| The DNC's Democrat Change Commission held its first meeting today to discuss changes to the presidential nomination process. The Washington Post sets the scene: There is no end to the complaints about the way the two political parties select their presidential nominees. As the litany goes, the process begins too early, gives undue influence to a handful of small, unrepresentative states and has encouraged disorderly leapfrogging by other states that has resulted in an unseemly, virtual national primary early in the season.
Over the years, the nominating process has been examined repeatedly by the political parties, by distinguished commissions, by academics and by secretaries of state, all with the goal of building a better mousetrap. Virtually all have resulted in disappointment or unintended consequences.
The DCC is examining 3 issues: 1) the primary calendar 2) superdelegates 3) caucuses. Josh at Frontloading HQ is THE source for primary calendar info, and he's already got info on the primary calendar discusion. Here, we'll look at the superdelegates: The Democrats have been charged with looking not only at the timing of the calendar but also at the role of so-called superdelegates. This became a source of genuine controversy during the Obama-Clinton battle over the question of whether these elected officials and party leaders might override the will of the voters and hand the nomination to Clinton.
At least one student of the process, Elaine Kamarck of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, recommended yesterday that it is time to eliminate superdelegates. Kamarck, author of the forthcoming book on the nominating process called "Primary Politics," argued that the selection of presidential nominees is now a public process and has eliminated the need for a group of elites who could assert themselves in the equivalent of a back-room role to settle a disputed nominated.
She made her case before an audience that included many past and potentially future superdelegates. The response was skeptical. Instead, the goal of leading members of the DNC panel appears to be a more limited role for superdelegates, either by reducing their numbers or diluting their influence.
There are two main types of superdelegates: Members of the House and Senate, and members of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC purposely made Members of Congress superdelegates to entice them to come to conventions. Before the superdelegates, many of them stayed away, which was embarrassing. So it seems unlikely that their designation will change. As for the members of the DNC, the easiest thing is to give them 1/2 votes instead of full votes. We'll keep an eye out for what the other superdelegate proposals actually say. Update: A DNC memo states: The Democratic Change Commission has been charged with the task of recommending revisions to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention to provide for a "significant reduction" in the number of unpledged Party leader and elected official ("PLEO") delegates in order to enlarge the role and influence of primary and caucus votes in the presidential nominating process.
This is key. The DCC is charged with reducing the number of superdelegates. The only question, then, is how big the reduction will be. Update 2: This charge actually came out of the Rules Committee just before the convention, and was approved by the convention - so it's not new news. |
