By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering.
Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management.
Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria.
From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward.
From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards.
Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (874) on March 7, 2008 at 7:29 PM in Current Affairs
I have a very simple question for your folks and look forward to your comments and analysis. Why is the nomination process so screwed up? Instead of requiring each state to hold a primary, the Democrats rely on a patchwork quilt of elections and caucuses. The caucus may make folks feel good, but it is a stupid unrepresentative system. It only allows people who do not have to work when it is held the chance to participate. By its very structure it is an undemocratic process.
And then there are the states that allow republicans and independents to participate. So count me unsympathetic to the bitching underway about what may happen to the Democrats if this messy process continues to the convention and there is a good old fashioned political brawl to sort out who will be the candidate. Maybe then folks will wake up and decide that a good old fashioned, straight up election open only to Democrats will be the ticket for selecting a candidate. I am up in the air on whether to allow a winner take all formula or proportional allocation of delegates. What do you think?
I think it is safe to say that charges of being undemocratic could be brought against virtually every layer of American politics today. Electoral college? Private money to pay for campaigns? Corporate media? Caucuses don’t surprise me at all when viewed through this lens.
Sometimes I am surprised that things aren’t MORE fucked up around here.
Thats because we are not a democracy. We are a federal republic which has democratic elections.
As far as the Dem party is concerned, the process is a large part of the problem but so is the fact the party has been coopted by far-left radicals and sociolists. I yearn for the days when the regular, mid-western style Democrats take back control of the party and throw the loons out. Both parties need to have dem and repub only primaries, not caucuses, but Iowa will NEVER allow that to happen.
I am in total agreement with you regarding the caucuses. It should be secret ballot and all day balloting plus absentee voting. The caucus setup leads to peer pressure and intimidation.
The proportional allocation is what has us in this situation where we still don’t have a clear winner. While it might be more fair, it does sustain the suspense of who the candidate will be when there is more than one highly favored candidate.
The party primary should allow only registered members of that party to vote. Too much opportunity for mischief if members of other parties can influence the outcome.
I agree with most of these points of CABlueMuse’s wholeheartedly. Well said. I lean towards proportional allocation of delegates, though; it is more accurate, and doesn’t allow votes in one state to outweigh those in another. If an election is close, then so be it–I would rather be in suspense than have a system that doesn’t reflect the will of the voters.
What’s wrong? I’ll give Dems a view from someone who’s not a party member on either side of the aisle.
1. No effective leadership. Screw Dean. If he was a corporate CEO, he’d been fired a long time ago, because if he doesn’t produce a profit, out the door he goes — if not from the investors, from the board itself!
2. Being victims and promoting victimhood. What was that famous photo of the DNC seal with a crybaby in the center meant? Ignoring the imagery doesn’t mean it’s ignored by the public.
3. Promoting Darwinism, yet the Democrat election process is more like Intelligent Design. Split delegates, so no one will feel “inferior”. In contrast, GOPers are mostly Darwinists — win and you get ALL of the delegates; lose, you’ll get none. It’s way McCain’s pre-emptive nomination is sealed way in advance.
4. Look at Daily Kos. Is that the face of the Democrat party? If it is, wonder why the public is scared of Leftists more than Hitler, and continue to REFUSE electing Dem presidents.
5. Double-standards. Claim XYZ is racist/sexist and wrong, yet practice racism and sexism in their campaigns.
6. Cannibalization. No other party eats it’s own young and old as thoroughly. The GOP doesn’t even have to do much work, as the “grassroots” for decades just kill and eat their babies after birth.
Those are the basic problems, that keep repeating year after year after each new “wave” of supporters. Denial won’t make them go away. Only looking at the problems and addressing them WILL.
I won’t argue that the super-delegates were a bad choice. Like the Electorial College (and three forms of government) each ensures stability in government. The same can be said of the super-delegates maintaining order, if and when the “grassroots” goes ape, again.
