2016 Postmortem

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)

69. I think that has less to do with party membership

Wed Mar 23, 2016, 10:27 PM

Mar 2016

and more to do with apathy, lack of access to the polls, disenfranchisement, or not understanding the importance of it.

It's typically politically toxic to say, but there's simply a certain number of Americans who just won't vote because they don't care and they don't want to, and no amount of voter outreach is going to change that. There's also a large number of people who will vote simply because of celebrity or novelty, and as we've seen with Trump, that's neither sustainable nor healthy for a democracy.

There really needs to be a massive overhaul of the election system. The district system needs to be abolished. Seats in Congress should be allocated proportionally based on a party's returns in the national vote, and primaries should be held after the general to let people vote based on issues and not personality.

I wouldn't say it's fundamentally broken, but it's been weakened.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Poll: Are open presidential primaries more democratic? [View all] blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 OP

Democrats should decide Democratic nominee.. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #1

That wasn't the question. morningfog Mar 2016 #3

I already voted. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #8

And that wasn't the question either. morningfog Mar 2016 #9

Im unorthodox. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #14

Again, not the question. morningfog Mar 2016 #20

your queation is a push poll and doesn't deserve any relply upaloopa Mar 2016 #41

It's not my question. morningfog Mar 2016 #57

I Agree-If They Want to Run Against Democrats Let Them Start a 3rd Party Stallion Mar 2016 #10

absolutely - register for the party if you want to vote for the party's nominee DrDan Mar 2016 #110

Allowing People To Vote As They See Fit Optimizes The Quality of The General Election Candidates CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #118

Yes, by definition, they are. morningfog Mar 2016 #2

Bingo. I think you have diagnosed poster #1 accurately. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #4

But teabagging the polls is undemocratic. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #12

Teabagging the polls....what does that mean? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #16

Like Republicans crossing party lines to exploit the turnout. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #19

Couldn't you argue the opposite? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #25

So we'll be all choosing from the bottom of the barrel? JaneyVee Mar 2016 #30

or they cancel eath other out....and we're left with our current system... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #75

However one votes, for whatever reason is an act of democracy. morningfog Mar 2016 #17

They can do that in the general election. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #24

"allegedly rampant"....it sounds like fear is controlling your opinion? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #26

Republicans cant be trusted. See: Arizona 2016 JaneyVee Mar 2016 #33

Normally we run Dems against Dems. But this year and independent puts on a Dem hat and calls all upaloopa Mar 2016 #47

How dare a candidate bring independent voters into the Democrstic party! morningfog Mar 2016 #62

If you want to register to vote in a closed primary you can it is simple just follow the rules upaloopa Mar 2016 #68

I never said otherwise. This thread is about whether morningfog Mar 2016 #72

Yeah, but more democratic isn't necessarily better in a party primary. Orsino Mar 2016 #97

No. Dawson Leery Mar 2016 #5

If you're going to comment, don't just echo your vote please nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #11

Primaries aren't really about "democracy", per se. Codeine Mar 2016 #6

THIS ^^^^ eom radical noodle Mar 2016 #40

"Joe Dipshit"...refrain from the name calling, thank you. nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #42

Joe's cool. We go way back. Codeine Mar 2016 #46

The 2 big political parties have an institutional monopoly on the political process. Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #76

I don't really buy the notion of "independents". Codeine Mar 2016 #83

I changed my registration from Dem to independent because we got a new boss at work and he hated Dem Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #84

YEP!!!!! bravenak Mar 2016 #80

This is the correct answer. And I say fuck Joe Dipshit. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #109

I think all democratic primaries should be closed... BooScout Mar 2016 #7

What if only registered independents could? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #13

Nope... BooScout Mar 2016 #35

Who was she and who replaced her? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #45

That wasn't the question. morningfog Mar 2016 #18

Open primaries are more democratic hellofromreddit Mar 2016 #15

All They Would Have to Do is Register as a Democrat Stallion Mar 2016 #21

The party left me - I didn't leave the party FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #31

Neither the World Nor the Democratic Party Revolves Around You Stallion Mar 2016 #38

The curse of our Two-Party system beating down any independent candidate... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #49

They will not win with out independents FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #56

Many thousands of voters have been turned away from the polls due to clerical errors. hellofromreddit Mar 2016 #37

