A national primary election would electrify the people and give them a larger stake in the outcome.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If we go by the National Popular Vote, we'll get more people voting.
Require... electoral votes to be allocated in proportion to the popular votes.
A small number of people and groups control the Democratic primary.
Several amendments should be made to the primary and general election laws to improve them, but such changes must in no way interfere with a full and free expression of the people's choice in naming the candidates to be voted on at general elections.
Primaries are the place where you see whose message is connecting with the largest number of people.
There is a reality to the primary process, and you don't win primaries by being ahead in national polls. You win them by winning Iowa, by winning New Hampshire, by winning South Carolina, winning Florida.
We got to make sure that the Democratic Party is not just Democratic, but seen to be Democratic. That means we got to have systems in place that makes sure that everybody who participates in a primary is perceived to have an equal shot with everybody else.
To finalize, the purpose of an election is to hear the will of the people, not to fabricate votes.
Indeed, when all parties campaign effectively the overall effect is to push up voting rates, as you see in tight marginal seats or close general elections. That must be good for democracy.
The National Popular Vote is about getting states to convert from the winner-take-all rule. The states that pass the legislation will assign all their electoral votes to the candidate that got the most votes in the country, not just in the state.