The problem, as I see it, is the internal inconsistency and lack of transparency of the current process. On the one hand, we have primaries in which voters expect their vote to count. Caucuses are rather different–given lower turnout and the required heavier level of commitment to participate in one. Yet, to be honest, I don’t have any principled problem with them, either, other than that they add yet another layer of inconsistency to the whole process.

So voters/caucusers vote for their favorite pre-candidate, and their vote translates into delegates pledged to that candidate form their district or state. And then here come these other delegates who could overturn the popularly elected delegates’ majority choice. While the candidates certainly knew the game from the start, I doubt many voters knew that their choice could be overturned by unelected delegates–until recently. Actually, given the state of political knowledge in this country, I wonder how many understand the process now. (I wonder if I understand the process, and I am a political scientist!)

Seems to me it should be one or the other. Either the votes (or delegates allocated off those votes) are decisive, or let the officeholders and party leaders do it. Or the motivated activist type, as in a caucus. The current mix seems to combine the worst of all these approaches.

A smart institutional designer could probably think of coherent combinations of these principles–involving the voters, the activists, and the officeholders–but I don’t think anyone can claim that the process we have is either coherent or transparent.

1) While yes, the rules have been known from day one, that doesn’t mean the rules have been ones that I would consider preferable from day one. This petition does not change the rules of the game for the Democratic party, but it does encourage them to cast their votes for the popular winner. Admittedly, the “will of the people” is left undefined, but the spirit is such to advocate against backroom deals.

2) My main disagreement with the superdelegate process is not unlike my hatred of the electoral college. It’s a known and relatively predictable part of the game, but it still ultimately distorts the peoples vote. I’d like to just take a little bit of agency away from the superdelegates and put it back in the hands of the American people.

Seems to me that the strategically wisest option is to go with the statewide popular vote.

First, while we are having an electoral process, this isn’t really an election. This is really an internal party decision making process. The parties are free to decide how they want to determine who their nominees are. One process may be more inclusive than the others, but it’s still a legitimate process.

Second, the rules have been known from day 1. Everyone knew that super delegates have an extra say if this process came down to the wire. This isn’t news, it’s just that this time it may actually impact the process.

Third, I really don’t think a majority of the super delegates will go against the “will of the people.” Depending on March 4, either one candidate will have significant momentum and you’ll see super delegates flock to that candidate, or it will be deadlocked again and you’ll probably see a number of super delegates sit it out until the convention.

Fourth, I would like to echo one of the issues Jack raised. What is the will of the people? If you a super delegate congressman, do you vote for the candidate that won your district and governors vote for who one your state? What if you’re a super delegate cause you are an official in the DNC? Do you vote reflecting the outcome in your home state?

My old colleagues have an interesting blog discussion brewing. Gets into the superdelegates issue and, if they were to go with a popular vote, what “popular” ought to mean (national, statewide, CD, et cetera).