Old, New, Borrowed, Blue

Most people recognize that the presidential nomination process is a horrible mess. With each successive cycle, more Americans are denied a meaningful voice. Last year, the Democratic nomination was determined in record time. But “faster” isn’t always “better.”

When Howard Dean suspended his campaign in February, only one-fifth of the American electorate had spoken. California was in that other four-fifths that had no say at all. If California had had the opportunity to speak, would Howard Dean be president today? That’s an interesting question to ponder.

But, we have to look forward, not backward. We know that we have a problem. How do we fix the problem?

H. L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” Now, there are some simple, neat, and wrong solutions out there, but the American Plan isn’t one of them. It is not simple, and because of that, I cannot fully explain it to you in a few minutes. But if I had an hour, you would understand that the American Plan is not wrong, and I like to think that you would say it’s pretty neat, because it’s based on a mathematical formula.

Now, you wouldn’t expect me to explain to you in a couple of minutes how to launch, land, and operate a rover on Mars, would you? Well, I’m an aerospace engineer. It is my profession to design things that will fly. I’m also a political scientist. It is my profession to study political problems. I can tell you, that with the American Plan, I have designed something that will fly; moreover, it will fly politically. It is the only plan for comprehensive presidential primary reform that has been the subject of a scholarly, peer-reviewed, political science publication.

You can say that the American Plan has something old in it, in that it uses the twin geopolitical structures of federalism that the framers of the Constitution gave us: not just the states, but the congressional districts. It also takes us back to a more relaxed time, before front-loading forced the American people to make snap judgments. It restores the nomination schedule under which the 1972 McGovern-Fraser reforms were intended to operate, before front-loading distorted the process beyond recognition.

Of course, the American Plan is also something new, since it is based on a mathematical formula, as I mentioned earlier. Also, for the first time, there will be a coherent, national plan for the primary schedule, rather than state-by-state confusion. The American Plan applies engineering design principles to the American political system. We have a serious structural flaw in our democracy, and the American Plan will fix it.

In a way, the American Plan has something borrowed. It is based on the same philosophy as a reform plan that was very nearly implemented by the Republican Party in 2000. That’s right, I said the “R” word. If you read the report of the Brock Commission, you will see that they espoused the same values as we do, of increasing voter turnout and ensuring that every American has a voice in choosing his or her party’s presidential nominee. They also had the same concerns that nomination campaigns are becoming less competitive, more driven by money than by message, and that as campaigns become shorter, issues are not being fully explored and vetted.

So, the American Plan is something old, something new, and something borrowed. It is up to Democrats to make it something blue.

Now, let’s be clear on what this resolution calls for. All it asks is that the DNC commission give the American Plan “serious consideration.” So far, it has not done so. I have repeatedly asked for the opportunity to present the American Plan before the commission. So far, it has not responded. I call your attention to the language of the resolution passed at last year’s Democratic National Convention, which called this commission into being:

... the Commission shall examine all substantive, systematic, and incremental reform proposals... bearing in mind the Party’s commitment to a presidential nominating process that is open and fair to all Democratic candidates and voters and that produces the strongest possible nominee.

“All substantive, systematic, reform proposals.” All.

All this resolution asks is that the DNC commission live up to its charter. All that I ask, as the author of the American Plan, is for my day in court.

And so today, I ask all of you, make the American Plan something blue.

Now, why should you support the American Plan? Is there a person in this room who believes, that after eight years of Republican rule, the next president of the United States will not be a Democrat? No. Is there a person in this room who will vote for the Republican candidate in 2008? No. So, November 2008 is not a real decision point for anyone in this room. The real choice will come in January and February 2008. The next president of the United States will be chosen in the Iowa caucuses and in the New Hampshire primary.

Meanwhile, California has given up trying to have a voice in the nomination process. The legislature has moved the California primary to June. That’ll be four months after it’s all over, and four months after the shouting. One out of eight Americans is a Californian, and we will have no voice.

If we do nothing, that is. Today, we have an opportunity to do something. Today is our first decision of the 2008 presidential campaign. What is at stake is nothing less than our right to choose the next Democratic nominee, the next president of the United States.

And so today, I ask all of you, make the American Plan something blue.