How Should the Democratic Party Should Select Its Presidential Candidate

Actually, the people chose Joe in 2020. He just chose to run for reelection in 2024, and is therefore the presumptive nominee. Incumbents have huge advantages and nearly always win (Trump and Bush, Sr. are two recent exceptions). By that standard alone, it's a good idea to run Joe again. But I am mindful of his popularity issues.

The Democratic Party has been doing rather well in terms of votes. The party has been particular effective in getting out the popular vote.

Statista keeps these records. According to them, since 1968, the Democratic party has won the popular vote for the presidency 8 times versus 6 for the Republican party. Note how close 2000 is in the below graph.


This graph can be found here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1035521/popular-votes-republican-democratic-parties-since-1828/

The Electoral College is a different story. Taking that same time frame, 1968 to 2020, it's reversed, with 6 wins for Democrats versus 8 for the GOP. Again, 2000 is extremely close. See:


That graph is found here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1035442/electoral-votes-republican-democratic-parties-since-1828/

The Founding Fathers did a decent job with setting up our voting system, but they didn't adequately account for what are essentially ties. They also didn't account for a polarized society, such as what we have right now. And, they didn't account for a competency test/requirement for the presidency. They assumed people (read: property-owning white men) would have honor and would come forward if they were chosen by their party but felt they weren't up to the task. The FFs didn't take ego and pride into consideration. The FFs also didn't think people would actively choose to attack their own seat of government, for that matter.

Your men in the back room wouldn't have chosen Hillary Clinton. But they also wouldn't have chosen Barack Obama.

And if you think the back room deals were just for whoever was most likely to win, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you. A lot of this was wheeler dealer palm greasing. No doubt their own prejudices and fears were a big part of these decisions.

You seem to feel the old way is better, yet, like I said, they wouldn't have picked Obama. They probably wouldn't have picked Bush, Sr. either, seeing as his main claims to fame were heading the CIA and fighting in WWII before Reagan chose him as VP.

Democracy is messy. It means people don't always choose the greatest candidate. But it should mean that you have a chance to become president even if you don't have the "right" connections, the "right" name, or the "right" wedding tackle.

Oh, and another thing.

Move about a million Democrats out of California (54 electoral votes for that reliably blue state in 2024) and send them to live in Idaho (4 electoral votes), the Dakotas (3 apiece), Alaska (3), and Wyoming (3) The total number of electoral votes for these five states is 16. Just split these people evenly, with 200k Democrats per each of these 5 states. If that were to happen, the Democratic party would win pretty much every election in the Electoral College.

Why? Because while all of these five states are deeply red, they're also tiny, and the Electoral College overrepresents them. The only one of them with over 1 million residents is Idaho, with about 1.9 million. Adding 200k committed Democratic party voters would most likely turn at least the four smaller ones blue or almost blue immediately (South Dakota is second-largest after Idaho, with about .9 million residents).

While 16 electoral votes might not seem like a lot, it's a difference maker in 2000 and probably 2004. And it may very well be again.

Under Article V of the Constitution, a Constitutional Convention could be called to change the electoral system. However, they don't have the votes to call it or to win.

In some ways you could say that. There wasn't so much money going into primaries, for one thing. And the fact that the party leaders at the time were fat men who smoked is more a matter of who the powerful politicians at the time were. I'd prefer a modified version where the national party committees select the candidate based on the input of a special commission of delegates, maybe formed of legislators, electoral consultants, and citizens. I'd like to see the Constitution amended to allow the president one six year term. I think the campaigns should be financed by taxpayers. The 'Citizens United' ruling drove a knife into the heart of our system, which was already wounded by the never-ending quest for campaign dollars.

Over here political parties leaders are chosen by its membership.

I can't speak for other parties but in the Labour party, party members and affiliated Trade Unions have a vote.

It's not perfect though. I voted for Andy Burnham and Jeremy Corbyn got in, then I voted for Rebecca Long Bailey and Kier Starmer got in.

I found that post extremely interesting.

Where'd you hear that? It's just plain untrue.

The smokey back room was used if no candidate could could lock it in the first ballot and no fallback candidate could get a majority.

1. There is no perfect system for how a Political Party selects its Presidential candidate.

2. Different people will always find flaws in any type of process or method.

3. I am happy with the current process of the Democratic Party.

4. I am also happy with Joe Biden as being the nominee.

1. Are you saying that each term to be six years?
2. Are you (also) saying that there to be only one term as a term limit?
3. Personally, I prefer the current 4 years terms with a term limit of 2 terms.




1. I'm really not sure how I feel about that suggestion.
2. I'm not sure how that would actually work in practice.




1. I believe that the 'Citizen United' ruling was an outright travesty.
2. (Meaningful) campaign finance reform is desperately needed.

1. I do suggest that we amend the constitution to (abolish) the electoral college system of electing our President.

2. I would love to have our Presidents elected by the who wins the popular vote, if for no other reason than simple fairness to the American voters all across the nation.

bobusal-

According to Wikipedia.org, the 1968 McGovern–Fraser Commission required all delegate selection procedures to be open; party leaders could no longer handpick the delegates in secret.

Allow me to inform your opinion.

Picking delegates is not a bunch of fat white guys in a ******* smoking room. Delegates are chosen by the state party organization after the primaries. And always have been and still are. All that changed was identifying who the delegates were. This was done to prevent another 'Mississippi' event ('64 convention) where the state party named an all white delegation and the DNC (the back room people) sat two Mississippi delegations: the all white and a one with black participation.