I like your analysis. Straight to the points. DEM primary and DEM Leadership need to be more decisive. It’s lacking. They are wasting time bickering among themselves.
Not much different from what I said three years ago…
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/2/26/91237/8137/256#c256
Traditional conservatives are suppose to remind those across the aisle of the wisdom to not repeat mistakes and all, but never thought it was to save Dems from themselves!
Larry:
I think that the current system makes the Democratic Party look like naive rubes.
Donna Brazile (that oh-so-successful political strategist and campaign manager) seems to think that we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy to try and make the Democratic Party competitive in parts of the country it has written off, was a good one. But not if it means 50 different methods of voting for candidates in a primary.
Barack Obama has one primarily in states that held un-Democratic caucuses. Hillary Clinton one in big-state (delegate rich) primaries. Obama won in states that the Democratic Party will not carry in the general election and yet those wins are what the Obamabots site to as his “winning cross-over” appeal. Well, I think we all know who has been crossing over to vote for Obama in this primary season, and why. We also know that in primaries that are not closed to only registered Democrats, the argument that Democrats are deciding who their party nominee should be is a falsity.
Therefore, there needs to be one “uniform” primary method that is closed to all but registered Democrats. I have less of an issue with distributing the delegate votes proportionally than I do who is participating and what method that participation takes.
I meant won [correction]
I dont even pay attention to that “democratic leader crew,” I have written them off, they’re so useless. Really useless.
And for them to be played like this, by the republicans, after how many years of political warfare, eschewing Clinton for Obama, knowing or ignoring Obama’s toxicity, his connection to Daley, and Auchi, Rezko, it’s no wonder the democrats never win. The republicans did nothing different this time, they set Obama up as the perfect candidate, (just like they did Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale), even voting for him in the primary, and then chewed it down, and the kos types took the bait, again, and here we are, looking at rezko, and whatever else is in the closet, ready to DESTROY Obama, politically..
So, I focus on Bill, and Hillary, and their crew, because they can win, and I do believe they try to govern with the American people in mind, they understand how all the parts fit, and work together, to keep the country strategically sound.
And there seems to be this disconnect between people who can win, the Clintons, and those who can’t, (the republicans, and their flip side, the Kos what? They certainly aren’t democrats). Why?
(The republicans can’t win the greater strategic wars, world wide, once they lose control of an obsequious and limp press. An adveserial, intelligent press does everyone good, it keeps the country politically fit).
The Clintons win, do people think this is an accident?
And I guess this means they’ll get rid of Howard Dean. They need to bring in someone who understands the republican strategy, as there appears to be only one, someone who can counter the republicans while redefining the democratic party, the wet toast like Pelosi, and Reid, and the rest have to go. As does the systemic corruption.
It does seem like a lot of Obama backers are Dems who recently lost or are outsiders: Dascle, Kerry, (Dean?), Brazille, Bradley. Like they’re trying to win a battle they lost.
Very well said. Get rid of Dean, get rid of Donna “Obama” Brazille. I’ve never figured out why Democrats are so against the Clintons when they are the only proven winners against the Republican machine but maybe’s that’s why I’m a moderate independent now.
Yet it’s also a two-edged sword, because Dems can do the same and throw GOP elections.
I like open primaries, as I can vote one way to nominate, and not be held to it in the GE (especially if horrid news was discovered about a candidate since my state’s primary).
Would you prefer to be STUCK with BushIII with a D beside his name, just so you can be party loyal?
Furthermore, each party wants to attract new votes (and know most voters aren’t party members). The only way to do so IS to have open primaries. If I had to register for a party just to chose a nominee, I simply won’t vote at all.
Closed elections deny voters a choice, and their own beliefs, which is often at odds with party platforms (or at least planks in the platform).
I think the best way to attract new voters is for the party base to nominate the best candidate available who fairly represents what that party stands for, then get out and persuade people that is the best person to vote for in the general (yes, I am possibly naive). I fail to see how letting republicans have a hand in selecting our nominee advances our party in any way; and as long as we have open primaries there is no way to stop this.
