Value	Where reflected in 2008 process?	Where contradicted in 2008 process?
Partisanship	Many states' primaries are closed, meaning only Democrats can vote. Some states allow independent or non-declared voters to participate. Most states do not allow Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary. The current delegate allocation formula is based on past party performance. Party leaders have a say in the process. Superdelegates may not endorse candidates of another party.	Many jurisdictions allow independents and non-affiliated voters to vote in the Democratic primary. Some allow Republicans and third-party members to cast votes.
Diversity and Respect for Key Constituencies	The following constituencies are recognized and represented at the convention with affirmative action, quota, and/or "inclusion rules": African-American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBT, Disabled, Youth, Senior, Labor. Party leaders and elected officials are represented by unpledged "superdelegates." Women are represented equally with men in many areas.	Some constituencies receive affirmative action and quota treatment, others do not. An effort to get LGBT affirmative action in delegate selection for 2008 was not approved by the DNC. Some constituencies continue to be underrepresented at-large or on specific committees.
Proportional Representation and Participatory Democracy	Every state and territory is represented at the convention. Larger areas have more votes. Delegates are awarded to candidates proportionally (not winner takes all). In each district and in some states, the winner of the popular vote will be the winner of the most delegates. The remaining candidate(s) will get a share of the delegates. Some areas allow early voting, same day registration, and absentee balloting.	In some jurisdictions the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the most pledged delegates. The current delegate allocation formula prevents popular vote winners from taking a clear majority of delegates in many districts. Caucuses disenfranchise voters who are unable to attend or who do not wish to cast votes in public. Voter ID laws create challenges for key constituencies. No same-day registration/party declaration or early voting reduces participation. Unpledged delegates (PLEOs, "superdelegates") exist outside the primary system. MI and FL Democrats were disenfranchised because of the rules.
Fairness and Transparency	The rules were set in advance. Broken rules resulted in infractions for Michigan and Florida. Superdelegates' identities were made public. Unpledged delegates' names appear on the ballot in some jurisdictions.	The calendar process was a disaster this cycle. States such as Iowa and New Hampshire received undue favoritism. Delegate and committee selection has not been widely understood in some communities, and not all party activists had the opportunity to participate. Many delegates' names have not been on ballots. Final delegate selection is done by campaigns in private.

Clearly there are some areas for improvement within the current process. Each of these values is currently reflected to different extents within the process, and each is contradicted to different extents.

To me, it appears that the Diversity and Respect for Key Constituencies value is currently very strong. This took several years of advocacy from party activists to accomplish, although the work is not yet done.

The remaining three values appear to be either significantly less reflected or more contradicted in the current process. Partisanship is most contradicted by open primaries. Proportional Representation/Participatory Democracy is most weakened by the same factors that weaken democracy in general elections (voter ID, registration and absentee ballot barriers) in addition to the added factors of caucuses and superdelegates. Fairness and Transparency are most threatened by the messy calendar process and individual delegate selection.

Partisanship and Participatory Democracy seem to be the two values in most direct competition, because closed primaries winnow participants and open primaries maximize participation. However, if one seeks to maximize participation only among Democrats, then the values are not in conflict.

Pressing Issues and Potential Solutions

There are two key issues that support some values while contradicting others, seemingly creating competition among the values:

Obviously, the values should not be weighed equally. This is where honest disagreement comes in. What's more important within the context of a party primary: a level playing field or universal enfranchisement? Partisanship or participation? Can a balance be struck in areas where there is competition?

So, how can we make the current nominating contest better reflect the value of proportional representation/participatory democracy?

Alternatively, how could we make the current nominating contest better reflect the value of partisanship?

How could we make the current nominating contest better reflect the value of fairness?

I'll address long-term nominating system reform and the problems we can't fix for this contest in a second diary. What am I missing? Is this coherent?