Support NeoGAF

[Box]

It should be fairly easy for the DNC to remove the current superdelegate system while still leaving themselves some sort of procedural panic button. The problem with the superdelegates is that they are the subject of speculation during the whole primary process regardless of the fact that they're not supposed to influence the outcome in almost all cases.

 

[KRod-57]

Why is it okay for Republicans to have it so that only Republicans are able to decide who their party leader will be, yet Democrats specifically are obligated to let anyone and everyone who isn't a member of the party do so?

Republicans shouldn't have closed primaries either, but again there's nothing about the Republican platform that restricts the Democrats from having open primaries. Furthermore, the Democrats should not use the Republicans as a model example for their party

Here's the political atmosphere of the US, you have an evil political party, and you have another political party that only wants to be slightly less evil than the other party

 

[Kin5290]

Republicans shouldn't have closed primaries either, but again there's nothing about the Republican platform that restricts the Democrats from having open primaries. Furthermore, the Democrats should not use the Republicans as a model example for their party

Here's the political atmosphere of the US, you have an evil political party, and you have another political party that only wants to be slightly less evil than the other party

This "both sides!!!" bullshit is such nonsense. How politically ignorant do you have to be to think that?

 

[patapuf]

Why would any political party allow people not in the party to vote on their candidates?

I know of no country in the world where this is common practice.

 

[davepoobond]

Why would any political party allow people not in the party to vote on their candidates?

I know of no country in the world where this is common practice.

The reason why is simple -- to choose a candidate that has a better chance at winning a general.


Each state has their own rules. I think closed or open should be the only 2 options and its up to the state parties to decide which is more beneficial for them.

 

[patapuf]

The reason why is simple -- to choose a candidate that has a better chance at winning a general.


Each state has their own rules. I think closed or open should be the only 2 options and its up to the state parties to decide which is more beneficial for them.

Sure, if a party wants to allow it they are free to do so.

However - usually people join a party so a particular set of values are represented. If everyone picks your canditate, chances are those won't be.

Let's say you have open primaries in a deeply red state. Why would you?

But i'm not american, so maybe i'm missing something important.

 

[Holden]

Why would any political party allow people not in the party to vote on their candidates?

I know of no country in the world where this is common practice.

france


feels like the debate seems really similar to the voter id debate where people are scared of fraud

They probably should be open primaries but only because the fact that 3rd party winning the GE is pretty much impossible. Wouldn't really care about the closed/open primary debate if FPTP in GE would go away.

But hey from reading these threads, i don't see FPTP changing anyyy time soon



inb4 getting lynched for not being american

 

[scoobidoo112]

There really is no compelling argument to me as far as to why primaries should be open. If you want to decide who will represent democrats in an election, then join the Democratic Party.

Then stop having the taxpayer pay for all of this shit and let Democrats fund the primaries themselves, if it's supposed to be a private little club.

 

[AxelFoley]

Then stop having the taxpayer pay for all of this shit and let Democrats fund the primaries themselves, if it's supposed to be a private little club.

It's not a private club. You can join by registering.

Why is this concept so hard for some folks to grasp?

 

[patapuf]

france


feels like the debate seems really similar to the voter id debate where people are scared of fraud

They probably should be open primaries but only because the fact that 3rd party winning the GE is pretty much impossible. Wouldn't really care about the closed/open primary debate if FPTP in GE would go away.

But hey from reading these threads, i don't see FPTP changing anyyy time soon



inb4 getting lynched for not being american

You don't have to be registered to your party to pick the party candidate? I'll have to read up on that. I wasn't aware you guys even had a public vote on these things and i live right next to you.

 

[Big Baybee]

Then stop having the taxpayer pay for all of this shit and let Democrats fund the primaries themselves, if it's supposed to be a private little club.

But it's not private......just join lol

 

[Imperfected]

But it's not private......just join lol

But if I join it I'm going to be able to influence the platform of the party while having no obligation to actually vote for the members of the party!

Plus I'll lose all my street cred.

 

[Kite]

Let's say you have open primaries in a deeply red state. Why would you?

But i'm not american, so maybe i'm missing something important.

