MW: It’s Time for a New Nominating Process
Posted by: chatblu on: December 9, 2009
- In: Morning Widdershins | Obama | Open Thread | Politics
- Comment!
Are the days of caucus corruption at an end?
CNN reports that Democrats are considering changes to the nominating process. Plans are underway for a new primary calendar, and a lesser role for “superdelegates”. The 2008 process was controversial, and even James Clyburn acknowledged that while the contest “yielded a great candidate” (his words, not mine), problems did arise. Per Rep. Clyburn, “It was not very comfortable at some points along the way.” (Let me interject here that Southerners are masters of understatement. If your college had “just a little bit of trouble” with an opponent, you probably lost the game by 30+ points.)
The Party feels that this “rare cycle of no apparent Democratic presidential nomination challenge” presents the perfect opportunity to tweak the nominating process, and has set up a Democratic Change Commission. Members include Obama campaign managers, party activists, and lawmakers will recommend measures to both expand the base and increase ethnic and regional diversity in the nominating process beginning with the 2016 primaries.
Some of the recommendations thus far include:
1. The four early states-Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina-would maintain their early dates, but not before February first. All other states must wait until at least March 1.
2. Another suggestion was to group states into regions and subregions. The commission states that “this would not be mandatory, but …..the clusters be staggered through the window to allow for the a deliberative process that benefits all voters and caucus-goers throughout the country”.
3. Nothing is firmed up yet regarding the number of superdelegates. Mark Brewer of the Michigan Democratic Party said that he was willing to decrease their numbers as long as state chairmen and vice-chairman retained their status, and party leaders maintained their role at conventions.
Here’s my take on the whole thing. To say the least, the was “just a little bit of trouble, Rep. Clyburn, and many of us were “not very comfortable “ with the 2008 process. We commend you on your desire to encourage diversity within the party – do you plan to re-recruit the women that you lost along the way?
My recommendations are as follows:
1. The determination of election day is a State’s right. Whaling out on the voters of a state because of the legal date set by the state legislature is ludicrous. Fl@rida lost both membership and financial support because of the lunatic decision of the RBC. I suggest that you get together with the Repubs and try to work out a schedule that the individual states will utilize.
2. I rather like the regional and subregional calendar. This will make campaigning easier and possible reduce costs and carbon footprints as an added benefit. Candidates can campaign regionally instead of nationally on a week-by-week basis.
3. If I remember correctly, the superdelegates were put into place to ascertain that unelectable candidates (McGovern, anyone?) were not nominated. I agree that the numbers should be modified, but not eliminated.
4. The caucuses must go. Yes, it’s a rustic bit of Americana, but counterintuitive to the whole secret balloting concept. If you are a nurse, cop, firefighter or the like, your voice probably will not be heard, as you cannot get there at a specific time. If we cannot eliminate them entirely, tight controls must be implemented so that one person may vote in one caucus, period.
5. Primaries should be open to better reflect the will of the people. One person, one vote irrespective of stated political affiliation. Americans are preponderantly registered Independents (or in my state, No Party Affiliation) and many voices are not being heard.
What do you think?
This is an open thread.
27 Responses to "MW: It’s Time for a New Nominating Process"
December 9, 2009 at 8:55 AM
I have became extremely cynical about the so called democracy in this country. If it’s not ‘chads” it’s Diebold. If it’s not diebold, it’s caucases. if it’s not caucases it’s delegates and throwing away roll call all together. Why bother perfecting the system? The ones with the money behind them will always find a new hole to get through and steal our votes.
That being said, happy anout Martha Coakley’s win.
And the devious plans at work yesterday
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/war-is-peace-public-option-is-history-the-devious-edition/
December 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM
DYB – ditto to all of your points.
EOF – but we’re not giving up are we? The D’s have awakened a sleeping giant. I have faith in my fellow citizens. There are more of us than there are in the upper 1% plus there are a few human beings in that 1%.
Chat – I love the explanation for “the southern way”. I have lived way longer in the South but my roots are in southern Ohio. I found it charming for the longest time. We speak clearer in Ohio – maybe not charming but sure saves a lot of time and some how, for me, my dignity stays intact. The word disingenuous comes to mind.
December 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM
We are not being deliberately disengenous,I assure you. It’s just part of the regional persona. I had to learn (the hard way) in young adulthood that people from other parts of the country took these statements quite literally, and missed the point.
December 9, 2009 at 11:07 AM
@Boo Radley
I agree. We are not giving up. It’s a side effect of being alive I guess. “Dum spiro, spero”
December 9, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Although I am as cynical as EOF, I am definitely NOT giving up, folks!
Great post, chat. I want those caucuses GONE.
December 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Of course, IMHO, the only way REAL change is going to happen is to implement the 30% Solution. Get more women in there, and the conversation will change quickly.