What stops the Dems from doing the same, again????
Open primaries are very fair. Either side can throw it, at any time.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
I wouldn’t vote in a republican primary in an attempt to determine their nominee, but I’m not concerned if someone else does — I just don’t care — it’s up to the republicans to police their own selection process.
I do care, however, when they are able to game the system by voting in our primaries to try and make sure that the weakest candidate is selected for them to run against.
What about foreign agents trying to throw an American election?
That is very real, particularly in this day of lobbyist influence. It isn’t just Pritzker and Obama, say, it is also China and Obama.
So, how do we guard against this larger problem?
Already done. Ask dual-citizenship Israelis about it………………….
But Dems can do the same. Nothing preventing you in doing the same tactic.
Politics IS a dirty business of manipulating 100001 things to get a win (or make political sausage). If it’s voting for a rival to oust your prime target, so be it. It’s a l-o-n-g time honored tradition.
Politics is no different than a football game. Each with a playbook that is used to undermine their opponent. Intercepting the ball, and a 99 yard touch down, is just icing on the cake.
Elections aren’t for cheating, the integrity of the process should be honored, the idea an election should be gamed, like the house in Vegas, is revolting. Personally, I don’t want Rove’s candidate in there, I want the most qualified to govern America, not putting forward a specific agenda, no more CEO candidates, government is not a business, (though it conducts business). The last thing we need is another puppet, ala Bush, or Obama, or even Cheney.
Karl Rove and the republican party cheat, I’ve seen less examples of democrats throwing elections the way the republicans did in Ohio, say.
Every voter should be fairly represented, anything else is simply a coup.
Those don’t work.
Been happening since the dawn of man, and will continue until man no longer exists. Denying politics for what it really is (not some ideal that can never be achieved), is a fools errand.
Politics, in itself, is a chess game. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Republicans are voting in the Dem primaries for a variety of reason that don’t apply to Democrats in these same primaries. We’re trying to pick our nominee; they already have one. If Dems vote in the Republican primaries, that means we can’t vote in ours. See the problem?
I’ve seen three reasons why Republicans are voting in the Dem primaries:
1. Some Republicans really are disgusted with their choices in their own party and actually hope Obama will make a real change in the direction of our politics. They will vote for Obama in the general election if he is nominated. They are unlikely to vote for Clinton, however.
2. Some Republicans are resigned to the idea that a Democrat will be elected no matter what they do, and are hoping that Democrat will be Obama because they can’t stand the idea of Hillary. They will vote for the Republican in the general election no matter who the nominee is, but they expect to lose and figure Obama won’t be as bad as Hillary.
3. Some Republicans believe in the Limbaugh theory that Obama can beat McCain but Hillary can’t, so if she is the nominee, they won’t have to worry about losing. We already know how they will vote in the general.
Only the votes of the first group should interest us, and if they want to vote in a Democratic primary, they ought to be forced to change their party affiliation. No one but Democrats should be allowed to decide who the Democratic nominee will be.
I agree with Eurogirl70–require everyone to use the closed primary method of selection. I too have no problem with proportional award of delegate votes, but do it fairly so that insofar as possible no one’s vote counts more than anyone else’s. And why should the national party tell a state when to have their primary? Set time parameters for the elections, let the states decide when to have them and have the national organization only interfere if needed to ensure a fair and honest election is held.
Absolutely no clue how this mess came to be. The caucuses might be held in states that don’t want to pay for an election. Arn’t some of them run by the local party not the state?
And many of them are not even proportional. Areas in which there are few Democrats can get additional delegates as part of ‘party building’, in some states.
The whole mess need an overhaul, with NH and IA no longer automatic firsts.
I blame Howard Dean. Nancy Pelosi showed more leadership today than Dean has. He needs to step in and referee.
He also implemented 50-state strategy to build the party, then screwed up with Florida and Michigan.
As far as caucuses, those have been in place for years and clearly need to be rethought.
