Popular Process: Get it Now!

Hillary is being rigorous in adhering to the point of view that all her votes in Florida and Michigan should count. Her self-interest is transparent: The issue will help her prolong her race another couple of weeks (until enough Superdelegates shift to the Unofficial Presumptive Nominee to make FL/MI moot).

If she really felt so strongly about it, she would dedicate herself, over the next four years, toward improvements in the American political process--particularly as relates to our Federal elections (House, Senate, and Presidential).

In order to find a reed to hold onto, she has grasped the idea that popular vote should determine the Ddemocratic party's nominee (big- and small-d). Hear, hear!--though the count that favors her requires disregarding anyone who participated at a caucus and counts fully even Michigan, where the voters were denied any major candidate choice except Hillary.

Unfortunately for her, the nomination is decided purely by delegate numbers. Similarly, though one might want the leader of the free world decided by voluntary, universal adult suffrage, the President is the person chosen by state winner-take-all contests.

I find that Hillary can have no real beef with the process that has undone her this time around. Obama has beaten her fair and square, though she arguably had just as great support in the party throughout the campaign. The elected delegates of the party are the most true form of representative election to be found in this country; the superdelegates a mild attempt to preserve a modicum of party sanity. Caucuses are, indeed, less democratic, but we've left this to the states to decide, and so you get the patchwork.

I return to what would get this straightened out: in the general election, nothing less than abolition of the Electoral College by constitutional amendment. We need to junk this 18th-century artifact which was badly designed in the first place (look at the 1800 mess), never reformed to correspond to the advances in suffrage, and continues to show its ability to create mischief.

As for the parties, the DNC would announce its Unofficial National Primary Day a year or so ahead of the fact--it should be sometime in May or June. States that held their primaries on that day (or within a month afterward) would have their expenses paid by the national party, which would ensure that vote-counting standards were maintained (some state parties have not done so well on that, like my own NM this year). State parties could go up to 90 days before UNP Day if they paid the prices--some penalty in delegates (there is already some assessed in both parties), and covering the cost of the operation.

To facilitate this outcome, Congress should pass a law prohibiting state governments from paying for party primaries--these are essentially private affairs, and it is unfair to charge Independents any cost of their execution.

The Republicans would be forced by pragmatism and respect for the popular will to go along, though they could still count their delegates funny, with winner-take-all everywhere, or just in the states that they care about, or whatever. The Democrats should keep their system combining elected delegates and superdelegates (though encouraging the primary route, particularly on UNP Day). The changes I proposed would shorten the primary season, the election campaign as a whole, and hopefully move the country toward a true, national primary. 'Til then I'd gladly settle for the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday), as long as it's some months later in the year than the Super Bowl.


Hillary should announce her intentions in San Juan before the June 1 primary, devoting herself also to the democratic fairness issues of statehood for D.C. and for Puerto Rico (great idea for a pander, too!) With luck and Obama's support (and why shouldn't he--it would keep her busy), she could have all those revisions in by 2012, which should facilitate Democratic re-election.