December 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Absolutely, chat!
Only 12 or 13 more to go in the Senate!
:-p
December 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
madamab said
December 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Of course, IMHO, the only way REAL change is going to happen is to implement the 30% Solution. Get more women in there, and the conversation will change quickly.
Are you talking about just in the Dem party? Cuz, ya know, the Repubs have some wacko women in their party.
December 9, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Get rid of the caucuses. A caucus is the most undemocratic method of choosing a nominee. Having attended two of them, I can tell you that they are even worse than people think. Obviously it’s undemocratic to require attendees to commit a couple of hours of their time, give up their right to anonymity, and to not allow absentee ballots (thereby excluding the elderly, the disabled, the military, and people who cannot take time off work), but in Washington State, it goes one step further. Just because you have devoted several hours and met with your neighbors (and in 2008, several hundred college students you’ve never seen before) and submitted your choice of candidate, doesn’t mean that you have actually yet voted for your candidate or that your vote will count. All you’ve done is selected delegates to represent you at the next level, another caucus held a couple weeks later, where the delegate must show up at around 8:00 am and stay ALL DAY LONG with no water or food, unless you knew enough to bring your own, and listen to mind numbing minutia and never leave the room, because that’s just when the opposition will slip some point-of-order in. If for some reason, you have to leave, you’d better hope that enough alternates have shown up and can stay the entire day, or all of your efforts are for nothing and your votes will go to the opposition candidate.
If the media would expose what the caucuses are really about, people would never tolerate them. Unfortunately, the media gives us stories of the charming tradition of the caucuses as, “…a bit of rustic Americana…” and nobody really understands how corrupt they really are. By the way, what ever happened with that movie that was being made that was supposed to expose what happened in the caucuses in 2008?
December 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Janicen – Good Goddess!
All you’ve done is selected delegates to represent you at the next level, another caucus held a couple weeks later, where the delegate must show up at around 8:00 am and stay ALL DAY LONG with no water or food, unless you knew enough to bring your own, and listen to mind numbing minutia and never leave the room, because that’s just when the opposition will slip some point-of-order in. If for some reason, you have to leave, you’d better hope that enough alternates have shown up and can stay the entire day, or all of your efforts are for nothing and your votes will go to the opposition candidate.
Are you talking about “The Audacity of Democracy?” I am not sure what happened. That was PUMA Pac stuff – I was never really involved with them.
Fredster – Well, if the Repub Party wants to do it, more power to ‘em. But I won’t be voting for a Repub (or Dem) woman unless she is pro-choice and pro-ERA, so it really doesn’t matter to me personally.
December 9, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Number one: Who cares what the Repubs do, folks? Are you going to vote for them?
Number two: Have you ever heard of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins?
Sheesh. I’m so tired of that argument.
December 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM
I’m cartainly not, but someone voted Michelle Bachman into office. Snowe and Collins are much more palatable.
December 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Chat – yes, Republicans voted crazy POS Michelle Bachmann into office. They also voted every crazy POS Republican MAN into office. And, they voted Snowe and Collins into office.
Your point, I’m afraid, is something I’m not getting.
My point is, I don’t give a shit what the Repubs do. Let them run all women or all men. It matters not to me.
Bringing up the craziest woman you can doesn’t change the fact that having 30% non-crazy women in the House and Senate is a laudable goal. The Republicans have a few non-crazy women, but the Democrats have a whole lot more. So guess where my votes will probably go?
I will tell you this. If there’s a socially conservative Democratic man running against a pro-choice, pro-ERA Republican woman, I know who I’m voting for. We’ve seen that misogyny runs deeply in both Parties, and there is no way I will ever vote for ANY anti-choice politician at this point, no matter what letter they put after their name.
Do I really have to explain myself after all this time? Do I really have to say I wouldn’t vote for Michele Bachmann?
This ain’t the New Agenda. I don’t buy that crap. That’s why I left there a long time ago. I’ve said this a million times by now, haven’t I?
What am I missing?
December 10, 2009 at 1:42 AM
against a pro-choice, pro-ERA Republican woman
Good luck in that MB.
Are Collins or Snowe pro-choice or pro-ERA? (you mentioned them further up). Honestly, I don’t know what their positions are.
My point is, I don’t give a shit what the Repubs do. Let them run all women or all men. It matters not to me.
Then how will you effect your 30% goal? Through Dems only?
I think that’s what Chat and I are trying to figure out.
December 10, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Fredster – I will accomplish my goal by trying to influence liberal Party leaders (of all left-leaning Parties) to run more women candidates. In order to do that and run their own candidates, many liberals and feminists are working to create a new Party, the Justice Party.
I am working with Violet Socks on this. You can check Reclusive Leftist for the latest. (On our blogroll.)
