Post by Old Badger on Feb 29, 2020 1:32:37 GMT -5
The WP asked some Important People to provide their ideas on how to fix the primary process, which they all agree is broken. Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution has an intro on how this mess came about, and then we get the proposed solutions. It's interesting how the ideas reflect the authors' day jobs:
Bob Kerrey, former middle-of-the-road Democratic Nebraska Senator: "The only solution is to amend the Constitution to create a commission with the power to create rules that are more likely to give Americans the opportunity to elect a competent, capable president. Such a commission would probably shorten the campaign season and recommend spending limits (possibly including a more robust public-financing option)." And amendment would be needed to overcome Supreme Court decisions such as Buckley and Citizens United.
Joe Trippi, one-time manager of Howard Dean's 2004 campaign: "I propose that the first 'primary' should not be held in a state or a regional group of states. Rather, clusters of three congressional districts in three different regions of the country would be the sites of the first contest. Ideally, the clusters would be in areas Democrats need to win in a general election. So in the Southwest, three congressional districts from Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico would make up one cluster; in the Midwest, it would be districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio; and in the Southeast, the districts might be drawn from North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. These places would all hold primaries on the same day in February." [What about the GOP: And nothing for the Northeast? Hah!]
Alex Conant, former manager of Marco Rubio's 2016 campaign: "The biggest change in presidential primaries over the past decade is the dramatic reduction in the number of debates...The problem is that voters often make decisions based on what they see of the candidates in authentic, unscripted moments...In addition to more debates, the parties should allow more formats. Right now, the only time candidates face off is when everybody is invited, resulting in crowded, raucous, multistage competitions for airtime. Under looser rules, independent groups and media outlets could host unique debates among a variety of candidates — Emily’s List, for example, which supports pro-choice Democratic women, could host a debate for just the female candidates."
James Zogby, DNC Member and Sanders campaigner: "The Democratic Party ought to open the nominating process to voters registered as independents, allowing them to sign up as Democrats on primary day. Sixteen states have created open primaries through laws or referendums, according to the nonprofit group Open Primaries, although the parties have the authority to do so unilaterally. Yet Democrats have done so in only six states, the group notes."
Caitlin Jewett, Professor of Political Science at VA Tech: "When Iowa Democrats went to their caucus sites Feb. 3, 11 candidates were competing to be the party’s presidential nominee. Little more than a week later, the field was down to eight. As the 2020 nomination process unfolds, candidates will continue to drop out, meaning voters in states holding later contests will have fewer choices than earlier voters did. That’s a strong argument for 'front-loading' primaries: scheduling more of them sooner in the process. With front-loaded calendars, more citizens get to weigh in when there are meaningful choices to be made, and more candidates get to make their cases to a broad array of voters."
Andrea Benjamin, Associate Professor of African and African-American Studies at Oklahoma: "My preference would be for each party to hold all of its primary elections and caucuses on one day, 60 days before each party’s convention. This would shift the spotlight away from the horse-race side of politics and force citizens and the media to focus on candidates’ policy positions." [Or just the reverse.]
Selina Vickers, former Sanders delegate and legislative candidate in WV: " 'Superdelegates'...ought to be neutered entirely. ["Neutered"? he asks, crossing his legs.] A certain number of elected party leaders could retain the title of 'automatic' delegates, but they should not have a 'free' or 'wild card' vote at any stage. Instead, they should pledge to a candidate before their state’s primary or caucuses. If their candidates don’t earn votes at the state level, they wouldn’t have a say — so they couldn’t interfere in the democratic selection of a nominee."
Hans Noel, Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown: "A contested convention would be a good thing. And we should change the rules of primaries to make them more likely...Candidates who win 20 or 30 percent of the vote in unrepresentative Iowa and New Hampshire get media attention and a fundraising boost, and then one typically emerges as the party’s only choice. This is not a reflection of the “will of the people” but of the peculiar dynamics at the very beginning of the race...Negotiation at a convention could bring a party with divergent views closer to consensus on the strongest nominee, and good-faith discussion could ease divisions rather than deepen them." He also notes that extending proportional allocation of delegates to the GOP, and making the threshold lower (say 5 percent) would keep more candidates in longer, promoting contested conventions.
Rob Richie, President of Fair Vote: "The solution is straightforward: ranked-choice voting, or RCV. It’s simple: Voters in each state would indicate their candidate preferences — first, second, third — until they are indifferent about the rest. A series of 'instant runoffs' occur, with last-place candidates eliminated; the next-ranked choices of people who voted for that candidate are then tallied. The process is repeated until a winner has more than 50 percent. The winner by definition will have demonstrated appeal to backers of other candidates."
Personally, I agree with Prof. Benjamin: just have one big, national primary, and forget about all this state-by-state "momentum" nonsense. And you could combine that with Richie's RCV ("instant runoff") proposal or Noel's idea of just letting each candidates' elected delegates come to the convention and hash out the ticket and platform, just like the old says. Indeed, the Benjamin-Noel combination seems quite appealing to me (oh, yeah, I'm a former Poli Sci professor myself, lol), but it would bring howls from people who insist that we need to let unknown candidates have a shot (this is how we wound up with a 68-team NCAA BB tournament), as well as politicians, party leaders, and travel-related business people in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC--not to mention the journalists who make their living cultivating "sources" in those states. But it would be a lot more bearable process than the current insanity, which was never what the reformers of the 1970s intended to create.