I’ve been reading, though, he is surreptiously supporting Obama, and not allowing the FL and MI delegates hurts Clinton.
This is wrong, though I don’t think it was Dean’s intention.
But it is a mess, he mishandled it, and it goes to his skill, and leadership, ultimately.
And I really admired Dean.
Gosh, isnt there one Senator or Rep. who really gets it, does right by the country?
Not since Dale Bumpers retired.
Bumpers was leapfrogged by Bill Clinton. Great man who should have been able to run for highest office.
Possibly, but President Bumpers?
Yes, how awful it would be to have a President named Bumpers. When Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court, Senator Bumpers announced at the outset he would not vote to confirm. Because of his willingness to make a decision, he didn’t have to sit around dithering after the sexual harassment issue arose about whether it was better for his career to piss off women or piss off AAs, which is pretty much where we are now — all our fearless leaders trying to deal with this mess in the way least harmful to their own sorry hides, which has in turn just made both sides believe (correctly) the system is unfair.
That is precious.
A Bumper bumper-sticker.
Alas, the missed opportunities……..
When you want to visit Mr. Bumpers Skeletons Call me I have cleaned a few closets and Liked him but hey I liked Wilbur Mills too.
I think this is just a part of who Dems are. The salient argument in favor of a caucus is that it forces people to make public statements about their support, and favors those passionate enough to show up. That’s a thought process that appeals to activists and partisans.
The salient argument in favor of open party primaries is that you can “get a candidate who appeals to more voters”, something that appeals to those Dems who think running toward the mythic center is the formula to win elections.
Both mindsets are rather silly and lead to a compromised process, but the folks who support this are so in love with their own ideas on the subject I think that’s why the party has just allowed the system to remain as-is for so long.
I think Caucuses are an awful idea. No absentee voting, military members can’t vote. How democratic, you can go die for this country, but you can’t vote in a primary? Lots of working folks may not be able to go, hospital, police, retail, parents with small children, parents without sitters, etc., etc.
It also appears from the problems that I have seen posted in various people that “mischief” might be easier to achieve in a caucus.
I am personally a fairly private person and I can envision a time when I might not want everyone in my precint knowing who I voted for.
Personally I like the private vote. Caucuses suck, at first I found the idea interesting, but like many things on closer examination, not a very democratic thing to do.
Caucuses are a bad idea and someone is always shortchanged. Democrats are not organized correctly as a party. Divisive. Pockets of power and infighting, and not as smooth at running their party as GOP is. Dean has acted like an idiot, and the party will run off the cliff if they disenfranchise Mich or Fla.
Obama is clearly being favored by biggies in party and the whole process stinks. We are back to losing again as if there is a floor fight, or Obamites [as promised] rebel and threaten, etc to desert party, it’s all over.
Kennedy and Kerry have been had, but they’re not the smartest guys on on the block.
DNC and DLC are at odds, and Obama will bring the party down, unless the elders come to their senses, if they have any left.
I will answer your first question posed, What’s wrong with the Democratic Party?
It’s full of Democrats. Pound for pound, the Republicans are smarter and can outthink the Democrats because of the brilliant amount of organizing they have done sine the Powell Memo came out. They have a machine which Senator Bradley described as a pyramid: The base is made up of funding organizations an fat cats; Layer two is made up of think tanks and university chairs that the base has bought; Layer three is made up of paid political operatives and party superstructure which support……;Layer three, the candidate.
Bradley said that the Democrats use a pyramid structure as well except the entire pyramid rests upon one charismatic candidate. They are forever looking for JFK. That said, Bradley turned around and supported the charismatic candidate, Obama. Go Figure.
Item two: I support a national primary election with winner take all. That is the simple part.
The thornier issue is with choosing candidates to run.
Let me add to that national primary the stipulation that it and the general election BE HELD ON THE WEEKEND.
