DNC and DNC chairman Debbie Schultz served with class action lawsuit

[Lenonis]

I would like to see the whole primary forced to be repeated again with all of them open this time to deal voters spontaneously changing party affiliation and all ballots forced to be counted this time.

It doesn't make sense to have open primaries. Republicans and Independents shouldn't be allowed to vote in the Democratic Party​ primary.

[Rukh]

Some dude on youtube sued the DNC. that's... not very interesting.

[zenkai]

Jeebus the Dumpsters are really panicking due to the rising polls for Hillary and that they no longer have Bengahzi to bitch about to tarnish the Dems...

By the end of next week somebody is going to claim she's a martian.

A lawsuit by fellow Democrats but it's Trump supporters fault LOL, talking about reaching

[Stormdash]

At a quick read through, the only one of these that should have any prayer of surviving summary judgment is the negligence claim about data security, and that only if legit standing has been established.

[Felya]

If there is any justice, I would like to see the whole primary forced to be repeated again with all of them open this time to deal voters spontaneously changing party affiliation and all ballots forced to be counted this time. Still wouldn't fix everything as far as coverage and stuff goes, but would fix the problems of voters all of a sudden not being allowed to vote or their votes going uncounted or being denied the ability to vote for president due to being given the wrong ballot and such.

Primaries are not open. In Washington the primary vote happened a whole 2 month after Bernie was selected as the winner. People have a very wrong opinion of what primaries are. All these primaries do is create the impression that there are only two choices and they are required for general elections. None of that is true... The party is ultimately responsible for who they select, without any obligation to voters.

[Fugus]

It doesn't make sense to have open primaries. Republicans and Independents shouldn't be allowed to vote in the Democratic Party​ primary.

Actually, with how our current political system is setup and the 2 big parties are the gatekeepers for our presidency as it is, open primaries make perfect sense as they make up a huge portion of voters and decide whom becomes president. They should be able to vote in the primaries for the nominee they wish. Closed primaries cut off almost half the potential voters from half the political process when you cut them out of the primaries.

The only thing that doesn't make sense in this day and age is our first past the post voting system and the fact we have primaries at all. It should be a ranked voting method with no primaries and all candidates run concurrently as that would allow the voters to choose whom they want with no spoilers and cuts back much of the big 2 power on deciding the race with no spoiler vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Primaries are not open. In Washington the primary vote happened a whole 2 month after Bernie was selected as the winner. People have a very wrong opinion of what primaries are. All these primaries do is create the impression that there are only two choices and they are required for general elections. None of that is true... The party is ultimately responsible for who they select, without any obligation to voters.

At which point the party has removed all legal justification for them to exist or any special privileges they receive during the voting process as they are, at that point, ignoring the will of their members.

[Felya]

At which point the party has removed all legal justification for them to exist or any special privileges they receive during the voting process as they are, at that point, ignoring the will of their members.

It's the other way around. Through the years primary voting became more reliant on the vote, not less. It means just as little as it did before, but you get the facade of you participating. There is no legal justification for any party to exist. Be it GOP, Whigs, Democrats, Green or Communist...

[Fugus]

It's the other way around. Through the years primary voting became more reliant on the vote, not less. It means just as little as it did before, but you get the facade of you participating. There is no legal justification for any party to exist. Be it GOP, Whigs, Democrats, Green or Communist...

No, I am not saying that the parties shouldn't be allowed to exist. If they want to exist, let them. Just don't let them have any say-so of our political system or have any direct control over it.

I am saying they should have zero say over the elections and who gets to run while now we have 2 parties effectively being the gatekeepers to our entire political system the way they are setup.

I want to have it were the elections and such are publicly funded where the parties have no control over it and can not personally donate either (Nor can any company, PAC, SuperPAC, or unions, only the individuals.

I want elections with a ranked voting method and no primaries where all candidates of all parties run side by side with even multiples of the party if they choose to do so. Remove the electoral college and it would remove a great deal of the power districting has in controlling our presidential elections as gerrymandering would no longer effect it as it does now which I am guessing is partly why Trump was so strong due to republican gerrymandering to protect their seats having a side effect of amplifying the extremists in it.

I have no problems with political parties, let them form and hash out what they want to do and the best ways to go about it, just do not allow that party direct control over the process or any benefits within it.

And removing their influence would allow for more parties to form and remain viable.

[Slant]

America, where even an election can be decided by lawsuits... it's getting bizarre by now how desperately they want to tag Hillary with some association to something criminal. At some point, she should just counter sue and be done with it. She's got enough evidence by now.

[Wildtree]

Yeah, it's been the crazies from the Bernie camp
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/...7411467293953/

[Lenonis]

Actually, with how our current political system is setup and the 2 big parties are the gatekeepers for our presidency as it is, open primaries make perfect sense as they make up a huge portion of voters and decide whom becomes president.

You are confusing the general election with the party primaries. The problem is that we have two political parties that have the resources to get on the ballot in all 50 states and hold full fledged primaries. But anyone can theoretically do it.

I will repeat again -- there is no valid reason why anyone other than party members should be voting in a party's nomination primary.

Closed primaries cut off almost half the potential voters from half the political process when you cut them out of the primaries.

