Rethinking the Democratic Primary Process
The Boston Globe reports that the Obama campaign and the DNC are looking to establish a Democratic Change Commission to review the current state of the process:
The panel would look at changes to the timing of primaries and caucuses, reducing the number of superdelegates, and tinkering with the caucus system. “The goal of the commission will be to ensure that no primary or caucus is held prior to the first Tuesday in March of 2012, with the exception of the approved pre-window states, whose contests would be held during February 2012,” Obama’s campaign and the DNC said in a joint statement.
I think that trying to control schedules is looking like a fool’s game, but ratcheting way back on superdelegates is an excellent idea. Setting up an aristocratic overlay that can decide whether or not primary voters have done the right thing was always silly and overcontrolling. I’m still a huge fan of the Delaware Plan, which minimizes the influence of Iowa and NH, and makes candidates pretty much everywhere before having any chance at mathematically wrapping up a nomination. The American Plan is liked by many and has its merits too.
What would you tell this new Change Commission to consider to improve the Democratic primary process?
Good.
Here are my reforms:
1. I don’t really care if IA and NH continue to go first or not.
2. But they will have to share the early window with two other rotating states (i.e. in 2008 it was Nevada and South Carolina. In 2012 it can be Georgia and Delaware, and so on).
3. The calendar must be evenly spaced, with an early date where no primary or caucus can occur before and an end date where no primary or caucus can take place after. I believe the early date should be Feb. 1. The end date should be May 1.
4. No more than 6 primaries or caucuses can be scheduled on the same day.
5. There must be uniform caucus rules, or we should investigate doing away with caucuses.
6. Superdelegates should be eliminated.
I think that we should get rid of IA and NH first. It is annoying to spend a year watching these candidates traipse through the snow and various county fairs and political dinners and pancake cookups. That kind of campaigning is reality show crap now, not any serious look at executive skills.
I’d be in favor of eliminating caucuses — ypu can get more participation in the process with a traditional election. But, this is a state party decision and really don’t think that the DNC should dictate it.
I agree that Superdelegates should be eliminated except for those who you’d want to be delegates but no longer have a real involvement with state politics to get there. People like Jimmy Carter or some DNC folks. This should be a very select crew, and not people who can swing elections.
I like the backloading built into both the DE and the American Plans. The primary (sorry for the pun) modification that I would offer is to suggest that regions be incorporated where practical. The Potomac Primary (MD, VA, DC) enabled the campaigns to more efficiently operate (fewer cross-country trips, more cross-state TV ads, more combined events, etc), which eliminates much waste. The DE plan, for instance, puts SC and NC two months apart.
I like Cassandra’s comment on ‘very select’ superdelegates being permitted, rather than 823.
I would suggest continuing a proportional allocation of delegates, rather than the Republicans’ “winner take all” approach, as far more Democratic.
While I acknowledge that it substantially helped Obama in 2008, a result that I celebrate, caucuses seem undesirable to me, fairly anachronistic.
Do away with caucases. To go to a caucus, one must be able to first get to the site and then be able and prepared to spend hours there until a final vote of a rather select group is finalized. Primaries allow the choice of the membership to be made with only a few minutes of the individual’s time. The poll hours usually accommodate all of the voters whereas caucuses only count those whose responsibilities allow them to get there.
Caucuses concentrate the power in the hands of the State Party hierarcy. They are not going to give that up without a fight.
The primary system we have now appears to be broken. The debris that builds up via the various state primaries gets in the way of national and international issues. While I personally would prefer a national primary (with only a four week lead up to the primary election), I think the idea of regional primaries is great alternative. Regional primaries would be humanely efficient, cost-effective, and a great way to focus on what unites us as a country rather than what divides us. Each state is as important as it contributes to a stronger United States. National elections are and should be about national issues and that should be the focus.
Unfortunately, the politicans won’t accept a change of this magnitude — which is why we need to encourage more “statesmen” to enter and stay in politics. We need people who will set aside their individual ambitions and greed to work for the greater good.