One Day National Primary

[DistressedAmerican]

We keep loosing (allowing the Republicans to steal) these elections. Yet no one is acknowledging that our fundamental problem is our choice of candidate not republican dirty tricks, apathy , or anything else. Our fundamental problem is the current primary system. Iowa and New Hampshire get to pick our nominee each time around. Their track record SUCKS! Come on, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry!

We will never nominate candidates that represent the national electorate on the whole if we do not allow all of the states to have a say in the nominating process. This year the effect was intentionally exaggerated by Terry McCauliff and his buddies who believed that picking the nominee at the earliest possible date would leave him stronger against Bush. Fire them all and demand a one day national primary if you want to have a margin of victory large enough to make theft of the election impossible!

How many of you got a chance to vote for your candidate of choice? I was a Clarkie but voted Little Dennis because almost everyone had dropped by Super Tuesday. Super my ass!
Distressed American

http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[shoelace414]

1. One day national primary

would make the nominiee the one that gets the most cash.

[DaveinMD]

4. exactly

such a system would be insanely expensive and would make the big donors even more powerful.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Right now...

the winner is the guy that spends the most on Iowa and New Hampshire. How is it different? At least, they'd be forced to court the electorate on the whole from the start rather than just sucking up to the first two states to vote. These two states have so much power that candidates have to swear a public oath to protect their unfair advantage in the system just to be eligible.

Hell, if money is the issue, let's restrict the general election vote to two state, it would make it far cheaper for the candidates.
DA

[TheDonkey]

12. The difference is $10 million vs $70+ million

it would drain all the democratic donors pockets before we even get to the GE, that would really leave us even more vunerable.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. my suggestion to candidates...

PACE YOURSELVES!

[trogdor]

107. The party can put the candidates on a budget.

It would be easier for the DNC to put a ceiling on expenditures during primary season, disqualifying anyone who refuses to cooperate, than for the FEC to do the same in the general election. It doesn't have to (nor should it) cost a fortune to get the Democratic endorsement for President. Call it a practical model for effective campaign finance reform.

One faction should not be able to hijack the party because of money. Once the majority of the party feels they've lost control, it's all over.

[Yupster]

13. and the most name ID

someone like Jimmy Carter could never win a one day primary.

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Carter was a winner...

sometimes folks forget that. I think he could have fought nationally.
DA

[Yupster]

108. But the way Carter won Iowa was to

start a year before everyone else, basically move to Iowa and show up at every teacher meeting in the state. He couldn't do that in a national primary.

[andyhappy]

2. totally agree!!! n/t

[BattyDem]

3. I agree with part of your post.

The primary system pisses me off because by the time it gets to my state, it's all over. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always set the direction of the party? It's unfair, but that doesn't mean I believe their track record sucks. After all, Gore and Kerry WON! The fact that the elections were stolen doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the candidates. It appears Kerry won in a landslide, so the "closeness" of the race apparently isn't a factor in vote rigging. The biggest factors are corruption in the voting system (no accountability or verification) and a useless media.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. In the End...

the winner is the guy sitting in the oval office with his finger on the freaking button. It may make us feel better to focus on the fraud issue (and I do believe that it is real). It gives us a well deserved sense of moral superiority. But, until Kerry is sitting at the big desk it is mearly a mental excercise.

I still argue that the track record sucks. Gore didn't win by enough to make it through the legal battle (lost his own home state) and no one knows what, if any, margin existed for Kerry. Clearly with a 48 to 48 split in the polls going in, they didn't have to steal too many votes. Did they steal it from Dukakis too?

By the way, does anyone know how the primary system came to be this way in the first place. Why the hell these two states, anyway? If it must be staggared why not rotate the scheudle so they have to kiss your state's ass every so often. Although that wouldn't deal with the representativeness issue.

DA

[mandyky]

7. I think we need to let NH and IA keep their spots

but the following week some larger states should be in the mix. There is no reason to drag primaries out til May and June, I'd say we could fit all 50 states in primary voting over the period of a month. I think we should allow all states except NH and IA to rotate spots if they want to, but there should be a mix of large and small population states in each batch.

In other words, make the four weeks following the NH primary a Super Tuesday of 12 states.

I voted for Dean in May here, long after he had dropped out, and the fix was in on Kerry. (fix = decision before I get flamed)

[DistressedAmerican]

8. What makes them different?

Why should Iowa and New Hampshire keep the privilege? I didn't follow that from your post. Your plan sounds just about like what McCauliff tried this year, a shortened primary system. I assume I am missing something. Help me out.
DA

[mandyky]

9. It's a tradition thing with those states (NH IA)

TM did not shorten the primaries enough, but I think the states have a say too. I know KY is considering moving theirs up.

To have the primaries all within a month is a lot different than what happened this cycle, that having them all withinn a month. Letting NH and IA keep their spots is a pride thing for them, they are very protective of it.

Personally I agree with your idea of Primaries all on the same day, but it would hurt feelings in the 2 mentioned states.

[DaveinMD]

10. you can't have a national primary

it would way too expensive and increase the importance of money in the process.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. There is a finite amount of money to be raised...

I don't think I buy this argument. If you don't think they aren't scrounging up every freaking cent they can get their grubby little hands on right now, you need to sit in one of those two states and check out the advertising, calling, door knocking, etc. Where are they supposedly getting all this, even more important, extra money. I think they are ringing it dry right now. Fund raising 90 percent of all campaigning. Most politicians would pimp out their own mothers right now.
DA

p.s. Now, how much would you pay to sleep with Dubya's momma?

[DaveinMD]

26. the point is

the Iowa and NH system allows for retail politics to provide a jump start to a campaign based on the success of retail politics. In a national system, only the well established would get the money they need to compete. And they would have to raise the money early. I think a system of regional primaries would be a better system. Perhaps do NH and Iowa and then split the rest of the primaries into 4 regions. Rotate those regions every 4 years for fairness.

[Yupster]

14. How about having a big publicized lottery

a few months before the primary. The slots could be set meaning how many states would vote each week, and then the states positions would be drawn out of a hat. It would be different each cycle, would generate lots of interest, and one cycle southern states would randomly get put in the front, the next cycle it might be industrial states. Just whoever got pulled from the hat.

[DistressedAmerican]

15. If it MUST be a staggared primary,

this seems like an equitable solution. Still doesn't address the fundamental issue of of few selecting the nominee for the rest of us. How can you win nationally with a candidate picked regionally (unless the region has a proven track record of winning)? I guess tradition, pride and hurt feelings in two states just aren't worth forfieting the government to me.

[DistressedAmerican]

105. I do like the random chance factor...

It would be big for the ratings. There would be 4 hour specials dedicated to the event on every News channel. Russert spinning scenarios about the outcomes for primaries beginning in Alaska and Mississippi. It WOULD be fun!

[TheDonkey]

11. No way. One day primary wouldbe extremely expensive and a huge

burden on those candidates campaigning. Clark, Dean, edwards etc had a better chance of winning with a primary system that was spread out (ie. Clinton's comeback) then a one day nightmare. Also with the amount of media buys, campaign travel, etc it would be unresonably expensive.

This idea would never work. You complain that TM tried to rush the primaries yet, you want to one up him by REALLY rushing them into one day.

The problems with why we lose isn't because of NH and Iowa, lets sharpen up. We have other problems we can deal with that can get us back into the WH etc.

Oh, and to those that say Iowa and NH are too liberal... uh' both are swing states (IA went red this time, NH switched) primaries in general only excite the party faithful (for us, the liberals!)

[DistressedAmerican]

16. Several have made the same argument

but, I suspect that the candidates would cherry pick states to put their energy into, the same way they do for the general election. It would be a numbers and strategy game.

I completely agree that there are other problems at work as well. However, if you nominate the wrong guy out of the box, you loose before you start. Recent history (with the Clinton exception)is a sting of such regionally selected train wrecks.

It isn't the redness/blueness of the two states in the slightest that is the issue. It gives unfair advantage to Iowa and New Hampshire period. It doesn't matter which two states get the advantage. It is simple sampling. The sample of primary voters should best represent the national voting population to be a good predictor of a general popularity. Selecting two states to use as the base sample introduces way too many biases to leave it a reliable indicator.

