Open Forum For California DNC Candidates

You wouldn't know this unless you follow these things closely, but this coming Sunday, June 15, is very significant in the future of Democratic politics. On that day at the California Democratic Party executive board meeting in Burlingame, 19 men and women from throughout the state will be voted in as DNC members. Those elected will take their positions after the Democratic National Convention in August, and will serve through the DNC in 2012. Here's the list (it's a PDF) of names who will appear on the ballot - 9 men, 9 women and the 19th-highest vote-getter regardless of gender will win the election.

Now, why is this important? These 19 DNC members will be part of the organization that will need to decide how to reform our completely broken primary process that almost turned a historic nomination season into utter chaos. There is no other issue - not the war, not poverty, not the economy, not health care, nothing - where DNC members will make any kind of a difference compared to primary reform. I know a lot of party members read this site, so let this be a jumping off point for discussion. No California e-board member should vote to elect any of these candidates without knowing their plans for primary reform. And on the flip, here are a few ideas.

Here's a brief sketch of some of the necessary reforms, IMO, that I wrote at The Washington Monthly last week:

Now the next challenge, in my view, is reforming this disastrous primary system entirely, reviewing it from top to bottom and ditching the most undemocratic elements. I would move to a rotating regional set of primaries (decided by lottery on January 1 of the primary year so nobody can park in any one place prior to that), superdelegates with no vote until after the first ballot, which is reserved for delegates picked directly by the voters (so they get to go to the party but not have an undue influence on the process), and all delegates selected proportionately based on their state's popular vote. I would remind those who think caucuses should be thrown out that they are tremendous party-building tools, and many of the states with caucuses this year are swing states (Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, even Texas perhaps), and those state parties captured priceless voter contact information on hundreds of thousands of voters who could be turned into volunteers.

Let's go a bit more in depth.

Primary schedule - the reason that we ended up with such a chaotic system for delegate selection is that Michigan and Florida jumped the line set by the DNC, and instead of past years where sanctions would be granted on those states only to be lifted after the winner was chosen and the delegate counts no longer mattered, this was a close race. So that sanction hung over the entire primary season. Yet the DNC must be able to manage their own nominating process. So it seems to me that they shouldn't allow one delegate to be chosen before their set date for the beginning of the primaries, and that states should be grouped by region and chosen by lot. This breaks the Iowa/New Hampshire stranglehold (and if they don't like it, really, let them secede), eliminates the penchant for 30 visits to the early states on the calendar, and continues to allow for retail politics through the various regions. It's somewhat similar to the American Plan.

Real proportional representation - the current system is kind of a joke, in that congressional districts which allocate even-numbered amounts of delegates have quite a bit less influence on the overall result as districts which allocate odd-numbered amounts. Simply put, it's easier to gain an advantage in an odd-numbered district, needing only 50% plus one, as it is in an even-numbered district, needing as much as 63% of the vote. There is absolutely no reason why the delegate allocation can't be proportional based on statewide popular vote, with the congressional allocations included later. Furthermore, the states need to be proportionally represented relative to one another - the system of add-on delegates and rewarding states that kept their primaries later in the process and giving Puerto Rico more delegates than 27 states simply has to end.

Dealing with the superdelegates - all of these DNC members elected will then become so-called "superdelegates," so I recognize that asking them to renounce their own power and influence is kind of dicey. But nothing had a more damaging impact on the party than the perception that the process was controlled by party insiders who could subvert the will of the people. That it "worked out" in the end is of no consequence. Superdelegates really shouldn't have such an outsized impact on the nominating process. I suggest that their votes for President and Vice President at the DNC don't count on the first ballot, ensuring that they get a ticket to the event but the voters have the first crack at choosing the nominee. A standard of 50 or even 55% could be set as the necessary threshold to get the nominee over the top, if superdelegates want to hold out the option of having their wise counsel be determinative.

There are probably dozens of other ideas, but I want to open this up to discussion. How would you reform the primary process, and what can potential DNC candidates do to assure you that they will adequately represent the interests of California voters to see the process reformed?

