Tag: elections

Categories
National politics

No Good Delegate Answer for DNC

With the debate over the role of super-delegates and the delegates from Florida and Michigan in choosing their nominee, the Democratic Party finds itself in a no-win situation. Without the unpleasant idea that the super-delegates might have to publicly buck the democratic primary voters to give the nomination to Senator Clinton, we would not hear the Clinton Campaign calling to have the delegates in those states that she won (Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan) seated to make the race more level.

If the party chooses not to seat delegates from those states they open the door for Republicans to attack them for not backing up their “make every vote count” rhetoric.

If they do choose to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan they face a whole range of paths to bruise themselves. First – any delegate seating will undermine the authority of the party to affect the primary schedule (that power struggle is what started this whole mess). If they choose to accept that defeat they then have to choose how to seat the delegates. They can take the existing results and hear people cry fowl who chose not to vote, or who chose to vote in the Republican primary, based on the fact that their votes would not count in the selection of the Democratic nominee. If they chose to hold new primaries in those states they have to cover the costs or persuade the states to pay for a second election and they have to choose who to allow to participate. Michigan has open primaries so they run the risk of having people vote in their new primary who already voted in the Republican primary (the reverse of what Markos advocated as Michigan arrived). If they choose to limit their primaries in any way it can only be an arbitrary line.

Interestingly, if this same eternal nomination fight were happening in the GOP most of the problems outlined above would not exist because they chose to respond to the states that abandoned the party calendar by only stripping half their delegates so the original votes can stand and represent the votes taken without undermining party authority.

When I went searching for the Daily Kos link above, I thought it was funny to discover that Markos made many of the same arguments I just made on this issue. He recommends seating the delegates from both states and splitting them 50/50 between Obama and Clinton. Why don’t we just award an extra 200 delegates for each state that obeyed the party rules with the same 50/50 split condition while we’re at it? A 50/50 split is meaningless in deciding the nominee. It expands the pool of delegates, but adding 200 delegates to the delegate count of each candidate only means that there is a larger convention. Getting 1191 delegates to win the Republican nomination is just the same as getting 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination – the numbers may differ, but it all comes down to who gets 50% + 1. Besides that, the 50/50 split is unenforceable – either they have a choice, or they have no vote to cast. There’s no point in inflating the numbers to say “Welcome to the convention, check your seat for a number – odds vote for Clinton, evens vote for Obama.”

Categories
politics

Wrinkles In Iowa

I have read two stories now from the New York Times about questionable practices in the Iowa Caucuses. One on Iowa’s Student Vote and another on the reporting of the Democratic Caucus results. In regard to the student vote I was disappointed to learn that:

. . . political operatives often try to suppress the student vote . . . [using] a variety of tactics over the years to keep students from voting. There are often too few voting machines, so lines stretch for hours. Sometimes, students are falsely told that they will lose financial aid, health care or even car insurance if they vote while attending school.

In Iowa, the suppression has been rhetorical. With Barack Obama’s campaign, in particular, urging students to come out for him, other campaigns have tried to put up roadblocks. . . Clinton said during a campaign stop that the process should be reserved for “people who live here, people who pay taxes here.” Chris Dodd seemed to imply that people who were “paying out-of-state tuition” and participating in the process were somehow being deceptive and unfairly casting themselves as Iowan.

Student are rightly up in arms about these statements. The law in Iowa is crystal clear: students who attend school in the state are entitled to register to vote in the state as long they are not registered anywhere else.

For myself, I would be happy with any vote where voter turnout was above 70% even if I absolutely hated the person who got elected. At least I would know that the person who got elected was elected by an active electorate who disagreed with me.

With regard to the results of the Democratic Caucuses I was surprised to learn that the actual vote count was never made public. In the words of the article:

Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. . .

The press invests months in covering the caucuses. It and the public it serves are entitled at the end of the exercise to an unambiguous vote count, instead of delegate numbers that camouflage how much popular support each candidate earned.

Such practices serve as extra fodder for those who argue that Iowa is not representative of the nation and does not deserve to always take the lead in the process of selecting our president.

Categories
National politics

Many Primary Ideas

There are a variety of ideas for how we can fix our primary election process. They range from a lottery system proposed in comments and a post earlier on my site to more authoritative proposals such as rotating regional primaries as outlined by Trey Grason (go to page 25 of the PDF – hat tip the Senate Site)

Unfortunately, it is too late to fix the process for 2008, but steps can be taken for 2012. The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) is hoping to generate support for rotating regional primaries as a step toward that goal. The association’s bipartisan proposal, created by the nation’s chief state election officials, divides the country into four regions and establishes primary windows in March, April, May and June.

I was also interested in the proposal published in the New York Times by Jonathan Soros suggesting a national primary day where individual voters could opt to vote early.

There is, however, a simple way to establish a national primary and yet still allow retail politicking to meaningfully affect the course of the campaign over several months: allow early voting, with regular reporting of the tally.

Here’s one way it could work. Set a national primary date of June 30 and create a window for early voting that opens on Jan. 1. The early votes would be counted and reported at the end of each month from January through May. . .
If we began counting and reporting the interim results in advance of a national primary, the voters who cast early ballots would play the same role as voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do now: they could signal viability or create momentum for their favored candidates. These early voters would be self-selecting, trading the opportunity to watch the campaign unfold for the ability to demonstrate early conviction.

Most important, every voter, no matter where he or she lived, would have the freedom to make this choice. Right now, when one votes is determined by where one lives.

