In some ways, the Democrats' presidential nomination system seems the most obtuse and hierarchical of processes.

It starts with a bizarre pyramid structure, in which the two early-nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire--which together represent barely 1.5 percent of the US population--monopolize billions in advertising and the bulk of candidate time, while the rest of the nation waits with (what must seem to an outsider's eye) absurdly bated breath.

Even this year, with nineteen states in a desperate scramble for better primary positions, the front-loading strictures have stayed rigid. When Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, the Democratic National Committee responded by coolly threatening to withhold their delegates' seats at the party convention.

And then once all fifty states' votes come in, as Ari Berman details in this week's edition of The Nation, the superdelegates take the stage: those 796 high-ranking state, Congressional or party-chosen Democrats whose loyalties and votes are their own. With Clinton and Obama running neck-and-neck into Super Tuesday and superdelegates controlling nearly 20 percent of the total vote, such party figures could very well throw the nomination. Meanwhile to complicate matters still further, after voting at the convention begins, delegates--pledged and unpledged--can flip their commitment under party rules.

Which begs the question: who really picks the nominee? And where does the balance of power tip, anyway?

Forty years ago, the same questions engulfed the Democratic Party at the 1968 national convention, when the party's anointment of Hubert Humphrey--who hadn't won a single popular primary--enraged participants backing the anti-war Eugene McCarthy. Established by party officials that year, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was supposed to create a framework to help broaden participation. Yet forty years later, the rules--and principles--governing who has a say in the system seem more opaque than ever.

In recent years, states have increasingly jettisoned Iowa's caucus system (the number of caucus states dropped from ten in 1996 to six this year), and the call for broader reform has grown. Today's chaotic nomination process doesn't have many defenders, so in that sense, Richard Bender is a rare breed. In fact, Bender is not only an enthusiast, but the bona fide inventor of the place where it all begins--the Iowa caucus.

Back in 1971, Bender first etched out Iowa's caucus system as director of operations for the Iowa Democratic Party. In an interview with The Nation, Bender shares his perspective on its legacy.

The push for reform really broke open in the 1968 Democratic National Convention, with fury over party insiders backing Hubert Humphrey over Eugene McCarthy. What do you remember about the event?

It was civil war! I mean, civil war in the Democratic Party. There was a furious speech this congressman made on the floor really ripping into Mayor Daley, attacking him for the brutality on the streets of Chicago:. There was the old group, and then there were us, the so-called New Dems. Because the anti-war movement was so strong, we became the insurgents.

Against what kind of system? How did the nomination process work at the time?

Prior to [the reforms], the people who participated in the caucus would just be the party core, the worker bees. The delegates who were elected to the county convention--it was an honorific. It was because they worked hard in the party, not because of who they would vote for. In fact, you didn't know who they were going to vote for, and most would've been insulted if you asked. [Meanwhile] our national delegates were always chosen by a slate system. So if you were the minority, you had no rights.

And so it was the anti-war vanguard that started pushing for reform after the McGovern Commission?

Yes. But we were a sane group--we weren't saying throw them out. We were saying we want to win elections. We wanted proportional representation. We wanted to allow people to elect their fair share, and avoid the divisive winner-take-all system. We wanted a new way of doing things, and we wanted everyone to be elected from below.

About this question of a fair share: the argument is often made that delegates aren't really 'elected from below,' because most caucus-goers are white, well-educated and wealthy. How do you respond to that view? But we took care of that issue. I don't know why it isn't more reported on, but the rules provide that basically, we weight the delegate count in terms of a group's share of the state vote. Since people in working-class neighborhoods are likely to stay home from the caucus, they get more weight in the number of delegates assigned. Primaries, on the other hand, don't weight in the same way we do. So they actually offer a less fair representation of the state's demographics than caucuses.

So after adopting these reforms, did you plan for Iowa to be first? Did you have a sense of how significant it'd be for the national nomination process?