Couldn’t agree more. I’d personally like to see also that voting be compulsory for over 18 as in Australia. Couldn’t elect much worse than in 2000 and 2004 here…
I’m against compulsory voting. If someone is not smart enough or just enough of a good citizen to inform themselves about the issues and what each candidate stands for, I sure don’t want them in the booth picking at random. You’re probably right about “couldn’t elect much worse,” but I don’t want to put it to the test.
I have mixed feelings about it myself, I guess I’m being optimistic and thinking that people would inform themselves a little better if they had to vote. Probably a fairly naive viewpoint admittedly though.
MessyMarcy:
I don’t think that is a valid argument. Although I have heard it before.
The assumption that all the population that don’t vote is ignorant is just not true.
And lots of people vote in the GE aren’t really informed. You would be surprised ! Many don’t know much at all anyway.
Percentage-wise wouldn’t worse I think.
This would only be for the GE and the way is now. The problem I see with the current system is that elections are decisded by few, most of whom have some agenda in mind. But it affects all. Many people that don’t vote are not ignorant or not informed; they just think their vote won’t make a difference. Mandatory voting would rid of that.
What makes Australian elections work properly is the preferential ballot. You put a “1″ next to the best candidate, a “2″ next to the second best, etc. This gives minor parties a chance without splitting the vote. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a whole heap better than US elections.
It would be simple for the DNC to simply make a ‘rule’ that if you don’t have a primary, you don’t get delegates.
It would also be simple to require a person fill out a voter registration form when they register for selective service. Then mail out ballots to all registered voters and have them dropped off. (I live in CA, we love absentee balloting.)
There are many simple solutions but that would make it easier for citizens to participate and be informed. It seems that what is wrong is they don’t want participation. It must be just me…. they piss us off hoping we will go away and leave them alone?
The GOP is run like the military. It works because the ideology of conservatives is to obey leaders. Flare ups are fixed inhouse, sometimes with some understanding; other times sending radicals to the brig.
When the Anti-Gay Marriage agenda was promoted, the GOP cared nothing about the Log Cabin Republicans (the gay wing), and pushed it right over them. The LCP protested, but it never came to fisticuffs.
The Dems don’t have that type of guts. Their idea of “unity” is literally push their rivals out of the party (1980 anyone?). If you don’t walk THEIR walk, you’re kicked out like a leper.
Want a true base of voters that isn’t one demographic (Far Left flaming liberals that the country is revolted against)? You have to be a tad more friendly. Agree to disagree, but work together. Doesn’t mean you’ll like the other wings (ask Traditionals what they t-r-u-l-y think of Neo-Cons, for example), but you deal with them because they have SOME values you share.
Not this NO COMPROMISES mindset. NOTHING gets done in Washington from strict pole politicking. You’ll alienated everyone, and get a congress we have today — DO NOTHINGS!
Oh, thanks.
Next time I’m looking at Iraq, and Afghanistan, I’ll remember what you said about “republican brilliance,” or more accurately, republican self delusion.
You’re kidding, the republicans have had the advantage of an obsequies press, forty years of tearing down the safeguards that have kept this democracy balanced, via corporate press consolidation. Then they rammed a load of BS down American throats, straight out of the propaganda handbook 101, via Reagan, and fucked up everything that made this country strategically superior, because they are ignorant of the reasoning behind those decisions. They are stupid, and we’re seeing that now in both are foreign and domestic policy. They win elections by cheating. That is not indicative of great organization, or intellectual brilliance.
But in a real contest, where they have to compete, and think?
Well, look around Jim.
They suck.
The Clintons, even with a hateful adversarial press, can kick republican butt, to the curb and back.
So, be realistic, there’s a big world out there, I mean, why did no other administration BOMB the middle east, a bleeding heart?
No, superior tested war strategy said to do so was to lose.
And the one group to do it, the republicans, can’t get out now, it’s so fucked up, they got trolled, are being trolled, by the world…
“Next time I’m looking at Iraq, and Afghanistan, I’ll remember what you said about “republican brilliance,” or more accurately, republican self delusion.”
