If It Ain’t Broke...

Everybody seems to believe it: The way the two parties nominate presidential candidates is a troubled system that needs “reform.”

National political leaders and journalists gather today at Harvard’s Institute of Politics for a day-long conference to mull ideas for making those adjustments. Yet a fair question also needs to be asked: If it ain’t broke, why fix it? Rather than sweeping “reforms,” a more do-able proposition is a series of tweaks and adjustments to the current processes.

We have to begin by asking ourselves: Does the current system “work?” Despite the quadrennial complaint that the current nominating process is too long, too expensive and too negative, the 2008 presidential campaign is producing credible nominees who will offer American voters clear distinctions.

Unlike recent elections, the choice between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or John McCain and Barack Obama will not leave voters feeling they have to choose between the lesser of two evils. These match-ups provide Americans with clear choices on the war in Iraq, health care, cures for the economy and judicial appointments.

On the Republican side, the nominating process produced McCain, the strongest general election candidate in the field of GOP contenders, according to the polls.

On the Democratic side, the spirited battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is generating record turnouts of new Democratic voters, with huge increases especially in the female, African-American, and young adult demographics. Those new registrants will prove useful to the eventual nominee and to other Democratic candidates down the ballot come November.

The purpose of the nominating process is producing electable candidates, not fostering debate or civic participation. That’s an important nuance to remember in this discussion.

Some criticisms of the process are inconsistent. Early criticisms that states like Iowa and New Hampshire had too much influence because winners there quickly rolled up the nominations has given way to criticism that the process is now too long.

So which is it: Is the process too long or not long enough? When coming to a decision, bear in mind that more Democrats than ever are having a “say” in the 2008 contest.

Yes, you can make a case the protracted battle is hurting both Clinton and Obama’s chances in the fall election. Their attacks on one another amount to doing McCain’s dirty work for him.

But that battle will soon be over and such divisions will heal quickly for

most Democrats. While the folks on the losing side will be sore, most will quickly rally to the nominee. They’ll get over it and for good reason. If Hillary Clinton loses, her supporters will be bitter but will wind up for Obama because whatever differences exist between Hillary and Barack, they are nothing compared with the differences between a Republican and a Democrat in 2008.

On the Democratic side, the current nominating system contains within it the very mechanism to bring about a quick conclusion: superdelegates. While upsetting to some, these elected officials and party leaders form a system of “peer review” among those for whom politics is a profession, and it is now incumbent upon them to make the final decision: which candidate will be the strongest one to throw against McCain? Ironically, there is almost no complaint about the Republican process and its “winner take all” primary system. That system produces the same results Democratic superdelegates will ultimately provide: a conclusion and a nominee.

Yet, while there shouldn’t be a major overhaul to the way the system works now, here are some questions both parties ought to be asking themselves about how primaries and caucuses are administered.

Should caucuses and primaries be open to independent and cross-over voters, or just to registered members of the party? Currently, different states have different rules governing this question. You can argue it either way, but it’s legitimate for each party to consider one national standard so that all states and election participants are treated the same way.

Should states that hold caucuses be required to adopt a uniform set of rules for running those events? The large turnouts at the caucuses change the nature of those once-intimate events. Adjustments to be considered include ending same day registrations a week earlier rather than allow people to register at the caucus site. Overworked volunteers have been swamped by large turnouts.

Requiring voters to get registered at least a week earlier would mean caucus leaders can have one less thing to do at the caucus. It would also provide them a list showing who is eligible to participate, reducing the possibility of fraud. Also, the parties need to consider uniform caucus tabulation systems and appeals and criminal penalties for falsifying caucus results, just as it is a crime to falsify primary election results.

And states and parties should consider putting caucuses under the control of local election officials, just as voting is on primary day,which would assure that the process is impartial and consistent.

Another change caucus states could adopt is one Maine allows: Voters who can’t get to the caucus can cast an absentee ballot at a caucus to register their initial preference. That’s an easy way to meet the valid criticism that caucuses disenfranchise people who can’t attend.

Caucuses could also be held on Saturday nights instead of week nights, or alternatively voting could be allowed during a longer window of time to enable greater participation.

But big changes to the nominating processes rarely win approval. They are fine for rules freaks and debating societies to discuss but the fact remains that, in politics, most change is evolutionary, not revolutionary.



David Yepsen is the political columnist for the Des Moines Register and is a fellow this spring at the Institute of Politics.