There have been a lot of complaints this primary season about many aspects of the primary system. Some people don’t like caucuses and the barriers to entry they present. Some folks had problems with open primaries and the opportunity that gives for mischief, others have a problem with closed primaries that shut out left-leaning independents. Still other people have a problem with the schedule of states, arguing that the sequence of primary races unfairly advantaged one candidate over the other. Pretty much everyone can agree that if superdelegates overturned the will of the voters it would be a problem.
There is some validity to all of these positions. Some have suggested that primary reform be part of what Sanders pushes for at the convention if he is not the nominee. And reforming the primary process is a very worthy goal. Unfortunately it is a problem that DNC delegates or the DNC Chair can do very little about, and it is going to be a lot harder than some may think. The DNC has very little control over most aspects of the primary process. The best they can do is punish a state that breaks the guidelines they set out (think Florida and Michigan in 2008) but they, for the most part, don’t set any of the policy that governs the issues we’re talking about here. The issues come down to state government control versus state party control and the costs associated with running a primary election.
Caucus Versus Primary
Everything comes down to the difference between caucuses and primaries, so we’ll go there first. Caucuses are inherently undemocratic in many ways, and present much larger barriers to entry than most regular primary elections. Unfortunately, running a real primary is very expensive so the cost is generally borne by state governments (and thus subject to the voting rules in those states). A caucus, on the other hand, is generally paid for by state parties which gives them more flexibility in terms of scheduling and rules for participation but makes it more difficult for people to participate because of the nature of a caucus. This is the difference, more than any other, that cuts to the heart of all of the other issues. State laws govern primaries, parties control caucuses. Sometimes state laws disenfranchise people or make it more difficult for them to vote. Party rules govern caucuses, but the nature of caucuses also disenfranchises people or makes it more of a burden to participate.
If we want to eliminate caucuses, we need to be fighting in every state to reform election laws- eliminating voter ID requirements, making sure that polling locations are plentiful and close to the voters they serve, and making sure voter registration laws are not burdensome for people who wish to participate. That means that raising hell at the convention this summer will make not a whit of difference besides, perhaps, making sure there is a strong plank on election reform at the state level in the platform. Making a real difference on this issue requires the hard grind of electing state legislatures and Governors sympathetic to our causes and pressuring them to change election laws state by state. The only other option is to switch more states to undemocratic caucuses in order to remove state control over the process.
Open Versus Closed
There are fine arguments for open and closed primaries. No matter where you fall on the issue, once again the DNC cannot do anything about this. These rules are directly impacted by state registration laws. We didn’t have an open primary in Wisconsin because Debbie Wasserman Schultz decided we should. We had an open primary in Wisconsin because under Wisconsin law, voters do not register with any party. There are no registered Democrats, Republicans, or anything else in Wisconsin. You’re just a registered voter or not. The flip side of that coin would be a state like New York which has had strong (probably overly restrictive) voter registration rules in place for decades. The rules for the New York primary that many found so troubling are not something new the DNC set up to help Hillary this year. They are based on laws governing voter registration in New York that DO include registering with a party (or choosing not to) and they go back a very long time. Since the cost of running a primary (or even a caucus) in New York would be prohibitive for a state party, they are forced to abide by the rules enshrined in the law of New York. There was no mechanism to allow someone to change their voter registration at a later date or to allow unaffiliated voters and voters registered with another party to participate in the primary because it would have been against the law.
In a smaller state, a caucus run by the party could be open or closed based on the wishes of the state party (though it could only be closed in states that register voters by party). Unfortunately we once again run into the problems inherent in caucuses and add another one- they are simply not practical in places with larger, more dense populations.
If folks want to move to open primaries in more places, or even if they want to make it easier to switch parties, it can’t be something you discover you have a problem with a week before an election. The same is true if you believe more primaries should be closed. Either way you’re dealing with changing laws fundamental to how a state has run voter registration and elections, sometimes ensconced for decades. Closing the Wisconsin primary would require the state to start registering voters by party, and making New York open would require a change in state law that goes back 40 years or so. The DNC could express a preference for open or closed primaries in the platform, but, once again, that is completely toothless without a fight to elect election reformers in state governments.
The Schedule
Here the DNC has SOME influence, but not a great deal. They can set scheduling rules for states, but the ability to follow those rules is sometimes severely limited. Once again we come down to state election laws. In a primary election that the state pays for, the legislature and the Governor generally have the power to set that date. Often they will do so in a way that coincides with another election where possible, and they also consider their state’s prominence in the primary process (generally to make themselves more important to the party that controls the state).