Think more.
Write less.
The Republican party got Bush elected twice and all you could do was yell at the TV screen.
Get it?
Let me get this straight… a pryamid with Layer One, Layer Two, Layer Three and another Layer Three. Hmmm.
I’m glad you can outthink the Democrats because you seem to be having trouble counting to four.
A cocker spaniel can outthink the Democrats.
Anyone can make a typo.
Fuck off
You should try that other blog: nothirdusa.net
Oh, yeah and being rude won’t bring back your self respect after a flub like that.
You cannot be rude enough to network wankers.
Fuck off.
That is why I like the idea of a double elimination system winnowing down to 3 canidates in first elimination say by the first 20 smallest states using the automatic recall approach followed by a second national primary in the remaining states same automatic recall system, voters list prefered danidates in order of preference best combined score wins.
Scott
Simple answer is caucus’s DNP pay for, Primary’s the states pay for!
The arrogance of the DNP to strip delegates to a State as Florida that is Republican controlled because they set a date which did not conform to the DNP demands is rediculous for two reasons:
Florida tax payers footed the bill for the Primary there!
A Republican Governor is going to follow their decided date, not the DNP’s schedule, after all Florida is paying for it!
Florida is not going to hold two Primary’s because of DNP rules, and foot double billings!
Florida did not follow the GOP demanded dates either and the GOP simply cut the number of delegates, they didn’t arrogantly strip Florida’s voice like the DNP did!
Caucus’s use to do alot in politics, that luster is gone now, no one needs to be told where candidates stand now, that was for days when meida wasn’t so far reaching as today!
Ot a tad, do not forget, Sen Obama managed to sneak advertising into Mich and Florida through cable news advertising, so his statements of not campaigning there is bogus and still he lost by double didget numbers!
Opps as for delegate of winner take all vs proportioned, is simple, Proportioned is the fair way, thus major States won’t be the entire focus of campaigns and forces candidates to fight for every delegate!
This from St. Petersburg Times:
“The danger is, based on the general maturity level of the national party, they are more interested in protecting their authority than winning the election. They may not care,” said state Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller.
Gee, Honey…do ya THINK so?
Hmmmm, punish Florida and Florida could punish the Dems where it hurts…
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/03/seat-delegates.html
Come to think about it, all 50 states and commonwealths need to do just this — as no voter should be shut out of voting.
Want to punish a state for being rogue? Throw out the state’s DNC leaders, as THEY pushed the idea along, or powerless to stop the insanity of their “grassroots” when they become a mob.
I agree Larry..This issue should be examined and Resolved in order for Our Election process to be working in a Fair Way and insure that evryones VOTE Counts..as Intended for Our demcracy..
Here..The State spent 10,milliuon for a Primary conducted mostly with mail in Ballots..
You had to Mark your Ballot as either a democrat or republican..NO OLptions for Independants at all…which Created Anger and Resentment…Many Voters ..25%..did not mark thier ballots and those werte Declared Invalid and thrown Out.. The Primary was only foe Popular Votes and did not count toward Delegates..
We then had a District Caucus’s..Which was the only place where DELEGATES were assigned..and had to go through an extensive process to find out where each Districts Caucus was being held..Mine was in the High School Library ..Third floor..limited Seating..and it was so packed ..people were out in nthe hall..and people actually left because of crowding and confusion..
This whole process..with the wasted Primary..which cost Taxpayers 10 million dollars…Then a District Caucus for delegates..really irritated and Angered lots of citizens..and seems unfair..
I think they should have just had a Primary..evryones name on the ballot…with room for a Write In.. and a spot for Independant Voters.. That would be the Most represenative system where everyones vote counts..
Then it should be WINNER takes All..Then County and State Conventions to pick Delegates..