If it were monolithic all the Conventions would all be one ballot and done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Democratic_National_Convention

At the national convention the integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) claimed the seats for delegates for Mississippi, on the grounds that the official Mississippi delegation had been elected in violation of the party's rules because blacks had been systematically excluded from voting in the primaries, and participating in the precinct and county caucuses and the state convention; whereas the MFDP delegates had all been elected in strict compliance with party rules. The MFDP prepared a legal brief detailing the reasons why the "regular" Mississippi delegation did not adequately represent their state's residents, including the tactics employed to exclude participation by Black citizens. Jack Minnis wrote, "MFDP, with the help of SNCC, produced brochures, mimeographed biographies of the MFDP delegates, histories of the MFDP, legal arguments, historical arguments, moral arguments" that were distributed to all of the convention's delegates.[1] The Democratic Party referred the challenge to the convention credentials committee. The MFDP delegates lobbied and argued their case, and large groups of supporters and volunteers established an around-the-clock picket line on the boardwalk just outside the convention.

The credentials committee televised its proceedings, which allowed the nation to see and hear the testimony of the MFDP delegates, particularly the testimony of vice-chairperson Fannie Lou Hamer. She gave a moving and evocative portrayal of her hard brutalized life as a sharecropper on a cotton plantation in the Mississippi Delta and the retaliation inflicted on her for trying to register to vote.[2]

The party's liberal leaders, led by Congresswoman Edith Green[3] supported an even division of the seats between the two delegations. But Johnson was concerned that, while the regular Democrats of Mississippi would probably vote for Goldwater anyway, rejecting them would lose him the South. Eventually, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and the black civil rights leaders including Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin worked out a compromise: two of the 68 MFDP delegates chosen by Johnson would be made at-large delegates and the remainder would be non-voting guests of the convention; the regular Mississippi delegation was required to pledge to support the party ticket; and no future Democratic convention would accept a delegation chosen by a discriminatory poll.

Joseph Rauh, the MFDP's lawyer, initially refused this deal, but eventually urged the MFDP to accept it. But the MFDP delegates refused because by accepting the official all-white Mississippi delegation, the party validated a process in which blacks had been denied their constitutional right to vote and participate in the political process. They felt that because the MFDP had conducted their delegate selection process according to the party rules, they should be seated as the Mississippi delegation, not just a token two of them as at-large delegates. Many civil rights activists were deeply offended by the convention's outcome. As leader (and later Representative) John Lewis said, "We had played by the rules, done everything we were supposed to do, had played the game exactly as required, had arrived at the doorstep and found the door slammed in our face."[4]

Many white delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign any pledge, and left the convention.[5] In all, "43 of the 53 members of the Alabama delegation . . . refused to pledge their support for the national ticket of Johnson and Hubert Humphrey and were denied seating."[6]
Coverage of Atlantic City

The convention was intended to boost Atlantic City's image as a premier travel destination in the United States. Instead the DNC exposed the decline of the city.[7] Atlantic City faced criticism for poor quality hotels and the streets and buildings were dirty.[7] The decrepitness of Atlantic City was particularly present in comparison to San Francisco, California, an emerging city, that was the host city of the earlier-held 1964 Republican National Convention that members of the media had also attended.[7][8] Chuck Darrow of the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2014 wrote an article where he credited the convention with causing harm to Atlantic City's reputation. He recounted that, with the city's hotel facilities aging and tourism on the decline in the city, the accommodations and hospitality that delegates and the media experienced with left a less than stellar impression. With no contested ballot to preoccupy their coverage, Darrow recounts that the media spent time publicly expressing grievances about what they considered to be poor hospitality in Atlantic City.[8] This perceived decline in Atlantic City led to the city becoming a hub for casinos and gambling.[7]
Nominations

President Johnson announced his long-expected candidacy for a full term just days before the convention started. The favorite son candidates who had run in his place then withdrew, his name was the only one placed in nomination, and for the last time, the presidential roll-call vote was dispensed with. Johnson was nominated by voice vote.

The Balloting:
Democratic National Convention presidential vote, 1964
Candidates
Name Lyndon B. Johnson
Certified Votes Voice Vote (100.00%)
Margin 0 (0.00%)

Yeah, one six year term. As it is, the re-election campaign money-grubbing begins as soon as a president first takes office.

And why should the personal wealth of a candidate's supporters be a contributing factor in the candidate's electoral success?

****. "sat two Mississippi delegations" - "concidered sitting two Mississippi delegations"

That won't happen.

Dubya only won the popular vote after 9/11.

That was the last one.

Oh, thank you.

There is a good reason for the differing length of terms. So the entire government wouldn't have the potential of flipping all at once. Even six year termed Senators are stepped so no state votes for two seats at once.

It's an attempt to maintain an orderly transition and it works. The only bug in the ointment is with 24/7/52 news, the House members almost are required to start their re-election campaign right after the last election. The GOP starts campaigning to take Democrat held seats immediately after an election. This takes their attention from the "Peoples Business".

Yeah, that makes sense with senatorial terms but I don't see how it would apply to a single term presidency. The idea is to obtain six years of solid governance without the distraction of a reelection campaign beginning on day one of a first term.

Also, I'm not sure I follow you on Texas, NY, and California electing the president if we had a nationwide popular vote. It's not states voting, it's individuals. That way, the votes of all citizens are counted. Presently a Democratic voter in Mississippi or a Republican voter in Rhode Island might vote in every presidential election and never elect a candidate for a nationwide office because all their state's electors are awarded to the winner of the particular state, even if it were only won by a handful of votes. In a close national election every vote should count.