Making Democratic Delegates More Democratic

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 14:51

1. Caucuses. For numerous reasons, caucuses are less than a perfect example of democracy. First, there is no secret ballot. Second, there is no absentee voting. Third, caucuses are only open for an hour or two, far less than the twelve hours or more than polls are usually open. Fourth, there isn't even a popular vote count in most caucuses, only a delegate count. Fifth, in many caucus systems, at county and state conventions, precinct delegates don't even have to caucus for the candidate for whom they were "elected" to caucus for at the next level. In short, caucuses are pretty heinously undemocratic, at least at the level of Super Delegates. Yet, 447 pledged delegates will be determined via caucuses, not even counting Texas which is a primary / caucus hybrid. Further, the important, momentum-giving results from Iowa and Nevada were determined via caucuses, as well.

2. The 15% rule. Across the entire nation, no congressional district or statewide delegates are awarded to candidates who fail to reach a 15% "viability" threshold. This means that large percentages of Democrats don't have their votes counted at all. For example, according to the Iowa entrance poll, 16% of caucus-goers went in with the intention of caucusing for someone other than Clinton, Edwards or Obama. Cumulatively, those 16% of Democratic Iowa caucus goers scored zero delegates. Four years ago, in New Hampshire, 30.25% of Democrats voted for someone other than John Kerry or Howard Dean, and yet they received zero delegates (including Edwards and Wesley Clark supporters, each of whom saw their candidates top 12%, and yet receive no delegates). The 15% viability threshold is not particularly democratic, and yet all 3,253 pledged delegates are allocated according to this rule.

3. Different Voting Rules In Different States. Depending on where you live, you may or may not be able to vote in a Democratic primary or caucus. In some states, primaries are "closed," and only registered Democrats can vote. In other states, primaries are "semi-open," where only registered Independents and Democrats can vote. In still other states, anyone can vote in any primary she wishes. While I know there are different positions on this issue (I favor closed primaries with same day registration, personally), the lack of consistency is not particularly democratic.

4. Geography determines delegates, not population. About 65% of pledged delegates are dished out at the congressional district level, with about 35% are allocated at the statewide level. Not only is that division completely arbitrary, it also leads to a situation where, in a relatively close election, a candidate who did not win the popular vote can win the most pledged delegates. This has already happened so far this cycle, since it appears that Obama has won more pledged delegates in Nevada despite apparently having less popular support among caucus-goers than Hillary Clinton. Yeah, that's super democratic.

5. Primary Calendar. One of the least democratic aspects of the pledged delegate system is the primary calendar itself. While super delegates can make up their mind at their leisure, pledged delegates are doled out on 19 unevenly spaced dates from January 3rd through June 3rd. How the hell is that democratic, especially given that different candidates are on the ballot at different times, and when prior knowledge of the vote in other states will inexorably have an impact on future votes? Further, two states, Florida and Michigan, saw their pledged delegates stripped entirely because they violated primary calendar rules. I'm pretty sure New Hampshire violated primary calendar rules as well, but did not receive a similar punishment. Again, not very democratic.

6. Delegates themselves. At the convention, so-called pledged delegates are only "pledged" to a candidate on the first ballot. After that point, they become exactly like Super Delegates, and can vote for whomever they please during subsequent ballots. Further, most candidates "release" their delegates before the convention, making them in no way different from super delegates. Yet further, the entire concept of a delegate system isn't democratic at all-it is clearly a republican form of government (although, I admit, that might simply be a semantic point).

So, even after the first five caveats are factored in, pledged delegates are only functionally different from super delegates for one ballot at the convention (some aren't different at all, if they are "released" by a candidate who drops out). And, as I noted in my first post on this subject, all super delegates are elected by other Democrats in either Democratic primaries or at state party committee meetings. Granted, during those elections, no one knows whom those super delegates will support in an upcoming nomination campaign, and that isn't very democratic, either. However, that is only one caveat (two if you include the Super Delegates determined at state committee meetings), and it is worth considering how that caveat measures up against the first five caveats against pledged delegates listed here. At that point, when determining whether the election of pledged delegates or super delegates is more democratic, such a debate is clearly comparing degrees of democracy. Neither the election of pledged delegates nor the election of super delegates occupying a position anywhere near one extreme or the other.

Now, I'm not just being contrary for the sake of contrary in this post. By pointing out that super delegates are more democratic than people think, and that pledged delegates are less democratic than people think, I'm not simply reliving my days as a critical theory instructor. Rather, even though pledged delegates are probably a bit more democratic than super delegates, an important question arises: what can and should be done to make our system of nominating a candidate for President more democratic? Here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate caucuses as a means of determining pledged delegates. For al of the reasons I listed above, caucuses are simply too much of an affront to democratic and Democratic principles to be used as a means of deciding delegates. Caucuses are so bad that I simply can't take any of the claims of "voter suppression" in the Nevada caucuses seriously. I mean, the entire caucus system is voter suppression, for crying out loud. Picking out certain parts of the caucus system that campaigns thought were particularly suppressive of the vote strikes me as cherry-picking. If state parties want to continue to use caucuses to determine, say ballot placement, that is fine. However, otherwise the DNC should start denying pledged delegates to all caucuses.

