Posted on 09/29/2017 3:53:07 AM PDT by iowamark
Unless you are a political junkie, you may not know that something called the Unity Reform Commission has been meeting — yes, already — to write the rules for the 2020 Democratic presidential nominating process. It should surprise no one that the commission’s deliberations have been enmeshed in lingering bitterness over the party’s 2016 nomination contest, and shaped by premature views of what rules would benefit potential candidates for 2020. So let me offer an alternative approach: Let’s focus reforms on making the Democratic Party nomination process more democratic.
Even if you believe (as I do) that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 nomination fair and square — because more than 3.7 million more people voted for her than for Sen. Bernie Sanders, and not because the process was “rigged” by “DNC favoritism” — you have to acknowledge that the complexity of the process fuels criticism that it was constructed by insiders, to advantage insiders.
The Unity Reform Commission’s charter calls for a process that is “more accessible, transparent and inclusive,” but it is also filled with caveats. Halfhearted reforms would be a mistake. Instead, it’s time for an overhaul around a core principle: The nominee should be democratically chosen by the broadest possible cross section of voters who can help elect the Democratic candidate.
That means first abolishing caucuses and using only primaries to pick convention delegates. (One exception can be made for the iconic Iowa caucuses.)...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Obama used the caucus states to overcome HRC in 2008 and she did the same to Bernie Sanders in 2016.
“That means first abolishing caucuses and using only primaries to pick convention delegates. (One exception can be made for the iconic Iowa caucuses.) The selection of a nominee should not be limited to those voters able to attend a caucus...”
“Second, Democratic presidential primaries should not be limited to Democrats only. Independent voters not affiliated with any party should be allowed to vote. Only members of other political parties should be barred. (Allowing Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries could give rise to great mischief.) About half of the primaries and caucuses held by Democrats in 2016 were “closed,” meaning only registered Democrats could participate. What kind of message is sent to independents by a “not welcome” sign in the spring?”
“Finally, it is time for the “superdelegates” to lose their convention votes. Actual voters should pick Democrats’ next nominee, not current elected officials, retired officials or DNC members. These party leaders should come to the convention as nonvoting delegates.”
Wow, so they want to get rid of a system that got their own Candidates nominated? They aren’t making sense. If the will of the registered Democrats is to nominate a crazy nominee, there isn’t much that can be done about it. Likewise for the GOP.
No. It isn't really as historic as they make it sound, and it has long been abused. End it.
One person, one vote and get rid of super delegates. And closed primaries. What other rules are there to write?
They still refuse to get rid of super delegates. (Not yet sincere enough.)
This goes to the core of it all.
Even if you accept (as I do) that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 nomination fair and square
I seriously doubt that anyone believes that. They do accept it though. That is a different species of animal and more akin to the other creatures in the Democrat zoo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.