Democrats Recommend Eliminating Superdelegates

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/12/30/democrats_recommend_eliminating_superdelegates.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Taegan+Goddard%27s+Political+Wire%29

Democrats Recommend Eliminating Superdelegates


Chris Cillizza reports that the Democratic Change Commission, a group formed at the 2008 Democratic convention to examine the presidential nomination process, recommends the elimination of unpledged 'superdelegates' in its upcoming report to the DNC.

The decision was not unanimous. Commission member Dan Blue (D-NC) dissented during a call announcing the proposed changes, noting "there is no escape when something unforeseen occurs."

Ben Smith: "This cycle, with a Democratic president and no serious primary expected, is a good time to make a change like this, with large and unpredictable consequences for the 2016 primaries."

The final decision will rest with the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

[AllentownJake]

1. I think the Caucus/Primary issue is bigger

and the Super Delegates are silly, in 2012 or 2016, I can't imagine a scenario where they would change the outcome of the primary season to give the person with the least elected delegates the nomination except in the case of a scandal, and in that case, delegates are permitted to change their vote at the convention.

I do not believe that the GOP winner take all primary is an answer for the DNC because it allows whoever has the most money to throw it at the wall in early ground game contests.

I also will concede a point to Hillary supporters in 2008 that caucuses by their nature are not as democratic as a primary. I'm not sure if the results would have been different in 2008 with the caucus/primary paradigm, I will say we would be better off if we did a straight primary vote because it allows people like the elderly and disabled, mothers and fathers with young children, people who work jobs such as Nurses, Doctors, Police, and Fire Fighters, a greater opportunity to participate in the process.

[AllentownJake]

2. I'd also prefer regional Primaries

New Hampshire and Iowa can keep their traditional roles, but for economic reasons, I'd prefer a system where regions vote at certain times.

For Instance, you could group PA, NJ, MD, VA, DE, and WV into one region and have them vote in the same week. Next you group NY, CT, VT, MA, and ME into another group to go two weeks after and split the entire country up that way. You rotate the timing of each regions primary week so everyone gets a shot of being early in the process. This would save on travel cost for the campaigns as candidates can easy get on a bus using the highway system and see as many voters as possible. It would also allow candidates with less money a better shot, as they can increase the amount of time they are on the ground actually talking to voters. The week before each primary there will be a televised debate with all candidates who are on the ballot.

You can have a 12-14 week primary season where each region of the country gets maximum exposure to the candidates. Such an idea would require cooperation with the GOP however, I think it is best for both political parties.