Perhaps it is too early to begin this discussion, with the heat of the Obama-Clinton contest still rising, but Democrats have an important question to consider for the next election: should the norms of equality that we apply to our general elections apply to the Democratic presidential nomination process? I hope that in answering this question we can put aside our feelings about Sens. Clinton and Obama and the 2008 race.
When it comes to the general election for president, within each state (but not across states, thanks to the electoral college), we conduct our elections under rules giving each person a vote, with the same voting power. But the Democratic presidential primary nominating process is not conducted like that: it allows all kinds of deviations from the usual rules, including unequal weighting of votes, lack of a secret ballot in caucuses, and the presence of unelected "superdelegates" who appear to control the balance of power in the choice between Sens. Obama and Clinton in this election.
The fact that superdelegates hold the balance of power opens up the possibility that the superdelegates will vote in a way that is contrary to the popular vote of the people. And that appears to be their purpose. As Senator Webb recently remarked: "If they didn't want the superdelegates to have independent judgment, they wouldn't have created them."
It is this very ability of superdelegates to use judgment and discretion that gives Senator Clinton any chance at all in obtaining the Democratic nomination. She can try to make all kinds of creative arguments, including those based upon the Florida and Michigan primary elections conducted under unusual rules where candidates were told not to campaign and voters were told their votes wouldn't count. Whether or not these arguments will be plausible, especially in the face of an ultimate pledged delegate lead is a question not for us to judge, but for these unelected superdelegates.
If indeed people believe this question should not be in the hands of superdelegates but rather should reflect either pledged delegate totals or the results of the popular vote, then it is time to elminate superdelegates. And if the thought is that the popular vote should be used, then it is also time to eliminate the caucus. Caucus states have much lower participation because of the cost of giving up time to participate. Primary states' votes would be weighted more heavily. And if one really wants to assure equality of voters, even use of pledged delegates is not the way to go, because pledged delegates are weighed according to DNC formulas by prior Democratic turnout.
So ultimately Democrats need to ask what the primary is about. Is it about reflecting the popular will of Democrats (and others, who may participate in open primaries in some states)? Or is it about constructing a system for choosing a candidate to win in the general election? If it is the latter, in this day and age can that ever be a candidate who does not lead in pledged delegates or the popular vote?
I raise these questions without firm answers, and look forward to reading comments from others on this issue. I should note that I've recently explored the question whether Congress could pass a law requiring the parties to use one person, one vote primaries to choose presidential nominees. I think such a law could well be constitutional. So the question is not whether imposing this system on the parties would be upheld by the courts. It is whether making this change (either by the party itself or through congressional legislation) would be a good thing.
But this year - "We will not surrender to the extremists." McCain said that about the Iraq War.
That is what Democrats need to prove to all Americans -
We must not surrender to the extremists within our own party and send the right message to the Republicans and all of America.
We are ready for leadership. We can be trusted with leadership.
I need Hillary the public servant.
I don't need Obama the preacher.
It's ridiculous to have so many superdelegates. Good gracious alive. There are definitely not that many super leaders in the Dem Party. Look at how they flock like birds on a wire. Leadership? Ha!
It's time for a change. But next time around, I hope the change is simple and clear to all Democrats. No more wiggle room for confusing everyone like Obama inititally did.
First - It doesn't take thousands more CA's to get one delegate than Montana. For every Democratic delegate from California, there are about 26,500 eligible registered voters (Cali Dem Pres Pri is open to both Dems and Inds - 9,800,000 to 370 delegates). For Montana it is 1 delegate per 40,000 eligible registered voters (Montana Dem Pres Pri is open to all parties - so even if you limit to the same as Cali, you would still have a larger ratio than Cali). So, one point refuted.
Second - Democrats Abroad only has 14 half-delegates (that's 7 delegates for the mathematically challenged). Ohio has 141 delegates.
Third - I'll agree with you on the superdelegates - we need less. In fact, it should only be elected Democratic Senators, Representatives, Governors and Lt Governors in each state. And all former Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents. That's it. No one else. Of course, if that were true right now - Clinton and Obama would be just about tied in superdelegates, because she has 161 "other" superdelegates to his 132. So your preferred candidate would be even farther behind.
Fourth - the math is simple. It's not new math, it's not fuzzy math, it's not "wiggle room" math. You win delegates by the % of the vote you get in each Congressional (or in Texas, State Senate) District and you win another set of delegates by your % in the statewide vote. Wow... that's hard
Vote Blue !
The Caucuses would be very undemocratic if this was Communist China or Putin’s Russia. People would not be able to publically show support for the opposition candidate without the threat of reprisals; there they need a privet ballot. However, this is still the US and the vote cannot be stolen when everyone makes it publically clear who they are supporting; no hanging chads, no voter suppression, no Diebold electronic voting machines owned by Bush Supports (the President of Diebold publically supported George Bush).
Caucuses are traditional, heck our Founding Father’s used them. If a State chooses to allow Caucuses or a combination of Caucus and a Primary, then that is their choice.
What should not be allowed is switching your political party just to disrupt the opposition’s election. This “Operation Chaos” garbage is not a political dirty trick, it is unlawful. Party affliction should be a minimum two year commitment. If you change it today for the 2008 election cycle, then you can not change it back until AFTER the 2010 election cycle.
-Anthony http://www.manualfordemocracy.com
The only group with problems with Caucauses are the Clinton's who did not plan and campaign them effectively. There is no reason to change them.
It reminds one of Tiger Woods, as soon as Tiger won his first major by what 17, the white people said we have to change the rules.
Its just amazing how scared we white people get when a non full white person plays your game and wins.
Its just amazing that you cannot see just how silly we seemed to the World.