The DNC can penalize states that break scheduling rules (Michigan and Florida lost half their delegates in 2008 and candidates were not supposed to campaign there because their primaries were too early) but they cannot directly impact what a state chooses to do.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not decide the early primary calendar would be heavy on states in the South. This was mostly done by Republicans in control of those states. Because of Republican control of so many state governments, in fact, the RNC had a lot more direct impact on the scheduling of elections than the DNC could have. Things were adjusted by legislatures and governors to suit the Republican nominating process.
One instance that illustrates this- North Carolina was originally going to be a Super Tuesday state. RNC rules, though, prohibited states from allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis before March 15th. North Carolina Republicans decided they would have more influence being a (possible) winner take all state and so moved the primary back to Super Tuesday II. No one took a majority there, so delegates were allocated proportionally anyways but it was RNC rules that led Republicans in the state to move the primary back.
To use my home state as another example- Wisconsin has nonpartisan elections every spring. The primary for these elections is held in February and the general election is held in April. This timing is convenient for Presidential politics, and our Presidential primary has always fallen on one of these election days. In 2008, when Democrats had control over state government, we held our Presidential primary on the of the February primary, hoping an earlier contest would give our state more influence. In 2016, Republicans knew that we would have a critical State Supreme Court election on the ballot for the Spring election, and elected to hold a later primary in April. Many assumed that the Democratic race would not be competitive in April, and so the Supreme Court race would be flooded by Republicans voting in the Presidential primary while Democrats had less reason to come out in what are generally low-turnout elections when there are no Presidential candidates on the ballot.
The DNC had no control over any of these states. The only way to schedule an election that isn’t controlled by state government is to pay for it yourself which means- you guessed it- a caucus. There is a reason why some caucuses were on different days for Republicans and Democrats but all the primaries were scheduled together. We once again, under the current situation, have a conflict between choosing to follow state laws that may not be to our benefit or choosing to hold a caucus which limits participation and simply cannot happen in more populous states. The only way to be able to set the schedule is to control state governments who set the election dates. Once again, it comes down to electing legislatures and governors willing to make these changes.
Delegate Allocation
This is the one place that the DNC holds influence. I think most people would agree that proportional allocation of delegates is more democratic and better represents the will of voters than a winner-take-all scenario. If the DNC were so inclined, that rule could be changed, though I doubt we will see it happen.
Superdelegates are, perhaps, a place where there could be more agreement. The DNC could absolutely eliminate Superdelegates, reduce their numbers, or limit their influence in other ways. While they have never overturned the results of the primaries and caucuses, the specter that they could sometimes makes for scary scenarios laid out by candidates looking to fire up their supporters. Unfortunately, candidates making these kind of arguments are also undermining confidence in the process as a whole. Changing the superdelegate system would be one thing that could be a worthy rule change for Sanders to push at the convention if he is not the nominee.
Conclusion
Blaming the DNC for the issues that have arisen during this primary process comes either from a place of ignorance or dishonesty. The work of changing our primary process to be more transparent and democratic isn’t going to come through wrangling at the convention. It will require the hard work of organizing in states all over the country to win back state legislatures. It will require turning out our voters in midterm elections to elect Governors who will make these changes. It will require a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate who will appoint and confirm judges and Supreme Court Justices who will rule in favor of voters in places where Republicans have successfully passed voter suppression laws.
In the end, the convention won’t be a place to make a real difference besides on the issue of Superdelegates. Electing more and better Democrats is the way to do it. Making this issue a priority BEFORE it impacts your primary candidate of choice is the way to do it. Passing laws in 2017 is the way to do it, not filing lawsuits in 2020. If this is an issue you truly care about, it will take hard work. It will take winning elections and organizing around these issues once those elections are won.
It is not impossible, but it will be difficult. Blaming those who don’t control these rules is an easy out, but it isn’t honest and it leads to misplaced anger and vitriol that could be directed at solving the real problem and fighting back against the real villains.
Update:
Wisper raised a very good point in the comments. There is no law requiring a state to even HOLD a primary for the parties. In some states the cost of running an election isn’t worth it so a party can either pay for a caucus themselves or choose some other way of allocating their delegates (like Republicans did in Colorado) that is even less democratic and transparent. It would pretty much REQUIRE a Constitutional amendment to force states to run primary elections for the parties closed, open, or otherwise.