DNC to reform primary system, cutting many 'superdelegates'

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/03/23/dnc-to-reform-primary-system-cutting-many-superdelegates/

DNC to reform primary system, cutting many 'superdelegates'
@ 8:12 pm by Michael O'Brien


The Democratic National Committee (DNC) will reform its presidential nominating process to shorten the window of primaries and caucuses, and reduce the number of controversial "superdelegates," which dominated the 2008 process.

Gov. Tim Kaine (D), chairman of the DNC, established a special commission — headed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) — to reform the process that dragged out the primary battles between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

According to the DNC, the commission will have three official goals: 1) changing the dates between which primaries and caucuses may be held, 2) reducing the number of superdelegates, and 3) improving the caucus system.

"This Commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate," Kaine said in a statement. "I want to thank all the members of the Commission who have agreed to serve, including Congressman Clyburn and Senator McCaskill who have graciously agreed to serve as co-chairs."

The recommendations of the commission will be due by Jan. 1 of next year, and, Kaine said, it would work with the Republican National Committee (RNC) on some issues.

I agree that the system is flawed, but I wonder what's really behind this move. Why change the system now?

Hmm ...

:dem:

-Laelth

That will not happen. First off, these small states love the airtime they get every four years. It is their moment on the spotlight. Second, on a more practical level, these smaller states allow a candidate to do door knocking, something that admittedly would be a lot less practical in Florida.

That being said..while it is ok to uses these small states as a stage, the DNC does need to acknowledge that populations have shifted. They want to keep Florida a Blue State, and they want more States to turn Blue. Mitt Romney notwithstanding, most talk in NH is preaching to the choir.

Past Presidents, Past Vice Presidents, Past Speakers of the House, Past Majority Leaders?

Their endorsements and campaigning are fine. But, to get a vote weighted thousands to one against mine isn't right. One person, one vote. No Superdelegate votes, IMO.

The DNC does provide the votes on a weighted basis for the most part. Based on votes received by the Democratic candidate in previous election(s). The more voters that vote for the Democratic candidate in the previous election the more delegates they may be allocated. Indiana didn't receive more delegates based on that category because Indiana had the Democratic candidate receive the most votes for 44 years. Next election they will have more delegates under this category.

All delegates that are current Senators and Representatives are all elected Democrats. Each state only receives the number of delegates for this category based on how many are Democrats. Here in Indiana we only had 6 out of 11 possible spots.

Every state does not follow the same rules either.

In essence, states have to earn the number of delegates they are allotted.

Also, the rules are not decided by the DNC chair. They are decided by DNC committee people elected by Democrats in their states. Not by voters who may not even be Democrats.

We have 435 congressional districts, so that should be plenty:)

and doing the only FAIR thing: one national primary day.

Voters in California and Florida have every bit as much right to pick the President as those in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why should we be left with only two or in some years NO choices?

It's not fair and really violates democratic (small d) principles.

Doug D.

They get to decide the rules. Those that get to vote on the rules are the DNC members. DNC members are voted on by state convention delegates, state district officers or other means determined by each state.

What would be fair is only allowing true Democrats and true Republicans decide their nominee. But even that is not in stone as the convention decides the outcome regardless of the primaries.

NO the rules should NOT be left up to the parties - it's too important to let them make up arbitrary rules that disenfranchise people - currently the rules don't disenfranchise by race or sex but DO disenfranchise by geographical region.

There should be one Primary day just like there is one General day.

Would it NOT cause a huge uproar if each state decided and announced its General Presidential results on a variety of days across a six month period? Would this not disenfranchise people geographically? People already complain on the west coast and in states which split time zones like Florida and Tennessee that it disenfranchises the western portion of their state.

NO there should be one primary day and one general day nation wide. I don't mind if there is early or absentee voting ahead of that day for a month but the results should NOT be announced except on that one day.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

NO the rules should NOT be left up to the parties - it's too important to let them make up arbitrary rules that disenfranchise people - currently the rules don't disenfranchise by race or sex but DO disenfranchise by geographical region.

There should be one Primary day just like there is one General day.

Would it NOT cause a huge uproar if each state decided and announced its General Presidential results on a variety of days across a six month period? Would this not disenfranchise people geographically? People already complain on the west coast and in states which split time zones like Florida and Tennessee that it disenfranchises the western portion of their state.

NO there should be one primary day and one general day nation wide. I don't mind if there is early or absentee voting ahead of that day for a month but the results should NOT be announced except on that one day.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Those rules they have that don't disenfranchise by race or sex are party rules not government rules.

In Indiana the Democratic Party from precinct level to state level require that the Chair and Vice Chair be of opposite gender. The Republican Party has the same gender rules but not for the precinct level and if a vacancy occurs they do not have to follow the gender rule. Democratic Party does.

The Democratic Party has the rule not to discriminate. Republican Party does not.

State or Federal laws do not dictate the number of delegates each party must have for their state or national conventions.

State or Federal laws do not dictate the dates of state or national conventions. Federal law does require that the party of the President in power have their convention after the opposing party.

State or Federal laws do not dictate when or where political parties must meet.

The rules do not disenfranchise the people because it is up to the political parties to determine the rules. The voters don't get to decide those rules unless they are a DNC committee member that were elected by their peers. In your case, Sen. Tony Hill, Duval; Mitch Ceasar, Broward; Chuck Mohlke, Collier; Alan Clendenin, Hillsborough; Jon Ausman, Leon; Diane Glasser, Broward; Terrie Brady, Duval; Nancy Jacobson, Orange; Joyce Cusack. Volusia; Evelyn Garcia, Palm Beach.


It use to be that states held their election on different dates across about a 6 month period.

We wouldn't have President Obama, now, if that were the case.

since Obama won big in his early races and had problems in later races.

Doug D.

AFTER he had a good showing. He had to got to each state individually to get the attention, and build support. Then, the money came, then the poll numbers. He didn't have the money to compete in a national election on Primary Day One.

Democratic voters can select their own nominee, no?

Each has urban, rural, and major airports & media..

3 weeks campaigning, 4th week for debate & then election



or a 6 region variant


or even 3