DA

[KnowerOfLogic]

101. Why not have the GE over 6 months then? Please; the politicking is bad

enough as it is. We're all adults; we can handle voting on the same day.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Money, Money, Money!

Cash IS king. Don't think so? Remember back before Iowa when Kerry was nothing? He pumped $5,000,000 of his own money into the state just before primary day. It was a good investment until he blew it.
DA

[TheDonkey]

45. Dean had the most money during the primary, not Kerry

Kerry's cash injection just made him viable and that was only $5M. A nationwide primary would have HUGE fundraising pushes. It would reduce the amount of debates and increase the harshness I would think.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. one day national primary with ranked voting ballots

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Ranked Voting Ballots...

I'm not familiar. Help me out. You've got my attention.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. You can see links to explanations on my website of several different

types of ranked voting systems. The one talked about most often, and which I think would be fine for a Primary is Instant Runoff voting.

In that case you literally check off candidates by preference. Me, had I been a Dem this last time, I might have gone: 1) Kucinich, 2) Sharpton, 3) Dean, 4) Moseley-Braun, 5) Edwards, 6) Clark, 7) Kerry (I would not have given Lieberman a ranking as I did not want my vote to count for him.)

Once all the ballots are in, you add up all the first place rankings. No one got a clear majority in that round? Then the candidate with the least number of votes is out, and those ballots favoring him/her and resorted according to the number 2 rankings. Totals for all remaining candidates are reassessed. Still noe clear majority winner? Drop off the fellow with the least votes again, reshuffle his/her ballots, and check the new totals. This is done until there is a clear winner.

Scroll down past the fraud 2004 info and you will find an example of an electronic IRV ballot. Further down the page is a section on IRV and other types of ranked voting. :)

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Now You're Talking!

There is an idea I like. Leave it to the Green Voters to think outside the box. Not a complicated system, representative, does not favor one region to the detriment of others. Could well produce a national winner rather than the guy that everyone votes for because the media told them he was the front runner in two states, then again because he isn't Bush. I like it.

DA

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Well, even IRV has its issues, but it is still better than what we have

right now.

The best thing we can do for this country is overhaul the election system. CHeck with your town/city/county/state and see what can be done in your area to change to that kind of a voting system. :)

[DistressedAmerican]

27. I'm Sold...

I will spend more time exploring the extensive options for election reform found on your site. I added a link for your site to my page at:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/links.htm

Rate the lesser of your evils. How do the rest of you feel about such a plan?
DA

[DaveinMD]

28. I thought ranked voting

is more for the general, so people could vote for third parties without harming the major party that is more aligned with their ideology.

A national primary would be prohibitively expensive and would increase the role of money in the process and eliminate all retail politics from the process.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. But it isn't unreasonable to think that people would want the same

option to vote for someone who is more aligned with their ideology in a primary either, and have a back-up vote for pragmatism. If nothing else IRV might put an end to the candidate wars here on DU. *g*

I don't think it necessarily has to be treated as a centralized national primary so much as just hold all the state ones the same day.

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[DaveinMD]

31. I have no problem with ranked voting

holding all the primaries the same day will increase the importance of money. Its just a bad idea. A system of 4 regional primaries seems like a better idea.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. I Remain Puzzled By This Claim...

Money is more powerful than God at all levels of politics. How can you increase the importance of that?

OK God may be more important to the Republicans at the moment as he brings in the dollars. Look at Jim Baker...

[DaveinMD]

35. since the campaign

would have no retail politics. There would be no time to build up momentum to attract small dollar contributions. The good thing about Iowa and NH is that they allow for retail politics and lessen the influence of money in those states. There is no retail politics in NY and CA statewide elections and the cost of running media campaigns there.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. You may be right but,

again I ask why just two. How about ten? Twenty? and Why the same ones over and over again? Can't we rotate. I could see a regional primary set up as a compromise alternative. But what do you mean exactly? who votes when and what order? How is it decided?

[DaveinMD]

37. what I would do

is keep Iowa and NH first to preserve the retail politics. I would then have a series of 4 regional primaries. The order of these primaries would be rotated every 4 years.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. But Why Iowa And New Hampshire

Why do they get to decide who the front runner is going into the other regions. Why do they get the bonus clout? If you really want a marketing test before the big show, why the same folks? If a focus group for new product development constantly recommend products that didn't sell wouldn't you look for a new group or go under for lack of doing so?

If it is small size there are plenty of small to medium sized states to choose from.

Ultimately, anything short of everyone voting the same day gives some folks added say in who becomes the nominee. To me that is not Democratic. Each person's vote should count as much as anyone else's. Not just numerically equal but, in terms of influence, fund raising or otherwise.

[DaveinMD]

39. it just isn't practical

for everyone to vote on the same day. Its cost prohibitive. NH and IA are small states and it causea big headache to move. And they are both swing states now. So it isn't a good idea to piss them off.

[DistressedAmerican]

32. Just same day...

It eliminates the crazy snowball effect for the "front runner" out of the box. That includes more money, name recognition, more free media, etc. that boxes less popular candidates out of the competition from the first days. When candidates have dropped before your state's primary comes up, you are effectively disenfranchised through denial of access to your chosen candidate. Let everyone decide while they are ALL in the race. That is democracy to me anyway.

[DaveinMD]

34. the one day primary

will mean only the entrenched candidates can compete. It will make money even more important in the process. A system of regional primaries would be much better.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Thanks for adding the link. :^)

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Cuban_Liberal]

40. Bad idea.

In all likelihood,the person who raised the most money would win.

[DistressedAmerican]

41. Most money DOES win...

I refer you to post 20

[AP]

48. Tsongas would have won with a one-day national primary in '92

and the Dems would have been sadled with a business-friendly general election loser.

I'd rather have the slow roll-out strategy that independent film distributors use. Start off in NYC and LA, get good word of mouth, then watch the money rake in and then get the Academy Award.

Without a primary system that allows the slow-rollout, block busters would be the only movies that every won the academy awards, and they'd all be crappy, and, more importantly, good small movies would NEVER have a chance.

[Radical Activist]

52. Again, Dean had the most money

They met Dean in person, one on one in Iowa. They knew Dean and all of the candidates better than the rest of the nation. They decided they liked Kerry and Edwards better, and I'm glad they did.

Forcing the candidates to engage in retail politics in two small states lessens the impact of big money.

[American Tragedy]

43. Isn't that what tends to happen anyway?

[AP]

50. I bet not. I bet the person with the most money on the first primary day

does not get the nomination. But winning the first primary probably helps get the nominee more money.

So, do you want candidates to win just because they got a lot of money from rich people before the voters ever got a chance to hear them make their arguments? Or do you want the amount of money raised to be a reflection of the canidate making good arguments one-on-one to smaller groups of voters?

I bet the candidates who have raised the most money by the Iowa Caucus are among the worst.

[American Tragedy]

42. It would be really nice to actually be able to vote in a primary

before the nominee has been declared and has already attained the requisite delegates.

Why should only a few states determine our candidate?

[DistressedAmerican]

47. Glad to see another of the disenfranchised stand up

and be counted here. It won't happen in the primary system.

[bklyncowgirl]

56. New Jersey (June Primary) agrees

I am so there! At least when I lived in Brooklyn there was usually still a few choices by the time the primaries got around to us. Now that I'm in the last state to vote, I haven't had a voice.

Single day with instant runoff voting works for me.

[DaveinMD]

57. in practice

it would just be too cost prohibitive. A regional primary system would be a better idea.

[gaia_gardener]

113. Our primary was fairly early

April? I don't remember. But even then candidates had already dropped out before we voted. Pissed me the hell off.

[Radical Activist]

44. That only benefits the candidate with the most

name recognition and corporate money. Remember who had the most money and national name recognition early on in the primary? Joseph Lieberman. Yuck!

Dean may have won a national primary later on because he got sooooo much media coverage and a lot of money. A national primary means that the corporate media and political donors will decide who our nominee is. I don't like that.