As I have said many times, the 30% Solution is only partially about voting. You can only vote for those people who run, right? The other part is getting more women in the pipeline. For me, that means liberal, pro-choice women. Justice Party-type women.
Whatever the Repubs do is none of my concern, although if they decide to jump on the bandwagon, good for them. But if they don’t kick the fundies and crazies to the curb, and if they don’t start start running more women like Dede Scozzafava (the one who Sarah Palin and others got kicked out of the NY-23 race), then the Repub women are just as bad as the Repub men.
Well, maybe without quite as many sex scandals. 
December 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM
The one thing I don’t like about the regional voting idea is that geographical regions tend to be very similar demographically. Depending on which regions went first, you could create a very different sort of momentum based on conservative vs liberal ideology.
Remember how Obama created the appearance of great popularity bc he picked up 10 (tiny, red, undemocratic caucus) states in a row? And the bots wouldn’t shut up about it? People who were not well-informed about how little meaning a caucus vote had in terms of genuine popularity or political will were persuaded into thinking he had this immense popularity.
I’m not saying this well but it’s kind of like why the “news” media now doesn’t report on polling numbers on election day until the polls actually close — otherwise the whole race gets determined by who votes first in the day, bc people don’t vote or just follow along the person who seems to be winning.
If they did do regions, they should at least rotate them on a schedule as to which ones go first.
December 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Valhalla,
I actually feel that all the states should vote at the same time. I don’t see why certain states are “more important” than others. Have the primary voting on a weekend, and have it be a national holiday too, so people who work on the weekends won’t be penalized by their employers for voting.
And no caucuses!
December 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I was with you all the way to #5. I do NOT favor open primaries. The primary is to determine each party’s nominee. So, no open primaries. Independents who wish to support a particular candidate of a particular party will have to go the extra step to register under that party affiliation in time for the primary. Otherwise, I’m with ya! I’ve been calling for regional primaries for years now. No more Iowa, New Hampshire favoritism either.
And No More Caucuses. It is exactly as Janicen related. Nevada was gawd-awful. And the worst part is, the campaign pulls their staff out immediately (and I mean exactly that) as soon as the initial caucus is over. It is then left to the state supporters to pull together county and state delegates. It’s insane.
December 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
madamab — I think the standard objection to having primaries all on the same day is that then only the big populous states would get all the attention from candidates. Although, since during campaigns the candidates don’t actually listen to local expressions of opinion (for the most part), maybe that’s ok.
Bluelyon — I like open primaries because I’m a totally disorganized person and would never remember to be able to switch my affiliation around. With closed systems people are still able to game the primaries (essentially, nonparty members playing Dem for a Day or Repub for a Day), it would just keep unorganized Blanks-for-a-Day like me from gaming them.
How we think it’s fairest to structure primaries shouldn’t be context- or personality-specific, of course, but in the 2008 primaries the most organized (in terms of dirty tricks) was the Obama campaign, so it wouldn’t have worked to Clinton’s favor. Also, Republicans are often very organized in terms of gaming the election tricks, too, so I think they would still be favored as well.
But then, maybe I’m just rationalizing open primaries to be convenient for me in spite of my own personal faults!
December 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Blue Lyon – I’m with you. Sorry, Valhalla, my friend.
And you know, I can’t get too worked up about the less populated states not receiving as much attention from the candidates. Frankly, why should states like Iowa and New Hampshire get so much attention?!
The recession is horrible in Louisiana, Michigan, Fl@rida, New York and California, just to name a few. The economic problems in those states far outweigh the problems in the less populated states. So, the more populated states have more voters and have a greater need for government help, but if the candidates spend more time there, it’s not “fair”?
Just sayin’.
December 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Sorry, guys, but I believe that open primaries are the only hopw. If only the “true party faithful” are left, we will find ourselves choosing between Obama v. Cheyney types every cycle.
December 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Actually, I don’t think the open primaries had much to do with it, chat. The fix was in for the Dems. It was accomplished by overweighting the red state caucuses, done in almost total secrecy by the DNC.
It was the caucuses that were gamed, not the primaries. And the party faithful voted for Hillary, not Obama.
So, we may have to agree to disagree there.
Comments are closed.
L 2012 – Support Your Local Lefties!
Top Stories – Google News
- UN, 'Friends' Pursue New Tracks on Syria - Wall Street Journal February 24, 2012
- Romney pounces on Santorum's Senate compromises - Boston.com February 24, 2012
- Maryland approves gay marriage bill - Telegraph.co.uk February 24, 2012
Recent Comments
 | madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | Eddie on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | HT on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on Happy New Year – We… |
December 9, 2009 at 8:18 AM
I agree with your rules, chat. And Clyburn can kiss my ass. And then he can drop dead.