Republicans Open Door to Reforming the Delegate Selection Process

September 2, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (3)

The Republican National Convention was mostly rained out Monday. But it did one thing that may prove to be of great significance in the 2012 cycle and beyond. As part of the rules it adopted, the convention authorized the party to appoint a commission with authority to change the delegate selection rules. This is a departure from past Republican practice. Up to and including 2004, the Republican National Convention was the final authority on delegate selection rules, and the party had no legal authority to change them over the next four years, as the national Democratic Party has had. The perspicacious Marc Ambinder has the details. Ambinder sees this as a power grab that will antagonize the grassroots of the party; I have a somewhat different take.

Unfortunately, the Republican commission will have no authority to displace Iowa and South Carolina as the first primaries in the schedule. It will, apparently, have authority to allow earlier caucuses to compete with Nevada, if not Iowa, on the theory that national convention delegates are not actually selected in precinct caucuses (technically, these caucuses only select delegates to county or state conventions, who in turn select the actual national convention delegates).

Republican National Chairman Mike Duncan has been in touch with Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean on this issue. They understand that changes in party rules can only be effective if state legislatures act, and at this point both Democrats and Republicans control a significant number of legislatures—and in many states governors and one or both houses of the legislature are controlled by different parties. So changes in the calendar need, broadly speaking, to be bipartisan.

This year's schedule, in which more than half the states voted in the five weeks between January 3 and February 5 resulted from (a) Iowa's and New Hampshire's determination to retain their first-in-the-nation status and (b) other states rushing to get in early contests. This was counterproductive in some cases, at least for Michigan and Florida Democrats; those states jumped the February 5 deadline and voted earlier, and Dean deprived them of all their delegates during the period when the nomination was still being contested (they were fully seated in Denver, when it didn't matter). As it turned out, Michigan would have had great influence if it had stuck to a February 19 date, when only Wisconsin ended up voting; if Hillary Clinton had carried Michigan (as she probably would have), that would have balanced Barack Obama's victory in Wisconsin and prevented him from chalking up 11 straight victories in February.

It turned out also that states voting on March 4 or later had more influence than anyone else imagined. Clinton's victories in most of them were not enough to stop Obama, but they were enough to give the Clintons two nights of the Democrats' four-night convention and to make Clinton the likely frontrunner for 2012 if Obama should lose in 2008.

I would like to see both parties oust Iowa and New Hampshire from their preferred positions. That's obviously not going to happen. But perhaps we'll see a more rational schedule, one which doesn't put the initial contests in the twelve days of Christmas, other pivotal contests in the dead of winter, and 22 states on a single day. I gather that the Republicans' decision to authorize a commission was the work of Mike Duncan and other longtime professional Republicans, rather than that of the McCain campaign, and that Howard Dean really did the heavy lifting on the Democratic side rather than the Obama campaign. Good for them.

Tags:
Republican National Convention,
2008 presidential election,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Mr. Barone,

I appreciate the information you bring to the table, and respect your take on things immensely. Can you help me understand the changes a bit better?

I am a concerned American that tries to keep up with politicians' actions, but I'm not a legal or political scholar, but when I read "authorized the party to APPOINT a commission with authority to change the delegate selection rules", my eyebrow does go up.

I read both articles referenced twice and I still don't think I fully understand the implications of this fully. My opinion is politicians have systematically "reformed" election processes to favor incumbents for some time now, the latest being McCain/Feingold...one of 2 reasons I didn't vote for McCain in the primary... so now both eyebrows are up!

I read Mr. Am binder’s article again...."15-person committee a blank slate to redraw the party's primary calendar in 2012.

The committee will be filled by appointees; the party chairman (?) gets to seat most of them, and others will come from regional caucuses."

I distrust ANY changes that favor incumbents as a rule, and most political insider appointees even more.

I would really appreciate more info in a bit simpler overview of the ramifications specifically. I welcome everyones input.

My thanks in advance.

Judy of OK 3:36AM September 11, 2008

please repost we need to buy a home and need trafic to our ebay store thank you

http://store.auctiva.com/lizzieg183

please repost even text if you can thank you

please copy and repost

of PA 10:40AM September 03, 2008

I'm intrigued at the idea that Howard Dean feels remorse for toppling the Clintons and wants "change". Actually, it's making me giggle.

Half of Barack Obama's 11 wins in a row were from Republican leaning caucus states.

In virtually every caucus contest, Hillary Clinton was either leading or tied with Barack Obama just days before their caucus contests, yet Barack Obama won those caucus contests by a ridiculously inaccurate 2-1 margin.

If I were Dean, I would be euphoric that nobody sued the D.N.C. over violating the tenets of "Fair Reflection" while still keeping the phrase in the D.N.C. mission statement.

http://www.FAIR-REFLECTION.com

http://www.CAUCUSCHEATING.com

http://www.HILLARY-WINS.com

Alessandro Machi of CA 5:53PM September 02, 2008

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

advertisement

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

advertisement