DNC discussing allowing winner-take-all primaries

Bonus delegates don't work, but... (0.00 / 0)

This winner-take-all idea is an interesting one.  However, it is predicated on there being a close contest coming down the stretch.  LeVine rightly points out that we don't whether 2008 is the "new normal or a complete anomaly," but I strongly suspect it is the latter.  If that is the case and the nomination is wrapped up on Super Tuesday, then what incentive is that to offer later states what they are going to get anyway: all their delegates going to the one remaining candidate?

In the event of a close nomination fight, though, that is an attractive incentive for states.  But how do they know in advance which year is going to be competitive, so they can begin the legislative process to change the date of the primary.  

Geez, I'm just a killjoy.  I was excited about this until I thought about it.  Still, it is interesting that the Democratic Party would consider this.  

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 03:52:53 AM UTC

anomaly, or not anomaly (0.00 / 0)

I had always said all along that 2008 was an anomaly, but it was pointed out to me that 1984 was not decided on pledged delegates alone either. The supers needed to weigh in for Mondale - and they did.

So since the 1984 creation of superdelegates, we've had x contested elections: '84, '88, '92, '00, '04 and '08. And superdelegates were important in two of them. So, in an admittedly small sample set, 2 of 6 cycles brought the superdelegates into play.

And in 1992, the nomination was not nailed down until April, so "late" primaries were important in 3 of 6 cycles.

But the "rules" have also changed since 1984. In 1984 through 1992, there was none of the current pressure for a losing candidate to drop out. So Hart in '84, Jackson in '84 and '88, and Jerry Brown in '92 all took their candidacies to the conventions without "dropping" out.

That would never be "allowed" now. Look at the pressure Clinton was under to drop out, even before the end of the primaries. Once any candidate gets a significant lead, the media and internal political pressures on the other candidate(s) to drop out just become too intense - led by the drying up of fundraising.

So all this gets me back to my opening statement. I think 2008 was a extremely rare event that will likely not be seen again for a long time.

---

by: Matt @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 04:33:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the calendars are so different in those early cases. (0.00 / 0)

2000 and 2008 are our only real examples of the ultra-frontloaded calendar for the Democrats.  [GOP's was slightly different in 2000 with those February contests.]

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 05:13:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Was '04 not ultra-frontloaded? (0.00 / 0)

I don't remember.

Also, I was thinking about the '92 schedule when I wrote the above comment. From a delegate allocation point of view, April in 1992 was equivalent to what in 2008? 10:30 PM on super Tuesday in early February?

---

by: Matt @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 05:34:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, I think that would have been about 9pm, but that's a minor quibble. ;) (0.00 / 0)

Yes, you can consider 2004 ultra-frontloaded.  The February contests certainly made things earlier.  However, from a delegate allocation standpoint, those contests helped to alleviate the March logjam of 2000, something that we saw return in February of 2008.  2004, then, meets the earliness requirement (it was even earlier than its predecessors), but it was not as crowded (on one date) as 2000 or 2008 were.  

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:40:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Got it (0.00 / 0)

What you're saying is that there are actually two aspects to look at: 1) overall earliness, and 2) how super is that year's Super Tuesday. I hadn't thought about #2.

---

by: Matt @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:38:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:32:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Clinton didn't drop out (0.00 / 0)

But Clinton didn't drop out, and it worked out very well for everyone involved: Obama and the party got organizations set up in lots of states (think Indiana), and Clinton got SOS.

So there might be less pressure next time.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:27:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

'88 and other thoughts (0.00 / 0)

In 1988, the race was not nailed down until after the New York and Pennsylvania primaries in April.  Dukakis, Gore, and Jackson pretty much split that year's Super Tuesday which was in March.

I think you could reduce the base number of delegates to allow a larger bonus for the late states. 

I am not sure I would like a state-wide winner take all even for the late primaries but I could see allowing the late primaries to use winner take all by Congressional District.

---

by: tmess2 @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:10:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

winner take all, a bad idea (0.00 / 0)

That guarantees that sooner of later we wind up with a candidate who wins the nomination and loses the popular vote.  Haven't we had enough of that?

---

by: howard @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 05:30:23 AM UTC

All or nothing (0.00 / 0)

The idea of some winner-take all, some proportional (like the GOP has) is the worst idea I think. In general, the winner-take all USUALLY works to represent the will of the popular vote. Not always, but usually, and there has never been a significant amount of disparity. I am not advocating for the electoral college in anyway, btw. what I am saying is that if you have a mix-and-match system like many states do, then you have a much greater possibility for a disparity between the popular vote and the winner.

The reality is that in hindsight, the drawn-out primary was a good thing (well I guess this is still disputed maybe, but based on results...) The superdelegate debacle was the part about it that needs to go. The system of proportional allocation is perfect the way it is and ought to remain in effect. It's like if somehow we were able to do away with the electoral college, why in the hell would we want to bring it back?