2. Give out all pledged delegates on a statewide basis. The arbitrary split of pledged delegates between congressional districts (65%) and entire states (35%) does not make any sense. Not only is it not arbitrary, but it is entirely non-transparent: how many people actually know that 65% of pledged delegates are given out at the congressional district level? Probably less than 5% of all primary voters, and that is a bad sign for democracy. Further, congressional districts are not all the same size (Montana At-Large, for example, is about 50% larger than most), and there is no roll-call by congressional district. As such, pledged delegates should be determined only at the statewide level, which would make it impossible for a state to give more pledged delegates to a second-place candidate. States should receive pledged delegates based on the number of Democrats in that state who voted for the nominee in the previous election.

3. Lower the viability threshold. While I understand the need to come to some sort of consensus in the party, and while I understand the need to keep lunatic candidates from securing delegates and making a ruckus at the convention, the 15% viability threshold is ludicrous. A 5% viability threshold would perform the latter two tasks, while not unfairly denying candidates with reasonably large bases of support a place in the party at the convention. I am actually less sold on this reform proposal than the other three I list here, but if it ever came to a vote at the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee, I would still back in none the less.

4. Don't allow Super Delegates To Vote On The First Ballot. It just isn't good for the party to have two different kinds of delegates at the convention. Also, as I am willing to admit, super delegates are less democratic than pledged delegates (right now, however, the democracy gap between the two is not very large). However, after the first ballot, there isn't any difference between pledged delegates and super delegates. So, I would say that super delegates should not be allowed to vote on the first ballot, but I don't see any problem with them voting on subsequent ballots, if they are necessary.

All together, these four reforms would make the nominating campaign a lot more democratic, and a lot easier for the average voter to understand. They would not, however, solve the problems surrounding the different composition of the electorate in different states or, most importantly, solve the major problems associated with the primary calendar.

Now the DNC itself can't do anything about the legal composition of the electorate in states, especially given that some states don't even have partisan voter registration. Also, as this year's struggles indicated, there does not appear to be a primary calendar solution that the DNC can enforce without simply stripping all pledged delegates from a state, which is not a very democratic solution to say the least. So, all of the states need to sit down and agree on a primary calendar that works for everyone (not bloody likely, but I love the California plan), or the party just needs to start holding the nominating convention a lot earlier. And by earlier, I mean start holding the convention in mid-May or early June, either during or right at the end of sweeps.

There would be several benefits to an earlier convention:

1. First, if more campaigns are forced to run all the way through the convention (as they probably would be with the system I described above), the eventual winner will start the general election with a fifty state apparatus already in place. This was actually a serious problem for Kerry in 2004, since he emerged as the nominee with staff in basically two states: Iowa and New Hampshire, which caused him to come slow out of the gate during the late winter and early spring.

2. Second, more people would watch. If more candidates were involved, if the convention actually meant something and / or took place far closer to the nominating primaries, then the conventions would simply generate much higher audiences. Simply put, seven Democratic candidates can generate more supporters than one, and the more candidates who make it to the convention, the more Democrats we will make. Further, by the middle of summer, people have long fallen out of the habit of watching television, something that has not happened by mid-May or early June. Yet further, the build-up to, and ratings, for a meaningful convention would be astronomical. An earlier convention, especially one that incorporates the reforms I laid out above, would draw more interest by several orders of magnitude. If the convention meant something, as many as five times as many people would watch the acceptance speech.

3. Third, in the event of a campaign that is not decided until the convention, the party would have a lot more time to become unified afterward. A contentious, brokered convention in late August would be a catastrophic disaster this year, since the party would have only ten and a half weeks to reunify during the general election. An earlier convention avoids this problem entirely.

4. Fourth, seize the advantage on Republicans. If the Democratic nominating process if more open and easier to understand than the Republican process, as it would be in this system, then it will make the Democratic Party look good. On Christmas, when I tried to explain the Democratic system to a major political junkie cousin of mine who also happens to be an independent, he just dismissively said "leave it to Democrats to make something so needlessly complicated." The image is not a good one.  Further, even if Republicans react and adopt a similar nominating process of their own, a brokered Republican convention would be a disaster. Think of the 1992 convention for an example here. When Republicans can't choreograph everything to make sure that the 2% of minorities at their convention receive 30% of the camera time, and when they can't make sure that the 10% of moderates in their party receive 75% of the speaking time, then they will look like the homogeneous extremists they are to fifty million people. In other words, Republicans simply can't adapt to an early convention, or a brokered convention, as well as Democrats could

So, those are my ideas on the nomination process. Originally, I had intended this post to be about 600 words in length, but now it seems to have gone on about four times longer than this. I guess after watching this for the past year, I had a lot of pent up ideas on the process that had to come out at some point. I hope you enjoyed it, and I will be glad to hear your thoughts in the comments.