DNC Announces Democratic Change Commission

well i have laid out my 'jeopardy-style, with a lottery start system' before (0.00 / 0)

i think it makes the most sense, but is the least likely to be implemented. i am so hoping we dont end up with a national primary!

---

by: UplandPoet @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 22:41:41 PM UTC

No, a national primary is not ideal. (0.00 / 0)

But it's funny: People really just want a different system.  Polling done early on in primary season last year showed that nearly three-quarters of the respondents supported a national primary and just over 70% supported some type of regional primary system.  And in the latter case, people actually preferred having Iowa and New Hampshire maintain their privileged position.  

You can read about this more in-depth in an article by Tolbert, et al. that appeared in January's PS: Politics and Political Science.  

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 23:27:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two questions (0.00 / 0)

Why do you think a national primary is the most likely system to emerge? I don't see anybody in the national committees who would have a vested interest in making this happen, and lots of people who would be against it?

Second, in some sense, this is a free play for the Democrats, since there won't be a contested primary in 2012. I wonder if that allows them to put things in place for 2016 with less contention.

---

by: Matt @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 23:40:00 PM UTC

Oh Matt. You had to go and open up Pandora's Box. (0.00 / 0)

Just kidding.  

...sort of.

I agree that virtually no one within the national parties is interested in a national primary.  But the national parties are only one piece of this puzzle.  As such, any sweeping changes one or both of those parties attempt to implement is affected by how the other national party, the state parties and state governments react to those changes.  Most state parties (of both stripes) obviously opt for primaries as a means of allocating delegates, but those primaries are state-funded.  And with that funding comes the potential for gridlock on this issue. It makes sense for state parties to opt into a system where they don't have to foot the bill.  But state parties and state governments don't always see eye to eye.  

And in moving from a, excuse the terminology (but it fits best), free market systems where states have the freedom choose where their delegate selection events are within a certain window of time to a system of far more regulation in terms of where states are on the calendar, the potential for government/party conflicts increases exponentially.  

It is the potential conflict that makes change less likely, continues the movement toward a de facto national primary and in turn closer to an actual national primary as the compromise "reform".

Now, all this assumes that the national parties cannot work together on this matter.  If the DNC and RNC can coordinate a cohesive plan, change of another sort becomes increasingly likely.

RE: Your second point:
The Democrats have free reign in a year when their nomination is not being contested to push the reform envelope.

That is certainly a possibility, but history in the post-McGovern-Fraser reform era tells us otherwise, as I alluded to above.  That a sitting president just doesn't make changes to a system under which he or she has been successful.  That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it never has.

As Phil Klinkner has found, the out-party is typically the policy innovator.  Now, his examination cuts off at 1993, but the GOP was fairly active ahead of both 1996 and 2000 to reform the system as Democrats sat on the sidelines.  1996 brought about the incentive regime where states that hold later contests gain bonus delegates.  That was a Republican innovation.  And the GOP was all set to bring the Delaware Plan to the floor of their convention in 2000, but the Bush folks shot that down in order to avoid a floor fight.

Beyond that, nothing in the goals laid out in the statement released last night leads me to believe that any significant changes are coming.

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 00:38:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

causing trouble (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, but I still don't see any participant in the system that would push a national primary. Not the state parties, not the state governments, not the national committee. The only potential push might come from a candidate who is very wealthy and feels a national primary might be a way to outspend more known candidates. But even that scenario doesn't seem likely. You say:

It is the potential conflict that makes change less likely, continues the movement toward a de facto national primary and in turn closer to an actual national primary as the compromise "reform".

If change is less likely, than it seems to me a drastic change like a national primary becomes less likely, not more likely.

As for discussion #2, it does make sense that the out-party is the innovator - I mean, the party that loses is more likely to say our current process has to be broken, since it produced a losing candidate.

Finally, I would certainly agree that the Democratic primary process is unlikely to change much. Decreasing the number of superdelegates is meaningless - the closeness of the 2008 primary race was an unlikely event - Normally superdelegates have no effect on the outcome.

But there are a couple of interesting proposals in the press release - I'll discuss in a different comment.

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:42:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Close (0.00 / 0)

Finally, I would certainly agree that the Democratic primary process is unlikely to change much. Decreasing the number of superdelegates is meaningless - the closeness of the 2008 primary race was an unlikely event - Normally superdelegates have no effect on the outcome.

That's a pretty remarkable statement, Matt. There isn't a whole lot that matters if it's not close, except perhaps what states go first.