If they want a voice in that primary then they register as a member of that party. You are making it sound like it's totally out of the control of an individual. And really...you want GOP members voting on the Dem nominee? That's really not going to be anything other than a shit show.

The only thing that doesn't make sense in this day and age is our first past the post voting system and the fact we have primaries at all. It should be a ranked voting method with no primaries and all candidates run concurrently as that would allow the voters to choose whom they want with no spoilers and cuts back much of the big 2 power on deciding the race with no spoiler vote.

Hey I'm all for changing the system. But in the current system you should have closed primaries all on the same day in all 50 states. That way you eliminate people coming to vote with malicious intent as well as people who vote last having very little actually say 99% of the time compared to the first few rounds.

[I Push Buttons]

If they want a voice in that primary then they register as a member of that party. You are making it sound like it's totally out of the control of an individual. And really...you want GOP members voting on the Dem nominee? That's really not going to be anything other than a shit show.

Indeed, I never understand arguments against closed primaries... It is literally a party function, to determine the candidate of the party... Why should voters have a say in who runs for a party they are unaffiliated with or even opposed to?

[Fugus]

You are confusing the general election with the party primaries. The problem is that we have two political parties that have the resources to get on the ballot in all 50 states and hold full fledged primaries. But anyone can theoretically do it.

I will repeat again -- there is no valid reason why anyone other than party members should be voting in a party's nomination primary.

Theoretically they can, in practice, you can't that easily while also being denies access to the debates and all. I am not confusing the general and party primaries. The parties are the primaries while controlling the general pretty well. Also, the primaries are paid for by the government, not the parties so their resources have nothing to do with that.

I will repeat again -- there is plenty of valid reason why independents should be able to vote in party primaries so long as they are effectively the gate keepers of our political system and getting special benefits in the political process above and beyond what independents could ever hope to get.

If they want a voice in that primary then they register as a member of that party. You are making it sound like it's totally out of the control of an individual. And really...you want GOP members voting on the Dem nominee? That's really not going to be anything other than a shit show.

This primary has already shown how easily that can be abused with changing the voter registrations to disenfranchise voters and if the independent wants to vote for a member of that primary, they should be able to, they aren't allowed to vote for both. And in practice, what you are describing does not happen where you have Democrats or Republicans voting in the others election to sabotage it. If the GOP voters were voting for the Democratic nominee that election cycle, they can't vote for the Republicans during their primary.

Hey I'm all for changing the system. But in the current system you should have closed primaries all on the same day in all 50 states. That way you eliminate people coming to vote with malicious intent as well as people who vote last having very little actually say 99% of the time compared to the first few rounds.

I am also for changing the system, but the current system requires that independents to be allowed to vote in all primaries otherwise you are disenfranchising them from the starting half of the election cycle and only allowing them to choose between the leftovers that actually made it far enough for them to vote.

You might have had half a point if Independents were some miniscule block of voters, but they are something like 40%+ of the voters and are bigger than either political party. You are literally cutting almost half the voters out of half of the process and not letting them participate till the end.

[Daethz]

DNC is corrupt and im pretty confident Hillary embodies the modern mob.
bill Clinton "boarded the airplane of the attorney general" and i imagine the entire thing going down like a sophisticated mob boss casually threatening to do "something" if she don't play by his rules.

Lol 2016: watching mob boss Clinton family go to war on egocentric trump
I don't know wither to be sad, angry, terrified or entertained.

[Forogil]

Yeah, it's been the crazies from the Bernie camp
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/...7411467293953/

Those are the ones suing. OP's link was to the Observer reporting on it.
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. (He is married to Ivanka.)

[KrazyK923]

DBS is an incredibly corrupt DNC chairman. And while I think whatever hullabaloo is trying to be drummed up by the right (or retarded sanders supporters butthurt the thing they wanted didn't happen immediately) won't go anywhere, I wouldn't be sad if Schultz was removed.

She was so incredibly obviously and unapologetically in the tank for Clinton from the beginning, and I was really hoping she'd get replaced by Sanders.

[Stacyrect]

Some dude on youtube sued the DNC. that's... not very interesting.

Actually it's a law firm so I guess that's just as inconsequential as some dude on youtube. Do you always try to minimize everything you don't want to be true? How's does that work for you?

[Dsc]

This sort of stuff is why George Washington warned us, and didn't want to have political parties. All of it. the corruption is sooo deep on both sides. We have an illusion of choice.
The Old Europeans had it right.

When there was a regime change they killed everyone, complete purge of the outgoing leaders, family members, bureaucrats.

I am in favor of that system.

[Rukh]

Actually it's a law firm so I guess that's just as inconsequential as some dude on youtube. Do you always try to minimize everything you don't want to be true? How's does that work for you?

I don't need to minimize anything, people get sued all the time. Was-Shultz stepping down from the DNC chair would be great for the party but some random lawsuit aint goinna cut it.

[Lenonis]

*snip*

Sorry for the delayed response -- holiday weekend and all.

I think I see the issue. You are looking at the entire process, seeing the flaws, and identifying a solution as opening up the primaries to allow more people to participate in the process.

I'm just looking at the concept of a party primary, and how it doesn't make sense to have people outside the party vote in it.

So I think we probably fundamentally agree on the principles and if the system was less two party centric we'd have a more aligned discussion.