CDP E-Board Wrap-Up

I would say that the mood of participants coming out of the executive board meeting of the CDP in Sacramento was a 180 from the mood coming out of the Convention. Clearly there was a lot of upset over the way the final session of the Convention ended, and many felt that the small-d democratic process was not being respected. That was most certainly not the case this weekend, which shows to me that the message was received by the leadership in the party. There were debates and issues raised and passionate sentiments about various matters, but in the end everyone had their say, votes were held, and the system worked. That's about the most you can ask for.
Progressives hold far slimmer numbers at an executive board meeting than they do at a convention. Yet the work that came out of this meeting, in particular on resolutions, was far more progressive, because they are the most organized group in the party and they take the process seriously, and in addition are prepared to work within it to arrive at the desired results. A very strong antiwar resolution, an impressive resolution supporting parole and sentencing reform, and finally the breakthrough on net neutrality are all successes to be lauded. They were diligent, tireless and skillful at understanding the system, and that bore fruit. Ultimately, those resolutions have little more than symbolic value. The attempt to restore pre-primary delegate caucuses failed, but there was a concession on opening the filing process, and most important, small-d democratic processes were respected and seen through. That the Party Chair felt the need to make several statements regarding a 58-county strategy and financial matters shows that there is an understanding that members have some serious concerns about resource allocation. This is a major victory for those who would like to see their spot on the map receive the care and attention they feel it needs. The Finance Chair, Erik Bradley, made every effort to welcome new voices into the process. He is seeking people in every county for low-donor events and input on spending money in those counties, and everyone should take him up on it instead of privately grumbling.

I think everyone should be pleased with the way in which the CDP is better reflecting the views and concerns of its constituents, and how Democrats of all stripes are getting involved from inside the tent to make the party more effective and responsive. Aside from one ill-timed comment from the Chairman about "the blogs," I'm pleased with how things went.

CDP: E-Board Meeting Friday Night

Back at our hotel in Sacramento with hekebolos after the first day of the executive board meeting of the CDP.  I spent most of my time in the Progressive Caucus, and since Donald Lathbury of the California Majority Report had his laptop with him and I didn't, I'll outsource the running commentary to him.

I will say that the caucus was once again the most well-attended, most organized group in the CDP, and I sense that people there are growing more confident in their ability to make real change happen within the party.  There have been setbacks, no doubt, but they continue on.

I will say something about the net neutrality debate tomorrow.  Brad Parker from PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), as I mentioned, will be debating Jim Gordon, chair of the Labor Caucus and a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America), tomorrow morning.  I'll be liveblogging.  But the outcome of that debate, while entertaining, is irrelevant to what will happen tomorrow.  There will be two resolutions in the Resolutions Committee - one by Brad Parker, and one by Jim Gordon.  I haven't seen the text of either, but I can safely assume that Parker's supports the principle of a free and open Internet without discriminating against any content provider, no matter how big or small, while Gordon's talks about "building out broadband access" and implicitly endorses the telecoms getting additional revenue streams by forcing content providers to pay them for high-speed access.  As Parker put it today, "broadband for the haves, and dial-up for the never-wills" is what the telecoms want.

So this will play out tomorow in resolutions, and Brian will have the inside scoop, I assume.  Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards will address the general session at 9:30 am tomorrow.

And on an unrelated note, our hotel is hosting the largest anime convention in Sacramento.  I'm the only one here without an oversized sword and a lion costume.  Hekebolos has his on right now.

CDP E-Board Follies

Just a quick note: I will be attending this weekend's California Democratic Party Executive Board meeting at the Radisson Hotel in Sacramento and posting occasional updates on the proceedings on Calitics. The main issue that everyone seems to be talking about is the process for picking delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in the state, whether those delegate caucuses will be held before the California primary (as is typically the case) or afterwards. Frankly, I think it's an inside baseball kind of deal, and while both sides have passionate arguments in favor of or against it, I'm a bit unmoved by them (Pre-primary advocates want a more diverse slate of delegates going to the convention to impact the platform, I believe, to which I say, how many people actually read and ingest and make decisions based on the party platform, and is that number in triple digits or not?). But I'll be up there to let you know about them.

The two things I want to see, and will report back about, are the Progressive Caucus on Friday night at 8pm, and a debate on Saturday morning at 8:30am about net neutrality, between Brad Parker of Progressive Democrats of America, and Jim Gordon, the chair of the Labor Caucus (and a member of Communications Workers of America, who are resistant to the principle of net neutrality, to put it mildly). That should be very fun. The agenda for the meeting is here, in case anyone is in Sacramento and would like to attend (apparently observer passes will be available on-site for a nominal fee, I think $15).