DNC “Duty to Enforce” Burden Relieved (Thanks, Hillary!)

August 25, 2007, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee tentatively barred Florida and Michigan delegations from the 2008 Democratic National Convention for violating the approved Primary scheduling window. A May 31, 2008 meeting will review this decision and may consider alternatives.

There are three plausible arguments for keeping the sanctions in place.

• Does it advance the competitive interests of a particular candidate? Clearly yes, in that Obama would rather keep Clinton delegates off the floor, in case his grip on the nomination gets unexpectedly slippery.
• Does it advance the Party’s immediate practical interests? Clearly no, in that the sanctions now constitute an unwelcome, unnecessary bone of contention, diminishing our General Election prospects in two key states, and eroding the nominee’s perceived legitimacy.
• Does it protect the Party’s long-term interest in it’s own institutional credibility? Arguably yes, in that penalizing violations in retrospect keeps the attention of prospective violators.

This last argument — that of a Duty to Enforce — was potentially the most compelling, but all the force has now left it. It’s just … gone! … and that’s all thanks to Hillary. Let’s review the historical arc.

Once upon a time, Presidential Primaries were few and far between. National Conventions chose nominees — live, in person, real time!

The miracle of television let voters everywhere “know” the candidates, and more delegates came pledged by state primary and caucus results. Reporters and political lifers still went to convention to see real politics practiced and real news made (or “broken”, as they say) … but this happened less and less.

And as this happened, the primaries followed a dynamic of path determination. Just as the first raindrops falling on a level plain can determine the course of mighty rivers, early contest winners found it easier to raise money, capture vote share, and command TV news presence, while losers found it virtually impossible. Only the first few contests “really counted”, suspense evaporated, and conventions became tiresome rituals covered by increasingly resentful cash-strapped news divisions.

By 2007, a potential trainwreck-by-leapfrog threatened the nominating process. States moved to slot their primary or caucus events in “first” calendar position, and with each move, additional states prepared to move earlier still.

This was unacceptable from two perspectives. First, it jeopardized the slow rolling start of small-state, “retail” campaigning, and with it, small-budget candidate viability, close-up vetting, and incremental voter feedback on campaign themes and issues. Second, the cascade would have tumbled backward past Christmas and kept going, with no natural restraint in sight.

In response to this dread contingency, Rules were promulgated and applied. Late states would receive extra delegate seats, and penalties were authorized for states that jumped the gun.

This succeeded, mostly. The calendar of “first determining steps” was reasonably balanced, but Florida and Michigan bolted prematurely across the starting line. Arguably this resulted from interaction of the other gun-jumpers’ moves with state law, existing party rules, and Republican legislative mischief — but we need not argue that.

FL and MI may have deserved original circumstantial waivers on merit — but we need not argue that. Their sanctions were arguably more severe than the DNC Charter allows — but we need not argue that. MI and FL voters turned out in record numbers, just as well-informed as voters anywhere else, and in the end they did not disrupt the orderly process of delegate selection nationwide — but we need not argue that, either.

Amazingly enough, as the race played out it has become obvious that seating FL and MI today would NOT incite calendar trainwrecks tomorrow. By losing ground and coming back, by sustaining her campaign over months of uneven terrain, Hillary Clinton has broken the grip of path determination — the dynamic on which this contingency was premised.

In future cycles, all calendar positions now have prospective value to all self-interested legislatures and state party organs. Earlier dates are still more likely to attract national interest, but a well-tempered premium/penalty schedule (fewer seats for earlier events, more seats for later ones) can produce a nicely balanced calendar. [We can calibrate the necessary time premiums by resort to trial-auction protocols.]

Now, in May 2008, by dint of concrete practical demonstration, we know that:

• The convention is no longer necessarily a pure formality, a vestige of bygone smoke-filled decision cycles.
• Early wins are not necessarily decisive.
• The full primary/caucus cycle is not necessarily decisive. (We now know that Superdelegates will choose the 2008 nominee.)
• Late calendar position is not necessarily worthless.

And with the dread contingency no longer lurking in our anxiety closet … the Rules and Bylaws Committee is relieved of its once-apparent Duty to Enforce.

DNC apparatus — including but not limited to RBC — is now free to address the immediate seating conflict in terms of immediate advantage of the Party … and balancing that against the mixed disadvantage to one contender for the nomination.