Comments on: DNC Change Commision – Oct 24 AM Session

By: Josh Putnam

Josh Putnam — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:32:04 +0000

Of course. Thank you. I wish I could have made it up today.

By: DemRulz

DemRulz — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:08:51 +0000

Josh – thanks for your always thoughtful comments.

By: Edward C. Martin

Edward C. Martin — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:54:35 +0000

As I hit the submit button, something came to me re: absentee participation at caucus. Video conference. I was able to talk to someone in China using Skype, and it’s free. Someone at home or out of town could cast there vote in real time if they have a laptop and the cuacus has a person hooked up. This could come in handy during a snowstorm in Iowa.

By: Edward C. Martin

Edward C. Martin — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:45:23 +0000

Mini-regionals are a good idea especially grouped in such a way that 3 or 4 smaller delegate count states together could equal a NY or CA and alter the campaign dynamic.
No to super-delegates. 1 man, 1 vote. Trust the people to choose the candidate, I don’t like the fact that someone can come in and “do what’s best”. Please, trust us.

By: Josh Putnam

Josh Putnam — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:42:13 +0000

Oh and most states do not have their state and local primaries in conjunction with their presidential primaries. That is the main reason that most of the states that have moved over the years have been able to do so. I have shown that in my own research. Prior to 1996, states with split primaries (presidential and state/local) were about 7 times more likely to make a move forward. After 1996, that dropped to only 2 times more likely. But still states with concurrent primary structures (still the minority) are less likely to move forward. If you get a chance during the second half of the day, bring this up. That information on primaries is WRONG.

By: Josh Putnam

Josh Putnam — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:33:00 +0000

Thanks so much for posting this Frank. Great stuff.

Curtis Gans is right to blame 1988, but the idea of a Southern primary movement had its origins in the mid-1970s and was actually begun when Georgia and Alabama moved to coincide with Florida in 1980 (at the Carter administration’s behest). At the time, New Hampshire and Massachusetts were early and gave Kennedy a potential leg up in the race. So, it didn’t actually start off as state selfishness so much as the administration’s need to regain the 1980 nomination. By 1988, when the other Southern states moved, that had morphed into state (or regional really) selfishness.

The proposals are nice to see and it is great to idealize what happened a year ago, but I still don’t see any incentive structure to get any of the bloc of early states to move back in the process. The bonus delegate regime has not been effective and the winner-take-all proposal for later states is flawed. Bipartisanship would help, but both parties have to stand unified behind any plan they construct together.

Thanks again.