This has been mentioned several times and in several other places, but it seems as though one of the after effects of this year's primary is that it brings into sharp relief the flaws (if indeed they are flaws) of the current process for selecting the nominee. With that in mind, I wanted to get a debate going on what changes, if any, would the people here make to future primaries?
It seems as though there are four major issues that need to be addressed -- the length of the nominating process, the primaries vs. caucuses issue, the existence of superdelegates, and the issue of how to deal with states which move their primaries or caucuses forward in order to make them more important. In order to move forward debate, I want to take a look at the main statements/arguments that I have heard on each of these.
The primary calendar is too long v. a long primary calendar makes better candidates
The argument here is that the length of the nominating process takes too long in today's political world, and that it deprives the eventual nominee of valuable time in gearing up for war against their opponent, especially in cases like the one we have this year, wherein John McCain has been given months to prepare and get his party together behind him while the two main Democratic candidates have been battling it out. The counter-argument is that the long primary process gives voters an opportunity to really see candidates and see how they respond to tough situations, and results in a tougher, more general election ready candidate.
The sub argument is that a short nominating calendar favors well known and well financed candidates, whereas a longer fight allows unknowns and smaller candidates a shot at potential spoilerhood.
Caucuses better show the choice of the party, whereas primaries are more democratic
This is a doozy, because embedded in it is the fact that so many states have so many different ways of doing things. The argument here is that caucuses represent party activists and committed party people due to their time-intensive nature, whereas primaries are more democratic since they simulate the voting that takes place on election day and allow people with time strapped schedules to have their voice heard.
One of the major sub arguments here is the very fact that different states do things in different ways. On one side is a call for uniformity of process, and on the other is a desire to maintain each state's unique way of doing things.
Another sub argument is the issue that some states allow only those who register to a particular political party to participate, whereas other states allow anyone to get in on the action. This has two potential downsides: 1)It allows for the sort of "operation chaos" activity popularized by Rush Limbaugh; and 2)May not accurately represent the beliefs of the party, since people who don't typically vote Dem are voting for the candidate most agreeable to themselves. On the other hand, it has the potential to grow the party's voting block through participation in the process.
The big question here is, what is the best way to determine the will of the people, and should some people "count more"? In other words, should people who reliably vote Democrat count more than the average person on the street who either doesn't typically vote or in many cases votes the other way?
Super delegates are undemocratic v. Super delegates are an important check on the system
This is probably the most simple to understand, cut and dry argument from the entire process. The argument, for anyone who has lived in a cave for the past 4 months, is that super delegates seem to be undemocratic in that they have the potential power to overturn the "will of the voters" (see the above argument for more on that) by voting for the candidate with the lesser number of elected delegates. The counter to that is that super delegates are party people who care deeply about the fate of the party and will vote for what's best for the party. These are people who have dedicated themselves to working for the Democratic party and should therefore have a voice in who the party nominates.
Dealing with states who move their primary/caucus date up
This is a tough one. This relates in many ways to the issue raised in argument number one, and raises a real problem. For years, Iowa and New Hampshire fought over "first in the nation" status, and this has led to a warping of the nominating process. The push to consistently be "first" has led these states to consistently move back their primary and caucus dates as other states try to move back to increase their relative importance.
One solution that has been advanced is the idea of a "National Primary" in which all states vote on the same day. This has the advantage of eliminating the calendar altogether, and effectively shortening the nominating process to a single day (although there would of course be months of campaigning prior to that day). This would obviously appeal to those who favor a shorter nominating calendar in the first issue posted above. The downside is that a candidate with a lot of money and name recognition would conceivably have an almost insurmountable advantage over a lesser known, less will financed opponent.
Aside from a national primary, the only other option seems to be to punish states that violate the calendar, a la Florida and Michigan this year. The problem with doing this is that in many cases states that choose to move forward are important states for the general election that Democrats will need in order to win in the fall. As long as there is a calendar, there will always be states that at the very least consider the possibility of moving outside of it.
So what do we do? There are four major issues listed here, with various sub-arguments and counter arguments to hear. I anxiously await your comments. The point of this diary is to find solutions to use in future years. So how do we change the system in the future? Or should we leave the process as it is?