A More Perfect Nomination Process

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean exhaled at the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st. “It’s extraordinary,” Mr. Dean said. “Thirty-five million people have come out to support Democrats in every state and territory in America.”[i]

It is a proud moment in the history of the Democratic Party, but the lengthy process is due Senator Obama’s unexpected success and Senator Clinton’s endless determination, not the result of a carefully constructed process.

The primary system is rigged to favor the candidate with the most money and the most name recognition. It is also rigged to establish a presumptive nominee as early as possible in order for the Democratic candidate to concentrate on raising money for the general election.

Senator Clinton was the inevitable Democratic candidate. Barack Obama was not considered a serious contender, but the Illinois Senator scored a surprising victory in the Iowa Caucus. Senator Clinton placed third, setting off a contested and contentious Democratic presidential campaign. The rigged primary system did not serve Senator Clinton’s interests.

The states recognize the primary system is rigged. Iowa and New Hampshire’s influence in the nominating process is disproportionate to their amount of Electoral College votes - seven. States with larger Electoral College votes are irrelevant because the field of candidates is significantly reduced after the first two contests, and the nomination is settled early in the campaign.

Iowa and New Hampshire nullified California’s diverse electorate. In the past, California held its primaries in June, at the end of the process. California voters could not influence the selection of the Democratic candidate because the nomination was secured during the early stages of the primaries.

Before the 2008 primaries and caucuses, states leaped over each other front-loading the process. Unwilling to surrender their traditional roles in the primary process, Iowa and New Hampshire followed suit. Traditionally, Iowa is the first caucus. New Hampshire is the first primary.

Michigan moved its primary to January 15, forcing Iowa and New Hampshire to schedule their contests to January 3 and January 8 respectively. The Democratic Party penalized the Michigan delegation by removing their delegates from the process.

Florida scheduled its contest on January 29, however the Florida Democratic Party was not at fault. Florida’s Republican governor and Republican legislature scheduled the new primary date, but Florida’s Democratic delegation was penalized when their delegates were removed from the process.

The primaries in Michigan and Florida were meaningless. Eventually, their delegates were awarded half a vote for the Democratic convention.

To avoid these scheduling problems in the future, the Democratic Party should adopt a hybrid of the Delaware Plan and American Plan. The Delaware-American hybrid would eliminate the constant battle for position in the primaries.

The Delaware Plan consists of the smallest 12 states scheduling primaries and caucuses in March, the next 14 in April, the next 13 in May, and the rest of the states in June.[ii]

The American Plan primaries would start in March and end in June, with ten contests. Every two weeks contests would be held beginning with a “combination of very small states with a total of eight or fewer Congressional districts – such as New Mexico with five, Maine with two, and the District of Columbia with one.”[iii]

The Delaware–American hybrid would consist of 14 contests. Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their traditional roles in the process. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary would be scheduled in February. The next twelve contests would be scheduled from March until June starting with the states with the lowest number of Electoral College votes.

For example, the contests after Iowa and New Hampshire would be: Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont and the District of Columbia. The second group would be: Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. The primaries would be scheduled in March.

To prevent an East Coast bias, each group would alternate every four years. In 2012, the Delaware group would participate first, the Utah group would participate two weeks later. In 2016, the Utah group would participate first, then the Delaware group two weeks later.

Candidates who lack name recognition and campaign funds would be able to compete in the early primaries. Hopefully, under this system, the primaries would become a contest of ideas instead of a process that rewards celebrity and financial excess.

The third group would be: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon. The primaries in these states would also be scheduled in March.

Delegates would be awarded to the winner of the congressional district. Candidates who succeed in the early contests would not accumulate large amounts of delegates, thus insuring more competition.

The fourth group would be: West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi. The primaries for this group would be scheduled in April.

Voters would have an opportunity to make sound judgments because candidates would be forced to campaign in the smaller states.

The fifth group would be: Connecticut, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama and Louisiana.

