New for 2012

This seems like a significant change of rules for the DNC nominating process. If adopted, the superdelegates would remain with the status of being a delegate (there is not a decrease in number), but they would no longer be able to decide who to vote for based on their own, but instead rely upon the contests in their states.

The reform would increase the amount of delegates to the winning candidate in the contest. This is much needed. It was not a good system that produced results like the NV caucus, where the candidate who had the most popular votes did not also lead in the delegates. It's also a fault of the nominating system, that a candidate can win a contest by a good margin 5-10% margin, but not gain much in the way of delegate advantage from winning.

The winner-take-all system, as was California in the disaster of '72 for Democrats, and still is that way in many Republican states (they await their disaster in '12 imo), gave way to the proportional system, but adding back the superdelegates from their states to a winner-take-all scenario strikes a nice balance.

The only question I have about it though is the preponderance of superdelegates from nearby DC states (MD & VA) and DC itself. I don't know the exact numbers, but its a lot. Is DC going to become a megastate because of its bulk of superdelegates?

I don't expect the Rules committee to take this recomendation without some resistence. Its a committee that's packed with people that like to exert influence, and this will take away their being able to play phone tag with the Presidential candidates in the future. Hopefully, that's a mute point because Kaine & Obama are on board.

This is a much needed reform that is very much welcome.


The recommendations include pushing back the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held; converting unpledged delegates (DNC members, Democratic Members of the House and Senate, Democratic Governors and Distinguished Former Party Leaders) to a new category of pledged delegate called the National Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (NPLEO) delegates, which will be allocated to Presidential candidates based on the state wide primary or caucus results; and establishing a “best practices” program for caucus states to improve and strengthen their caucuses. Under the Commission's recommendations - the pre-primary window could not begin until February 1st or thereafter, and the primary window could not begin until the second Tuesday in March or thereafter.



The commission had 3 orders:


1. Changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held

2. Reducing the number of super delegates

3. Improving the caucus system.


They fell short on all three imo.

I don't think much of caucuses (other than Iowa's great tradition), and "best practices" are what the NV caucus gave us in 2008-- a fiasco.

The calendar direction is probably not going to have much power I predict, to states like NH & IA-- they'll decide what they want to decide and the parties will follow. The only way it might work is if its in concert with Republicans, but there's been no indication of that happening to date.

And there was not a decrease in the amount of superdelegates.

Still, they came up with a very good reform measure that was able to gather near-total support in the committee, and one which makes a not-so-great system somewhat-better than it was before.

Tags: 2012 (all tags)



there should be more caucus reforms
But I didn't really expect that. Incidentally, Jerome, the link you sent out on Twitter seems to be broken.
by desmoinesdem 2009-12-31 04:29PM | 0 recs
RE: there should be more caucus reforms
lol, not much working... but that was to be expected. Kyle has a long list for the weekend.
by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-31 04:53PM | 0 recs
in the good news column
the link from your last tweet did take me here.
by desmoinesdem 2009-12-31 05:45PM | 0 recs
It is possible that admin and other privilages have been messed up
I am for example possibly banned and I can see the admin options including pending posts. I have tried to do anything but you MUST pay attention to this. Others may not be so careful.
by commentist 2009-12-31 08:31PM | 0 recs
RE: It is possible that admin and other privilages have been messed up
"I have NOT tried anything" was what I intended to post. Please make sure this working correctly.
by commentist 2009-12-31 08:32PM | 0 recs
RE: RE: It is possible that admin and other privilages have been messed up
by commentist 2009-12-31 08:40PM | 0 recs
RE: RE: RE: It is possible that admin and other privilages have been messed up
by commentist 2009-12-31 08:51PM | 0 recs
If it seemed like spamming
I was just trying to "ring a bell" -- The permissions seem to have been repaired. A permission audit might be a good addition to blog packages.
by commentist 2010-01-01 10:45AM | 0 recs
Then by analogy
2008 was the GOP's 1968, although the rioting took place a year later.
by Khun David 2010-01-01 01:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Then by analogy
You're starting to catch on. Frankly, there have been plenty of events suggesting this.
by spirowasright 2010-01-02 06:15PM | 0 recs
'72 was a disaster for the Democrats but the nature of the California primary was hardly the reason for it. George McGovern won the California primary by more than 5%, just a couple of percentage points short of Barack Obama's general election popular vote margin. McGovern went into the California primary with a solid delegate lead, and Hubert Humphrey's challenge to delegate apportionment -- which he'd been perfectly happy with when he expected to win the primary -- would have taken away about 120 of the 273 delegates McGovern received. McGovern would still have had a strong overall delegate lead with proportional apportionment of the California delegates. What happened was that instead of McGovern locking up the nomination more than a month before the nomination and being able to use that time to make his case against Richard Nixon, every other Democrat in the presidential race tried to pry their delegates off the California block. It's sort of like what things might have been like if, after Obama had passed the delegate threshold for the Democratic nomination in July, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich had found some rationale to challenge his position as presumptive nominee for weeks before the convention. In the end the 1972 California delegates were parceled out as a bloc to the winner of the primary, just as they had been since they'd started having primaries, just as had been agreed before the priomary. What the world got was a month of Democrats bickering over rules to keep out someone who went on TV to tell the nation Richard Nixon was a crook and involved in Watergate a week befor ethe general election while mainstream Democrats laughed at him and helped Nixon torpedo McGovern. Before, of course, he, his vice president, his attorney general, and numerous members of his staff had to resign or go to jail. But sure, '72 was a disaster because of the way the delegates from California got chunked out.
by darrelplant 2010-01-01 07:06PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads