Abolish publicly-funded primaries for the two major parties (but no other parties, I might note), and end State and Federal electoral agency involvement in those Primaries. Repeal all basing ballot access by having to be nominated by a party that has won there before (Oklahoma comes to mind), and end "sore-loser" laws, or proposed laws, barring those who lose or withdraw from one party's candidacy from running on another party or independent label in the GE. Make party nominations for ALL parties, regardless of current or past electoral success, a private party matter funded by the party. The Primaries, which don't even exist on paper, Constitutionally-speaking, should be de-emphasized as much as possible, and not used as yet another media circus and as another corrupt, rigged mechanism that keeps the Duopoly paramount over all other groups.

You didn't answer the question. You are tackling this issues from a federal viewpoint, the thread requested your answer from a party standpoint.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You didn't answer the question. You are tackling this issues from a federal viewpoint, the thread requested your answer from a party standpoint.  

I believe the same general rules should apply to all parties. If certain parties get preferential treatment legally, institutionally, and by electoral convention over others, the concept of a representative elected system of government is compromised, free-and-fair and contested elections are called into question, and the very balance of liberty versus tyranny swings sharply to the authoritarian and corrupt, with the people being cheated and the mandate by which the elected official's govern being compromised. Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what is happening in the U.S. electoral system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally the parties wouldn't choose candidates through primaries.  We got better candidates when they were chosen in smoke filled rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

Ideally the parties wouldn't choose candidates through primaries.  We got better candidates when they were chosen in smoke filled rooms.

But smoking is now illegal in all workplaces in Washington, D.C. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Currently the DNC is struggling on how to create a fair primary process without having the field being overly crowded::some fear the DNC is already placing its thumb on the scale with the recent debate rule changes, while others fear the DNC is doing little to properly handle the historically large number of candidates.  If you were the Chairman(or woman) of the Party, how would you handle the 2020 Primaries? 

  1. I'd have every candidate that is averaging 1% in the debates, which will occur once a month from July to November.
  2. The monthly debates will occur for an entire week (M-F)-- 5 debates. Candidates will be split as even as possible, and their debate day will be done by lottery. Once we get down to 9 candidates, there will be 4 debates on debate week, then 3 if 7 candidates, and so on.  
  3. Every state's primary will occur on the same day of the first week of November. There will be no state favoritism--every state will have a chance to vote for every candidate since 90% of the candidates don't drop out after just one or two states. 
  4. Every candidate should have a detailed platform prior to the primary elections. 
  5. The primary will determine the Presidential nominee. The candidate with the second most votes will be the VP nominee. If he or she declines (might take a cabinet offer or want to stay in the Senate or something rather than be VP), then that candidate gets to select the VP nominee. The candidate that comes in 3rd gets a cabinet position of the presidential nominee's choice (alternatively, this 3rd place finisher can suggest someone better fit for the spot that they are offered). However, the official convention is not held until July. 
  6. The General Election then runs for a year, but has the formal convention in the middle. 
  7. The formal convention in the middle of the general elections allows the party to change their candidate if any scandals emerge or they find that the candidate is not generating enthusiasm. If unfavorable (which should be rare) the candidate is replaced by the candidate that is polling the most favorably. If there isn't a serious issue with the candidate, then the candidate is confirmed. 
  8. Cabinet positions, a list of potential judges and other appointments, and a full and detailed platform (likely modified from their primary platform to be more universal to the party and its voters) should be made public prior to the formal convention. 
  9. Defeat the Republican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

Ideally the parties wouldn't choose candidates through primaries.  We got better candidates when they were chosen in smoke filled rooms.

I was kind of thinking this, but it's not exactly how I'd want to do things now. Though I'm not sure how I'd want to do things now anyway haha. Somehow those smoke filled rooms actually seemed to work impressively back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Abolish publicly-funded primaries for the two major parties (but no other parties, I might note), and end State and Federal electoral agency involvement in those Primaries. Repeal all basing ballot access by having to be nominated by a party that has won there before (Oklahoma comes to mind), and end "sore-loser" laws, or proposed laws, barring those who lose or withdraw from one party's candidacy from running on another party or independent label in the GE. Make party nominations for ALL parties, regardless of current or past electoral success, a private party matter funded by the party. The Primaries, which don't even exist on paper, Constitutionally-speaking, should be de-emphasized as much as possible, and not used as yet another media circus and as another corrupt, rigged mechanism that keeps the Duopoly paramount over all other groups.

Agree with most of this but third parties should absolutely be held to the same standards as the two main parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- No unpledged or superdelegates. all delegates come directly from primary votes-- not from state party conventions. No winner take all primaries either, and no percentage limitation to receive delegates (ie. you can still earn a proportional amount if you get between 1% and 15% of the vote)

- Same day primaries, but I'm thinking in May / early June so that there is time for candidates to visit whichever states they would most like, time to measure polling trends, time to raise funds and build out solid campaign infrastructure that can last and provide a foundation.

- Allow for candidate to be the "presumptive nominee" should they receive the majority of delegates. In this time, they can make new hires to build out further infrastructure and start vetting VP candidates.
- Should no candidate get the majority of delegates, this would be the time for making deals as well as for candidates to campaign as a show of strength. Also, for more polling to come out as candidates withdraw. Ideally, the nominee will still be decided prior to the convention and they will have time to tap a VP, but the convention will still give the opportunity to wrap it up.

- Debate participation determined by petitioning rather than polling or fundraising, and the petitioning requirements become steeper per debate. Maybe something similarly framed as how NY State has petitions for ballot access-- a certain overall number of signatures, as well as a certain percentage of counties (in this case, states) represented. 
- Schedule debates monthly starting in December. Randomized where candidates will stand or sit on screen, as well as which night they debate should the field be too large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Agree with most of this but third parties should absolutely be held to the same standards as the two main parties.