[DistressedAmerican]

46. The current system means

that Iowa and New Hampshire get to determine it. No one has yet posted any defense of these two states that makes any sense beyond tradition and hard feelings. What matters to me is that everyone has an equal say on the nominee. That doesn't happen now.

Besides the money thing is a red herring. It is the most important factor now, they would focus on specific states rather than trying for total coverage and there isn't any more freaking money to scrape up. Who do you think would be buying them under a revised system that's not already doing it?

[Radical Activist]

49. Small states are a good idea

Iowa and New Hampshire are the last place where a Presidential candidate has to go up to a person and individually ask for their vote. People in Iowa and New Hampshire get to know the candidates in a way that you can't experience in the kind of big rallies they have during the general election. I want to see how a candidate does talking to a small group of farmers, workers, seniors or students as opposed to only seeing how he does talking to a big crowd during a generic campaign rally in a major city.

Small states give candidates with little money the chance to come out ahead. Jimmy Carter won the nomination because he was able to connect with enough individual Iowa voters to win the caucus and gain national media attention. Bill Clinton came in a surprise second in NH and went on to win the nomination because he was able to meet a lot of NH voters in person. Retail politics is a good thing and those are the only places candidates have to practice one-on-one retail politics. If we have a national primary all of that will be gone. It will be just like the general where the average person never gets the chance to talk to a candidate in person.

For that reason I think Iowa makes more sense. It has a much cheaper media market than New Hampshire. That allows candidates without much money the chance to do very well there. That way someone that doesn't get a lot of corporate money has a shot at winning the nomination.

It doesn't have to be Iowa and New Hampshire but I think having two small states go first makes a lot of sense.

[DistressedAmerican]

54. So now the state with the cheapest

ad rates should pick the nominee. I don't buy it.

You overall point has some merit. But if you MUST (and I don't think you really do) have a test market, can't it rotate or something. This test market sucks. They keep sending losers down the pipeline.

[AP]

60. Sure. Rotate it. But always start where it's cheap to run.

[Radical Activist]

61. Rotating would be a good idea

Especially to states that are more racially diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire. Arkansas or New Mexico might be good options.

[AP]

67. I agree with that. Also throw in small swing states...

and a few that could benefit from seeing more of the Democrats, so that you campaign in them twice for more impact.

Ohio has too many media markets to be cheap for a primary, but why not KY, WI, CO, NM, SC?

[AP]

51. I defy anyone to watch The War Room and argue that starting...

...in a small state, where voters get to see candidates in person, where people like Carville go and talk to supporters in small rooms, where candidates live and die on the strengths of their arguments, is the wrong way to nominate a president.

I don't want the media to have MORE control over the primaries, and they would if the only way most voters saw their candidates prior to voting was on TV.

[Radical Activist]

53. Damn right: National primary = election by corporate media

I don't want the corporate media to choose my nominee for me like they tried to do this time.

[DistressedAmerican]

55. This way, 48 states only get to see them on TV

How is that a leap forward for democracy? Sounds like you are spending a lot of time filtering the media reports about the race in thiose two states to make up your mind.

I do not care what worked for Clinton in the war room.

I care what gives everyone an equal voice. Isn't that what democracy is about? Someone? Democracy? One Man, One Vote?

[AP]

58. At least the tone after IA and NH was born of candidates who won by

making a direct appeal to voters.

Why did Clinton do well after NH? Because he was good at retail politics in NH.(And, by the way, Clinton came in THIRD in NH (right?) and had to fight it out with retail politics for half the primaries.

With a national primary, retail politics would disappear and the media coverage and money would pick the candidate. Without having to direclty appeal to voters, candidates would have to rely on good mediation -- ie, they'd have to rely on OTHER PEOPLE (NOT THEMSELVES) telling them what to think of the candidates. And how many people who have control over the modes of mediation have the Democrats' best interest in mind?

Guess what? NONE. ZERO. The media would always serve up a candidate who would lose in the general election.

[DistressedAmerican]

62. Anyone that wasn't with Kerry...

can tell you that the media and money people pick it under the current ineffective system. Kerry pumped 5 million of his not so hard earned dollars to by media in Iowa. It took him from a distant third or fourth depending on the outlet to the "surprise come from behind victor. That paid off in free media to the near exclusion of all other choices for the rest of the race. Money/Media. Its what we have and always will. How do you REALLY think it could become MORE pervasive?

[AP]

65. Kerry still had less money than Dean and he had the media AGAINST him

for most of 2003 -- and not just mildly, but actively and with great hostility fighting him.

I saw the media as trying to push Dean, and I think the fact that retail politics was such a premium saved the Democrats from suffering that fate.

Kerry didn't win with money and media so much as he won with organization. And Edwards came in second entirely on "message."

The reason we start with small, cheap states was perfectly clear this year.

[Radical Activist]

81. The money and media people picked Dean

Dean was called the front-runner in the media for months before a single person had voted. The people of Iowa picked Kerry and Edwards. They got to know all the candidates very well and made a good decision.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. Why defend a system that keeps losing?

If the system worked, I could see it. If this is what you think works tell me. Then tell me how you define "works". We need fresh solutions not more status quo. That much should be clear to every Democrat in America.

[DaveinMD]

63. I don't know

that any candidate running this year would have won. Maybe General Clark. But I'm just not sure.

[AP]

64. It worked in 92. 96 doesn't matter. 2000 there was no real primary--

we gave it to Gore. In 2004, it did a pretty good job of getting a candidate who came very close to beating a war-time, incumbent president using all the tools fascists use to win elections.

In any event, your 'solution' actually compounds all the problems with elections. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[DistressedAmerican]

66. For the large part Kerry general election voters picked him

because he wasn't Bush. Most of the primary state voters picked him because there was no one left out of the starting gate. Few were excited about his candidacy.

Again it is simple sampling theory. A better sample is a better predictor of national general election voting habits. A nationwide primary sample would produce a better measure of who democrats nationwide wanted (and actually desired to vote for) rather choosing from the dregs that filter down to each state.

[AP]

70. Kerry was very effective in getting out the idea that he was the one

who could beat Bush, and he did that early, and it wasn't the media pushing that mantra, it was Kerry.

He campaigned very effectively, and that's why he won. He didn't have the most money early, and he didn't have the media on his side. He was organized, smart, and aggressive. Those are all qualities that paid off in the general election (but ultimately, couldn't offset weaknesses, llike being from the NE and not having much class appeal) -- but I don't think any of the other candidates had a better set of qualities (except maybe Edwards, and he probably came in exactly where he should have -- second). So Kerry won as he should have, and media and money didn't pick Democrats a less effective candidate.

The only way Kerry should have lost the primaries is if there were a better candidate and there wasn't.

[DistressedAmerican]

74. Again, I'll save overall discussion of the better candidate

for the numerous other stings dedicated to the issue.

However, I can tell you that the free media went to Kerry full force from Iowa on. Dean had it before hand which, translated into early money. He spent himself dry then, like Ali did, Kerry's Rope a Dope, personal 5 million went to work. That got him the come from behind Iowa win. Good luck finding a story about your non-Kerry candidate from that moment on unless it was reporting on his imminent demise or concession. You know them, the "What Went Wrong With the Dean Campaign?" type of crap that passed for news at that time.

[AP]

78. The free media did not go for Kerry prior to Iowa. If you want to see

what the media was doing, I'd take a listen to NPR's ATC on January 18th. That was a good example of the national media coverage, if you ask me. I just don't think there's a case to be made that Kerry was preferred by the media.

I think it was pretty clear after IA and NH that it was going to be Kerry. His only real challenge was Edwards, and they definitely didn't try to help Edwards (other than to say he was a nice guy -- they wouldn't talk about his issues at all).

Dean failing to meet expectations by such a wide margin sealed his fate. Clark staked it all on NH and came up way short (and it wasnt' because Kerry got a lot of great press after Iowa -- all they talked about that week was Dean for tha week).

I believe that after IA and NH it was pretty obvious that Kerry was the winner, regardless of what the media was going to do. The only thing that could have changed the complexion of the race is if Clark had dropped out and Edwards had won TN, GA and SC. But even then, it still would have been Kerry.