But it's not all that unusual that we get a nomination process that's close, and that's true for both parties. On the Democratic side, Dukakis got under 50% of the popular vote in 1988 (that's one way of defining close). 1984 was certainly close. And of course 1976 on the Republican side was very close.

We had a weird little run from 1992-2004 without big nomination fights on either side, but I think that was the anomaly, not the close races.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:57:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

close? (0.00 / 0)

Since we're discussing superdelegates, close can only mean that the nomination is not secured without the superdelegates.

So I grant you 1984. Superdelegates actually came into play there to help Mondale close out Hart.

But I would not consider 1988 close. Dukakis wrapped up the nomination in April. No one cared about the superdelegates.

So since '76, we've had 14 contested elections, and 3 (GOP '76, Dem 84 and 08) were close. Not sure how you can say the non-close races were the anomaly. In fact, the front-loading of the primaries is specifically a main reason close races will be very rare.

The Clinton campaign got abused for not being ready for post-Super-Tuesday, but, in fact, they were making reasonable decisions based on history, and, if they had won Super-Tuesday, and the Obama campaign were short on resources, they would have been abused for wasting resources on post-Super-Tuesday elections that turned out to be meaningless.

I think the potential addition of absentee voters to the Iowa caucus is a much more significant change than any reduction in superdelegates.

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:22:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More close (0.00 / 0)

You're talking about cases where the change in Iowa makes a difference but superdelegates don't. So we have to throw out cases where the incumbent is running, because then Iowa doesn't matter either. I'd include cases where the VP is running, too, because they always win. Yeah, I know, '76 on the Republican side shoots me down, but Ford was a very strange kind of incumbent, as he had been elected to neither VP nor President.

So let's start at 1980. I count 9 races where neither a VP nor a President was running, and thus Iowa mattered. 2 of those were close. If the Republicans had the Democratic system of proportional allocation, 2008 might have been very close on their side too. On the Democratic side, 2 out of 6 were close.

And I still think 1988 was close enough that superdelegates were a factor. In April, 1988, the Washington Post said superdelegates might "hold the key to the Democratic presidential nomination," but were favoring Dukakis 3 to 1 over Jackson. I'd have to check the numbers, but 1988 was essentially a brokered convention. Gore, Simon, and Gephardt all had significant numbers of delegates. As it turned out, they asked their delegates to support Dukakis, so, along with the superdelegates it wasn't all that close in the end. But I don't think Dukakis hit 50% of the elected delegates. A different number of superdelegates could have changed the dynamics of that process.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:51:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

88 & 00 (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how you can discount the VP incumbent races: Bush in 88 and Gore in 00. Bush had major opposition in Dole and others, and came in third in Iowa! Gore was clearly the frontrunner, but did have Bradley nipping at his heels. You can't say they were uncontested nominations.

As for the Dems in '88, its interesting. I read through an '88 campaign book, and not once do they mention numbers of delegates - it's like they didn't even exist.

After Dukakis lost Michigan to Jackson, the press was talking brokered convention, but the book then notes "New York, in effect, delivered Dukakis the nomination".

According to Wikipedia, Dukakis won 43% of the vote - I can't find the number of pledged delegates.

But you can't call 1988 a brokered convention. Primaries are like Survivor - candidates get voted off the campaign  - because there is immense institutional political pressure for candidates who are behind to drop out - especially as their money dries up. The fact that they originally had pledged delegates is irrelevant. 1988 was a bit strange as Jackson didn't have to play by the usual rules (i.e., dropping out) because of his base of support. (Hart did a bit of the same in '84, but the farther we go back, the less the current "rules" apply).

In modern campaigns, the pressure for a candidate who is behind to drop out is huge. I really think 2008 was a fluke, and would not be surprised if we don't see another close election (close meaning still fought in april and superdelegates in play) for many cycles.

---

by: Matt @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:38:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Delegate numbers (0.00 / 0)

From early June, before the last set of primaries.

2081 needed to win
Dukakis ... 1,833
Jackson ...   964
Gore ...      327
Simon ...     148
Undetermined* 418
Total delegate votes: ... 4,161
Chosen so far: ... 3,690 Needed to nominate: ... 2,081
* Includes some delegates whose chosen candidate has withdrawn.

thats 1857 for non-Dukakis, so essentially 50% for Dukakis. No breakdown here for pledged vs supers

Then, from after the last primaries:

Jackson says:

Mr. Dukakis did not yet have the nomination locked up if only delegates elected in primaries and caucuses were counted. According to the latest figures, Mr. Dukakis has 2,308 delegates of all kinds pledged to him. A total of 2,081 are needed to gain the nomination.
...
He said his supporters would be visiting the party leaders who get to go to the convention uncommitted as the so-called superdelegates, to urge them to support Mr. Jackson if he had won their district or state.

(gee, doesn't that sound familiar).

So you're right, there was some talk of superdelegates in the end, but in reality it was really just Jackson looking for more delegates to try and pressure Dukakis to pick him as VP.

(There's more on the delegate situation here).

---

by: Matt @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:51:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

646 superdelegates in 1988 (0.00 / 0)

You are absolutely right that the Supers were certainly in play in '88, and Dukakis likely could not clinch the nomination just with pledged delegates. A quick search of the NY Times archives clearly showed that. That book I referenced, written after the election, looked at the bigger picture, but the day-to-day news reports clearly showed delegate counting most of the spring. So while Dukakis clearly had it wrapped up after NY, they did not declare victory until 2 months later.

---

by: Matt @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:06:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

State Governments and State Party (0.00 / 0)

As to whom would create a national primary, I would put my money on state parties and state governments.  Not that any of them will intentionally create a national primary, it will just happen that way.

 Somewhere buried on Yahoo 360 is a blog that I did in early 2007 when folks were beginning to reschedule their primary dates.  I noted at the time that with all of the large states beginning to move toward the first Tuesday in February that the first Tuesday in March was starting to look attractive as an alternative date for a state seeking to move its primary due to the potential for a split decision on Super Tuesday that would merely narrow the race down to two candidates.  Needless to say, apparently nobody in any of the states considering changes came to that same conclusion and folks continued to pile onto Super Tuesday. 

Which of course is what creates the issue for the next time.  Super Tuesday was decisive for the Republicans, by a slim margin caused by variations in the delegate allocation rules in the different states but still decisive.  That will create additional pressure for the remaining states that are controlled by Republicans to move their primaries to Super Tuesday in 2012, assuming that nobody else follows Florida and Michigans lead and try to jump ahead of that first available date.

The basic logical challenge posed to each state is that, if the nomination battle is likely to be de facto decided on the first date that you could schedule your primary for, why would you schedule a later primary.  (Yes, there are reasons unrelated to the desire to participate in the presidential election that cause some states to go later but those are unrelated to the logic of the presidential calendar).  The end result of states following that logic is a national primary day just happening to develop.

The problem is that a national primary day is not the exact same thing as a national primary and is a disaster of an inconclusive result waiting to happen.

---

by: tmess2 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:06:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

National primary day - 4 + others (0.00 / 0)

Your scenario makes sense, and is borne out by the history of the last 20 years. But some states won't move, because they don't care. And the first 4, currently IA, NH, NV, SC, will, of course, want to stay first. So we'll get close to a national primary day, but close is as far as it will get unless something major happens.

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:23:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

in a sense national pls four works (0.00 / 0)

if we at least maintain a small proving ground, and then we have such a big primary day that the Corizes and Romneys are almost at no advantage. (if you need 500 million to really run a national campaign, then being broke or having 10 million is almost the same thing) it allows a nearly nobody to get the name recognition, and those early wins create a platform that will inform the public. so we end with probably no more than two, reasonably exposed candidates on super tuesday, and the nation picks based on the early performance, sadly, it leaves a few people in an almost all white, fairly rural state picking the final 2-3 candidates, but then, these are folks who take their politics pretty seriously, so maybe they deserve it......

---

by: UplandPoet @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:39:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It depends on what "drastic" is modifying. (0.00 / 0)

There are two changes here.

1) Drastic changes in terms of the, I think it's fair to say, negative implications of a national primary.  This is the drastic you're talking about, Matt. I'll grant you that.

2) But I'm approaching this from a structural standpoint.  And a national primary is not a significant departure from the system we have now.  So I don't see a national primary as a drastic change.  As Tmess alludes to below, the momentum of frontloading is leading the system in that direction anyway.  That's why I say a national primary is most likely.  It is the easiest quick fix, but likely has the most potential problems.

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 15:11:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Changes (0.00 / 0)

There are two real changes being proposed that might have an effect on future nomination battles:

First:

The Commission also shall review the formulas for delegate allocation to assure that delegates are fairly allocated to accurately reflect the will of the voters and that the right of the delegates to reflect the sentiments of those who elected them shall be secured to all delegates.

What does that bolded part mean? Are they going to be reintroducing the first-ballot commitment of the delegates to the candidate they were elected to? (Which was the basis of the Kennedy/Carter convention fight in 1980, and which was removed before the 1984 convention)

Second:

The use of a caucus/convention system for any stage of the delegate selection process should be organized in a manner that will ensure the maximum ability of Democratic voters to feasibly participate in the first-tier caucuses, including consideration of absentee voting in caucuses to benefit those who cannot attend a scheduled caucus due to military service, work, health conditions, family obligations and other similar reasons that prevent attendance in person.

