Clinton Supporters Fail To Change Caucus Rules
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, HistoryI wonder what Iowans would think about this?
PITTSBURGH – Hillary Rodham Clinton loyalists tried Saturday to kill off the caucus system that proved so damaging to her presidential bid, but were beaten back by a Democratic Party leadership firmly under the command of Barack Obama.Democrats who supported Clinton’s candidacy pushed to amend the new party platform so that caucuses would be banned in future presidential nominating contests.
But the party’s platform committee refused to allow the amendment to come up for a vote or even a discussion. Co-chair Patricia Madrid, a former New Mexico attorney general, said the matter would instead be taken up at later date by the party’s Rules Committee.
I think it’s very clear that Hillary is trying to pave her way for 2012 if Obama loses, and given that she was essentially handed her loss because of the margins Obama beat her in the caucus states, this move makes sense.
But let’s not pretend this is about making sure more people get to vote, as her supporters suggest. This is political, and had Clinton won this time around, I seriously doubt you’d try to see her changing the rules for next time.
My view of the caucus system? I personally don’t like them, but then again I don’t like the electoral college either. However, I do think states should be able to choose the method they think is best for them, and caucuses are traditionally much more cost effective and do a good job of testing the mettle of the campaign’s organization skills…which in turns informs voters of who’s more on the ball for the general election. So there are definitely very real benefits to keeping caucuses in place.
My biggest beef isn’t with the caucus system so much as it’s with the primary system and how they pick which states get to go first. That needs to change, and I hope it does for 2012 or 2016. But if they’re not going to change the caucus system, I’m not holding my breath on them changing the order either.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 10th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I’d prefer to see all states have reasonably open primaries, not caucuses. And for the states to rotate the primary order so all the states got a chance to be one of the early states. I believe such chances would result in a more equitable system.
So I take Hillary Clinton’s support for some changes in this direction as a good thing, even though it would be foolish to think she is making this stand on principle as opposed to conenience.
However, I am beyond skeptical when it comes to the likelihood of such changes occurring. I’m downright cynical on this issue, because such changes require insiders to vote to change the system to decrease insider influence. I don’t think the state parties of caucus states will want to make any changes that will decease the influence of their party apparatus.
And I expect the states that currently have early spots in the primary order will continue to cling to those spots like grim death. I’m slightly more sanguine on changes to this aspect of the nomination process, only because of the power of big state influence and thus the existence of competition.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
1) Caucuses suck. The requirement that you have to show up at a certain place, at a certain time (usually a window of only an hour or so) is nothing more than a form of poll tax.
2) States should have the right to decide what works best for them in the election of state officials. The presidential primary system should be wrenched from the clawing, child-like hands of the political parties and should be 100% under the control of the Federal Election Commission, and state secretaries of state (or whomever oversees the elections in a particular state). The only role political parties should play in primary elections is the same role the rest of us play: show up at the voting booth!
3) I’m sick and fucking tired of Iowa and New Hampshire setting the tone for everything. Do they pay more in taxes than the other 48 states? Do they send more of their sons and daughters to war? Do they have more money? Better education? I’m tired of Kansas, Missouri, Texas and the other states taking a backseat to those two every four years! 100 days before the first primary, the names of all 50 states should be put in a box, and before a live audience, draw names out, two states for each Tuesday. Start primaries the last week of January; 26 weeks later, it’s time for the conventions. Look at a calendar for yourself, this plan can work!
Or, if nothing else, consider this:
http://www.americanplan.org
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
August 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Agnostic, you’ve got the right plan, and Kranky, you’ve got the reason it’ll never happen. Perfect.