So it's kind of silly to say that the media AFTER the point of no return (NH) made the difference. It was the media up to Jan 19 that TRIED to make a difference and which failed, and I think it's pretty obvious that we got the candidate the media tried to bury in the fall of 2003 -- thanks in part to the fact that we do primaries the way we do them.

[DistressedAmerican]

82. Pre Iowa, we agree.

Kerry definitely did NOT have the free media. That's why he rolled up his sleeves and pulled out the 5 million dollars.

After, I think we have perspective differences. It's chicken or the egg from that point forward. Neither of us can say far sure what the relationship was except to say that his lead status got him free media coverage AND his free media coverage helped him keep front runner status. From the starting gate however, the two fed each other (not to mention the money) in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop that carried him to the nomination.

[AP]

83. After NH and IA, who do you think still had a serious chance?

I think no matter what the media did AFTER NH and IA, they weren't going to be able to influence Democrats to vote one way or the other in the primaries. They weren't able to do it before IA and NH. Why were they going to be able to do it afterwards?

Afterwards it was on to plan B: talk about war all the time so that Democrats couldn't convince voters that jobs, healthcare and the economy were the first and last reason why they should vote for Kerry, and also, make sure that Kerry is perceived as the ABB candidate and not winning because of who he was.

[DistressedAmerican]

85. JUST MY MAIN POINT!

No one in the other 48 states was even given a choice. After the first two, it was over for everyone else. Why is that a good and acceptable thing? Are democrats in those two state somehow better than the rest of us that they should get to pick from the full slate. While, the rest of us get a choice of their leftovers?

How can that possible give us the most representative candidate? A candidate that is strong in a region with later primaries may be shut out before his or her stronghold regions get a say. Then they get to decide between folks they didn't want in the first place. In a one day primary, the candidates would be able to build delegate coalitions in their respective strong states. The balancing of the total delegate count would give the victory to the candidate that could best pull together delegates within numerous states. No state or region is given special status beyond its population based delegate pool.

[AP]

87. You can't blame the primary system or media for Kerry being best candidate

I think there's a major error in your logic.

Kerry won IA and NH because he was the best candidate, with the best set of messages and persona, and organization and ability to raise money.

If you started in NC and Edwards won it, I still think Kerry still would have won the nomination so long as Democratic voters were seeing the candidates and making the decision based on the arguments the candidates were making about themselves.

NH and IA citizens aren't some rare bread of Americans who think differently from everyone else. They took into account the arguments and situation and picked Kerry. So long as there wasn't a home-towner in the race, Democrats all over the country were going to take into account a very similar set of circumstances.

I think the only way to get a different outcome is if you did something like a one day national primary where Democratic voters had to rely on (1) the media interpreting and mediating their relationships with the canidates, and (2) if voters merely got arguments through commercials. Then you might have gotten Dean, but Dean would have done worse against Bush, I'm sure.

[DistressedAmerican]

88. I Agree About Dean Doing Worse

Clark was my horse. Why the hell he chose to run in the one of the two early states sandwiched between Dean and Kerry's home state I will never know. However, discussion of who would have won on any given theoretical rerun pf past elections is plagued by the sheer number of variables involved in the arch of each candidate's run. We can both assert who would have won the most recent time around. I haven't ventured that guess myself. I really don't know how it would have shaken out in my mental exercise.

You again assert that Iowa and New Hampshire are somehow acceptable representative of the national voting populace as a whole. To you perhaps. I disagree.

Clearly you like Kerry under either scenario. As I see it, shouldn't matter to you that much either way. Kerry is a winner no matter how YOU slice it.

[AP]

89. I think everyone had a chance to prove themselves.

Clark and Dean were the top two money raisers in the last quarter and led in the polling. They went from high to low (as did Lieberman, who was the favorite in 2002 and early 2003).

I think the only think that could have helped Clark is if the first primary were in June and not January.

But I really don't think you can blame the primary schedule for Clark starting too late.

Edit: For the last couple weeks I've wondered what Clark's strategy was in the primaries. It's sort of confusing. He must have known that he wasn't going to win NH (with VT and MASS next door). Perhaps he thought everyone else was going to bloody each other up with no clear winner going into the south.

His problem seems to have been (1) that Edwards came out of IA better than Clark expected and (2) that Kerry went 2 for 2 by respectable MOVs (rather than splitting with or narrowly losing to or defeating Dean). So, Clark not only had to play catch-up to Kerry (a nearly impossible task) but he also had Edwards moving towards the south being reasonably competitve. Clark and Edwards were just too close in OK for him to have a clear advantage over Edwards as things moved on, and Edwards really did well in SC (where Clark came in 4th behind Sharpton with 7%). So that was the end for Clark. Respectable showings for Edwards in Va and Tn were icing on the cake, and the first place finishes for Kerry confirmed that what happened in IA and NH was really a good reflection of how voters were feeling about the election: they thought Kerry had the best overall package, and they liked Edwards second best.

So TX, FL, Miss and La never became the prize that Clark perhaps thought they'd be if he could have stayed in the game that long without anyone else getting on a roll.

That doesn't mean the primary system is screwed up. It just means that Kerry was too strong, and Clark got a bad roll of the dice with Kerry and Edwards consistently coming in first and second, which was made all the worse for him because starting so late had seriously limited the range of possibilities for him.

[DistressedAmerican]

90. Clark has his own crimes to pay for

most relate to his poor response to the two early state system.

But, I am not here to argue on behalf of Clark or anyone else. What I am talking about is structural and not about who did what in the past.

The problem is even if everyone got a chance to prove themselves as you claim, not every state has the full slate of proven candidates to choose from when they get to vote. Many people in later states saw who they liked and didn't get to express their opinion in countable ballot form. That is what we loose. Some states never get more than a symbolic say as the designate is picked before a single ballot is cast for their state. That doesn't sit wrong with you?

[AP]

91. So what's the solution?

It certainly isn't a same day national primary.

And I think that no matter how you mix it up, so long as you don't help the home-town person too much, you're pretty much going to get the same results because there is more variation in opinion between Democrats within any single state than there is between the average opinion of two Democrats in any two states.

Iowan Democrats aren't some freaks of nature who have radically different opinions about politics when compared to, say Georgians or Wisconsins.

[DistressedAmerican]

94. See post 93 for a list of changes that may be workable...

[madfloridian]

68. Yeh, how did you say we did in the congressional elections?

How did we do in gaining seats. Oh, but that does not matter. Right?

[DaveinMD]

69. in 92

we lost seats because of redistricting. 94 was a disaster. In 96, 98 and 2000 we gained seats. We even got back to parity in the Senate.

[AP]

71. What does that have to do with nominating a president?

Yeah, when I called people for Edwards I made that point: he'll have coattails. I was right about that, I believe, But it's not the only criteria for choosing the nominee. I'm totally comfortable with the fact that people ranked other factors higher than coattails, and that that ranking resulted in a Kerry victory in the primaries.

[DistressedAmerican]

72. Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry then

Gore had a mix of issues to complicated for this sting. However, you are correct. I cannot fairly blame Gore on the primaries...

[AP]

73. Mondale and Dukakis are exactly who the party thought they were back

then -- technocrats, NE (and MN) liberals -- it's even how Democrats in the rest of America saw the party.

We got who we wanted. It wasn't until 92 that the party wasn't about that anymore.

Gary Hart gave us a clue about what the party should be about (but he crashed and burned himself).

If you wanted a primary that produced a different candidate than Dukakis and Mondale then you're asking for a primary that would produce a different candidate than the one that Democratic voters really wanted, regardless of what media or money said about them. Primaries should be about getting the candidate Democrats want without interference from or mediation by people who don't care about Democrats. The problem with Dukakis and Mondale was with Democrats, and not with the primaries or the media or money in politics.

[DistressedAmerican]

76. You've got me here...

I am hard pressed to recite the day to day detail of those primaries. It is a bit before my time.

However, I know the historical footage always features the self destruction moment of the challengers that fell leaving some guy that went on to get spanked. 50 years from they will sickly still be playing the Dean scream (admited only the final nail in his particular coffin).

[AP]

79. Read the Clinton Wars by Blumenthal for a nice, succinct modern history

of the Democratic Party.

[DistressedAmerican]

80. Thanks for the tip.

I don't remember how Mondale got nominated in detail. but, I sure remember him going down in a blaze of glory to my then childhood fave Regan. Youth AND ignorance.

[liberalpragmatist]

139. I'm not sure Iowa and NH really made a difference in who was candidate

First off, I do favor primary reform. Large regional primaries with rotating dates. Perhaps for some retail politicking, select a few smaller states at random and have them do early primaries. Then have a few weeks and a series of regional primaries.

But I don't think you can really blame Iowa and NH for leading to losing candidates. For one thing, I think Kerry may have come back even if it wasn't just Iowa but if it was national. I think we got a candidate in Kerry and he may well have gotten it had there been a series of regional primaries as well.

As for Gore, it was basically handed to him. And I think that in 1984 and 1988 we had bad fields. It's hard to think back to who that was running would have made a better candidate than Dukakis. The race was winnable, but none of the electable candidates ran. Al Gore was probably best in 1988 but I've read that he was too unseasoned (and actually, too conservative at the time). And 1984 I read that it almost led to a Gary Hart nomination, who probably would have done better against Reagan (still would've lost though).

[Leilani]

75. All of this is moot, cause you don't get a say...

Saw on C-Span yesterday, the Dems are going to work out a primary schedule for 2008.

Who these "Dems" are, I have no idea, but they are going to study the problem & make their "recommendations" in 1 year.

[DistressedAmerican]

77. Good to know the fix is already in...

I guesss that just leaves the drama of finding a party chair to ring lead the parade down mainstreet.

[XemaSab]

84. Primary schedule

I like the idea of small states having the first primaries, however I agree that there is a problem with IA and NH getting to choose the candidate before everyone else.

A 50-state primary would leave the candidates to focus entirely on New York, California, Texas, and the other big states, and totally ignore the 40 smallest states. There would be whole regions of the country that would have no say whatsoever, and it's pretty clear that NY, CA, and TX aren't mainstream for either party (for the dems, that would be letting New York, LA and SF pick the guy, which would be a recipe for DISASTER).

I think breaking the country into 5 or so regions and picking a smallish state to represent each region, then having all those primaries on the same day might be the ticket.

My picks are South Carolina, New Mexico, Iowa, Oregon, and New Hampshire to represent the southeast, southwest, midwest, northwest, and northeast. Interesting states with interesting histories, small states, all potential swing states.... good times.

[DistressedAmerican]

86. Now that sounds like some workable middle ground...

I think you have a good point about large states becoming the focus under my proposed changes. That is clearly borne out in the general election campaign strategies. Not so sure that the same state should have the first primary edge in each region though.

Why not rotating. Sometimes it comes to the big states. But, I'm not sure that a large state should ALWAYS be locked out of the first round of the draft. We should shoot for balance.

I do like the large regions solution. Pulls it back from a state by state turf battle and but still allows a focus on a stronghold area strategy if desired.

Two step process though. Chosen regional state day followed by the rest of us on the same day.

[XemaSab]

92. Rotating

Rotating states within a region could be interesting, or having the parties within a region get together to decide which state would be the nominee for the region, but make sure it gets rotated, so if it's Iowa one election cycle, it would have to be a different state like Minnesota the next time around.

If it was a big state, the delegates would have to be split, so it wouldn't be winner-take-all. So a second place finish in California which gets more votes than most small states is worth something, so winning California wouldn't be better than winning the other four states combined.

But yeah, the other 45 states on the same day, say, 3 weeks or a month later would be good. Enough time for people to really think about the candidates and enough time for candidates who did poorly to drop out, and people to research new favorites.

Public financing would also be awesome, so it wouldn't be an issue of who has a big house to mortgage. Each candidate could be given the same amount to spend wisely and strategize with.

[DistressedAmerican]

93. To sum up agreeable proposals so far we have:

1) 5 regions
2) Each has either rotating or home choice of a state to run in a first day primary
3) 3 weeks later all remaining states vote. Sounds like a Real Super Tuesday to me.
4) Ranked balloting (see previous posts by GreenPartyVoter for more details). Rate the candidates in order of preference.
5) Proportional distribution of delegates. Death to "Winner Takes All".
6)) Public financing of all campaigns to establish a level funding playing field

I think that it everything. Its not a full one day primary. But I think in a day we collectively came up with something pretty workable. Now, where is congress?

Any comments, criticism, etc?

[AP]

95. Always start with small states. I think it would be a mistake to ever

start with CA or NY or even OH (which has a ton of media markets).

Also, I don't think you're ever going to get public financing for primaries. But you can ask the party to start a fund that would be distributed to candidates, but that's really not so different from just donating yourself to small-time candidates.

I also don't think -- but could be wrong -- that congress has anything to do with primaries. It's something the parties manage themselves.

[DistressedAmerican]

97. We'll work on the feasability of getting it later...

For now just a wish list. The whole list is pretty dicey when it comes to actually getting people on board. But, I would like to discuss out the kinks before I persue any of the options further. So far it's a pretty good list. Suppose I concede and keep it to small states (preferably still rotating)? How would you feel then? I'm open here.

[XemaSab]

98. Yeah

Rotating small states would be good.

Maybe the largest state in the region could be exempted, or something.

If the votes were split, and it wasn't winner-take-all, then even larger states could participate, but there's something very genuine about the political process in Iowa and New Hampshire that it would be a shame to lose. Many people there like to go see all the candidates speak before they decide, and I think that's terrific, I'd just like to see some other states have a say too.

I've thought before that maybe each candidate could pick a state, and if they bomb in their chosen state, they're done, but what we're cooking up seems pretty good.


B-)

[XemaSab]

96. Wow

I really like it!

:toast:

[housewolf]

99. Would be awfully hard on the candidates...

It takes a lot of time and a lot of money for these candidates to make themselves know to the voters. The start working on Iowa and New Hampshire voters at least a year ahead of the primary season. It is extremely labor-intensive, the candidates spend months as small fund-raisers and houseparties speaking to small groups of people, trying to build up support. And that's just for the first 2 primaries. There is no way they could adequately campaign in 50 states for a single primary election day.

[DistressedAmerican]

104. Check out post 93 for current compromises...

We are thinking 5 first day states. What do you think?

I don't think that would be too grueling. Frankly, if you can't hold your own on that playing field your chances in the general election are nil.

[KnowerOfLogic]

100. Yep; no more band-wagon jumping. nt

[DistressedAmerican]

103. The Bandwagon Effect is Huge as it Stands

That much is pretty self evident. Always the same two states leading the parade.

I think it frequently also weeds out early leaders (possibly the inevitable media wichhunt?) and bold voices for change.

[elperromagico]

102. At the least, I think the "first in the nation" state should be rotated,

rather than relying on the same two states each time.

Shake things up a bit, and see where that gets us.

[DistressedAmerican]

106. I've Complied the Highlights of this Discussion...

and posted it to my web page at:

http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/reform.htm

I pulled off poster info from what I posted. Left your avatar image as an identifier. Please let me know if any of you would rather I not use your comments.

Thanks to everyone for the input. It really helped me get my mind around the potential pitfalls of my first plans and come up with a plan that I can start farming around.

I'll be back for more on the electoral college and other topics.

Distressed American
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[Lone Pawn]

109. Gore wasn't that bad of a choice.

He certainly did better than Bradley would have. And, keep in mind, he did actually win the popular vote.

[DistressedAmerican]

110. You Point Out a Related Problem...

The piss poor slate of candidates frequently leaves us beat before we ever pick a nominee. Gore/Bradley? With 290 million Americans, that is the best choice we can give ourselves?
DA

[XemaSab]

111. I strongly suspect

It's not a problem so much with the candidates, as with the level of dialogue.

I look at the republicans, especially here in California, and I'm regularly underwhelmed by the caliber of the candidates they put forth.

You can't call the Chimpster a great statesman, or anyone else the republicans have put forth for president in a very long time.

