This diary isn’t intended as a research document or finished product, just a springboard for ideas and vehicle to reconcile dueling thoughts.
After several spirited threads, a few ideas have crystallized for me. The overriding theme seems to be that any Democratic nominating process should, in my opinion, value a few complementary and competing key principles:
-partisanship: Democrats get to select the Democratic nominee; all Democrats get to participate; strongest Democratic areas get more votes.
-diversity and respect for key constituencies: Each constituency gets represented at the convention.
-proportional representation and participatory democracy: All geographic areas are represented proportionally, all candidates receive delegates proportionally, maximum participation is encouraged, majority rules, minority gets representation.
-fairness and transparency: The rules are set in advance, the rules count equally for everyone, entire process conducted in the open.
Now, in more depth, here's how I see each respective value currently represented in this cycle's process:
<div align="left">
Value | Where reflected in 2008
process? | Where contradicted in
2008 process? |
Partisanship | Many states' primaries are closed, meaning
only Democrats can vote. Some states allow independent or non-declared
voters to participate. Most states do not allow Republicans to vote
in the Democratic primary. The current delegate allocation formula is
based on past party performance. Party leaders have a say in the
process. Superdelegates may not endorse candidates of another
party. |
Many jurisdictions allow independents
and non-affiliated voters to vote in the Democratic primary. Some allow
Republicans and third-party members to cast votes. |
Diversity
and Respect for Key Constituencies | The following constituencies are recognized
and represented at the convention with affirmative action, quota, and/or
"inclusion rules": African-American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific
Islander, Native American, LGBT, Disabled, Youth, Senior, Labor. Party
leaders and elected officials are represented by unpledged "superdelegates."
Women are represented equally with men in many areas. | Some constituencies receive affirmative
action and quota treatment, others do not. An effort to get LGBT affirmative
action in delegate selection for 2008 was not approved by the DNC. Some
constituencies continue to be underrepresented at-large or on specific
committees. |
Proportional
Representation and Participatory Democracy |
Every state and territory is represented
at the convention. Larger areas have more votes. Delegates are awarded
to candidates proportionally (not winner takes all). In each district
and in some states, the winner of the popular vote will be the winner
of the most delegates. The remaining candidate(s) will get a share of
the delegates. Some areas allow early voting, same day registration,
and absentee balloting. | In some jurisdictions the winner of
the popular vote is not the winner of the most pledged delegates.
The current delegate allocation formula prevents popular vote winners
from taking a clear majority of delegates in many districts. Caucuses
disenfranchise voters who are unable to attend or who do not wish to
cast votes in public. Voter ID laws create challenges for key
constituencies. No same-day registration/party declaration or
early voting reduces participation. Unpledged delegates (PLEOs, "superdelegates")
exist outside the primary system. MI and FL Democrats were disenfranchised
because of the rules. |
Fairness
and Transparency | The rules were set in advance. Broken
rules resulted in infractions for Michigan and Florida. Superdelegates'
identities were made public. Unpledged delegates' names appear on the
ballot in some jurisdictions. |
The calendar process was a disaster
this cycle. States such as Iowa and New Hampshire received undue
favoritism. Delegate and committee selection has not been widely
understood in some communities, and not all party activists had the
opportunity to participate. Many delegates' names have not been
on ballots. Final delegate selection is done by campaigns in private.
|
</div>
Clearly there are some areas for improvement within the current process. Each of these values is currently reflected to different extents within the process, and each is contradicted to different extents.
To me, it appears that the Diversity and Respect for Key Constituencies value is currently very strong. This took several years of advocacy from party activists to accomplish, although the work is not yet done.
The remaining three values appear to be either significantly less reflected or more contradicted in the current process. Partisanship is most contradicted by open primaries. Proportional Representation/Participatory Democracy is most weakened by the same factors that weaken democracy in general elections (voter ID, registration and absentee ballot barriers) in addition to the added factors of caucuses and superdelegates. Fairness and Transparency are most threatened by the messy calendar process and individual delegate selection.
Partisanship and Participatory Democracy seem to be the two values in most direct competition, because closed primaries winnow participants and open primaries maximize participation. However, if one seeks to maximize participation only among Democrats, then the values are not in conflict.
Pressing Issues and Potential Solutions
There are two key issues that support some values while contradicting others, seemingly creating competition among the values:
- The concept of superdelegates positively reflects the value of respect for key constituencies, namely the very important constituency of Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEOs), as well as the value of partisanship. However, the superdelegates, under the current rules, contradict the value of representation/democracy.
- The MI/FL sanction supports the value of fairness/transparency but contradicts the value of representation/democracy.
Obviously, the values should not be weighed equally. This is where honest disagreement comes in. What’s more important within the context of a party primary: a level playing field or universal enfranchisement? Partisanship or participation? Can a balance be struck in areas where there is competition?
So, how can we make the current nominating contest better reflect the value of proportional representation/participatory democracy?
- Lobby to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. Award the "uncommitted" Michigan delegates to Barack Obama.
- Lobby superdelegates to support the winner of their states’ popular votes.
- In any deal-making scenario, swing superdelegates to the winner of the national popular vote. This would take some wrangling.
Alternatively, how could we make the current nominating contest better reflect the value of partisanship?
- Lobby superdelegates to vote their consciences, as this could offset the taint of open primaries on the nominating process.
How could we make the current nominating contest better reflect the value of fairness?
- Lobby against seating the Michigan and Florida delegates.
I’ll address long-term nominating system reform and the problems we can’t fix for this contest in a second diary. Am I missing anything? Is this coherent?
Cross-posted at Open Left. Disclosure: Clinton supporter.