Overcoming the Democracy Gap: Reforming our nominating process

The tumultuous 1968 Democratic nominating convention left more questions than answers. While the party elected Vice President Hubert Humphrey as their nominee, the Democrats were largely dissatisfied, more so with the process than the result. Humphrey, who did not participate in any elected primaries, there were only thirteen binding primaries at the time, won the nomination on the back of non-primary delegates (read as superdelegates). Seeing this result as undemocratic, the national party created the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, popularly known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission. Forty years later, the Democrats are again making a case for a revamp of the nomination process.

The measure of success in the pre-1968 nominating process was accruing the support of the “party elite” or the “party bosses”, as Humphrey accomplished nominally through the support of Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley and President Lyndon B. Johnson. The McGovern-Fraser reforms made the contested primary the means for delegate apportionment, but still granted a large portion of delegates to non-primary personnel, now known as superdelegates. The post-1968 system did not completely reject the role of the party elite in the nominating process, but simply limited their influence by developing a 50-state contested primary election that developed the primacy of the ‘pledged delegate.’ The Republican Party followed suit in implementing most of the McGovern-Fraser reforms; however, they retained the use of the “unit rule” where the winner of state’s popular vote is awarded one-hundred percent of the delegates, colloquially known as a “winner-take-all” election. Democrats allocate pledge delegates based on the proportion of ones popular vote. The existence of superdelegates in the Democratic Party and the unit rule in the Republican Party has given rise to a “Democracy Gap” in our nominating process whereby the vote of the people is not reflected in the delegate vote. Each factor creating the Democracy Gap will be hereby examined with recommendations for improvement.

The 2008 Democratic nomination will be thoroughly examined by scholars for years to come; akin to the treatment 1968’s election has received. While it remains in doubt, the role of the superdelegates in this process has been a cause for controversy. The original idea of the superdelegate, officially called an unpledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegate, was one of institutional memory or of the party elite holding a steady hand over the direction of the party. They served this role in 1984, by putting Vice President Walter Mondale over the top against the “New Ideas” of Senator Gary Hart and ending a contentious primary. However, this cycle the superdelegates’ role has been an amorphous one; the goal post keeps changing. With no definitive lead in delegates for either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, many are suggesting different deciding factors for superdelegate support. It has been suggested that superdelegates should support whoever has the pledged delegate lead, or whoever has the popular vote lead. Others have, radically, offered that the superdelegates should vote for whoever wins the most electoral votes out of the primary contests. While the goal posts keep moving, one sentiment remains clear: the role of the superdelegates is becoming fluid and contentious. Envisioned to provide stability to the party, superdelegates are, instead, providing ambiguity. If any superdelegates are willing to overrule the vote of the people in the form of pledged delegates or popular vote then the Democracy Gap may be unserviceable. However, the remedy is clear. The Democratic National Committee must abolition to use of superdelegates. Only then will the Democratic Party begin to fill the Democracy Gap that it has created for itself.

The Republican Party deserves similar credit for nurturing the Democracy Gap to maturity. The unit rule gives credence to the adage spoken by many disheartened Americas, “my vote doesn’t matter.” In the Florida primary, Senator John McCain outpaced former-Governor Mitt Romney by five percent of the popular vote, 36-31. This margin is not wide, and demonstrates considerable support in Florida for Governor Romney. However, this margin allowed Senator McCain to take 100% of the delegates, severely damaging Governor Romney’s viability as a candidate. In terms of delegate allocation, the 598,188 votes for Governor Romney did not count or matter they only added drama to the horse race. The Republican mentality is different from that of Democrats. As the saying goes, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” The unit rule allows for a quicker nomination process, but hurts the viability of non-frontrunner candidates. Each vote must matter and must be reflected in the apportionment of the delegates. While the Democrat’s system of delegate allocation is complicated, it is an improvement upon the Republican use of the unit rule. The Republican Party, in order to overcome the Democracy Gap, must review their national party rules on delegate selection so as to allow the vote of the people to be reflected properly in the delegate process.

Another incarnation of the Democracy Gap comes in the form of the closed primary – the practice of only allowing those registered with a major party to participate in primaries or caucuses. The closed primary disenfranchises all those who chose to register independent. This type of primary exists currently in 20 states, including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The argument against opening up the process to include independents has always been a concern for the sustainability of the two-party system. The two-party system is not, and never will it be, in doubt. Recent critics believed that the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 would dismantle the strength of the national parties, giving a pliable chance for the emergence of another party. This proved to be premature. Opening up the process to independents will allow more participants in our democratic process and, hence, reduce the Democracy Gap inherent in our system. However, this author does not advocate for open primaries, which allow registered voters to vote in either party regardless of affiliation. Instead, states should employ semi-closed primaries, which require party affiliation to vote in that party’s primary, but allows the option for independent voters to choose at the polls in which party they would wish to vote. This allows the participation of a large majority of America without risking the two-party system’s viability.

The Democracy Gap damages the credibility of the nominating process. These improvements, abolishing superdelegates, discontinuing the unit rule and allowing for semi-closed primaries, would allow more voters to participate in the process and provide greater strength to each vote. Change will not come easily, as it took nationally publicized riots at the Democratic National Convention to instigate the McGovern-Fraser reforms. But the contention of the 2008 Democratic primary may be enough to spur a review of the process, and cause the Republican Party to follow suit. The Democracy Gap cannot be taken for granted, and if the parties are serious about preserving our democracy and our republic they will turn a discerning eye to their nominating processes.

- Wyatt Schroeder