The national primary day has drawbacks, but I’m sure there are detractors to the rotating regional primaries as well and I know there are those who gripe about the lottery idea. I’m not ready to advocate for one idea over another, and I’m sure that all of them would offer an overall improvement over the current mess. What I would really like to see is an widespread, active, and public conversation now – not sometime after 2009 – to decide how we would like this system to operate because the current setup is going to lead to perpetual campaigning (like having candidates declaring six months into the four year cycle) unless we take steps to rein it in.

Categories
National politics

Bowling for Primaries

I have been thinking about the comments by Bradley when I wrote about the primary election power struggle between the states and the parties. Last night the thought occurred to me that the parties could simply pick a new way of awarding delegates. They could set three dates on the primary calendar. Whatever states held primaries or caucuses on or before the first date would have 10% of all delegates allocated among them. States who held their primaries after the first date but before the second date would have 20% of the delegates split among them. States between the second and third dates would would split 30% of the delegates and states holding primaries after the third date would split the remaining 40% of delegates.

The parties could then invite states to participate in a given window based on population and/or a lottery but the states would then be allowed to set their primary dates wherever they chose. If we imagine that the first date for 2008 was February 4th then “Super Duper Tuesday” (or whatever it’s being called now) states would be competing for 20% of the delegates in choosing the party nominees. When states choose when to have their primaries they have to balance the value of being influential in the early stages against the larger pool of delegates to by split by those who come later.

Questions? Comments? Rebuttals?

Categories
National politics

Power Struggle

This is nothing new in politics (power struggles in general or this one in particular) but it is starting to get more press coverage – the question is, “Who controls the nomination process – the states, or the parties?” The struggle is most public among the Democrats as their candidates have now promised to honor the Party primary calendar. The Republicans are dealing with the very same issue but without the same level of publicity. The struggle between the parties and the states seems to be a direct result of a struggle among the states to gain influence in the candidate selection process. I am left to wonder how the traditional set of early states was initially established? Was that set by the parties, or by the respective states? (Can anyone enlighten me on that?)

In my mind the parties should not control the process. On the other hand, they are choosing representatives for their respective parties so they should have control of how those representatives are chosen. I believe that experience had led the parties to value a process where they largely mimic each other through the primary cycle. (I’m not sure exactly why that is although I have a few guesses) While I believe that states should be able to choose how and when they participate in the primary selection process I’m not convinced that voters win when the primary season is pushed so far in advance of the general election. Imagine if the candidates for the election of 2000 were chosen in mid 1997 and then had 9/11 occur in mid 1998. We could find that the candidates we had chosen were ill suited to our new reality. (I know that’s an extreme example – almost too ridiculous to comprehend, but you can’t miss my point) There’s always a certain amount of risk that changes will occur between the primary selection and the final vote, but the earlier we push the primaries the greater that risk becomes.

What do other people think? Who should control the primary schedule? What would the ideal schedule look like (in general terms)? Is the current reshuffling power-struggle good, bad, or neutral for voters and the country?

Categories
politics

Ames Results

The results of the straw poll in Ames were just what I would have wanted. Mitt Romney won, as predicted, but Mike Huckabee came in second as I had hoped. His second place finish was called a surprise, but I can’t imagine a better candidate in that spot. Unlike many better known candidates I would have no reservations with seeing Huckabee in the White House. The only thing I could have hoped for in Ames that didn’t happen would have been if Huckabee had garnered all the votes from those candidates who received less than 5% so that there was more distance between him and Sam Brownback in third place.

Categories
politics

Approaching Ames

I’m looking forward to the results of the Ames, Iowa straw poll this weekend. Because of the candidates who are skipping it I am not sure if it will have much effect on the top tier of the Republican field, but I am hoping that it will be beneficial to my favorite second tier candidtae among the Republicans, Mike Huckabee. In an interview for the Washington Post he took my preferred position on one issue where I disagree with Mitt Romney by endorsing John McCain’s stance regarding torture (or enhanced interrogation).

I would love to see Governor Huckabee in the top tier instead of someone like Rudy Giuliani who is well known but has not convinced me that he has anything more going for him than being in the right position at the right time to gain that fame. If the Ames straw poll plays out right for Huckabee, he might have a shot at breaking into the top tier and getting the exposure that he deserves in the media.

Categories
National politics

The Election is Over

At the (earlier than expected) conclusion of this election season, I just thought I would add a thought in reaction to the ending. I hope that President Bush will be as gracious in his victory speach as Senator Kerry was in his concession speach. I hope that he talks about unifying the nation – as his opponenet did – but more importantly I hope the president follows such talk through with real action.

As for John Kerry, I think that he displayed real class in acknowledging when victory was out of reach and also in not buckling early while victory seemed remote but not impossible. I was prepared to wait for days while the provisional ballots were counted in Ohio. John Kerry made that possibility less disturbing by calmly allowing the process to proceed without crying foul or vowing to win at all cost or any other thing he could have done to make this election ugly. Before he cried for unity in his concession speach, John Kerry refrained from sowing dischord and thus displayed some of the qualities that make him a remarkable American.

My hat is off to this brave and determined competitor and citizen.

Categories
politics

How We All Win

I have been thinking about this and there has been speculation and anecdotal evidence but the first evidence I found regarding voter turnout came in USATODAY where we are shown the truth of how many people came out to vote this election cycle. I am convinced that we all win in a democratic system whenever participation goes up. Hopefully we can find ways (better than we had this year) to raise voter turnout on a consistent basis.

Categories
politics

The Beginnings of Unity

There are plenty of reactions out there that are bitter, angry, spiteful or haughty across the political spectrum. Here is a good example of a reasonable approach to creating healing and unity by focusing on now rather than dwelling on a past that we cannot change whether or not we would want to.

I hope to see more and more of the unifying, forward-thinking types of reactions across the net and across the country as the election drifts slowly out of our rearview mirror.