You get fuckery like Operation Chaos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos

Operation Chaos[edit]
In late February 2008, Limbaugh announced "Operation Chaos," a political call to action with the initial plan to have voters of the Republican Party temporarily cross over to vote in the Democratic primary and vote for Hillary Clinton, who at the time was in the midst of losing eleven straight primary contests to Barack Obama. Limbaugh has also cited the open primary process in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, which allowed independent voters to cross over into the Republican primaries to choose John McCain over more conservative candidates (such as Fred Thompson), as an inspiration.

At the point in which Limbaugh announced his gambit, Obama had seemed on the verge of clinching the Democratic nomination.[115] However, Clinton subsequently won the Ohio primary and the Texas primary (while losing the Texas caucus and the overall delegate split) with large pluralities from rural counties; thus reemerging as a competitive opponent in the race.[116]

On April 29, 2008 Limbaugh declared an "operational pause" in Operation Chaos, saying that Obama's defeat in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary and fallout from statements from Obama ally Reverend Jeremiah Wright could have damaged his campaign to the extent superdelegates would shift to Clinton's side.[117] Determining Obama had weathered that storm, Limbaugh lifted the pause the next day and renewed his call for his listeners to vote for Clinton in the upcoming Indiana and North Carolina primaries.[118] Obama won the North Carolina primary[119] but was narrowly defeated in Indiana, where Clinton won decisively in rural counties that normally vote Republican in presidential elections.[120]

The overall legality of Operation Chaos in several states, including Ohio and Indiana, is disputed. In Ohio, new party members are required to sign a pledge of loyalty to the party they join for a minimum of one year, making participation in "Operation Chaos" a possible felony (election falsification) in that state. However, the state attorney general there refused to press charges on anyone, saying that it would be nearly impossible to enforce because of difficulties proving voter intent and concerns that a loyalty oath would violate freedom of association.[121]

 

[dLMN8R]

The way I see it, Bernie was trying to rig the election by taking advantage of a party he had absolutely no intention of ever wanting anything to do with.

He failed.

Bernie supporters still think that they're entitled to have the Democratic party represent them even when they don't have any intentions whatsoever to make even the slightest effort to join the party.


It's like the epitome of the lazy voter base who always wonders why things never go their way. The fact that Bernie supporters can't be bothered to register for the Democratic party perfectly explains why liberals are constantly losing midterm elections. If they can't take the small amount of time to register for the party that their candidate is trying to get the nomination of, is there any hope for them voting in midterm elections?

 

[Staccat0]

I know it's not fun or sexy, but when he was at his peak of influence I really wish Bernie had used it to push more progressive down ticket voting. That would have been a "revolution" this is just people playing around. This top down shit is actually super un-American. Instead, local and state elections will continue to define the parameters and progressives will continue to ignore them, because "Bernie was robbed" or whatever.

 

[dLMN8R]

I know it's not fun or sexy, but when he was at his peak of influence I really wish Bernie had used it to push more progressive downtick voting. That would have been a "revolution" this is just people playing around. This top down shit is actually super un-American. Instead, local and state elections will continue to define the parameters and progressives will continue to ignore them, because "Bernie was robbed" or whatever.

Yep. I want Bernie's influence to have a long-lasting effect on the Democratic party. But that influence will only happen if Bernie supporters actually join the Democratic party and vote not just for the president, but also representatives and especially during midterms.

But he's completely squandering what influence he has by being such a petulant child. He's continuing to turn his own base against the Democratic party, so his own base is less likely to actually vote, which means the reforms he wants are less likely to happen.

 

[Future]

Strategically, if primaries were open, you would want the opponent party to vote for the candidate least likely to win against their candidate. You'd pretty much have to do this since the opposing party would be doing it to you. It would game-ify the system more than it already is

Bernie could have won not because people actually wanted him as president, but because he might have been less likely to win against trump

 

[Y2Kev]

I want closed primaries with same day registration. You can throw in a limitation on reregistering if you want to limit "cheesing."

Bernie is losing ha leverage by the day but it's not a bad idea.

Strategically, if primaries were open, you would want the opponent party to vote for the candidate least likely to win against their candidate. You'd pretty much have to do this since the opposing party would be doing it to you. It would game-ify the system more than it already is

Bernie could have won not because people actually wanted him as president, but because he might have been less likely to win against trump

I don't think this is material. McCain won in March and OPERATION CHAOS wasn't enough to boost Clinton to the nomination.