That would be the Most Fair Process ..so We..The People..Get away from all of the Manipulations that have been built into Our Electorial System over several decades..
i agree that there should be consistency. the whole - let each state decide crap and then a dictated order of when. i say we have one national primary day. people can change parties that day but if they do registration stays in new party in november. so you have to think long and hard. i think there should be a designated start date and a designated end date for the primary. so lets say candidates can announce only on one day. there is like 2 months of campaigning - then one primary day. total state delegates are determined by percentage of total state popular vote… so in a 60/40 split delegates are 60/40. no such things as SDs.
there. done :}
I’d prefer a pick a candidate primary day (to at least weed 8 candidates down to 2 to 3). A mid-primary check in vote day (for “buyer remorse” voters, and those who are just turning 18 so they can vote — why punish mid-year born teenagers their right to vote?). Then the GE (again so those born later in the year can vote).
BTW, there’s independents for a reason, and it’s very unfair to deny them their RIGHT to vote, and force them to pick a party they refuse to join in the first place TO VOTE.
No one is denying an Independent his or her right to vote — that is simply a consequence of their choice to be an Independent. And no more declaring on the day of the election. I’m sick of these Democrats for a day.
Maybe for the primary we could do like some countries that have lst and 2nd choices. And I like the idea someone had of having the elections on weekends.
That argument doesn’t float, in a TWO PARTY system. There aren’t choices that COUNT to win.
So independents pick what’s the best out of the lot, but they won’t subscribe to the inane partisanship.
And, honey, you won’t win ANY election without those independent and cross-over votes now. Elections are too close, because voters don’t see much differences in ANY candidate.
Chrissy, my name’s not honey. Independents make the choice not to be a member of a party. No one denies them anything. If they want to participate in selecting a nominee, all they have to do is register appropriately. Otherwise, they must just be content with selecting from among what is available in November. If they can’t tell any difference between candidates like Gore and Bush, they should feel free to stay home with my complete approval.
I have no problem not participating in the nomination process since I’m an independent. Because in the end, we all get to eat out of the same crappy bowl. And that’s as American as a cold beer on a sunny afternoon.
Election ‘08: Equality in a crappy bowl.
Okay, you got me there.
There wasn’t much difference between the two. Both are party hacks. I don’t believe you understand why the MAJORITY aren’t party members! lololol
And if independents did sit out, honey, Dems will only have had about, maybe at most, 8 presidents in 100 years.
Like that?
It’s no wonder why Dems continue to lose elections.
Ross Perot suggested that there be a news blackout on elections returns befinning on friday with voting allowed both saturday and sunday returns anounced on tuesday with finallity. The idea was to keep AK, HI, American Samoa etc. from being asked to vote when the decision had already been made.
It has merrit mostly I get very tierd of Iowa deciding who I get to have on my ballot. The whole of New Hampshire can burn for all I care!
Scott
ChrisXP,
Can you write a diary sometime about why Independents (like you) will and are voting for Hillary? I think this electability thing is really fooling people into voting for Obama.
I am a registered Republican that is voting for Hillary. I becamd a Democrat for a day to do so. The only reason that I am registered as Republican is that the votes that matter here (School Board, City, Burough, State,) are descided in the Republican Primary. So my wife is regietered as Dem. and I as Rep. so that we at least get some say in local politics.
I would love to see the whole party system die and open up the possibilities for the best possible people to win.
I just like how they do it in GA. One ballot, you pick, and no other fuss.
Hard enough for the poll workers to ensure residents can vote in what precinct, as it is.
I can’t remove my Traditional conservative ideology (and I’m not going to pull an O-Bomba and be a faker), which can irate partisans to no end. Thus, I stick to replying to posts on party sites, and try to state to folks (like here) how conservatives can view things, to help (as you need to know who you’re facing, without the partisan bias getting in the way).
I see w-a-y too much stuff from Dems that are flat out wrong about Republicans let alone conservatives, which hurts more than help. Dems r-e-a-l-l-y need to understand the differences, or you’ll never appeal to the masses, which ARE more conservative than liberal. Too many of you live in liberal enclaves, and think the world has the same values, but it doesn’t. A wake up call is needed, as the balance of government isn’t in place, and it can’t be replaced with extremists (nothing will get done, but gridlock).