What, exactly, are you saying there? I'm proposing abolishing all the ingrained, institutional, in-the-system, corruption-and-malfeasance-through-incumbent-control-and-abuse by the two main parties. What are you proposing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a hot take, but I don’t think the national party should be playing a part in dictating debates at all. If I remember correctly, there are party rules that prevent candidates from being involved in any non party sanctioned debates (though that might be the RNC). If some network wants to hold a debate among a bunch of candidates that aren’t well known, great. Don’t stop them. Debates should be between the candidates choosing to participate and the network that wants to host one, not the national party and its preferred news outlets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

Might be a hot take, but I don’t think the national party should be playing a part in dictating debates at all. If I remember correctly, there are party rules that prevent candidates from being involved in any non party sanctioned debates (though that might be the RNC). If some network wants to hold a debate among a bunch of candidates that aren’t well known, great. Don’t stop them. Debates should be between the candidates choosing to participate and the network that wants to host one, not the national party and its preferred news outlets. 

Just to clarify, you are proposing a scenario where Bernie Sanders, William Weld(A GoP candidate), and possible a libertarian could debate each other before the primaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Just to clarify, you are proposing a scenario where Bernie Sanders, William Weld(A GoP candidate), and possible a libertarian could debate each other before the primaries?

If they all agree to it, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

Might be a hot take, but I don’t think the national party should be playing a part in dictating debates at all. If I remember correctly, there are party rules that prevent candidates from being involved in any non party sanctioned debates (though that might be the RNC). If some network wants to hold a debate among a bunch of candidates that aren’t well known, great. Don’t stop them. Debates should be between the candidates choosing to participate and the network that wants to host one, not the national party and its preferred news outlets. 

 

3 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Just to clarify, you are proposing a scenario where Bernie Sanders, William Weld(A GoP candidate), and possible a libertarian could debate each other before the primaries?

The two main parties have become two powerful as entities separate from, but thoroughly-entangled with government at every level. They not only win almost all elections between them, they're the only two parties whose primaries and conventions are taxpayer-funded and managed by the electoral commission - the only electoral commission of a First World Nation anywhere that is legally mandated to be non-partisan - they are ALWAYS guaranteed ballot access without any effort in registration, they ALWAYS are offered the FEC funding, AND they control the Federal Courts should any Third Party/Independent candidate challenge this hegemony legally, as all Federal judges are political patronage spoils appointment, not the non-partisan ones they should be. The U.S. is, basically, at the end of the day, a "party-of-power" system, like modern Russia and a number of other former Soviet States, just with two corrupt parties-of-power, not one. I challenge anyone on this forum to prove me wrong here in a rational way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We all realize that primaries are not a federal election property right.  Why shouldn't parties be able to determine their own methods of determining their choice?   I get this is a hypothetical thread, but many seem to allude to the concept that there should be national oversight on how parties select their nominee.  That seems really odd to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

We all realize that primaries are not a federal election property right.  Why shouldn't parties be able to determine their own methods of determining their choice?   I get this is a hypothetical thread, but many seem to allude to the concept that there should be national oversight on how parties select their nominee.  That seems really odd to me.  

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying to eliminate the heavy, institutional, entrenched, and tax-payer-funded, and very obvious, Federal legal and de facto bias to the nomination process of the Democratic and Republican Parties over ALL OTHERS, making the electoral process virtually impossible for other parties and candidates not nominated by those two parties to be at all competitive - to the degree of party favoritism, institutionally and legally, as well as de facto, that United Russia enjoys in the Russian Federation. THAT is what I am saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

We all realize that primaries are not a federal election property right.  Why shouldn't parties be able to determine their own methods of determining their choice?   I get this is a hypothetical thread, but many seem to allude to the concept that there should be national oversight on how parties select their nominee.  That seems really odd to me.  

I'm saying just the opposite.  Primaries are funded and overseen by the government.  We should stop doing that for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying to eliminate the heavy, institutional, entrenched, and tax-payer-funded, and very obvious, Federal legal and de facto bias to the nomination process of the Democratic and Republican Parties over ALL OTHERS, making the electoral process virtually impossible for other parties and candidates not nominated by those two parties to be at all competitive - to the degree of party favoritism, institutionally and legally, as well as de facto, that United Russia enjoys in the Russian Federation. THAT is what I am saying...

I agree that parties should not be tax payer funded. However, until the electoral college is abolished, there will always be two parties. Even if the US government stopped funding the conventions/primaries, it will not mean that overnight a 3rd Party will rise- since it will virtually be impossible to win 270 Electoral votes in a field of 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I agree that parties should not be tax payer funded. However, until the electoral college is abolished, there will always be two parties. Even if the US government stopped funding the conventions/primaries, it will not mean that overnight a 3rd Party will rise- since it will virtually be impossible to win 270 Electoral votes in a field of 3. 

Well, it was done in 1912, 1948, 1968, and arguably 1992, but you are correct. The Electoral College is a relic and dinosaur of another age of governance when slave states had to given incentive not to leave the Union, and Alexander Hamilton, one of the biggest architects of the EC, had the utmost contempt for the competence of the common voter having a direct say in governance, but instead having a paternalistic "filter" so that a vapid, populist demagogue didn't get into the White House - like Donald Trump did in 2016, in fact. In other words, no matter how you slice it with any HONESTY, the Electoral College is long past it's sell-by date as a political institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...