 

[dLMN8R]

Strategically, if primaries were open, you would want the opponent party to vote for the candidate least likely to win against their candidate. You'd pretty much have to do this since the opposing party would be doing it to you. It would game-ify the system more than it already is

Bernie could have won not because people actually wanted him as president, but because he might have been less likely to win against trump

Yep.

Anyway: http://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/

 Clinton did do better than Sanders in closed primaries, winning 17 to his 9, but she also won more open primaries than he did, 13 to 10. Anti-democratic caucuses, where Sanders did very well, hurt Clinton far more than closed primaries hurt Sanders, writes Nate Cohn of the New York Times:

and

 Nor did superdelegates decide the nomination for Clinton. They gave her a symbolic early lead and momentum, but Clinton’s pledged delegate lead over Sanders was three times larger than Obama’s margin over Clinton in 2008, under the same rules. I’m in favor of abolishing superdelegates or curtailing their influence, but it’s worth remembering that they’ve followed the pledged delegate winner in every presidential contest since their creation in 1984.

and

 Secondly, the Clinton campaign did not intentionally try to suppress the votes of Sanders supporters. Some Sanders supporters point to Arizona, where there were 5-hour lines in Phoenix’s Maricopa County during the March 22 primary, as a glaring example of malfeasance. But those lines occurred because Republican clerk Helen Purcell cut the number of polling places from 200 in 2012 to just 60 in 2016—a decision made possible by a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and ruling that states like Arizona no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government.

Clinton strenuously criticized that decision and sued Arizona over the polling place closures, a lawsuit the Sanders campaign joined. Latino voters in Maricopa County, who were most affected by the long lines, strongly supported Clinton and she won the state overall by 15 points. Why would she disenfranchise her own supporters?

and

 Voter suppression accusations were also rampant after the New York primary. Sanders backers falsely accused Clinton of supporting a controversial purge of 125,000 registered voters in Brooklyn. Of the inactive voters purged in Brooklyn, only 8 percent of whom voted in 2012, 5 percent were 18 to 29 and 61 percent were black and Hispanic. While Sanders won young voters in New York by 30 points, Clinton won black voters by 50 points and Latino voters by 38 points, who were much more likely to be purged, and carried Brooklyn by twenty points overall. The purge, to the extent that it mattered, hurt Clinton far more than Sanders.

and on and on.

 

[Y2Kev]

Oh, that too. I will trade you same day registration for no caucuses. But I don't know who pays for that.

 

[Izuna]

Oh, that too. I will trade you same day registration for no caucuses. But I don't know who pays for that.

avatar quote

--

There are so many upset Bernie bros who aren't US citizens. If only we could vote.

 

[Staccat0]

I don't think this is material. McCain won in March and OPERATION CHAOS wasn't enough to boost Clinton to the nomination.

I dunno, it does seem like an inveitablity that it'd increase the "game theory" aspect of elections which I already despise. Like, what it IS seems immaterial to what it COULD be.

 

[Imperfected]

Oh, that too. I will trade you same day registration for no caucuses. But I don't know who pays for that.

I don't think anyone's likely to fight too hard over the axe being taken to caucuses.

I mean, I'm in Washington, for pete's sake. Please, please help us. End the madness.

 

[legacyzero]

Looking at the #Guccifer2 stuff, yeah, Im inclined to agree. But of course thatll get dismissed by the Hillary camp for convenience.

What about caucuses, Bernie?

How about closed Primaries?

 

[Aaronrules380]

Looking at the #Guccifer2 stuff, yeah, Im inclined to agree. But of course thatll get dismissed by the Hillary camp for convenience.


How about closed Primaries?

are still way, way better than caucuses and don't completely disenfranchise large swathes of people simply due to circumstances. Anyone can register democrat if they want to vote in a closed democratic primary. Not to mention intimidation tactics that go on in caucuses

 

[teiresias]

Looking at the #Guccifer2 stuff, yeah, Im inclined to agree. But of course thatll get dismissed by the Hillary camp for convenience.