One BiRacial person has scared America so much, that we as this Great Nation are so afraid to have an Intelligent man who is both White and Black as President.
That person may be just what we need now to show the World we are not hypocrites. Yet we are trying to figure out a way so another person of color may not have an advantage.
Having Super-Delegates in themselves is not the issue... Its the number of them... I think they should remain but should be limited to only elected officials with a total number not to exceeed 500. They could provide a safety net from a tainted nominee which could be useful in future contests.
Here are some suggestions that I think would be more helpful. I do not vouch for their ability to be implemented.
First, a pipe dream: The Constitution needs to be amended to allow for a run off election in the event that no presidential candidate gets more than 50% of the vote. This frees people to vote for "third" party candidates.
Second: The Democratic party must require certain disclosures of candidates who want its nomination before the start of primaries/caucuses. Tax returns, come to mind.
Third: If the party wants a nominee by March, all primaries/caucuses should be concluded by then.
Fourth: Super delegates should exist but have less power. They should be a safety valve (let's say a candidate pulled a Spitzer and refused to withdraw) and a tie breaker; not a tool to overrule the primary/caucus process.
Fifth: Keep proportional awarding of delegates in all states. It creates an even playing field for states big and small.
The AL was way behind in the NL in public interest, so they created this goofy rule to generate buzz. But as in baseball, the rule ultimately ruined the integrity of the game.
The superdelegates should go and, by the way, take the DH with ya.
I disagree, respectfully, with your statements about caucuses. The beauty of a caucus is it gets people involved, it's a chance to do something together. (If I was younger, I could think of a lot of reasons why the caucus was good for democracy--well, actually, I CAN think of reasons, but... never mind)
In a State like California, of course, it's unmanagable, but in smaller states it helps get the ground troops needed in November up and running. It's like basic training. The privacy part of voting is really weird when you think about it. It's not like anyone's asking you to take your clothes off, they're asking you to be willing to spend a couple of hours at most, talking to your fellow Democrats about the issues, the character of the canidates, and what the goals of the party are down-ticket.
Americans are so afraid of people. It's no wonder we can't get our shit together.
It's the electoral college that's screwing things up, along with electronic voting. Dump 'em both.
Obama-Webb (Gore, Nepolitano, McKaskill, Richardson) '08
It allowed me to be chosen and successfully be elected delegate in April of 1984.
Take this away and what do you replace it with?
Do you want to let your Congressman/State Senator/State Rep or other party official Take YOUR chance away?
I think not...
But then again, this year, the crazies seem to have more power than ever....at least at this point in time and anything could happen:(
That would be a good thing.
We should eliminate the Clinton's from the campaign. They are obviously manipulating the delegate situation in an attempted coup of the democratic party.
The Clinton's are the problem, not the delegates.
The delegates are there in case of emergency. If the nominee were to fall ill, or something like that, then they can take a vote and decide how to handle it and how or who to appoint as a replacement.
Let's keep it to elected officials, so at least theres some sort of check and balance between superdelegates and the general population.
And as for doing away with caucuses, this isn't the general election, it's a process of political party, and should thus reward those who are more devoted, more involved, and ultimately more informed. That's why caucuses are great. I agree with an earlier comment that big states should do the one vote per person primary, but in places like South Dakota, or Iowa, it's a great thing for grass roots Democracy.
Texas is kind of screwy though, but what else is news.
If the bulk of Clinton's votes were coming from caucus states the roles would probably be reversed, Obama would be downplaying her success in caucus's, and Clinton would be singing their praises as stalwart bastions of grass roots democracy. That's part of the game.
Although the Clintons are a problem on many fronts, not with respect to this mess. The reason Hillary is still in the race is that she has made the calculation that enough Super Delegates are still up for grabs that she can pull out a win despite losing the popular vote and the pledged delegates. Therefore she is doing what she can to sway those delegates. The larger problem is both that we have a system where it is possible to win despite losing the primaries/caucuses and that there is no way to prevent Super Delegates from using personal considerations like friendship/personal loyalty and what's in it for me to cast their ballots.
1. States should be free to decide whether or not they hold caucuses or primaries. They shouldn't be allowed to hold both (a la Texas, as it gets too confusing). Delegates selected by primary should be alotted proportionally.
2. Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive right to be the first primary and caucus in the country. That right should be rotated amongst the smaller states in the country.
3. The country should be divided into four regional sections and each section should have 1 month in which their states can hold their primary or caucus. Which region should go first should be determined by a lottery held on January first of the presidential election year.
4, There should be a role for superdelegates, who should be allowed to vote independently. As BillZBubb said, they should hold sway in a close vote.
I believe that this particular primary season was anomalous, which doesn't mean that the process should not be amended. It did, however, highlight the need for changing the process.
Prior to the four regional areas I alluded to in #3, Sabato's book suggests that a lottery be held in which two states would be drawn from among the 10 smallest (as determined by population census). These two states would hold their contests prior to the larger regional plan, enbabling a presidentially capable, yet underfinanced candidate to emerge and have a chance to gain noteriety and amass finances for the onslaught of prinaries to follow.
Some thoughts I have as to the Presidential nominating process: Ban any parties' nominating process (election, caucus) before April 1st and no campaigning can begin before March 1st of the Presidential Election year controlled by the Campaign finance laws. Make sure a moderate sized state with a good cross-section of Americans (like Ohio?) is the first or among the first places for party primaries. We must cap the amount of personal wealth a canidate can spend on their campaign. I would also like to see each party have a committee to screen canidates, to weed out potential canidates with high risk, questionable character, serious problems that could come and hurt too late in the nomination process or in the General Election. That would narrow the fields early on, cut out marginal canidates with little chance of winning the nomination, conserve money and generally prevent problems that hurt the respective parties.