I think we had some really good folks running the last time around, and it was almost too many good candidates. I think there was only one person who wouldn't have made a decent president and who I would not have supported in the general election.

I think they sucked energy away from each other. Even looking at dialogue in DU, there are at least four candidates who would have support for a 2008 run.

The issue is that the media has no interest in really genuinely airing the candidates in a detailed or impartial manner, so we're left with the guy who has the best sound bites, and few of our candidates had the ghastly repetition that Bush showed in the debates. He was very "on message."

Democrats tend to be windy, windy folks with the big palette and the little brush. Whereas Republicans are terse, with the black and white paint and the big brush. They have an easier job of staying on message because they don't actually want to talk about their plans, because their plans are evil, so they have to fill the time in debates with sound bites instead of ideas.

It's tragic and depressing, but this is what the people like. They think it indicates resolve or something to hear the same message regardless of the day, and you've gotta give the people what they want.

Trippi's article about the "vision thing" affirmed this. People don't want to hear about details of plans, they want a big, general idea that can be summarized in 100 words or less, and that's what our candidates haven't had.

[DistressedAmerican]

112. Amazingly, the Republicans have the same problem

the only guy on their side I had any respect for as a leader was McCaine. I was still impressed by his attempt at campaign finance reform for a while. Watching him suck up to the monkey in chief this time around assures I will hold him in the lowest regard from here on out.

I do think that the one day primary (or the shortened primary plan we put together) is one way to make it less of a long ugly beat down. Many times the nominee it levt too damaged be the long primary fight to be a good contender against the real guy. That was the plan with the DNC early selection plan this year to avoind such a long bloody fight.

The public financing provision would keep the playing field a bit more level for the little guys (who while they don't ususally survive, often interject important issues into the platform debate). In addition, it would keep them from beating each other's brain's out for the Democratic contributions. All contribution scrounging could go to the BIG show.

The media I find more difficult. Saddly they are just a reflection of what sells. What sells is the short soundbites. People seem attracted to the guy that feeds the snappiest hollow line. Being a liberal, I assume this reflects a lack of national education funding at some level. We are raising generation after generation of short attenetion span voters.

[XemaSab]

114. I blame...

I blame an educational system that de-emphasizes critical thinking and over emphasizes multiple choice and other brainless tests. If a student shows signs of critical thinking, they get shut right down because the teacher is too hassled and confined to entertain discussion or debate.

Also, TV rots brains. I get my news from the internet, and after a few years of that I can't watch TV news any more. Any issue that can be summarized in 5 minutes between commercials isn't worth learning about.

Finally, between pesticides and pharmeceuticals, our brains aren't where they ought to be. If you're angry or bored or depressed, well, they have drugs for that.

You ever read "Brave New World"?

[DistressedAmerican]

115. You are so right

I am a professor and see the mindless drones that make it to state universities. You ask them to think beyond regurgitating some facts they freeze like deer in headlights.

My mother put it succinctly when I told her I wanted to teach and she told me to "teach them How to think not What to think." Its hard patterning to deprogram them of.

Certainly the television issue is HUGE. It trains people to have short attention spans AND to have information spoon fed to them. Not that I don't watch it myself. But, I know it is entertainment.

You have to be able to read to use the Internet. Sometimes I wonder if these kids can do that.

[XemaSab]

116. I also figure

A giant part of it is simple curiosity. I know most people don't use the internet to learn, or watch TV to learn.

The functional illiteracy thing is pretty big. I went to a ghetto school in middle school, and the teacher would ask kids to read something aloud and they were still sounding out words in 6th grade. It's not the fault of the teachers, it's the fault of a youth culture that places no value on learning. The kids would go to school and just screw around. It was very depressing.

You've heard the rumor that Bush has messages piped to his ear because he can't read? They say it's dyslexia, but if he is so dyslexic he can't read a speech off a screen, does he ever read anything for fun or just to learn?

[DistressedAmerican]

117. As a dyslexic myself,

I find that an interesting claim. Any truth to it you think? Many very bright people (Jefferson, Einstein among them) have been. However, I understand those that don't overcome its effects have some pretty serious. generally I would discount the suggestion of Bush's issues.

I think he is a guy of average intelligence in a job that demands a mental titan. That's why he is so ready and willing to swallow everything his staff brings him.

I'd say that "youth culture" is less of a factor than you rank it. Kids have always been slack asses. Its part of the package. It is up the parents to monitor their progress and get them help when they need it. In today's America where the two income family is how most folks get by, I think parents have a difficult time making time just to see their kids mot to mention talk to their teachers. There are a lot of underlying economic factors that go far beyond just school funding. I'll know soon. My first is due in a week and a half.

[XemaSab]

123. I don't know

I don't know much about Bush-the-man. My impression is also that he's a man of fairly average intelligence in a job that requires a whiz kid, but he's done a pretty good job of getting his evil policies through, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

I don't think he reads much at all, and I don't think he's ever read much. I know it's a demanding job and he probably doesn't have much time for reading, but when asked what his favorite book was growing up, not only did he mention a book written for three year olds, but he mentioned a book written WELL after he was three (said book being The Very Hungry Caterpiller).

I've always read a lot. Fiction, nonfiction, newspapers, you name it, and the idea of not reading much is foreign to me. I don't know how the man can think effectively without a broad knowledge base.

School funding is not a panacea, but it goes a long ways, especially towards helping kids who are falling behind, but what happens in a school where everyone is falling behind? Closing the school down isn't the solution. Maybe very very very small class sizes?

Congratulations on the baby!

[DistressedAmerican]

124. Evil policies have been pushed through...

but, he was just the outside face on the issue. It was his evil empire that got "his" agenda pushed through. Bush is a gigantic yeas man who lacks the knowledge base or the critical analysis skills to know any better than what is TOLD to him. That's why we have national security advisors isn't it. For presidents that can't be bothered to read the presidential briefings. There is probably one still floating around saying Osama is hiding in the Lincoln bedroom. It's not like he would have read it to know.

I'm with you. I do not relate to nor do I respect people who do not read. It implies that all information is filtered through the television, hearsay, or pure conjecture. I guess if you spent the time to have detailed briefings on the things he doesn't read, a guy may be able to muddle through in the job. But, only if he actually gets the break down. No evidence exists to suggest that the system is working well for BushCo.

Again, might I reiterate how much it pissed me off to have been required to have a "B" average just to get into grad school and this "C" average drunken frat boy gets to b president just because he has the same name of another president that the nation could not wait to throw out based on his miserable record. Guess he should have worked harder sucking up the Falwell crowd.

[DistressedAmerican]

125. Any thoughts on lowering the voting age

Post #120 item 9)suggests lowering the voting age. I am a bit skeptical about that plan given the litaracy issues we have been discussing. Thoughts?

[XemaSab]

127. I'm also skeptical

But I know many very well informed 16 year olds and some really, really dumb 40 year olds.

I have a feeling that ill-informed 16 year olds wouldn't make it to the polls, and that those who did make it wouldn't be a great enough percent to influence the election one way or the other.

One would also hope that people who vote have some understanding of history and perspective, and while I don't think high school history or government classes give this perspective, it sets sort of a basic benchmark. I remember a girl in my US History class in high school who was asked by the teacher what decade Pearl Harbor was. She didn't know, so he asked her what war Pearl Harbor started, and she guessed World War One, which for her was a shot in the dark. She had no clue. None.

I have that non-teenager bias that younger voters are more susceptible to propoganda, but I don't know that older voters aren't easily swayed as well.

There are some young folks who are eager to participate and get involved, and it's unfortunate that our system excludes them from voting, but I don't think the voting age really needs to be changed right now. I think there are a lot of other changes that should be made first in order to see that voting is made fair.

What are your perspectives as an educator?

(edit for spelling)

[DistressedAmerican]

129. Not to be a pessimist but,

as someone who is around our youngest current set of voters everyday I really don't think I'd endorse it. I was working VERY HARD on campus before the election and was absolutely dismayed at the complete lack of information the hundreds of kids I spoke with had.

This is a bipartisan issue. We both suffer. Kerry voters I met were rarely any better informed than the Bush supporters (although they were far less likely to call me a commie and spit on me, yes they did).

