PUMAs Need to Pounce on Primary Reform, Now!

by: Democrat In Exile

Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EDT

As you may note from my many posts on primary reform, I am not a big fan of any of the current proposals for primary reform found at FairVote.org or CenterForPolitics.org.   

My question to PUMAs and No Dealers is "Do you want primary reform or not?  Time to influence the process, not just the outcome!   (Hint:  If the Senate holds primary reform hearings now, it can do nothing BUT help get the word out about how fraudulent this last primary season has been.  Get it?)   Sorry, PUMAs and No Dealers, is my frustration showing?

None of the plans described at FairVote.org or CenterForPolitics.org exclude caucuses. Neither does Senator Feinstein's 2007 legislation nor, apparently, Senator Nelson's recent legislation. This is a major drawback.  There is just no way that caucuses should be allowed, unless only for the purposes of having an advisory role.  They clearly do not measure up to the primary principle of democracy -- one person, one vote.  This is widely accepted among experts and the population, but runs up against stiff resistance from certain states and power brokers, who apparently want to hold on to archaic forms of power.

The best elucidation of what an ideal primary process would consist of is found in the New York Times editorial of June 8, 2008 -- Primary Reforms.  The NYT editorial points out clearly the need to (1) eliminate caucuses, (2) revise the schedule of voting, (3) revise how delegates are allocated, and (4) eliminate superdelegates. The NYT also recommends clear rules with respect to penalties for violating scheduling rules.

In my opinion, if the primary scheduling process was done fairly (like a rotating lottery, or eliminating state schedules entirely -- see below -- there would likely be no states who would feel "left out" and want to seek exemptions from the scheduling rules.)

Memo to Feinstein:

• Eliminate caucuses.   Do you need any proof as to why they are fatally flawed?   If so, I will elucidate.   Just request more information, if you can't get that concept.
  
  
• Eliminate all state schedules.   I don't know why this hasn't caught on, except for maybe states just want to have more power and don't believe in voters' rights and powers.  This is so easy.  The concept is "Vote Anytime, Count Often."   My understanding is that Jonathan Soros originated this idea which you can read more about at Vote Early, Count Often at the NYT.   I think Mr. Soros should have named the concept Vote Anytime, Count Often, because it is NOT really about voting early.
  
  The idea is to establish a national primary period that allows any voter in any state to mail in or go to a voting center to vote ANY TIME between, let's say, January 15 and June 15.  The votes would be tallied by the states about every three weeks and reported. 
  
  This voting scenario allows the voter to be in charge, not the states, and thus, there is no basis for states to try to jockey for an early voting position. It gives ultimate power to the voter to decide to vote early or vote later, to declare early, or to wait and contemplate.  The downside, of course, is power brokers lose (oh, cry me a river....) and those who desire a centralized DNC or RNC lose (oh, cry me a river, again....). The other downside is that exit pollsters lose, and the mainstream media loses power (oh, cry me a giant river...).  This is the way it should be, not centralized power, and not structured for the media's benefits and control.

The upside for states is that the process of making ballots and counting votes is actually simplified. Votes would come in spread out over a period of time that would allow states to likely NOT have to hire additional workers to process ballots.

This is the ultimate concept in voter power and thus, it is the ideal democratic scheduling scenario, bar none.

• Eliminate crossover voting. Limit the ability of Republicans to vote for Democrats to influence the outcome of Democratic primaries, and vice versa (Does that happen?  Would a Democrat be that sneaky?)   One way to help limit the practice of crossover voting would be to have closed primaries which do not allow affiliation changes within 30 days of any primary.
  
  
• Apportion delegates rationally.  Apportion delegates pro-rata, per state, on the basis of percentage totals at the end of the voting season.
  
  
• Eliminate most superdelegate tasks.  Eliminate superdelegate tasks except for emergency situations that might take place close to or after a convention, and set firm rules as to what would trigger superdelegate participation.
  

Dear, Honorable Senator Feinstein:  Are you listening?   Thank you for your kind consideration, and, ummm, let's get moving.

Memo to Readers:  Write or call Senator Feinstein and ask her to keep her promise to hold hearings on primary reform this month.