There is so much schizophrenia in general wrt the role of party and public. Primaries require the use of public apparatuses, like voter rolls and voting locations. This seems unavoidable to me. Therefore there need to be public appropriations, which could, like cops' overtime at private, large-scale events, could be reimbursed. It would be great to make the policy-making structure clear, but I think that is not possible in a system with 50 state legislatures involved.

Yes, Arrow's theorem is not at all widely understood. But even in its absence, a process that gathers votes over a long period of time will necessarily never be able to obtain the 'best' result. My point is that in a party nomination, it is impossible to determine a process that always selects the optimum candidate.

Technically, the Democratic Party is the one that's responsible for selecting the candidate and is the body in charge. The Florida/Michigan thing is, at least in part, them establishing that, so I think that eliminating Florida and Michigan's direct influence at the convention is probably a good thing for the party in the long run.

I don't really see why the state legislatures have to be involved anyway. Caucuses and mail-in primaries can certainly be run without direct support from local governments.

Finally, it doesn't really make sense to talk about a 'best' result since there isn't going to be consensus on that anyway. The people in power (DNC or whomever) basically have to design and implement a process, and then let the votes fall as they may during the election proper.

is a good thing for the party, you say? Good for what? Democracy?

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

Put it into perspective for a moment. The primary is basically a large fancy, non-binding, poll which the Democratic Party uses as part of the process to select its presidential candidate. Theoretically, the delegates could get together and decide to make John McCain (or whomever) the democratic candidate for president independently of the votes that are cast in any of the primaries.

There are other reasons to argue for moving control of the primary process away from state legislatures, but as long as there's a tug-of-war between the state legislatures (who aren't necessarily affiliated with the Democratic party or have the Democratic party's interests in mind) and the Democratic party leadership (which might) the context will not be conducive to constructive primary reform.

The folks in FL and MI knew the rules. If you're going to be blaming anyone for their disenfranchisment, look to the state legislatures. But this goes back to the original point, doesn't it that there is unseemly commingling of private party and public election rules? And to another pair of conflicting objectives--to get broad participation (through a primary) and controlling the delegate selection process completely (through a caucus).

Technically, the Party gave up sole responsibility for selecting the candidate when the primary/caucus selection process began.

Technically, I paid for my right to participate in the public selection process and have been denied. That denial is based on a party rule, an arbitrary rule applicable to some and not others, a rule that somehow holds more sway with than 'no taxation w/o representation', even though said rule has never been justified in any way to begin with.

The party cannot hold primary elections in MI without using my money. I say they do not have complete freedom to decide on their own when my vote will or will not be counted. They do, however, have an obligation to hold free and fair elections.

Their claimed right to decide when I(the Sate) can vote is bogus and should be challenged. I have elected representatives to say how and when my tax money is to be spent, not party representatives. That doesn't work for someone? Find another way than to take away my money and disallow my vote.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

with Nate, right?

That the problem lies in the party's dependence on the legislatures to enact its wishes?

What do you propose as an alternative? If primaries, who is going to certify the voting roll?

... not insofar as its a good thing for the party to tell MI and FL to stuff it. The problem is that the party wants its cake and to eat it too.

Alternative? Hmmm. Quick answer would be national primary, closed vote.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

That means, in today's world, only high id, big money people could seriously run.

That means no Bill Clinton, no Jimmy Carter. No insurgencies. No state party building based on the campaign. The rise of regional candidates. Somebody up above mentioned Arrow's paradox of voting. It would be possible to have a scenario of a candidate who was the first choice of 20 percent, and last choice of 80 gain the nomination.

Can you amplify on the party wanting it both ways? I don't follow.

The party wants control, to have the states pay for the primaries, and in the end they don't have the cajones to protect the voters. They aren't beholden to exclude the delegates. The rules do not compel them to do so. The party created this mess, not the candidates or the voters. It is within the means and the rules set by the party to settle the dispute without ignoring the votes of millions of people. They just don't have the balls to do it.

Apparently Arrow Paradox exists presently. There has always been three or more options available in every race.

Possibility is not the same as likely. As I said, it was a quick answer. But since we seem to have all sorts of rules for the present system, I don't see why a national closed primary couldn't be made to work.

I not married to the idea, just saying reasons against it aren't compelling so far. I mean, is the argument that our current, muddled, haphazard way of nominating candidates is working out great? If our present system allows for millions of people to be told they don't count, then it really wouldn't be too hard to improve upon it, seemingly. Perhaps all it takes now is for people with more than self interest involved to be runnin' the show.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

MPD, not schiz.

Multiple Personality Disorder - different people talking inside
Schizophrenia: standing on the streetcorner screaming at Gopod.

The Dems only look like they're standing on the streetcorner screaming but they are really framing their message.

“The Playboy reader invites a female acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.” - Hugh Hefner

How did you know that the impossibility theorem would come up? I've referred back to it at least twice in this discussion.

It irrefutably demonstrates fundamental limitations of election processes so it is easily invoked to show that some sort of compromise (or non-election system) is necessary even without those 8 criteria you listed. (It probably also doesn't hurt that I mentioned it early in the discussion so it's on your mind.)

Working backwards from an August 1 convention, with these primaries at three week intervals in May, June and July, with NH and NM in April.

That would leave a month for implosion, but I think that unlikely. IAC, the convention is a backstop against such an implosion. As for your wishing for a brokered convention, well that doesn't seem to ever happen. Might've this time if there had been no superdelegates, but now the superdelegates are perversely increasing rather than staunching the blood flow. By giving Clinton a lifeline, they are keeping her in the race.