Balance is what’s needed, which is the basic reason I’m voting for Hillary. She’s NOT my first choice, but she won’t destroy the government or engage in Constitutional destruction. Compare to McInsane, it’s a sanity check, too.
Who invented these caucuses? I’m trained as a classicist and in Athens (founding of democracy and all) the citizens voted by secret ballot (okay, they used stones but at least they didn’t get lost or torn).
I teach in Boulder and live in Denver and in order to make to my caucus, I ended classes early, drove like a bat out of hell, parked illegally, risked my life on the icy sidewalks (I use a cane) and was finally escorted into a tiny 5th grade classroom, filled with radiant, white upper-middle class Obama supporters, holding their young children up high to witness the historical event.
The Obama precinct captain hijacked the meeting, intent to convert the handful of us who were there to caucus for Hillary. It was the least democratic event I’ve ever participated in (excepting university politics).
I’ve been a Democrat all my life and suddenly I don’t recognize the party. Or maybe it’s been a slow evolution. I feel like a hawk compared to these sappy progressives who want to make clover chains with the jihadists.
I think people should have to pass an exam on current events and when they do, they can vote in primaries.
Winner take all seems fair, but only if everything leading up to it is fair, and that’s the big problem.
“It was the least democratic event I’ve ever participated in (excepting university politics).”
LOL,you got that right.
Now conservatives would actually endorse such an idea if it meant learning Civics 101 (not current events). But then again, we’re the “Darwinists”, who prefer such rigid testing Liberals tend to consider “racist”. Just look at the mess with SAT tests alone. Dumb it down so everyone doesn’t have to feel “inferior” if their scores are lower than “white males”. And let’s not get into AA (you know Affirmative Action).
It’s pretty disingenuous to compare that to these other items, or even results from the background.
Poverty is the no.1 item related to a lot of society’s worst ills, there’s a causative and correlative association.
The Reagan era destroyed education best it could. “Facts are stupid things.”
And it’s NOT cured with handouts.
It was on a decline long before Reagan was in office. I sure remember how terrible the school system was in the 70s. They were h-e-a-v-y in social promotion. then. Known folks who couldn’t even READ get their high school diploma!!
When they first implimented standardized testing in my state in 1981, I scored in the top 20% of the state. I slept through much of school and never even took algebra (bored to tears, despite my IQ is close to 140). My tech relative (who’s Mensa qualified even), just dropped out of school altogether in the 70s. He got tired of teaching the teachers their own lessons (he read comic books in class as relief from boredom). He went ahead and took the GED, and blew some national scholastic records in the process.
Both of us learned not by the help of the helpless teachers we had, but because we were w-e-l-l read. I was reading junior high level books in 3rd grade, for example. Why? Because from 7 years-old I read Websters unabridged dictionaries (a big fat leather bound 2 volume set from the 50s) and the Encyclopedia Britannica (that my working-class dad bought that cost a fortune) as a hobby, while girls were playing with dolls and boys with Match Box cars!!
So please, don’t tell me Reagan destroyed the school system. It was gone from the 70s onwards. Those who did well took the initiative, and didn’t accept “we’re all equals”, nor just accepted dumbed down education as “kewl”.
SO with you here:
and I blame growing income inequality and the insular lives certain people lead.
“The Obama precinct captain hijacked the meeting, intent to convert the handful of us who were there to caucus for Hillary. It was the least democratic event I’ve ever participated in (excepting university politics). “
There is a riveting portion of Before The Storm where Perlstein describes the political education of Clif White, the man who engineered the Draft Goldwater movement. He copied the tactics that the communists used against him in the garment unions in 1930’s New York. Not only did he copy them but he trained ALL the precinct workers. And in secret for one full year before Goldwater declared.
Betcha that the Chicago Machine did the same for Obama. Kids that light in the britches don’t become juggernauts overnight.