How about closed Primaries?

I want Democrats deciding who the Democratic Party candidate will be thanks. You don't get to be a Special Independent Snowflake and influence whichever party's process you want to on a whim.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Looking at the #Guccifer2 stuff, yeah, Im inclined to agree. But of course thatll get dismissed by the Hillary camp for convenience.


How about closed Primaries?

Closed primaries actually follow some logic by not allowing people not members of the party determine the candidates put fourth in the main election. If you want to help determine who is put on the general ballot, you're free to join that party.

Caucuses are great ways to depress turnout, though.

 

[dLMN8R]

How about closed Primaries?

How about reading the last 5-10 posts directly above yours?

 

[legacyzero]

are still way, way better than caucuses and don't completely disenfranchise large swathes of people simply due to circumstances. Anyone can register democrat if they want to vote in a closed democratic primary. Not to mention intimidation tactics that go on in caucuses

I want Democrats deciding who the Democratic Party candidate will be thanks. You don't get to be a Special Independent Snowflake and influence whichever party's process you want to on a whim.

Closed primaries actually follow some logic by not allowing people not members of the party determine the candidates put fourth in the main election. If you want to help determine who is put on the general ballot, you're free to join that party.

Caucuses are great ways to depress turnout, though.

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

I agree that caucuses are stupid though. Total cluster fuck. We really need a federal process for consistency and fairness.

Leaving it to the party to decide leave too much room for fraud and shady practice. IE the Arizona and Nevada votes to name a couple.

How about reading the last 5-10 posts directly above yours?

Nah. Thanks for the recomendation though.

How about reading the first part of my post.

 

[Mercury Fred]

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

Wait, what?

So the DNC is too "corrupt" for people to want to register as a Dem, but they do want to choose the party's candidate because... uh...

Makes no sense.

 

[Aaronrules380]

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

I agree that caucuses are stupid though. Total cluster fuck. We really need a federal process for consistency and fairness.

Leaving it to the party to decide leave too much room for fraud and shady practice. IE the Arizona and Nevada votes to name a couple.

Nah. Thanks for the recomendation though.

How about reading the first part of my post.

Most of those people aren't going to vote anyways. And what's the issue with affiliating with democrats. It doesn't force you to vote democrat. It doesn't force you to donate money to the party. And if you think it's corrupt, then why not try and join it so you actually get some say in changing the system rather than taking your ball and going home and achieving literally nothing

And yes, you should try read about what other people have said, like how Hilary was probably hurt more than Bernie in Arizona if you actually look at how it went down

 

[3phemeral]

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

And yet, Bernie chose to associate with Democrats because they were the closest aligned with his platform and open to hearing his message and provide their resources.

 

[RustyNails]

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

I agree that caucuses are stupid though. Total cluster fuck. We really need a federal process for consistency and fairness.

Leaving it to the party to decide leave too much room for fraud and shady practice. IE the Arizona and Nevada votes to name a couple.

Nah. Thanks for the recomendation though.

How about reading the first part of my post.

If you dont want to affiliate yourselves with DNC, why do you bother voting in its primaries? Where's your own berniecrat party? Democratic primaries are for registered democrats. If you'd like to stay independent then you should obey the party rules regarding that. Its like Sanders people want their cake and eat it too but are too lazy to form their own party.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

It's fun to be bitter, but there is no benefit to closed primaries.

 

[legacyzero]

And yet, Bernie chose to associate with Democrats because they were the closest aligned with his platform and open to hearing his message and provide their resources.

He primarily chose the party so that his campaign could get exposure in debates. They wouldn't have gotten the time of day if he ran independently.

Just ask Jill Stein

 

[Aaronrules380]

He primarily chose the party so that his campaign could get exposure in debates. They wouldn't have gotten the time of day if he ran independently.

Just ask Jill Stein

Ok, then what's wrong with voters doing the same thing to get a say in the party?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

He primarily chose the party so that his campaign could get exposure in debates. They wouldn't have gotten the time of day if he ran independently.

Just ask Jill Stein

And that he'd be taken more seriously.
People see a pathway to the presidency through the major political parties.

Bernie saw value in leveraging establishment infrastructure towards achieving the presidency and ultimately achieving change.