Absentee ballots for caucuses? That would be a huge change, and would totally change the way the Iowa caucus is run. This is definitely keeping an eye on.

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:51:15 AM UTC

Iowa (0.00 / 0)

It doesn't have to change the way Iowa runs. The absentees would just be unable to move from candidates who don't make the 15% threshold. It could still be run so that everyone else could move around.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:00:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I meant to say (0.00 / 0)

is it would change how the Iowa caucuses are planned for by the campaigns. Allowing absentee ballots, and giving people a chance to vote without having to stand up in public, would cause a huge increase in participation. If I were a campaign, I would be totally focused on getting absentee ballots to my supporters, and would not care if they didn't show up on caucus night. It would essentially turn it into a vote-by-mail primary. Eventually the caucus meetings themselves would just go away.  

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:27:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Instant Run-off Voting (0.00 / 0)

Iowa and other similar caucus systems (those with varying threshholds) could use an IRV system for absentee voting as a means of circumventing the issue you mentioned, Scott.  Voters simply rank their preferences and if their first choice fails to clear 15%, the the second choice gets the vote.  Yeah, that isn't a perfect match as you'd miss out on the actual on the floor mob mentality (like Obama had in the Democratic caucus C-SPAN showed on Jan. 3, 2008), but on the plus side you'd miss out on the on the floor mob mentality.  

And from a research standpoint, it would be fun to see that in action.  But now I'm just getting greedy.  

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 15:22:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could work, but (0.00 / 0)

You can't just go the second choice, as that person might not be viable either. You'd have to go to the next candidate on the list that was viable. But it actually would have to be even more complicated than that to make sense.

Lets say you have a multi-candidate race, with one controversial candidate getting 40% of the vote, but all the other more mainstream candidates getting less than 15% of the vote. In a normal caucus, those attendees might all go to one of the mainstream candidates. But with IRV absentee, all the votes would have to go to the only viable candidate, giving that candidate  100% of the votes.

So maybe you lower the viability threshold for the second allocation? I don't know.

Supposedly Maine allows absentee ballots in their caucus. How do they do it?

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 17:53:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In Maine (0.00 / 0)

Absentee caucus voters are allowed. Normal ballot, 1 candidate chosen. The implication is that if their candidate doesn't achieve viability, the vote is throw away for purposes of delegate selection. In that sense, it's no different than a normal primary. Of course, by the time Maine voted, there were only 2 candidates, so both were viable.

So what Scott said above is how Maine does it, and in thinking further about it, would be how Iowa would do it also. Anything else would just be too complicated.

---

by: Matt @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 18:06:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I had an internal debate on that one. (0.00 / 0)

In the interest of space I stopped the chain at the second choice, but obviously if the second choice didn't clear the threshold the choice would move to the third slot and so on depending upon who was still viable.  

I'm trying to think of an actual example of the controversial/40% candidate you mentioned.  I'm not saying that can't happen, but nothing is coming to my mind.  Uncommitted got 37% of the vote in the 1976 Iowa caucuses to "winner" Jimmy Carter's 28%.  That's close, but not really the same thing.  Can anyone think of a situation like this that has happened in the post-reform era?

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:33:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

probably not in caucuses (0.00 / 0)

But SSP just did a post yesterday on long-shot candidates squeaking through against more well-known candidates in a multi-candidate race. But even then, its probably pretty rare for the 2nd place candidate to be under 15%.

In any case, I really doubt they would allow IRV voting anyway.

---

by: Matt @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:44:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could have happened in 1988 (0.00 / 0)

It may have happened in some of the Iowa caucuses in 1988. For example, Jesse Jackson ended up with the second most county delegates in Johnson county.  Simon, Dukakis, Babbitt, and Gephardt were also players. There's a decent chance that at one of the caucuses Jackson was the only one viable on the first ballot, and that the other four then congregated as necessary. It's politically plausible--I doubt many people moved from one of those four to Jackson when things redistributed. It's even more likely that there were caucuses where only, say, Jackson and Simon were viable. If an absentee voter put Babbitt first and then Gephardt (a not unreasonable combination, I think), then they'd be out of luck.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:26:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

on the other side (0.00 / 0)

wasnt huckabee pretty much the radical the gop was afraid of last cycle, but he actually won in iowa, i think

---

by: UplandPoet @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 09:33:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]