2012: The first thing we do, let's kill all the super delegates
With apologies to Shakespeare.
I'm sure we can all agree that the 2008 primaries have gone off without a hitch, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improving the primaries next time around:
<ul>
<li>Abolish the super delegates - if the super delegates are going to follow the pledged delegate leader, what's the point; if they're not going to follow that, it leaves the aroma of a smoke filled room</li>
<li>the number of pledged delegates for each state will be 10x the number of Congressional Representatives that state has; that way the number of total delegates stays about the same as it is now, but they are distributed in a manner that reflects each state's population</li>
<li>the pledged delegates are allocated among the candidates according to the percentage of the vote each candidate received across the entire state; the winner of the state gets the benefit of rounding</li>
<li>abolish caucuses, with the possible exception of Iowa for sentimental reasons - I don't care if they're cheaper, they're less democratic</li>
</ul>
I'm undecided if the primaries should be opened or closed.
I'm also don't really have any proposed scheduling rules, other than I would tend to favor purple or blue states over red states. Thus I would probably move South Carolina farther back in the primary schedule. If the desire is to have an early state with a large African-American population, may I suggest Maryland instead? According to the 2000 census figures, the percentage of African Americans in South Carolina and Maryland is 29.48% and 27.72% respectively.
I'm sure we can all agree that the 2008 primaries have gone off without a hitch, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improving the primaries next time around:
<ul>
<li>Abolish the super delegates - if the super delegates are going to follow the pledged delegate leader, what's the point; if they're not going to follow that, it leaves the aroma of a smoke filled room</li>
<li>the number of pledged delegates for each state will be 10x the number of Congressional Representatives that state has; that way the number of total delegates stays about the same as it is now, but they are distributed in a manner that reflects each state's population</li>
<li>the pledged delegates are allocated among the candidates according to the percentage of the vote each candidate received across the entire state; the winner of the state gets the benefit of rounding</li>
<li>abolish caucuses, with the possible exception of Iowa for sentimental reasons - I don't care if they're cheaper, they're less democratic</li>
</ul>
I'm undecided if the primaries should be opened or closed.
I'm also don't really have any proposed scheduling rules, other than I would tend to favor purple or blue states over red states. Thus I would probably move South Carolina farther back in the primary schedule. If the desire is to have an early state with a large African-American population, may I suggest Maryland instead? According to the 2000 census figures, the percentage of African Americans in South Carolina and Maryland is 29.48% and 27.72% respectively.
Advertisement
This whole "caucuses are undemocratic" spiel only came after Hillary lost all but one of the caucuses. No one had a problem with it before this year. Anyway, it's up to the state parties to decide whether they want to run primaries or caucuses and whether to have it open or closed.
May 26, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, but I still think it's a flaw in the system. I'd rather have a system that encourages more voting than less. And if the DNC can tell the individual states parties when they can vote, they can certainly tell them how they can vote.
BTW, sorry for my crappy formatting.
May 26, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think caucuses are good for the party- they build the party from the grassroots, they're about engaging people in the democratic process through discussion and it encourages activism. The problem with primaries is that it tends to favor the candidate that has the most money, name recognition and the support from the local political machine. I get why we have primaries and I don't mind that most states have them but I don't think that caucuses should be abolished in the name of "democracy." When caucuses are done right, they're democracy at its best. I think they can be improved upon but getting rid of them completely seems a shame to me.
May 26, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink