Democratic Democracy

By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).

Neutrality guided my thinking as an uncommitted superdelegate during the recent Democratic nominating process, largely because I prefer building the Party to picking horses. Voters decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our presumptive Presidential nominee.

Sure, superdelegates came out to break the deadlock, but they opted for the candidate who had earned the most pledged delegates. Based on the rules that were in place, the nominating process came to its appropriate conclusion.

That’s different than saying the system worked.

Like any idea committed to paper but unproven in the real world, the flaws in our process only became evident when it was put to the test.

The last eighteen months have made it clear that there are many improvements needed, and that reform means more than preventing superdelegates from becoming the central front of another nominating process. Here are some of the things we should consider.

Superdelegates

The idea of superdelegates – or, more officially, an unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegate – strikes many as undemocratic. Many proposals aimed at curbing their influence center on making their votes more dependent on how the voters in a Congressional district, state, or the whole country voted.

Among these ideas was one I heard from many of Senator Obama’s supporters in Maryland, who believed superdelegates should pledge to vote the way their state (or Congressional district) voted.

The trouble is, Democratic superdelegates aren’t evenly distributed around the country – by population, by percentage of the nationwide Democratic primary vote, or by any other means. Several states – including Maryland and the District of Columbia, won by Senator Obama, and California, New York, and Massachusetts, won by Senator Clinton – are overrepresented by superdelegates. Others states are underrepresented.

This inequity happens for a number of reasons. Many superdelegates are appointed to be at-large DNC members, representing a particular constituency – Young Democrats, African-Americans, GLBT Americans, etc. Former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and some other high-ranking officials also continue to be superdelegates. Wherever these superdelegates live, they are counted with that state’s delegation.

If this logic had been followed by everyone, and all superdelegates had voted the way their States voted, the final numbers would have been much, much different – and this would have probably helped Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama.

Later in the campaign, as the process was nearing its end, I began to hear another argument emerge, mainly from Senator Clinton’s supporters: superdelegates should pledge to support the winner of the national popular vote. But this argument, too, is more complicated and problematic than it seems.

First – in addition to the disagreement about whether (and how) to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida – there was a lack of consensus about whether (and how) to count the votes cast by Michiganders and Floridians. Second, the contests weren’t all held on the same day, making the national popular vote a “photo montage” of the electorate rather than a snapshot. Third – and most importantly – the caucuses held in just over a dozen states do a poor job at capturing “popular” sentiment (more on that in minute).

For these reasons, using the national popular vote for a nominating contest would be as flawed as requiring superdelegates to vote the way of their state or district.

What does it all mean? What should we do about superdelegates?

We could require them (or certain categories of them) to remain neutral until after the primary contests have all concluded, as I did. We could devise a system to bind them (or certain categories of them) to primary vote totals in a way that wouldn’t give some states an outsized influence. We could reduce the overall number of superdelegates, making it less likely that they would exercise as much influence on the nominating process.

Or we could do away with superdelegates entirely.

Caucuses

After Senator and Michelle Obama move into the White House and we’ve secured expanded majorities in the House and Senate, the DNC needs to review whether or not we continue allowing states to hold caucuses. Though cheaper to hold than primaries, they are an imperfect way of nominating a President.

First, and most obviously, caucuses are a bizarre creature in a democracy that values secret ballots. But they also depress overall turnout, and skew what turnout there is away from older voters, working-class voters, voters with disabilities, and other who have trouble making it to a caucus site and staying there, sometimes for hours. There are no absentee ballots for caucuses, and so voters with unmet child care needs, voters who make a living through shift work, deployed members of the military, and voters without reliable transportation are shut out of the process.

We should invest in our democracy by requiring primaries, not caucuses.

A Rotating Regional Primary System

If only Michigan and Florida had followed the rules, their influence on the nominating process may have been greater. But they were only marginally more ambitious than most states in trying to increase their influence on the primary process. (See: Tuesday, Super)

It is past time to allow more states an opportunity to hold the first in the nation primary. We should strongly consider fundamental reform to our party’s nominating contest, taking a close look at a regional primary system. The DNC could carve up the country into 5-8 regions and then use a lottery system to determine the contest dates for each region. This would allow new, different voices to be heard.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Let’s use what we’ve learned from this extraordinary nominating contest to make further improvements for years to come.

Editor's note: This guest post is the second part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.