Important but boring: Obama tries to open up party rules. Republicans should too

WaPo's Dan Balz reports on Barack Obama's plans to change the Democratic Party rules. There are 3 significant ideas. The first two are about openness. He wants to reduce the influence of the super-delegates, and he wants to include absentee ballots in caucuses. The other is simply a good government reform.  He wants to un-screw-up the timing of the primary calendar.

It should be noted that Obama is trying to force the GOP's hand by raising these issues now. We pass our rules for 2012 in Minneapolis, after which point they can only be interpretted, not changed. By contrast, the Dems have well into 2010 or even 2011 to mess around with this.

But the ideas, because these are actually important. First, the delegate-super-delegate relationship:

"The number of superdelegates has gotten too large in relation to overall delegates," Plouffe said. "We want to give more control back to the voters. . . . Everyone thinks there ought to be more weight given to the results of the elections."

The commission will be encouraged to consider either reducing the number of superdelegates eligible to attend the national conventions or increasing the number of pledged delegates -- those elected on the basis of caucus and primary results.

This gives more power to the voting public and takes it away from the party insiders. Recall that Obama lost the pledged delegates and won the super-delegates. He is biting the hand that fed him.

Obama also wants to open up the caucus process some:

The other major area the commission will be asked to examine is the operation of caucuses in states that choose that process rather than a primary. The caucuses drew criticism, particularly from the Clinton campaign, which said that they restricted participation and that in some states they lacked the necessary infrastructure to ensure fairness.

"We agree that we ought to make sure they're funded properly, staffed properly and run smoothly, and even see if people ought to be eligible to vote absentee," Plouffe said.

The Democratic caucuses, outside of Iowa, included allegations of voter intimidation and fraud by both sides. Improving the operations would be important. But the really interesting part is the idea of opening up absentee ballots. Active-duty military cannot vote. Some elderly have problems. People with shift-jobs cannot (this was a big problem in Nevada). And others.

This is a move to enfranchise voters. That's a big deal. There is some indication that Republicans are considering a similar reform.

Finally, there is the calendar, an issue of endless speculation in 2007:

The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar received significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and also because so many states were crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month battle.

Under the system envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for those in a handful of states authorized to go earlier -- presumably in February rather than January.

Plouffe also said the commission will be urged to look for ways to avoid the bunching of states on particular days. Almost two dozen states held Democratic contests on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, and party officials hope to avoid a repeat in 2012.

My gut is that the RNC should recommend a rule like the March one, while studying the timing one. The real problem is that if the parties disagree on the timing of primaries, states parties are forced into caucuses because in nearly every state, legislatures pick primary dates and state governments pay for them.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

I have a more radical proposal

I have a more radical proposal for the calendar that's fair to both the candidates and the states and thus has no chance of ever being implemented.

Divide the nation up into five chunks with approximately equal number of delegates in each of the five. This wouldn't necessarily have to be regional. In other words, it'd be ok to have Georgia and Oregon in the same chunk. Regional might be better though, in order to give small budget candidates a better chance.

Anyway, have five primary days: First week in Feb., first week in Mar, First week in Apr., first week in May, first week in Jun. Each chunk goes on one of the days.

Now, here's the kicker.  You rotate the cycle.  The chunk that comes first in the calendar in 2012 is last in 2016. The one that was second in 2012 is first in 2016 and last in 2020, etc.

We don't end up with any "superduper Tuesdays" this way.  The rotation makes it so that everybody eventually gets to go first, and no one ends up being last all the time.

If you want to make an exception of NH and IA to placate them, exclude them from any chunk and have their primaries 1 week before the first chunk.

Big problem

The different parties have wildly different delegate allocation formulas, so the "equal" thing would be very hard to accomplish. They would have to agree on a process or these would be caucuses.

 

RNC is already looking at that radical rotation idea

It's been called the Texas Plan after Bill Crocker who proposed it:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/talk/2007...

Reacting to many states voting earlier than ever on presidential candidates, a Texas Republican leader wants groups of states to take turns starting each quadrennial round beginning in 2012.

Under the Texas plan advanced by Austin lawyer Bill Crocker, one of three Texans on the Republican National Committee, states would be divided into four groups, with each leading off the presidential nominating every four years.

Texas and 10 other states would get their first turn in 2020 and every 16 years after that.

This idea has gotten a lot of momentum. The advantage is some semblance of 'fairness'. The disadvantage is a simple one - we used to let the states and state parties decide when to hold primaries. Now we are forcing a uniformity on them. A key problem is that we have two  independent parties making decisions and a primary calendar that is determined by 3 competing groups and interests - the DNC, the RNC and the states.

I think a stable order is just as good, and I also think the Obama v Clinton race has at least punctured the myth that only early states matter.It may not be realistic to force states to change their primary calendars every 4 years like the Texas plan proposes. It solves one problem but it may be hard to enforce and implement.

So here is another simple rule that would not bind states but keep a 'reasonable' calendar:

1. None of the delegates may be picked prior to Jan 10 (so no primary/caucus before that).

2. No more than 25% of delegates may be picked prior to Feb 10.

3. No more than 50% of delegate may be picked prior to Mar 10.

2 and 3 means that states that move up in the calendar dilute their delegate strength, and it would work so that the earlier in the calendar, the more it is penalized/diluted. The remaining delegates (should they decide to seat them) would be required to be uncommited at the primary.

The punishments of Michigan and Florida by the DNC was ad hoc, but if there was a rigid set of rules, it could be made quite clear what states would be stuck with if they moved up in the calender.

The above proposal also makes clear that anyone after Mar 10 is 'scot free', and so a super Tuesday after that date is not out of the question.

 

 

The first motion...

...should be to allow this issue to be changed at a time certain, perhaps within one year, so this important party function decision is not set in stone by party rules during the upcoming convention.

The second motion would be something along  cjbreisch's proposal.

The thrid motion would be to actually follow party rules and only allow registered Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.

ex animo

davidfarrar