One Day to Go

Tomorrow marks the end of the primary race for both parties. John McCain had his position sealed up weeks ago -- it almost seems like years ago. When South Dakota and Montana, two small population (not area) states, that have been reliably GOP for some time, will cast their votes for their respective nominees. The primaries are open, which might lead to some shenanigans, but perhaps not. The polls say a nice Obama victory is in store for us. In South Dakota Tom Daschle is assumedly an asset, having served as its senator for many years. Montana should go like other similar states. The delegate stakes aren't high -- 31 between them. But the symbolism is what is important. What we really must watch for is how super delegates break. The assumption is that Obama will take the lions share and thus the nomination. From there, the ball is in Hillary Clinton's court. Will she bow out graciously. Barack Obama is going out of his way to be conciliatory, saying every nicer things about her. So, will she reciprocate by conceding tomorrow evening and then jump on the bandwagon?

Those are the questions the next couple of days will answer. There are other important questions that only time can answer. Here are some of the issues that stand out to me.

1. Clarify the role of the Super Delegates. The role of the super delegates has become increasingly problematic, with no one sure how this thing is to go. The idea is for them to give the party imprimatur on the nominee, but it seems as if it has only made this issue more contentious.

2. Do we follow the rules? By nature I'm not a preacher of the Law. I believe in grace, and from that perspective I can look at Saturday as a bit of grace. Two states who broke the rules were given a semi-reprieve, while one candidate was able to come out slightly ahead in delegates, even though the numbers likely don't matter. That being said, if a candidate signs on to the rules, they should stay with them -- whether they hurt or help. But more importantly, the Rules Committee needs to come up with rules and consequences that are appropriate. The GOP seems to have chosen the wiser course on this issue, and just cut the numbers in half from day one and then let everyone have at it.

3. Reform of the Nominating Process? This cycle has cast a light on a serious problem in our electoral system. It is a system that's in place because each state has the right to set up its own election process. Therefore, some states have caucuses and others have primaries -- while one has both. There are states that allocate some delegates according to the elections, but then allocate others based on party conventions. Then there is the problem of the calendar. Looking back it's asinine that we started this thing in early January (and almost started in December of 2007), had two unsanctioned primaries mixed in with the four that had been given priority -- tow because of tradition and two in order to give geographical balance, and then nearly half the remaining primaries on one hectic day. Then after a nice pace of 2-3 elections or caucuses over about a 5 week period, we hit a no man's land of nearly 6 weeks. That time really proved disruptive. With no elections to cover the press chose to focus on the salacious. If Michigan and Florida had sat half way between Mississippi and Pennsylvania I think this would have been a much better process. Then there is the issue of the priority of NH and Iowa. The DNC, hopefully has learned something from this and then makes serious adjustments before 2012. If Obama wins in November and doesn't have any significant challenge in 2012, that gives the party 8 years to fine tune things.

4. Proportional or Winner Take All? When the primary season started, many thought it would be the GOP that would have to grind it out, not the Democrats. But the differences in procedure changed the dynamic. Because of the proportional nature of the Democratic process, neither candidate could get very far ahead. Since both had significant, but different, bases, they were able to plod along, believing that they remained close enough that the Super Delegates would throw them across at the end. And so we've had this drawn out and ultimately unnerving process. If it had been Winner Take All, of course, Hillary Clinton would have been the likely nominee, but this process gave Obama an opportunity to put together an insurgent strategy. I don't know which is better. Both have upsides and flaws. But the Democrats will have to look at this carefully.

5. Issue of Popular Vote -- In many ways the delegate race is similar to the electoral college. You win by putting together a coalition of electors. It doesn't matter if a candidate runs up huge numbers in any one state, if the other candidate can put together enough delegates/electors to win, that's all that matters. The argument for focusing on delegates rather than popular vote is similar to that of the electoral college -- it makes candidates pay attention to states like South Dakota and Iowa. If popular vote is the most important factor, then you ignore Idaho and camp out in California and New York. But it doesn't work that way -- the question is -- should it?

6. Cross party infiltration. This is a dicey question. In some early contests Barack Obama benefited by drawing in Independents and disaffected Republicans. That proved to be the difference, as Hillary Clinton didn't seem to draw well among this crowd. Later on, after McCain essentially wrapped things up, we saw significant numbers of voters cross the lines just to mess things up. Many of those voters voted for Hillary Clinton -- largely because she was running behind. That may have been a key factor in Texas. Then in WV and KY, large numbers of Hillary voters said they would vote for McCain over Obama, a factor that pundits said posed problems for Obama. But there is a further issue, how many of those who cast votes for Hillary would support her in November? There is evidence that a sizable slice of her voters planned to vote for McCain in the Fall.

7. What is a nominating process for? This is my last point! I have always been of the opinion that primaries should be closed contests, open only to members. My reasoning is this: primaries/caucuses are the means by which a party chooses its nominee. To let, for instance, Republicans vote in a Democratic primary allows GOPers to help determine the candidate who will face its own candidate in the General Election. This is an issue that needs serious attention. If, we want to go to a more open system, then we should simply have an open election, and then a run off between the top two, if no one gets a majority. Of course, that works better with in-state elections than national ones.

My biggest hope -- besides Obama winning the nomination and then the general election -- is that we have learned from this experience, so that next time things can go more smoothly.