Per Politico, an amazing thing has happened that can hopefully heal lingering divisions from 2016. Sanders and Clinton partisans, working together, put aside their differences and agreed on a comprehensive reform package to the DNC primary process. This could have an impact as great as the McGovern Commission did in the 1970’s in opening the party up to it’s members and putting democracy back into the Democratic Party.
What the Commission unanimously agreed on is the following:
The Democratic Party’s Unity Reform Commission is recommending cutting the number of superdelegates by about 400, equal to a 60 percent reduction. Many of the remaining superdelegates would see their vote tied to the results in their state.
The commission is also suggesting that absentee voting be required as an option for presidential caucus participants. It is calling for automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration. And it wants to mandate public reporting of raw vote totals from caucus states
Superdelegates will still remain. Nina Turner, one of the Sanders representatives, wanted them eliminated. Yet she voted for the final compromise. The remaining superdelegates have been reformed in a manner this critic finds to be fair and equitable. Elected officials will constitute the remaining pool of superdelegates, along with a few party operatives and grassroots volunteers. The days of fundraisers and consultants having a seat at the nominating process are over. The other important reform is forcing the majority of the remaining elected superdelegates to back the popular vote winner of their state on the first ballot.
A Democratic Convention has not gone to the second ballot since the 1956 vice presidential nomination. This reform would essentially eliminate the role superdelegates could play in overturning the will of the voters on the first ballot, the major concern of uperdelegate critics. It would also preserve the role of superdelegates to step in and stop a divided convention or an unacceptable nominee without the majority of the delegates support. An important concern for superdelegate defenders. Another Sanders-Clinton or Clinton-Obama contest that came down to the wire could fairly end on a second ballot when now unpledged superdelegates could swing the results to unify the convention. They would also maintain their role during this part of the process as a check on an unelectable or unacceptable candidate.
Reforms to automatic voting registration and same day voter registration are also important and eliminate many of the concerns New York voters and others had about the primary process. Like all compromises it isn’t perfect, but it’s one I think we can all live with and support. The final decision is up to the 477 members of the Democratic National Committee. It does reduce their power, but it’s backed by Perez, the Clinton and Sanders camps, and the Commission itself. I hope it passes.
I’ll agree that it’s good that they did something. I’m not entirely sold on reducing supers, but for the sake of unity, I’ll agree and move on.
Order of primaries is a larger issue to me. New Hampshire and Iowa always going first? We should rotate that.
What I couldn’t find is which superdelegates were being eliminated. I don’t get a vote not being on the DNC, but if I did I would be a solid NO, at least if it is presented as take it or leave it. I strongly believe that DNC members and federal legislators should get to vote without anybody telling them how. While closed primaries is my preferred method if there are going to be caucuses absentee ballots make no sense. The whole point of a caucus is to engage with your neighbors which you can’t do by just mailing in a ballot. Plus, if your candidate doesn’t make the threshold you are not present to decide which corner of the room to go to next. I have yet to be convinced that all this bellyaching about superdelegates is not a solution looking for a problem. My denomination runs the same way, BTW. Conferences and Synods consist not only of delegates from churches, but also denominational leadership. Pretty sure lots of organizations include their leadership in their general meetings. We need to remember that this is ultimately an institution making a decision and is not and not meant to be a democracy.
I quibble with your last sentence. Why hold primaries at all then? Why do Clinton supporters cite her 3 million more votes than Bernie, if not to shore up her legitimacy as the peoples choice and not just the party’s? I think more democracy will lead to expanded party registration, volunteering, and involvement.
As for caucuses I would just as well do away with them. Even though my candidates in 2008 and 2016 did better. An absentee ballot allows working families, especially working mothers, an expanded opportunity to participate. I am always for expanding opportunities to participate, though agree converting to a primary is a more straightforward solution.
This retains elected officials and some DNC members as superdelegates, preserving their emergency function while substantially reducing their insiders primary clout. The issue for me in 2016 wasn’t that Bernie was shut out of endorsements, but that Biden, O’Malley, and anyone else who didn’t run was. That was not the case in 2008 where we had an initial field wider than Obama and Clinton. Who knows if there was a Democrat less radical than Bernie with fewer negatives than Hillary? We frankly still need someone in that sweet spot, and this process is more likely to produce that.
The push for same day and automatic voter registration make the question of open vs. closed moot. If there were same day registration, than a closed party primary becomes the great recruiting tool for new members you want it to be rather than a way to exclude casual voters from the process.
I assume automatic registration would have to default to unenrolled so voters would still have to make a conscious choice to join a party, which is as it should be. I’m OK with same day for general elections and maybe even for brand new voters in primaries, but not sure I like instantaneous party switches – that could be asking for shenanigans. Given the staggered calendar another idea that makes sense is a national deadline of January 1 in an election year, which is still late enough to know who the candidates are without risking voting in multiple primaries. I’m pretty sure superdelegates did not keep Biden from running. I am very happy to let the popular vote determine the bulk of the delegates and yes, popular choice is a legitimacy factor BUT as long as the rules are known by all ahead of time there’s nothing wrong with some being chosen differently. To me it is a strongly held principle that superdelegates be able to vote and do so as they see fit. Voters are free to follow their lead or not, and also free to advocate how their supers vote and take that into account at the next election.
Nomiki Konst made an incredible statement during this process.
https://twitter.com/PeopleVolunteer/status/939903019109433344
I was genuinely surprised by that. She has not always struck me as a constructive voice, to say the least. Onward.
AVR, same-day registration, excellent. Sounds great.
The supers, I don’t know. Still thinking this was a mountain out of a molehill since it’s not like they would have changed the outcome in 2016 anyway. The complaint always seemed to me like a misdirection from the Sanders camp. In any event I’m perfectly happy to (further) diminish the supers’ influence, both on the merits and since it seems to placate the Sanders wing.
Agreed, but in a close race, fewer people could end up with more power if they’re playing a decisive role.
Requiring them to follow their states would essentially eliminate supers, so I don’t see the point of that,. Either have them or don’t have them.
I just noticed we can’t rate comments … if this is a permanent change, I’m for it.
Exactly right Charley. Hard to accuse the Sanders side of purist politics when it swallowed some superdelegates as part of a unanimous compromise. Hard to accuse the Clinton wing of keeping the process insular when they met with the other side and voluntarily gave up some of their power. Hard to say the Democrats are deeply divided when our members of Congress have voted in lockstep and this commission worked. I thought this was a very positive step and something to celebrate.