tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post4313092868482497938..comments2023-09-29T06:57:06.991-07:00Comments on Anglachel's Journal: Wonk the (Primary) VoteAnglachelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-19505618849380232962008-03-30T18:30:00.000-07:002008-03-30T18:30:00.000-07:00I like everything you've posted with the exception...I like everything you've posted with the exception of same day registration. Honestly, that's part of the problem we've had with Democrats for a Day. No, if someone wants to participate in the Democratic primary, registration 30 days before the said contest should be standard across all states. This would incentivize the state party structure to get that part taken care of and out of the way so that they could then focus on their GOTV to boost their delegate numbers in the last 30 days before their primary.clshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943195151495184787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-44839071046574365122008-03-29T08:44:00.000-07:002008-03-29T08:44:00.000-07:00I am wholeheartedly behind changing this crazy sys...I am wholeheartedly behind changing this crazy system. I have never understood how a few thousand peole in a caucus state can be allowed to skew the results.<BR/>Ditto for only allowing Dems to vote in Dem primaries. <BR/>Here in Pa it is closed and you have to make up your mind and declare a month ahead.Common Sense Gramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03813587199046323716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-90656192887849416442008-03-29T06:22:00.000-07:002008-03-29T06:22:00.000-07:00Could all of the states in a block vote on the sam...Could all of the states in a block vote on the same day? And what about all voting occuring on a Saturday or Sunday to allow for maximum turnout? (I'm sure that idea has already been discussed somewhere...just curious why we don't have week-end voting already.)Shainzonahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18219260005354359058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-36096107085083395282008-03-29T03:19:00.000-07:002008-03-29T03:19:00.000-07:00Cutepeachpanda - Good point. I, too, was disturbe...Cutepeachpanda - Good point. I, too, was disturbed by some of the trash comments. I have written the owner, lorratta99@yahoo.com with our concerns. Perhaps you and others might engage her/him?gendergappershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607028861861443195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-8890277671621284962008-03-29T02:38:00.000-07:002008-03-29T02:38:00.000-07:00genderpapers - The site is a great idea, but I won...genderpapers - The site is a great idea, but I wonder who started the site. There are some grammatical errors and they need to do a better job of moderating the comments. There are already bogus and inappropriate comments on there that need to be taken down. I hope the person running it does a good job of taking care of these minor issues. If not, I hope someone else starts a better site where people can go and post their decision to no longer support Obama. I know there must be quite a few of those people out there after the Wright controversy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-89298192606940995372008-03-29T02:07:00.000-07:002008-03-29T02:07:00.000-07:00Great idea, Cutepeachpanda - we all can and should...Great idea, Cutepeachpanda - we all can and should disseminate this -"I'm passing this site along to my friends and any other website willing to put this up.<BR/>http://www.itakebackmyvote.com/<BR/><BR/>I'll also add it to a letter to editor.<BR/><BR/>Anglachel,changes like you suggest are long overdue, especially to get rid of caucuses so everyone would be able to vote. Now how to get the media to be fair? Boycott their sponsors vociferously.gendergappershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607028861861443195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-84898579428405648092008-03-29T01:06:00.000-07:002008-03-29T01:06:00.000-07:00Even with these changes, how do we take care of th...Even with these changes, how do we take care of the media bias and the responsibility to vet each candidate fairly? I mean, most people only found out about Rev. Wright two weeks ago. I think every voter has the right to know as much about their candidate is possible. Most people obviously don't know half of what they need to know about Obama. Can you imagine if Obama's Rev. Wright connection was exposed after NH or SC? <BR/>Check this site out. It's for people who want to take their vote for Obama back. I'm sure there are thousands of people out there who wish they could do that right now. I feel bad for them. I know I'd feel betrayed if I voted for a candidate then found out he was associated with people like Rezco and Rev. Wright. I'm passing this site along to my friends and any other website willing to put this up.<BR/>http://www.itakebackmyvote.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-61575691410413532432008-03-29T00:24:00.000-07:002008-03-29T00:24:00.000-07:00Yab: I also think we need to get rid of caucuses c...Yab: <I>I also think we need to get rid of caucuses completely. They are just way too undemocratic.</I><BR/><BR/>Hi Yab. I think Anglachel's proposal gets rid of caucuses without getting rid of caucuses. That is, her proposal doesn't, in undemocratic imperial fashion, say that states *can't* have caucuses. Instead, it just builds in heavy incentives against them (i.e. taxes them to death).Chinaberry Turtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917878302338229102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-38100747047241028192008-03-29T00:16:00.000-07:002008-03-29T00:16:00.000-07:00Anglachel, I think this is a great idea. If I migh...Anglachel, I think this is a great idea. If I might, I would make one suggestion.<BR/><BR/>Small states might object to the small size of their maximum obtainable number of delegates. For example, if state X has 1,000,000 residents and 100,000 votes = 1 delegate (say), then even if everyone voted Democratic and everyone showed up to the polls, X would only be awarded 10 delegates.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps there should be "bonus" delegates awarded based on the percentage of participation. For example, if some threshold percentage of X's population comes out to vote in the Democratic primary, then X is awarded a bonus of, say, 10 extra delegates (or whatever) on top of the delegates they are awarded according to your description. This way, small states would have a bit more incentive to play the game with all the bigger states.<BR/><BR/>But I really think your idea would be a great improvement over the current system. I really hope Dean & Co. find their way to your blog at some point and seriously consider your proposed plan.<BR/><BR/>The only potential downside is that it might encourage the primary to actually go all the way to June 1. Since the total number of delegates is not known in advance, there is no 'a priori' magic number that is the threshold for victory. Basically, the front-runner would never know exactly how much of a front-runner he/she is, which could encourage the trailing candidates to keep going.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I call this a *potential* downside because I'm not convinced that a long primary season is necessarily a bad thing for the Democratic party. Probably is a bad thing when race-baiting and sexist slurs are cast by one candidate upon another, but if it was just an ordinary above-the-belt slug-fest (e.g. Dean v. Kerry last time around), it would probably be really good for the party.Chinaberry Turtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917878302338229102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-40499966845601905712008-03-29T00:15:00.000-07:002008-03-29T00:15:00.000-07:00Well thought-out. If I understand you correctly, ...Well thought-out. If I understand you correctly, there would be a primary contest every week or two, right? I think maybe two weeks should be the minimum - enough time to digest the results but not so long as to create a narrative.<BR/><BR/>I also think there needs to be a geographic component as well as equal numbers of electoral votes. This is purely to keep travel expenses for the candidates at a reasonable level (no having to fly coast-to-coast every other day). Remember, money will (generally) be less available early in the campaign.<BR/><BR/>I also think we need to get rid of caucuses completely. They are just way too undemocratic.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, it will take a DNC leader stronger than Dean to handle Iowa & New Hampshire. As far as I am concerned, the DNC could simply tell those two states that if they run a primary/caucus prior to Jan. 2 of the campaign year, their votes won't be counted. Yea, I know I want the Michigan & Florida votes to count, so this is inconsistent. But those two states have held power for way too long.<BR/><BR/>Or, alternatively, there is no reason why a state has to hold a primary on a Tuesday, right? So, the schedule could be worked out so that some other state would hold its primary the day after Iowa and the day after New Hampshire. That way, those two states could keep their cherished up-front status but it wouldn't matter because their influence would have been effectively destroyed.YABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00273753861194159127noreply@blogger.com