SDP has long opposed the move by our home state and others to move their presidential primaries forward in the election year. Among our considerations are these: that concentrating primaries increases the advantage of candidates who start with name recognition and large war chests, and that it gives the voters less time to know the candidates and see them tested. What is happening right now adds additional reasons for concern. From the Washington Post:
The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process yesterday, rejecting pleas from state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary.
The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal.
This looks like a major breakdown in national party organization. Political parties have been essential parts of the Presidential election process since the beginning of the Republic, and if they indeed are collapsing as organizing forces, it means that we have no idea how the next election will work. To be sure, many folks think the party system is dysfunctional, but jumping into a dark hole because you find the ledge you are on not to your liking is not a good strategy for reform.
Donna Brazile, with whom I do not often agree, makes an admirable defense of the DNC, also in the Washington Post:
Florida's plan to move its primary forward represented a unilateral move that would completely disrupt the system on which everyone had agreed. The rules and bylaws committee had no choice but to enforce the rules. Our recommendation is not the end of the line for Florida. Indeed, the state has 30 days to bring its plan into compliance.
The Wall Street Journal has a good commentary on the overall situation. I especially liked this bit:
Sixty years ago, Presidential nominees were chosen largely by delegates to conventions held in late summer, between 60 to 90 days before the actual vote. That system gave us FDR, Truman and Ike, to name three better than average Presidents. It also gave us Warren Harding--but then no system is perfect.
Now I happen to think that the older system, in which nominees were chosen by party activists deeply involved in the system at all levels, was better than a system in which nominees are chosen on the basis of the performance on TV. But I am under no illusion that we could go back to that system. Ms. Brazile is clearly on the right track:
Our nominating process is supposed to yield the best possible candidates for the most powerful position in the world. Unfortunately for all of us, it is a deeply flawed system in desperate need of reform. Recent proposals to create a regional rotation system in 2012, or the "Delaware Plan" to allow smaller states to go first, should be on the table for discussion starting this fall.
I discussed the Delaware Plan in a previous post. Here is a brief description:
Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order.
Something like this is clearly in order. I do not think it should be imposed by Congress, and indeed I suspect that would require a constitutional amendment. But it will require national party discipline, and Ms. Brazile is right to stand up for that.
Recent Comments