Your point about the rest of the public not being any better is highly valid. I guess I see it like this, why add even more uneducated voters to the rolls. It only dilutes the thinking person's vote even further.

History shows that you are correct about turnout. When the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18, many people predicted that voters in that group would be influential. History has shown that most sit at home (even more that the rest of the slobs whose turnout also sucks).

[XemaSab]

130. I hear ya

I recently graduated from a university with a reputation for extreme liberalism and environmentalism. I found that many so-called "activists" are far less interested in the science behind things like timber harvests, pollutants, and global warming than they are interested in sticking it to the man.

I'm all for sticking it to the man, but if that's your goal, it should be clearly stated. It just looks shady otherwise. Ill-informed liberals do a lot of damage to the progressive cause.

I'm not calling for a purge, but it's a problem in trying to communicate progressive ideas that many of the people making the most noise aren't the most informed.

Not that their side is informed or enlightened either. If anything, quite the opposite. Most of the young folks on their side seem to be vulgar young frat boys who should be in Iraq if they feel that strongly about the justness of the war.

So how do we raise the level of political discourse and get people informed?

You were really called a commie? In 2004??

[DistressedAmerican]

131. Really was called a commie and spat on...

by the very vulgar frat boys that you referenced. On my campus that WAS the support for Bush. Well, to be fair there were some empty headed sorority girls that liked him as well.

I suggested that they come up out of their bomb shelters and informed them that the cold war has been over for a long time. I think they are much like those Japanese soldiers trapped out on small islands thinking the war was still on because they had not heard otherwise. I guess these folks live on islands of ignorance. Another yelled at me telling me that he didn't like me putting up my "blasphemous" posters. I promptly inquired if Bush was his God now. He stormed off.

Sticking it to the Man? Why Yes, I think I will.

Now you have asked me a really hard question. How to make the American populace better informed.

Two possible measures (one extreme, the other less so)I think the best thing to do is cut off the food supply. Never in history has there been an uprising of well fed people against the injustice that surrounds them (BTW I am a prof or Archaeology so historical perspective is one of my strengths). As long as people are well fed they are happy to remain at the status quo. Since there is no reason to change the status quo there Is no need to understand the injustice.

Saw an interesting post from an Aussie talking about the mandatory voting there. That may help. If everyone had to vote of pay the price, people may feel like paying a little more attention. Most feel like they have no power to change it. So, why pay attention. What do you think?

Maybe Us archaeologists and historians have some insights. Maybe we should stop teaching histor as a list of names and dates and teach is as a series of cautionary tales for us to apply to our lives. Historical perspective is a great thing.

[XemaSab]

132. Changing the status quo

My impression is that, historically, famines are caused by wars, disease, and environmental catastrophe. I'd say we're heading down that road. It would certainly make people work towards changing the status quo, but does it really raise the educational level of the society, or does it make people more amenable to dictatorship?

Mandatory voting might work if there was a "none of the above" option, but a fair argument can be made that not voting is a legitimate, if completely ineffectual, form of protest.

I don't know that forcing people who just don't care to pick a candidate will result in better (i.e. more progressive) representation. Australia's pretty conservative, no?

Also, where do you draw the line between powerlessness and complete apathy? My cousin said she wasn't voting because she didn't think it would matter at all, and that sounds like powerlessness, but feeling powerless to the point of being unwilling to make a token effort (which is what most people's political involvement is--10 minutes at the polls once every 4 years)?

[DistressedAmerican]

133. The mob's anger is hard to predict...

I'd say if it was clearly Bush to be blamed for the theoretical famine, he would be strung up in the streets. If a Bin Laden attack wiped out our food supply, it would certainly work for the fascists.

I am a big believer in a "none of the above" option. I have not voter several times as I really didn't feel good supporting either guy the parties shoved down my throat. I was a conscientious objector. I sure as hell would have showed up to vote No and demand a new slate of candidates. I think if anyone lost to None of the Above (or a dead opponent) they should be barred from future public office. Make it a risk for them to run. Most just go back to their earlier cushy jobs after the spanking. Where's the roll of the dice? What do they have to lose now?

As far as required balloting leading to a more progressive agenda, I don't argue that per se. In fact it was one of the first things noted in the post in question. Howard made it through despite his support for Bush. Just that it may give those people who completely ignore politics some motivation (admittedly not strong)to pay attention to the world around them.

[XemaSab]

134. The mob's anger may be hard to predict....

....but the lazy press is easy to predict. So are the Bush administration attempts to manipulate said lazy press.

I've read 1984. I know how it's done.

Any theoretical disaster at this point will be blamed on Emmanuel Goldstein/Osama bin Laden/random Arab insurgents. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? And how conventional wisdom said it was a bunch of Arabs?

Even if there was obviously no middle eastern involvement, they'd say this theoretical famine was because of the weak economy following the terrorist attacks and Fox News would report it as such and it would make people more angry with the Iraqis for attacking us on September 11th.

After the terrorist attacks I spent some time wondering if Osama is real. I've since concluded that he's probably real, and since he took credit for the attacks, it's probably not a government plot. But if he wasn't real, the government would have to invent him. The Americans would need a scapegoat.

(Come on, a filthy rich, freakishly tall Arab dude in a white gown who lives in a cave, has his own army, and "hates us for our freedom"? How comic book villain can you get?)

Back to the subject of elections, I really don't like Nader, and I don't agree with him that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, but it's clear that there is corporate control of both parties, and even the whole electoral process. The fact that republicans and democrats share similar post-election fates at think tanks, private practice, universities, and the lecture circuit really highlights this.

Also, the fact that candididates are best known through ads, either print, radio, or television? And that donor money goes toward making ads? Turning candidates into another product to be hawked between viagra and dow chemicals? Sort of commodifies the process, no?

Oh, not to mention the enormous corporate donations?

I'm actually thinking that the most needed change is to get rid of the corporate donations entirely. Well right up there with reform of the military-industrial-entertainment complex.

[DistressedAmerican]

135. You know people blame the media,

but, I blame the mindless fools that suck it up alongside their reality TV. Hey there's an idea for increasing voter turnout. Make the whole race a weekly reality show. If people get all worked up over who the hell got voted off of what ever the hell show they were on, they may actually care when good candidates are forced out. How much network news time goes to interviews of reality TV losers? Couldn't that time be better used talking to Mosley Braun or someone?

Seriously though, the media only feeds us what we collectively eat. Until the public demands better we will NEVER get it. Sadly they don;t realize how piss poor the coverage is because they have never experienced the opposite. If it was up to me all Americans would have to sit down and watch an hour of news on PBS (as log as they don't gut funding for that) and the Charlie Rose show. I learn far more from long interviews than I ever could checking out headlines.

Unfortunately you are probably right about our perception. People are always going to be far more ready to blame Bin Laden over Bush (not that they demand we get him).

As far as the money issue is concerned, I really think the only good way to deal with it is give everyone public financing at a set limit. Raise taxes (OH MY GOD!) if you need to cover the costs. End the non-stop whoring for cash. It really is the biggest problem we have. Unfortunate, what politician is going to vote away his war chest? Look at the resistance to McCaine-Feingold and it wasn't even that sweeping.

[XemaSab]

136. That's a classic idea

Did you see the video of the primaries they had on HBO? It was made by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, and it sort of took that premise.

It was short, but I'd be all about a weekly campaign reality TV show other than C-SPAN's "Road to the White House." I think it should be fairly invasive and have a really smarmy host. I think it should show the candidates as people instead of talking heads, and hey, if the people don't like a candidate because he eats doughnuts, or has a bitchy wife, or wears a cheap suit, so be it, that's what they already decide based on, but incidents like Teresa telling the photographer to "shove it" might actually be shown in context. If people are going to pick a candidate based on personality anyways, it may as well be something other than a pre-engineered photo-op or 2 lines from a speech. The press is there all the time when candidates are running in the primaries, and candidates can't be picture perfect all the time. It would be shallow, but it really can't be any worse than what we have now, and it might be better.

I think the 2008 election would be perfect, because there will be candidates from both parties running in the primaries. If they had a show like that, I might actually go buy a TV.

