Beyond Superdelegates

As luck would have it, I was in New York on the night of its primary as part of the United Nations session on drug reform. And, it was really a depressing night. It wasn’t the election results. Rather, that the primary underscored the intractable problems with how our election system is administered.

I’ve heard complaints, anger, conspiracy theories, and even curse words that highlight the frustration people are feeling over this election. There’s been talk about revisiting the decision of the Democratic Party to use superdelegates. The process of designating some delegates to the Democratic National Convention by virtue of leadership position is something that we should be free to revisit.

Superdelegates were created by the Democratic Party after an exhaustive study process and a commission headed by North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt to deal with what we perceived as serious problems within the Party in the 1970s that resulted in a couple of landslide elections for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. It’s always healthy to reevaluate these decisions in light of changing circumstances.

But, the real problem is not superdelegates.

The real problem is the incredibly complex system the two major parties have chosen to select their nominees. The ultimate questions that should be answered are, who should select the nominees for the party and how should it be done.

There is no uniformity, and little transparency. There are wildly different requirements, not just between the two parties, but between the states. As long as we have a non-system for the parties selecting their candidates, we’re going to continue to have frustration and manipulation. Democracy will not be well served.

Does it make sense to use caucuses that are elaborate, time-consuming, and disadvantage citizens who work by the hour? The caucus system involves pretty elaborate effort and reduces participation — as opposed to simply filling out a ballot and designating a choice. There are strong arguments for why the caucus system is a much less representative selection process.

Should people who are not members of a political party be able to determine the party’s nominee? If you aren’t a Republican, should you be able to help the party decide among Trump, Cruz, and Kasich?

Once the circus arrives at the conventions, new questions must be asked:

At what point do the people who end up being delegates have an opportunity to exercise their judgment?

What happens if something comes out in the course of a campaign that would lead a reasonable person to reconsider their preference, or suspect the public has changed its collective mind?

What happens if there is no majority after several rounds of voting?

When, and under what circumstances, do delegates exercise their judgment?

What would be the consequence if, as actually was the case in Oregon when I started in politics, the delegates themselves were elected separately? Who has the upper hand in that case?

What happens if the campaign selects their delegates, as we’ve done under party rules in Oregon?

These are important questions. Since the vast majority of Americans have no idea what actually happens in their state, it’s no wonder there’s widespread frustration as more and more information comes out. People think the election process is simple and straightforward. That’s just not the case in the vast majority of circumstances from coast to coast.

By all means, let’s have an analysis of what role, if any, superdelegates should play going forward. But, let’s begin with the assessment of things that are really wrong with the nominating process.

Beyond the presidential nominating contest is a broader set of issues that is even more disturbing.

A major problem is that we have over 4,000 fiefdoms, county-by-county election administrations across the country.

The problem is that we have partisan elected officials who administer elections for everyone.

The problem is that our Republican friends have enshrined their techniques to disenfranchise some voters, especially lower income, people of color, and students through extraordinarily restrictive election law requirements.

The problem is that in a state like New York, the elections process has been completely hijacked and made into an incumbent protection program. The rules in New York are so arcane that people are being routinely disqualified from running. Incumbents are protected further by rules that freeze party registration six months before the primary.

Don’t forget all of the problems we still have with gerrymandering and our campaign finance system.

These are symptoms of a seriously flawed American election process.

It is especially painful for me because I first became politically involved fighting to lower the voting age. I then served on a national commission with the League of Women Voters and the Ford Foundation to deal with maximizing political participation and reducing barriers to voting.

It is beyond frustrating that the bipartisan recommendations we had a generation ago have been ignored, and the elections process has become more arcane, more subject to manipulation, and harder for people to participate. It is especially difficult for those who are not older, well-established voters.

Routinely, in places just across the Potomac in Virginia and, more recently, in Phoenix, Arizona, the machinery of the election breaks down for the disadvantaged. They face long lines, broken machines, and fewer polling places.

It is an outrage that should concern any and every citizen.

We should have universal voter registration that follows you and doesn’t require an elaborate reregistration process every time you move. We should follow the lead of my home state, which this past year began automatic registration when people get their drivers license. Having uniform mail-in ballots like we have in Oregon makes it a simple task to verify voter identity. Every ballot is checked by comparing signatures, so voter fraud is essentially zero. More importantly, you have a verifiable paper trail in the event of any problem with the election process.

There are ways to make our electoral system function better. My hope is that all of the people who have shared their frustrations will join together to demand a simpler, fairer, and easier system that works for all Americans.

That’s something that should unite us all.