Please continue this conversation if you want by finding me on twitter @Lord_Chadeous

---

by: ChadCo @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 07:36:45 AM UTC

WTA not allowed in Democratic primary due to minority concerns (0.00 / 0)

The reason the Democrats have historically not allowed winner-take-all primaries is that such primaries don't allow for the interests of minority candidates/electorate to be taken into account (Obama notwithstanding). Going back and looking at a candidate like Jesse Jackson, if WTA primaries had been in effect, he would have been shut out of many of the delegates he won. Regardless of the candidates then (Jackson), or now (Obama), it just goes against the grain of the Democratic party to not give delegate representation to significant minority (whether racial or just electoral) candidates/groups.

---

by: Matt @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:45:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am very much for... (0.00 / 0)

WTA primaries, for two reasons:

1.) It eliminates the quandary we had in 2008

2.) It mirrors the current electoral college process in the GE.

---

by: bonncaruso @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:42:34 AM UTC

How does WTA eliminate 2008 quandry? (0.00 / 0)

?

---

by: Matt @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:40:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what i cant understand, except that maybe the people at the DNC have a great deal of pressure from groups that have other interests than picking the best candidate is: (0.00 / 0)

why do we not use the primaries as a system to let little known candidates get a start with retail politics (like NH and Iowa), and maybe add one or two small diverse states, say mississippi and new mexico, then tier it up with  small regional primaries and save the biggest, most expensive states for last, so that at each level, an early lead can be overcome. (think the TV game Jeopardy) and of course keep the representational delegate apportionment, as it helps reflect a "bigger tent" and allows an umknown to build on 3rd places and get in a position to win it all with cal, ny, tx, fl!

---

by: UplandPoet @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:41:26 AM UTC

A move in the wrong direction, no? (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't Winner Take All primaries actually limit the voice of the individual?

On the larger scale, I think the electors for each state should be decided proportionally - provided we keep the electoral college and don't move to the President being elected by popular vote.

What about the convention process? There are myriad things discussed and decided at county, district and state level conventions besides delegate selection. But, remove the delegate selection and a lot of the enthusiasm goes away and there would seemingly be a tendency to make the conventions more like the 'smoke filled rooms' where only the strongest people have a voice... and not me.

There's an opportunity for cohesion as well as division with the current system. How many Edwards delegates moved to Obama as the primary system went on? (25 from Iowa, SC, NH, NV alone according to wikipedia). WTA would have ended the participation of all those people who voted for Edwards on primary day.

I think WTA increases the apathy of the individual voter and this takes away from our ultimate goal in a democracy. As for the extended primaries causing division, well, perhaps that's the painful part of a democracy.

Just my uneducated $0.02.

---

by: cbsmith @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:04:33 PM UTC

Simplify (0.00 / 0)

Primaries election for popular vote, Caucuses, and even States with multiple methods (like Texas), and dividing them up by districts?

Why not just mirror the National General Election format. That way you have a higher probably of nominating someone that is electable in the General Election format in November.

Seems like the current system is too political, and not representative of the voters.

---

by: MisterEd @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:13:03 PM UTC

giving more people a voice, with proportional apportionment is "not representative of the voters" (0.00 / 0)

how so?
by the way, i dont have a problem with the electoral college, it gives "the state" as in Alabama, or California, a vote, as well as giving its citizens' a vote as well, but i do have a problem with the arbitrary cap on representation, in the us house of reps, which directly impacts the electoral college. if the small pop state was awarded 3 reps, so that in every case a us senator represented more people that a congressman, it would still empower small states versus large states, and yet undo the outrageous underrepresentation now of the individual voter from a large state

---

by: UplandPoet @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:39:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Confused (0.00 / 0)

Think you meant to reply to someone else?

---

by: MisterEd @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:47:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, the first part was for you, the second part was a general commentary on the issue at hand (0.00 / 0)

sorry if i confused you

---

by: UplandPoet @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:16:02 PM UTC

Then I'm still confused - sorry (0.00 / 0)

My post was to simply say I felt that the primaries should mirror the general format. The first line seems to be what the Dem primaries were, a bit of everything. I haven't been a political junkie before this past election cycle, so not sure the evolution of how each State got to where they are now.

I didn't say anything about proportional apportionment or anything about how the people's votes are represented.

I'm one of those odd people that think there should be a national primary voting day so all primaries are held on the same day. Just think, we wouldn't have had the Florida/Michigan fiasco if that had been in effect.

---

by: MisterEd @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:24:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

we also wouldnt have bill clinton or barack obama (0.00 / 0)

a national primary only works for the establishment candidate, and if we are gonna let the party pick the nominee, why bother with the primary?

a scaled and tiered system allows for an outsider who has tons of talent as a politician to get on the table with the big boys (or big girl, in this last election), as to the different types of primary contests, each one tends to reflect the culture of the region they come from.

---

by: UplandPoet @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:15:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

President Obama might have won (0.00 / 0)

You never know. He did win the first State because he was the smartest candidate and engineered his campaign based on the system in place.

---

by: MisterEd @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:27:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]