In NY, that would have been the first Friday in October of last year, in order to vote in the Karma13612 Mar 2016 #58

how about caucuses JI7 Mar 2016 #22

That's all a whole different story, the coin tosses in IOWA, for another poll nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #28

Yes, they are, absolutely. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #23

Exactly! nt redwitch Mar 2016 #34

What would that restriction look like? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #51

Voting records. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #59

So perhaps a waiting period if you voted for a party and switched next election nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #73

That isn't what I was suggesting. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #91

For primaries in MO (presidential and state offices), you get a republican or Democratic ballot loyalsister Mar 2016 #104

Yes, I agree, that's a good idea. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #111

Geez ... another No Shit Sherlock moment FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #27

The vote doesn't look that way.....nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #32

I voted no radical noodle Mar 2016 #29

What if that someone doesn't want to screw around with the election? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #36

There's no way to weed out those who do from those who don't radical noodle Mar 2016 #44

Alaska also has a closed caucus, Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #43

Are you aware that in Karma13612 Mar 2016 #50

Any new yorkers here to weigh in? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #52

Former New Yorker here. I weighed in against the New York rule -- see post #99. Jim Lane Mar 2016 #100

As far as I'm concerned, this is a Party issue radical noodle Mar 2016 #64

They do a few things nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #39

They're not supposed to be. NuclearDem Mar 2016 #48

Precisely. Codeine Mar 2016 #55

Exactly. Primaries are one of the privileges of membership. NuclearDem Mar 2016 #61

They best start doing that ASAP, hopefully Clinton (if she wins) will reach out effectively nt. blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #65

From a simple google search.... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #60

I think that has less to do with party membership NuclearDem Mar 2016 #69

This message was self-deleted by its author imari362 Mar 2016 #53

I voted "pass" Dem2 Mar 2016 #54

When do they have to decide which side? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #63

At the polling station Dem2 Mar 2016 #66

That exactly what I envision to be an open primary...nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #67

Some states allow party crossover Dem2 Mar 2016 #81

I'm confused... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #87

IF they are a registered independant Dem2 Mar 2016 #93

I'm registered independent Hydra Mar 2016 #70

We have a similar system in CA..."modified closed primary" nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #71

Democracy means you can start a party and run it how you want, if you don't like how others do. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #74

Though it has largely always been two-party system... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #77

It doesn't have to be a 2-party system. It's not written into the Constitution or anything. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #78

Social Democratic Party....nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #79

Of course they are. Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #82

The most democratic thing you can do is let people vote for whomever they want onecaliberal Mar 2016 #85

people who CHOOSE to be independent have self-selected themselves out of political party primaries. msongs Mar 2016 #86

People should be able to vote for whomever they want to. PERIOD! pinebox Mar 2016 #88

^^THIS^^ CharlotteVale Mar 2016 #116

Democracy is about the people, not the party. senz Mar 2016 #89

Yes Rebkeh Mar 2016 #90

More people voting = more democratic. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #92

I think so. So, yes. (nt) bigwillq Mar 2016 #94

In my state I am glad only registered Democrats can vote in my primary. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #95

I'm not always happy about it, but yes. Vinca Mar 2016 #96

Primaries are meant to pick the nominee of a specific party. KitSileya Mar 2016 #98

On the main question, I'm undecided, but I will speak against the extremely closed NY primary Jim Lane Mar 2016 #99

No! As long as there are vote machines and tabulators owned by private companies bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #101

Not when votes are being suppresed and it's impossible to trust a bought out party not to block a Zira Mar 2016 #102

Should football writers join baseball writers in voting for inductees to the Baseball Hall of Fame? LonePirate Mar 2016 #103

Who gets into the Hall of Fame does not have major implications for the welfare Time for change Mar 2016 #115

If Independents truly cared about the welfare of our country, why aren't they Dems already? LonePirate Mar 2016 #117

Certainly more democratic, because it give more people a voice. Maedhros Mar 2016 #105

No. LuvLoogie Mar 2016 #106

I am an indepdent who has voted straight Democrat for decades pdsimdars Mar 2016 #107

I am also - and I accept and respect the fact that I cannot vote in our primary DrDan Mar 2016 #112

Democrats should decide Democratic nominee.. workinclasszero Mar 2016 #108

They are about influencing unaffiliated voters. One_Life_To_Give Mar 2016 #113

Why should independent voters be disenfranchised Time for change Mar 2016 #114

Just cut out the middle man DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #119