Right. And in this world, how do you fund primaries at all? They're ludicrously expensive. If you agree that closed primaries means that parties ought to keep the bill for said primaries, and you also agree that parties would be unable to run primaries (I mean, they probably could for presidential nominees, just about, but local candidacies would be beyond them) without this funding, aren't you just saying you'd rather see primaries abolished?
No. You're really, really not reading my posts. Let's say I live in Germany. I'm rightwing in this world, and normally I'd vote CDU. However, I think the CDU's policies are less good than I might otherwise want. As a result, I can vote for the FDP. As a result, the FDP gets more seats. The CDU have to compromise and offer the FDP at least some of their policies, because if they don't, the FDP will not go into coalition with them. The CDU also have to commit to this, because if at any point in the coalition they start reneging on this promise, the FDP can pull out.
Contrast: let's say I live in America. I'm leftwing in this world, and normally I'd vote <central Democrat> in the primaries. However, I think Clinton's policies are less good than I might otherwise want. As a result, I can vote for Sanders in the primaries. However, Sanders doesn't win. Clinton becomes the nominee. Clinton does not have to compromise, because she is the nominee regardless of what Sanders does or does not do from that stage on. The only reason she might want to compromise, is to make sure Sanders endorses her for the presidential. However, she has no reason to commit to this, because once she actually is president, he cannot affect her capacity to retain office from that point.
In the first scenario, politics ends up being consensual. Sectional interests are represented in proportion to their electoral support. The CDU as the larger party will get the lion's share of policy implementation, but the FDP will still be able to guarantee concessions. In the second scenario, politics ends up being absolutist. A 49% minority is not guaranteed to get a single concession.
See above. Proportional systems foster a fundamentally different type of politics.
Your assumption here is that the FDP would actually get those votes here as a separate party instead of a small coalition within the Democratic party (or GOP, I guess since you went with right wing for the example). I disagree with this. I don't think, even with a different system in place, that Sanders or people like him would ever get more votes than the Green Party gets now. It's just not where politics in the US is at all, and so I don't get the point you're making.
As to the 49% mark, you have easy threats to make. If you find a caucus within the 51% party that you think you can pry away, then you do that, and win the next time. Caucuses within parties then use that leverage to get what they want. If people choose not to make those demands, that's on them, not the system. Socialists and other far-left groups could make those threats, but I think we both know that no one would care. This plays out within the party, or at the government level (where in proportional systems, you have the exact same arguments, just slightly more publicly).
And if the primary is completely just about party business, then sure, no state funding. If it's too expensive, then we'll go back to party operatives choosing candidates. As a matter of principle, only people in Virginia should vote on Virginian business, only people invited to a lunch get to decide on the menu, and only people within a party should get to decide party business.
I don't think this is true. I mean, you have to admit the prospect of Sanders running as an independent, or even refusing to endorse Clinton, is worrying. As I was saying to pigeon in another thread, it's a game of chicken, and I think Sanders swerved too early.
Again, the point is not to actually run as an independent. The point is to make Clinton worry he will to get as many concessions as possible. I don't actually want him to run as an independent. It would be a terrible idea, I don't want President Trump. However, if I were him, I'd be dropping hints about it, maybe have something leak suggesting I was looking at the legal proceedings for getting my name on the ballot, have an aide accidentally suggest it, stuff like that. If Clinton thinks that Sanders will back her come what may, she has absolutely no reason to do anything. Got to put the fear of Trump into her to get any concessions.
Clinton clearly has at least some worry either that he'll run as an independent or refuse to endorse her, or he wouldn't have been offered what he has. Running as an independent might be stretching credibility, but straight up refusing to endorse and making a song and dance about it is certainly credible - I've seen plenty of you in this thread worrying about it.
I agree that Sanders has some leverage, but it's not after the convention at all. No one cares about 3rd party candidates, and it's the easiest logical step in the world to know that Sanders won't run 3rd party anyway (it wouldn't matter either against Trump). The real leverage is allowing the GE pivot earlier, and that leverage has a time limit. He's probably going to lose CA, certainly by more than he needs to win it by, and so once CA votes, he can promptly fuck back off to Vermont.
Until then, he can offer his surrender, which allows the DNC to stop wasting time on the guy. That's his only real leverage, and it's gone on June 7th. So he's only got now to offer the DNC anything (which they don't have to care about since he's a loser), and he's right to take what he can.
Edit: And I realize now that all of the posts that made me want to respond were from Crab, so I'm glad you're here! Things had slowed down recently.