Public financing is long overdue, but it's like letting congressmen vote themselves raises. Hey, if I could vote myself a thousand bucks whenever I wanted I'd be a happy camper! These are the people who are the last people who are going to fix the system.

[DistressedAmerican]

137. What I want to see is the candidates

taking shit about people behind their backs. We needed crew for that final concession call Gore finally made to Bush. That really should have been documented for posterity.

The more I think about it, I doubt it would be any worse than what we have now. I'd like to see some nominees have to drink a pig testicle smoothies. That's make sure they were serious (or at least make then pay for their power fix). I expect regular coverage on a prime time network would boost interest.

I guess we could give them some time to talk about their ideas if they really want to. Most would avoid it though and play some filmed touch football.

It is one way to force media to cover it. They'd be competing with the network that got the show. Maybe they'd look a little harder into these guys looking for dirt to boost ratings.

[XemaSab]

138. *word*

At least we'd see all the warts before we got the nominee.

Every candidate in the last election had a good side, and a bad side, and I think we saw too much of some bad sides and too much of some good sides.

I'd bust out examples, but this has been such a friendly and jovial discussion for DU I don't want to harsh the mellow.

I did pick up from another thread that you're a Clark supporter, and that's a guy we really didn't see enough of. He should have gone to Iowa. There were already a LOT of candidates there, maybe too many, but it's too bad that he didn't get much attention... and other people got a little too much.

The Japanese have a saying: "Even Fuji-san looks ugly close up."

[youngred]

118. I think this is a great idea

New Hampshire and Iowa don't represent Democratic Politics. New York and California NEVER get a vote nor a visit and they guarantee Dem candidates nearly 1/3 of the votes needed to grab the Presidency.

[DistressedAmerican]

119. As a New Yorker,

I have seen this problem first hand. Maybe that's why it bothers me so much. Have you checked out the details in post #93? Any fine tuning you'd like to suggest?

[youngred]

120. I also am a New Yorker, and though I wanted to vote for DK

it didn't matter by the time I got there. Having spent a lot of time thinking about the electoral process I have come up with a bunch of ideas actually.

1) Eliminate the electoral college format as it currently stands. Replace it with a 1,000 vote system with each state being represented by population alone decided after each census. The sum total of a states electoral votes would then be divided according to the percentage that each candidate got. This system would allow for every state to be a swing state and force the candidates to look to every part of the country for their votes and mean that in every state your vote does indeed matter.

2) Instant Runoff Voting. You rank the candidates according to your preference. Should neither candidate get a clear majority drop the lowest scoring candidate and tally all their number two votes. This would allow for third or fourth party candidates to run and provide a voice for people who are left out of politics while not handing over the election to someone they dislike. Or a system where you get two points for your first place vote and one for your second and the total of points is counted

3) Uniform, touch screen voting machines, which print your ballot back to you and leave a printed record at the polling place for manual recounts

4)Make election day a national holiday and move it to a friday (we're not a nation of farmers anymore and tuesday voting makes no sense), allow for motor-voter registration and provisional ballots. Allow no-reason absentee voting.

5) public financing of campaigns. Force networks to carry a certain and equal amount of political advertising (they are the public's ariways after all). This will cut into the incumbancy advantage, cut a lot of the corruption out of politics and allow people to still stay informed. Public financing for parties would be recieved only after recieving 5% of the last presidential votes for first or second choices in the IRV style.

6) Change the primary system to 10 primaries every week, on one day, for 5 weeks, and the order of the states voting gets rotated every cycle. It's ridiculous to have Iowa and New Hamshire always be first and for many of the larger and more partisan states to be later in the schedule effectively leaving them without a voice in their candidate. Although part of me likes the idea of open primaries I wouldn't want it because it's too open to chicananery.

7) I would say make the parties take turns being first and last on their conventions and mandate that they be held within 2 weeks of each other and that they be in July, not August or September

8 ) Three debates every election cycle held in the last 4 weeks before the election. All major candidates should be included.

9) Using the same rationale as for lowering the voting age to 18, allow all people 14 to 16 to vote if they pass a civics exam, that can be taken in their first language. People 16 and older are free to vote without restrictions.

10)Congressional districts would be selected by a bipartisan panel chosen by state legislators. The House has gotten way too paritsan because of the choice of safe districts and gerrymandering.

11) End the practice of permanant purging of freed felons. If you've served your time, you've served your time and should be afforded all the rights of citizenship again.

[DistressedAmerican]

122. You've got some good ideas there..

A few comments:

1) I am a bit confused by the math on this one. Help me out. I like the idea of leveling out the states. It it clear that the electoral college is a total joke. It is a system implemented to keep the slave holding states from being voted out of having slaves. Why are we still paying for slavery? This amendment is long overdue. I would recommend scrapping it for a straight popular vote count. If we must have state delegates, we should apportion them based on the popular vote count rather than this winner takes all crap. That just guarantees that all votes for a non-first-place candidate are effectively thrown out. Scrap it or peg it to the popular voter!

2)Instant runoff voting is covered under our proposed ranked balloting. I think this is a great idea. Thinks outside of the box a bit.

3) Clearly a paper trail is needed for vote counting. I am not sure that printing a receipt can even be trusted. If they are stealing the election, it is being done with the software. I don't see why the programmers couldn't make it print one thing and tally another. I guess that's where the recount copy comes in. Hope the voter gets to see both copies. Personally this fetish for machine voting is the source of this problem. What is wrong with hand marking a paper ballot. May slow counting. But, if you can't trust the counts from machines, I'll wait.

4)Election day holiday is just common sense. Who would object to getting the day off. Hell it doesn't come around that often. The specific day matters less to me.

5) public financing is a must. I do not think a 5% cutoff is the way to go though. It blocks third parties and makes no provision for first time parties. You can't demand 5% in a previous election they didn't run in. I'd suggest that to qualify candidates have to collect a set number of signatures nationwide. Not unlike how you get on the ballot now.

6) I like the rotating states. I don't like the five staged primaries. We had cone up with two previously. 5 the first day everyone else three weeks later. Your suggestion still leaves states hosed in having a say, even if the recipient of the hosing changes each time.

7) I am less concerned with who goes first than I am that there are rules that as soon as your primary is held you can no longer spend primary funds. We should set a date beyond which no one can spend primary money and the first convention issue is largely neutralized. On the other hand I am certainly not opposed to rotating as well.

8)The debate suggestion is fine. Although, again the exclusion of third parties is an issue. I think the criteria for participation should be the same as qualification for public funds (see#5).

9 and 11)Both focus on increasing the voting pool. In general I agree with the concept. The felons suggestion I fully agree with. Both because they have paid their debt AND because the purging of felons has been used over and over to purge innocent people who's name if a 70% match (by Republican self admission) of a felons. However, I don't think I by lowering the voting age. I am a university prof and wonder if the kids I see there should even be allowed to vote. The vast majority are completely illeterate politically/ Testing to meet qualifications has too many problems. Cultural test bias and the fact that such test programs were used throughout the soputh to exclude black voters.

10)Gerrymandering is complete voodoo to me. Could someone fill me in on how redistricting works? It is a well known problem with the system. I just don't understand the current rules well enough to suggest changes.

Good suggestions all. Many apply to general election reforms, a topic I will start in earnest soon. If we keep working out the kinks and criticisms I think we can come up with a plan that is feasable. I think we are pretty close right now.

[greenohio]

121. Talk about front loading...but hey, Ohio would count then.

There will be no building of momentum. Fringe candidates will have no shot....not that they do now.

But all states "go first" and none of this stupid emphasis on the same two over and over.

Sounds alright with me. Probably won't happen. Even if it did, the losers would whine about how it was fixed anyway.

[Kitsune]

126. Why would they want to change a system they know they can manipulate?

A one-day primary wouldn't allow the DLC/DNC/whatever to dump hideous amounts of money into the ad market over months to completely torpedo up-and-comers who don't fit into their idea of the Democratic party.

[DistressedAmerican]

128. Yeah,

I guess that WOULD be a "problem" for McAuliff and the boys!