Primary (Reform Under False) Colors

The greatest political issue of 2005 is flying under the public's radar. That issue is, "How shall we choose the next president of the United States?" We'll elect one, of course... that is, we'll either elect a Democrat or a Republican. And who shall decide who gets to be on the November 2008 ballot? Ah! "To nominate or not to nominate, that is the question!"

In 2004, Iowa and New Hampshire nominated John Kerry, then it was all over but the shouting. The voters in later states didn't really matter. By the time Howard Dean threw in the towel in mid-February, only a fifth of the American electorate had spoken.

And they call it "democracy."

In 2008, California will have no voice. The state legislature has moved the primary to June. That'll be four months after it's all over and four months after the shouting.

But, as the Democratic slogan had it in the last presidential election, "Help is on the way." Outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe's swan song at the end of 2004 was to empanel a Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling. This sounds great! But how great is it really?

First of all, Terry McAuliffe didn't believe in reform. He thought that "front-loading" the primary schedule--having many states hold early primaries--was the key to Democratic victory in November. This is the man who picked the members of the "reform" commission!

The party determined its nominee in record time, just as McAuliffe wanted... and then what happened? John Kerry disappeared into a black hole for the next five months, while his opponent campaigned from the Rose Garden. At the Democratic National Convention in July, political commentators declared that Kerry's acceptance speech was his opportunity to tell the people who he was. Uh, pardon me, but wasn't that what the primaries were supposed to be about? But, the reality is that there was only one primary--in a tiny place called New Hampshire--and a caucus by a handful of party activists in Iowa. They're the ones who bought this pig in a poke for the rest of us!

Now, what a surprise, given who picked it, but it doesn't look like this Democratic commission is going to solve anything. To be fair to McAuliffe, however, it's not all his fault. In 2000, another DNC commission concluded that the nomination process was just fine the way it was. The Democrats have been sailing in the wrong direction on this issue for years, now suddenly they're trying to tack into the right direction.

Just as we wouldn't want to put all the blame in one place, let's give credit where it's due. The fact is that the Republicans have a longer legacy in tackling the problem of the presidential nomination process. A task force in 1996 concluded that "front-loading" was disenfranchising most of the American people, and that reforms were necessary. However, the task force recommended only band-aid measures that failed ignominiously. The 2000 primaries were even more front-loaded than 1996. So, a 2000 commission chaired by former Secretary of Commerce William Brock courageously recommended a systemic reform called the Delaware Plan.

The Delaware Plan was one of the noblest and most rational attempts in American history to reform the presidential nomination process. It aimed to cure chaos with systemic design. The Brock commission understood that the best feature of the current process is that it begins in the small-population states of Iowa and New Hampshire. I am a life-long Californian, and I could not imagine what this is like. I had to have the New Hampshire Secretary of State describe to me what "retail politics" is really like. Candidates literally sit with people in their homes. It is more like interviewing for a job than campaigning for a public office, and after all, it is the most important job in the world! Now, in the California Republic of 36 million people, you stand a much better chance of being struck by a Frisbee while standing in a crowd than shaking the hand of a presidential candidate. Here in the Golden State, it's all about mass media, and that means it's all about massive money, not message. So this Californian believes, however reluctantly, that small states should go first in the presidential nomination process, where every candidate relies on shoe-leather... and message.

But like a Greek tragedy, this hero called the Delaware Plan had a fatal flaw. The plan put all of the low-population states first all of the time, and it put all of the populous states at the end of the season in every presidential cycle. "Unfair!" cried California Secretary of State Bill Jones, and rightfully so. In fact, the 13 most populous states--all the way down to Virginia--would have been given an eternal raw deal. And, when all of the populous states opposed even a noble hero, that hero must die. The Delaware Plan was killed at the Republican National Convention in 2000. Since then, the GOP has been silent on reform.

So now the Democrats are having a crack at it. How well are they doing? An eye-witness to the DNC commission's July 16 meeting in Washington reported, "At one point a commission member noted they didn't have a clear idea of what question they were supposed to be answering."

All right! Seven months after McAuliffe created the commission, it's still looking for a mission statement!

It's hard to figure out what's going on with the commission. I invite you to look at the commission's website. Most of the links on it result in a "Page Not Found" error. This is not a temporary condition; these links have been dead for months. There is no way for the ordinary citizen to know what the commission has done, is doing, or will do. The new DNC chairman Howard Dean has promised us a more open and activist Democratic Party, but this commission is the blackest of the black holes, the smokiest of the smoke-filled rooms. The analysis and decision-making that go into determining how the 2008 primary schedule will be laid out ought to be carried out in the full light of day, which as much participation as possible by the party rank and file. This is an issue that all Democrats own, yet it might just as well be locked away at Guantanamo Bay.

The commission members appear to have finally acknowledged that Terry McAuliffe's front-loading strategy failed, but they seem to be at a loss as to where to go from here. The fact that they heard testimony on the Rotating Regional Plan, but apparently not on any other comprehensive solution, is an indication of how half-assed they are (so are they semi-donkeys?). In marked contrast, the RNC's Brock Commission considered about a dozen proposals before settling on the Delaware Plan.

The DNC commission may not have the depth of knowledge on this issue that Republicans acquired through dogged experience, so they might well repeat the error that the Republican commission made in 1996 and recommend half-hearted measures, rather than go for a systemic solution as the Brock Commission did in 2000. If so, then another blitzkrieg campaign looms in 2008, and a small portion of the American electorate will be buried in the rubble of sound-bite rhetoric, while the majority will be left politically orphaned. After another electoral holocaust, the Democrats may empanel yet another commission, and do this whole thing over again four years from now.

But that might be too late.

2008 is the grand opportunity: no incumbent president is running for re-election, and no sitting vice-president is running for the top job. For the first time since 1928, the presidential nomination in both major parties is wide open. The planets are all lined up, and the Democrats are acting like they're not ready to launch. Or, even worse, they may launch in the wrong direction. "They are not interested in doing something because it's right or fair but because it will help them win power," an observer of the commission's proceedings has reported.

On the other hand, the Democrats could "endure the unendurable," reach out to the Republicans, and learn from their failures.

A systemic solution is possible, but it must be fair to populous states even as it preserves "retail politicking" in the intimate venues of low-population states in the early part of the campaign season. Most importantly, the body politic as a whole would be well-served if Democrats were to be made aware, through discrete, nonpartisan intermediaries if desired, where influential Republicans stand regarding how the presidential nomination process should be repaired. It would be far better for the two parties to take this leap of faith, if not simultaneously, at least with some confidence that one will follow the other. We, the people, deserve this.