The Democratic Party primary system hasn’t undergone a major reform since 1972. These reforms came out of the McGovern-Fraser commission, which had been set up in response to the debacle that was the 1968 Democratic Convention (when Hubert Humphrey won the nomination even though he hadn’t entered a single primary). The 1972 reforms made the Democratic primaries binding: nominees would no longer be chosen in smoky back rooms but instead selected by the people.

Losing candidates had been picked before, and losing candidates would be picked after. Sure, the smoky back rooms had given us FDR, but they’d also given us Adlai Stevenson twice in a row. We’ve had our fair share of bad candidates since then, but we also got Barack Obama (barely).

The problems with the system have become increasingly clear. For a time, there was a fear (which never materialized) that Super-Delegates would overturn the election in favor of a candidate that a plurality of voters hadn’t voted for. There was the concern that it would come down to a contentious floor vote, à la 1968 or <I>The West Wing</I> (if John Edwards had gotten a few hundred more delegates, this would have probably happened). And there remained the problem of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states that always, for some reason, get to vote first.

The ability to campaign in small states with an informed electorate gives an advantage to underdog candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, and even Barack Obama.  But do these states really represent the rest of the country? Aren’t they a bit...white? Aren’t they all farmers? (They’re also wealthier than the residents of your average state).

The real problem with Iowa and New Hampshire always beginning the process is that it gets them disproportionate representation in Congress. No politician that wants to run for president would dare vote against corn subsidies (well, except John McCain, and look how well that turned out). Corn subsidies are not only a waste of taxpayer money -- a policy that benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority -- but they’re also a major factor in obesity. Iowa receives more farming subsidies that any other state.

It’s also worth considering that this was the first primary election cycle in a while where all the states voted before the outcome was decided. And turnout was record-breaking in nearly all these states. That would seem to suggest that these states have just as much of a right to go first as any other.

Some things, of course, are not broken. Proportional representation works. Still better would be delegate allotments based on the popular vote of a state, but we should probably leave this up to the states. And it's the same with the caucus / primary question. States tend to have traditions of one or the other.

And so, a modest proposal:

When it comes to the total number of delegates required for a win, we should do away with the necessity for a majority, and instead require a plurality plus a certain number -- say, 50 delegates. Any race with a margin of less than 50 delegates could be said to be too close to call. In that case, the Super-Delegates can decide -- perhaps in a mini-convention to be held shortly after the last primary. No one wants the party elders deciding who the nominee is but in a really close election, better to have them pick than for it to come down to a series of recounts and lawsuits. The objective here is to select the nominee before the convention, and lessen the possibility of the appearance that the election has been “stolen.”

The most important issue is which state gets to go first. The first state should be small, to give under-funded campaigns at least a shot. Let’s set the cut-off at 20 Electoral College votes. I know, it’s arbitrary, but any cut-off would be. That disqualifies California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York. Let’s also disqualify Alaska and Hawaii, which would be expensive states to run in given the travel costs. Of the remaining states, divide them into four categories: South, North, Midwest, and West. West is west of Texas. Try to make the regions more or less even in terms of the number of states. Select one state from each region. The states could be picked randomly or they could lobby, Olympic-style. Those are your first four primaries.

The first primary (or caucus) should be held the last Tuesday of January. They should be two weeks apart -- long enough to have a debate and some retail campaigning. The fifth primary can be a big state chosen at random. Then comes Super Tuesday. And the states can pretty much take it from there.

Now is the perfect time to enact these reforms. We had a contentious primary but won the general election. The Democratic Party is as united as it’ll ever be. Furthermore, we can assume that there won’t be a serious primary for another eight years, which should be long enough for the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire to forgive the party for taking away something that never should have been theirs in the first place.

Now as for the Electoral College...

--Hillel Aron

Photo by Programwitch