Biden wins the Presidency, but the UnDemocratic features persist in the party nominating system
By: Xiaodong Fang
Tags: Biden, Democrats, Elections, Democracy, Politics

Photo by Derick McKinney on Unsplash

The 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is over before many states have yet to hold their primaries or caucuses. Late states don’t have a say in the nominating process.

States will be punished at the National Convention if they begin the delegate selection process early.

Front-loading may give lesser-known, less-financed candidates a chance to stand out, but not guarantee their nomination in the “undemocratic” system

When Bernie Sanders formally suspended his presidential campaign on April 8, 2020, leaving Joe Biden the only active candidate on the Democratic ticket, about one-third of the states have yet to hold their primaries or caucuses.

The lists include large states (e.g. New York) and toss-up states in the general election (e.g. Ohio).

Related: Pity for Bernie Sanders — How Joe Biden overtook in the 2020 Democratic nomination

The early scheduling does grant states with substantial power and focuses. That’s perhaps a key reason for California’s moving its primary from June to March in 2020. But questions are raised. If the state decides its primary date, why doesn’t every state schedule its contest as early as possible, a.k.a. “front-loading”? Is it fair for early states to determine the nominating outcome, whereas late states don’t have a say in the process?

There are no obvious answers to those questions. Let’s take a look at some factors behind the scene.

Delegate Allocation Rule

There exists a standard “window,” in which states are required to hold their primaries or caucuses. And of course, sanctions and rewards are applied to the early and late scheduling.

According to the 2020 version of Delegate Selection Rules,

“Delegate selection primaries, caucuses, and conventions will begin on the first Tuesday in March and end on the second Tuesday in June.”

However, if a state (or other jurisdiction) begins their delegate selection process before the “window”, that state’s pledged delegate allocation is reduced by 50% and their unpledged delegates are not allowed to vote at the National Convention.

Accordingly, the early scheduling of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary in February, which was ahead of the standard “window,” cost them delegates at the National Convention. They can trade the delegate allocation for more focuses on the nominating process, but they will lose some voice in other party affairs at the National Convention.

Related: 3 reasons Bernie Sanders shouldn’t quit so early in the nominating race

Fair Game for Candidates?

Front-loading gives the lesser-known, less-financed candidates a chance to strategically allocate their recourses and utilize the early contests to create momentums.

The evolution of the Democratic Party nominating reform shows a trend of moving towards direct democracy.

Before the major change in the 1968~1972 elections, the nominations of the Democratic Party are generally controlled by the party elites.

In 1968, the then Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who entered the nominating race late and was endorsed by party elites, won the nomination without winning any primary.

With a late entrance in 1968, Humphrey got the Democratic Party nomination through elites endorsement but lost the general presidential election to Nixon. | Photo by History in HD on Unsplash

In the absence of the reform and the front-loading, “newish” candidates like Jimmy Carter (1976) or Barack Obama (2008) wouldn’t have an opportunity to challenge their well-established nominating competitors, by playing some effective strategies like the “grassroots” campaign in Iowa or “media buy” in New Hampshire.

Related: Iowa Meltdown — Shall we replace the outdated caucuses with primaries?

Voters’ Choice and Participation

There is an Election Day in the fall, who wants to see another one-shot game in the spring? The prolonged nominating process provides voters with diversified candidates who have different ideologies, opinions, policies within the party. Early state voters are more engaged in the nominating race with Iowa and New Hampshire usually enjoying the highest turnout rate.

However, late state voters are more likely to cast effective votes though with little or no influence deciding the presidential nominee.

Not all Iowa winners eventually get the party nomination in recent election years.

In recent presidential elections, Iowa winners of both major political parties, including Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, Ted Cruz in 2016, Rick Santorum in 2012, and Mike Huckabee in 2008, failed to clinch the party nomination in the National Convention.

In other words, the highly participative voters in early states also run a higher risk to waste their votes.

Though the Democratic National Convention has opened up participation after the reform in the late 20th century, “Superdelegates” still exert significant influence over the party nomination process. | Photo by Product School on Unsplash

Unfortunately, the early quit of Bernie Sanders in the 2020 nominating race made it impossible for a reform of the future party nominating. The Sanders campaign in 2016 accomplished a significant rule change for the Democratic Party:

Superdelegates will not have a vote on the first presidential ballot if the convention remains contested in 2020.

Unless a strong, and probably progressive, candidate emerges and earns sizeable delegates to affect the rule committee in the 2024 national convention, the undemocratic features of the Democratic Party nominating system will prolong in the 21st century.

Related: The Art of “Exit” around Super Tuesday