It's a shame the Bernie or Busters only see valuable change by tearing down the whole establishment.

 

[3phemeral]

He primarily chose the party so that his campaign could get exposure in debates. They wouldn't have gotten the time of day if he ran independently.

Just ask Jill Stein

No, that's not the only reason. Do you think he could have done the same with the Republican Party? After all, they're the only other major political platform that had access to the same public-perception advantage.

Bernie had the wherewithal to change his party affiliation to Democrat. Why couldn't his supporters?

 

[teiresias]

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

I agree that caucuses are stupid though. Total cluster fuck. We really need a federal process for consistency and fairness.

Leaving it to the party to decide leave too much room for fraud and shady practice. IE the Arizona and Nevada votes to name a couple.

Nah. Thanks for the recomendation though.

How about reading the first part of my post.

"You're a horribly corrupt party but I want to vote in your primary." OK.

What was corrupt about Arizona or Nevada . . . you know, other than Clinton winning?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So stiffle millions of voters who dont want to affiliate with corrupt paries like the DNC. Again, the #Guccifer2 stuff released kinda nails that point home.

If they don't want to be affiliated with the Democrat party, why are they participating in the process to pick the Democrat candidate?

 

[Aaron Strife]

"You're a horribly corrupt party but I want to vote in your primary." OK.

What was corrupt about Arizona or Nevada . . . you know, other than Clinton winning?

Well in Nevada, Clinton got more delegates after receiving more votes. Fraud!

In Arizona, Clinton won the primary vote after the Republican Party reduced the number of polling locations in urban areas heavily favoring Clinton, and then the Clinton campaigned sued the state of Arizona. Fraud!

 

[QuantumZebra]

Then stop having the taxpayer pay for all of this shit and let Democrats fund the primaries themselves, if it's supposed to be a private little club.

Taxpayers fund Churches... do you belong to them?

Taxpayers fund the Parties... do you belong to them?

Do you want to?

See where im going?

 

[yanipheonu]

I think Bernie might actually be better of as a spokesperson for reform rather than President. Could be a better fit for him.

 

[teiresias]

Taxpayers fund Churches... do you belong to them?

Taxpayers fund the Parties... do you belong to them?

Do you want to?

See where im going?

My tax money funds schools, yet I have no children!!!! Get rid of public funding of schools NOW!!!!!

 

[legacyzero]

If they don't want to be affiliated with the Democrat party, why are they participating in the process to pick the Democrat candidate?

Again, because its the only way they can play the game. But still, being an uphill battle seeing as the DNC already positioned Hillary before it even began. And Not running with a party means you get drowned. How many Independent debates have there been?

Also: Check out these search results: https://twitter.com/hashtag/Guccifer2?s=09

 

[Aaronrules380]

Again, because its the only way they can play the game. But still, being an uphill battle seeing as the DNC already positioned Hillary before it even began. And Not running with a party means you get drowned. How many Independent debates have there been?

Also: Check out these search results: https://twitter.com/hashtag/Guccifer2?s=09

I love how you keep ignoring any posts that are inconvenient to your message

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Well the independents can get together, have some meetings, talk about common general points they want to highlight, action they want to take, recruit members, raise funding etc.

That way with more organization, they can creat some branding and marketing and work as one unit to select their reps and do other things. Maybe have an annual meeting to formal vote on this stuff.

We could call it something. A party maybe.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Also, even if you're right and the DNC did have pro Clinton Bias, how do you expect Bernie to get anything done in a theoretical presidency for him if he can't work with those same people? The president is not a god-king who can do anything he wants

 

[legacyzero]

I love how you keep ignoring any posts that are inconvenient to your message

You're projecting, is why. Either you can see how obvious the answer is, or you dont care to.

It a perpetual spiral of "Nuh-Uh!" Debate that serves NO MESSAGE.

 

[Aaronrules380]

You're projecting, is why. Either you can see how obvious the answer is, or you dont care to.

Ok, then why haven't I seen a response about how any of the accusations of voter fraud in Arizona and other places actually hurt Clinton more because proportionally the people losing their ability to vote are far more likely to be minorities, a group who have shown and overwhelming preference for Clinton over Bernie based on polls and voting records?