For 2020, the Democratic Party Should Take Back Its Nomination Methods

[HumanityExperiment]

123. ...'should independents be able to have a say'...

read through your reply a couple of times to make sure the 'vibe' I was getting wasn't off or incorrect, the 2nd pass just validated the first

So here goes...

STATES, at this point of our nation's existence and humanities progression, we have basically moved past 'state' identity to a national identity and closing in on a global identity... but to your point, 'Should the people of the state have a say in this', I believe that the 'state' is becoming more of a thing of the past in terms or what the NATIONAL DEM party is, and that's what we are really talking about... the people of this nation and more specifically the GE is what matters most and currently the disparity of how each state runs their process in election cycles actually suppresses voter turnout, it's time to modernize, expedite and minimize the hurdles to voters to voter booth. We also need to make each 'state' more uniform across the nation as we are a much more mobile species and uniform rules allow for easier transition between that moves. The goal of any and every primary is to allow a more democracy based process to vet and nominate the strongest, most DEM ideological candidate

Your next point... 'The parties themselves... They are private organizations', you're correct, so we get to the point of establishment vs regular party members.. which leads to this 'form to maximize the power of their members' which members are we 'maximizing' power of? SDs aren't 'regular' party members, they do not have the regular party members best interests at heart... this point 'get as many people who share their basic orientation to government elected to office as possible' we disagree on that comment, establishment and SDs aren't vested in 'getting as many people who share' I point out the lack of the 50 state GOTV plan, the lack of interest in more open primaries to get more independents voting with DEM. The movement away from liberal / progressive ideology by party establishment also is of note, but that's a discussion aside from this one...

Your other point within the 2nd point... 'If we make these changes to party structure and processes, will that weaken the purpose of parties' making changes is how we progress, we are and should be progressives at heart, embracing change for the better, we only 'weaken' the power of those that control the thing, and it that is to the betterment of the party then the establishment needs to understand and step aside, those that obstruct what the majority of the DEM body want... well, what would you define that as?

The last sub point within your 2nd... 'Should independents be able to have a say?' Yes they should, it goes to growing the tent, I would counter with what are your reasons for 'why not?' Since winning the GE is the goal increasing the tent is the only way to accomplish that

Lat point... 'Is the real reason we're talking about opening the parties up and weakening their ability to protect their interests to eliminate parties' Is a two party system in the best interest of the people in this nation? what about a more diverse increased parties system? this accomplishes two things at once, one it forces the parties to always cater to the members from a bottom up, rather than a top down system and it forces parties to always look to bigger tent mentality and operation, if either of those two aspects aren't tended to then that 'party' will wither and die and a new one will grow or another will absorb

Just because something is, and is carried over through time doesn't automatically validate it, we should always have a motivation to making the party better for the majority of members not just the select few

Is a two party system the best option just because it 'is' since establishment of our nation?
I would counter it is not the best option...