My point is not so much about this year. The idea is to actually have a convention in which our elected representatives could decide when we, the people, have not done so decisively. Get rid of the super delegates, we wouldn't need them if it were more, rather than less likely to have an open convention. You didn't respond to the funding portion of my proposal which is critical to keeping all of the viable candidates in until the convention.

By the way I would drop all caucuses making all primaries secret ballot . The convention, however, would take the form of a giant caucus. In today's multimedia age the convention could be far more open than in the past.

Finally, I think my proposal answers all of your criteria.

Should the primaries be open or closed? Open to dems and independents only?

You do realize that by eliminating the caucuses you are taking away prime party recruitment capability? I happen to agree with you, but recognize this is not costless.

How do you select these kingmakers?

You don't really think that the popular vote in the primary has much to do with the choice that's actually made, do you? The Democratic Party machine has their way out--it's called "superdelegates". This saves them the trouble of actually having to completely discredit an undesirable candidate.

Clinton will lose the popular vote in the primary, but she stands a very good chance of getting the nomination. Why doesn't this bother every Democratic voter?

But that's not what I'm trying to focus on here. Re: my disagreement. I don't think Clinton has a chance. Anybody concerned with the future of the party would rather lose with Obama than lose with Clinton. If they tell all these new young people that their votes don't count, they'll lose them. So her claim that Obama would lose holds no real weight. They're just cowards; they don't want to cross the Clintons if they don't have to. So they keep hoping for the primary vote to make the decision for them. That is, I agree that voters would be greatly displeased if she gets the nomination, but see no reason to borrow trouble.

And, no, I don't think the "popular vote" in the primary has anything to do with the nomination. The system is expressly designed to *not* respond to the total popular vote, however you define it. (The fact that it is hard to define illustrates this.) It's designed to select a candidate who conforms to the objectives I listed in the post.

But that doesn't mean that it is designed to ignore the rank and file either.

Whether you think the way the superdelegates should stop the bleeding is by endorsing the DLC candidate who can win the Shrum/Penn big state swing voter strategy (which looks better this year than ever) and picking Clinton, or by endorsing Obama, who has an insurmountable delegate lead and represents the future, it is indisputable that they are not doing the job carved out for them. The idea that these wiser heads would stop the internecine combat by saying It's over! at the appropriate moment has proven not to be so.

So we would be much better off without them. If they do indeed exist, unofficially, as you're saying, fine. But making them explicitly the declarers of victory once victory has failed.

When they go into the back rooms and revise the nomination process for the next cycle, I think the initial response to 1968's debacle has proven correct. Trust the voters. Create a system that allows the voters' views to be expressed reasonably transparently. That doesn't mean one national primary. But I think it means that the appointment of special arbiters of close contests has failed. Whether they are in smoke-filled rooms, or at pressers.

In a sense, not even winning counts for much. We have two parties mostly to offer a "choice". Both parties work hand-in-glove and pretty much share the same playbook. If you lose this term, you'll probably make it in the next or the time after that. To those who are permanently ensconced in the party leadership, it really doesn't matter too much. You have to take the long view.

So, if the delegates (super- and ordinary-) choose Clinton over Obama, will it alienate the party electorate? Maybe for about 10 minutes, but they'll go and vote for Clinton anyway because voting for McCain would be downright evil.

To me, it's more of "Do you want fudge-vanilla-ripple or vanilla-fudge-ripple ice cream?" The rest is good teeth and a sincere expression--and the right religion.

Arrow's Impossibility theorem demonstrates that. The reason there are 30 voting systems listed in the wikipedia is a reflection of that.

If you want to argue for a different voting system for the general, have at it.

And, in fact, the nomination system is not a two party system selection mechanism at all. It's not a first past the post plurality vote. It's a mixed selection system, with a role for caucuses, primaries (open and closed) and party elders.

So what alternative mechanism do you propose? Are you concerned only with the presidential election, or would you use a parliamentary form, in order to introduce some kind of proportional voting? Do you want to use MyDD style ranked voting, with recursive last place elimination and recount?

I've suggested at times that we elect a handsome (or beautiful) president, have him or her euthanized and stuffed and mounted on a wheeled cart, where he or she can be elected for life and taken to officiate at state affairs.

While the President may be useful for domestic affairs and day-to-day business, I think he has very little real power.

Consider US foreign policy since the end of WWII. What individual do you think had the biggest hand in creating it? Certainly not any elected leader. The Dulles brothers come to mind, Henry Kissinger, and a fair number of other appointees.

While most think that the war in Iraq is a Republican affair, I suspect that plans have been on the books for many years and that a president from either party would have started it. After all, haven't the Democrats started most of the US "wars" during the 20th century--and the Republicans ended them?

The plan has been on the table since Reagan. No president was daft enough to go forward with it. Bush was committed to it from the git-go.

On presidents not shaping foreign policy, well, that's just silly. Read The Haldeman Diaries. Kissinger was by no means running the show, and was something of a joke to Nixon. Now, IMO, there is a Serious People foreign policy apparatus that has grown up in the post-Cold War era that controls the spectrum of permissible options. One impermissible option is ending the American Hegemony Project, even though none of the sub-projects has gone well.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives.php

go back 10 years

The president (at least post WWII) can't really make foreign policy. He can choose one that already exists; and if he has the energy left over from his other battles, he can influence it.

Jimmy Carter stood up on the Panama Canal (which was a huge battle) and changed things on the I/P front. But he didn't have the capital or energy to go much further than that.