The sixth group would be: Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Wisconsin and Washington. The primaries for the states in the fifth and sixth group would also be scheduled in April.

The seventh group would be: Missouri, Indiana, Tennessee and Maryland.

The eighth group would be: Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia and Massachusetts.

The ninth group would be: Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania. The primaries for the seventh, eighth and ninth groups would be scheduled in May.

The tenth contest would be New York and Florida. The last contest would be Texas and California. The primaries for the last four states would be scheduled in June.

To prevent an east coast bias, New York and Florida would alternate with Texas and California. In 2012, New York and Florida would be scheduled first. In 2016, Texas and California would be scheduled first.

The original 2008 field of candidates would have been able to compete through the first five contests under the Delaware-American plan hybrid. States are placed in regional groups saving campaigns traveling costs, thus reducing campaign expenses.

Iowa and New Hampshire’s influence would be reduced because the winner of the first two contests would not be considered the presumptive nominee.

However, the impact of winning Iowa and New Hampshire is a myth. Bill Clinton lost the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary in 1992. The early defeats did not prevent Governor Clinton from winning the nomination.

Primaries would be limited to four, five or six contests in one day instead of twenty. Candidates would be able to effectively manage their campaigns, and maintain a comfortable pace throughout the nomination process.

Furthermore, the larger states would impact the nomination process. New York, Florida, Texas and California voters would determine the winner of the primaries.

This is not a perfect system. The Democratic Party needs to make further reforms in the nominating process to avoid chaos in the future. It can start by modifying the role of the super delegate.

The Democratic Party does not trust the voters. Super delegates were created to correct potential mistakes made during the primaries. Or more aptly, to overrule the will of Democratic activists who participate in the primaries. Democratic Party leaders are afraid activists will nominate a candidate who will lose the general election – like George McGovern in 1972. Such lack of faith in the democratic process is insulting.

Instead of overruling the will of the voters, super delegates should become involved in the process if the primaries do not produce a nominee. However, super delegate should not cast their votes until the end of the Democratic presidential campaign, otherwise the super delegate is casting two votes in the same election, violating the one person, one vote clause of the Constitution.

In the 2008 primaries, as an example, the super delegates would have decided the contest between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama after the last primary.

Second, eliminate the caucus system – except for Iowa. Caucuses are too complicated and limits voter participation.

Third, eliminate Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa from the primary system. The citizens of these territories cannot participate in the general election, therefore their influence in the general election is limited.

Fourth, only voters from Democratic Party should be allowed to participate in the primaries. Independents and Republicans should not be allowed to participate.

Republican mischief-makers, such as conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, encouraged registered Republicans to vote for Senator Clinton in open primaries to create dissent in the Democratic Party. In the Texas primary, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory.[iv]

Through May, 2008, 863,113 Republicans and independents voted for Senator Obama creating a substantial lead in the popular vote.[v]

The 2008 Democratic presidential campaign may have been compromised. We will never know the true intent of the thousands of registered Republicans who voted for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Locking out independents and Republicans in the future will restore integrity to the process.

Finally, if the Republican Party refuses to endorse the reformed primary process, then Congress should intervene. Congress cannot allow the Republican Party to sabotage the primary process as it was done in Florida. The integrity of the nominating process must be defended against mischief and inherent bad faith.

The 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was exciting and heartbreaking, but the primary process should not be compromised to determine an immediate winner. In politics, ideas should matter most, not political or monetary expediency.


[i] Adam Nagourney, “A Primary Calendar Democrats Will Never Forget,” New York Times, June 2, 2008.
[ii] John Nichols, “The Mad Money Primary Race,” The Nation, January 3, 2008.
[iii] John Nichols, “The Mad Money Primary Race,” The Nation, January 3, 2008.
[iv] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
[v] Michael Saul, “Without GOP Backers, Bam Would Be Behind,” New York Daily News, May 4 2008.