Reactions?
Bob Kerrey, former middle-of-the-road Democratic Nebraska Senator: "The only solution is to amend the Constitution to create a commission with the power to create rules that are more likely to give Americans the opportunity to elect a competent, capable president. Such a commission would probably shorten the campaign season and recommend spending limits (possibly including a more robust public-financing option)." And amendment would be needed to overcome Supreme Court decisions such as Buckley and Citizens United.
Joe Trippi, one-time manager of Howard Dean's 2004 campaign: "I propose that the first 'primary' should not be held in a state or a regional group of states. Rather, clusters of three congressional districts in three different regions of the country would be the sites of the first contest. Ideally, the clusters would be in areas Democrats need to win in a general election. So in the Southwest, three congressional districts from Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico would make up one cluster; in the Midwest, it would be districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio; and in the Southeast, the districts might be drawn from North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. These places would all hold primaries on the same day in February." [What about the GOP: And nothing for the Northeast? Hah!]
Alex Conant, former manager of Marco Rubio's 2016 campaign: "The biggest change in presidential primaries over the past decade is the dramatic reduction in the number of debates...The problem is that voters often make decisions based on what they see of the candidates in authentic, unscripted moments...In addition to more debates, the parties should allow more formats. Right now, the only time candidates face off is when everybody is invited, resulting in crowded, raucous, multistage competitions for airtime. Under looser rules, independent groups and media outlets could host unique debates among a variety of candidates — Emily’s List, for example, which supports pro-choice Democratic women, could host a debate for just the female candidates."
James Zogby, DNC Member and Sanders campaigner: "The Democratic Party ought to open the nominating process to voters registered as independents, allowing them to sign up as Democrats on primary day. Sixteen states have created open primaries through laws or referendums, according to the nonprofit group Open Primaries, although the parties have the authority to do so unilaterally. Yet Democrats have done so in only six states, the group notes."
Caitlin Jewett, Professor of Political Science at VA Tech: "When Iowa Democrats went to their caucus sites Feb. 3, 11 candidates were competing to be the party’s presidential nominee. Little more than a week later, the field was down to eight. As the 2020 nomination process unfolds, candidates will continue to drop out, meaning voters in states holding later contests will have fewer choices than earlier voters did. That’s a strong argument for 'front-loading' primaries: scheduling more of them sooner in the process. With front-loaded calendars, more citizens get to weigh in when there are meaningful choices to be made, and more candidates get to make their cases to a broad array of voters."
Andrea Benjamin, Associate Professor of African and African-American Studies at Oklahoma: "My preference would be for each party to hold all of its primary elections and caucuses on one day, 60 days before each party’s convention. This would shift the spotlight away from the horse-race side of politics and force citizens and the media to focus on candidates’ policy positions." [Or just the reverse.]
Selina Vickers, former Sanders delegate and legislative candidate in WV: " 'Superdelegates'...ought to be neutered entirely. ["Neutered"? he asks, crossing his legs.] A certain number of elected party leaders could retain the title of 'automatic' delegates, but they should not have a 'free' or 'wild card' vote at any stage. Instead, they should pledge to a candidate before their state’s primary or caucuses. If their candidates don’t earn votes at the state level, they wouldn’t have a say — so they couldn’t interfere in the democratic selection of a nominee."
Hans Noel, Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown: "A contested convention would be a good thing. And we should change the rules of primaries to make them more likely...Candidates who win 20 or 30 percent of the vote in unrepresentative Iowa and New Hampshire get media attention and a fundraising boost, and then one typically emerges as the party’s only choice. This is not a reflection of the “will of the people” but of the peculiar dynamics at the very beginning of the race...Negotiation at a convention could bring a party with divergent views closer to consensus on the strongest nominee, and good-faith discussion could ease divisions rather than deepen them." He also notes that extending proportional allocation of delegates to the GOP, and making the threshold lower (say 5 percent) would keep more candidates in longer, promoting contested conventions.
Rob Richie, President of Fair Vote: "The solution is straightforward: ranked-choice voting, or RCV. It’s simple: Voters in each state would indicate their candidate preferences — first, second, third — until they are indifferent about the rest. A series of 'instant runoffs' occur, with last-place candidates eliminated; the next-ranked choices of people who voted for that candidate are then tallied. The process is repeated until a winner has more than 50 percent. The winner by definition will have demonstrated appeal to backers of other candidates."
Personally, I agree with Prof. Benjamin: just have one big, national primary, and forget about all this state-by-state "momentum" nonsense. And you could combine that with Richie's RCV ("instant runoff") proposal or Noel's idea of just letting each candidates' elected delegates come to the convention and hash out the ticket and platform, just like the old says. Indeed, the Benjamin-Noel combination seems quite appealing to me (oh, yeah, I'm a former Poli Sci professor myself, lol), but it would bring howls from people who insist that we need to let unknown candidates have a shot (this is how we wound up with a 68-team NCAA BB tournament), as well as politicians, party leaders, and travel-related business people in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC--not to mention the journalists who make their living cultivating "sources" in those states. But it would be a lot more bearable process than the current insanity, which was never what the reformers of the 1970s intended to create.
Reactions?