We didn't do it to be first. We made it early because our [new] rules said delegates had to be elected from below, so we had to mail out proposed rules, organize the events, and that all takes time. There are four different levels in the process, and we figured about six weeks between each level was about right. Altogether, we needed at least 18 weeks at least before the national convention. So we knew we'd be first. But then again, no one had ever paid attention to us before. When we held the first count [of votes] in 1972, there were just 10 reporters there. We sat around two folding tables. We never dreamed the amount of attention we would get.

With 24 states taking part in Super Tuesday this year, how do you think the accelerated primary schedule has affected the campaigns?

You know, I'd much prefer a system when no more than six to eight states were going at once, with a period in-between so that each [state's voters] could absorb what [came] before it. There are way too many states going now, and no ability of candidates to give a fair allocation of their time. I'd like to see a more balanced system. But altogether, I think it's an excellent system, and it works out well. And philosophically despite critiques, I believe it's reasonable at the start of the process for those closer to the party core to have a larger role.

What do you make of the argument that other, possibly more diverse states--those of comparable size, that is--should have the chance to take on Iowa's early, prominent position?

It'd be awfully hard for other states to do [well]. Iowans have taken participation upon themselves as a responsibility, and they take tremendous care in who they vote for. They don't listen to big, important people, they make their own decisions. Take my boss, [Senator Tom] Harkin, probably one of the state's most popular figures. In 2004, Harkin came out for Dean, he campaigned all over him. And Dean crashed. Even at Harkin's own town caucus, where everyone had known him from birth, he couldn't convince anyone to back [Dean]. So maybe you could duplicate [the Iowa culture], and maybe you couldn't, but I think you might foul up a presidential nomination in the process. Iowa is a proven system.

Thomas Edsall, in The New Politics of Inequality, argues the Democratic party's shift to caucuses and an open primary system created incentives for candidates to cater to narrower, elite interests. Do you think that's played out in the party's politics?

Well, it does give focus to the issues of importance in the state, like ethanol. But overall, I think the Iowa caucus system makes the party a lot stronger. By using delegates elected from below, you involve more people and make the parties more active. The Iowa Democratic party--we're way stronger than parties in states that have primaries, [where parties] tend to be weaker and more candidate-oriented. The effort of the exercise to organize these [caucuses] makes the party stronger. And in the end Iowans that caucus are probably considerably more progressive than Iowa Democrats as a whole--they're activists, like I was. You can still see that today.

Comments (15)

1. huh?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 12:34pm

2. Roger Cohen NYTimes displayed his usual fraudulence last week (is he a CIA asset?) with a piece on how the rest of the world is marveling, simply marveling, at the US democratic system in action.

   Well, yes. And no. As a Yank living abroad, I can assure you there are few here in the EU who don't marvel at the current US horse race, but most certainly not in admiration. It is a marvel of a long drawn-out muddle, designed to make hundreds of millions for the owners of the TV networks. If the "explanation" above of the Dem primary system leaves you scratching your head, it leaves Western Europeans shaking their heads at the sheer, ludicrous waste of it all. Small wonder, they say, that US voting turnouts are so low even in national elections.

   Posted by sloper at 02/04/2008 @ 1:00pm

3. If Obama wins in a "broader" way than Hillary, the Superdelegates will eventually fall in line behind Obama because they know this translates into a win in November for the Democrats!

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 1:43pm

4. Here is a great statement from the editors of the Yale Daily News:

   "It would seem natural for us to endorse Hillary Clinton for president," the editors wrote, noting that Mrs. Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. But "to endorse her would be to endorse intelligence and preparedness, but also divisiveness and the politics of manipulation."

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 2:28pm

5. how is the super bowl like the dem primary?

   it is a matter of smooth professionalism vs inspired underdogism.

   Hillary is professional, polished and smart as a whip, a safe choice.

   Obama inspires with soaring rhetoric, and can make you cringe.

   it's like John Lennon with his "imagine". I have sat there listening, weeping, and I have scoffed.

   when Boston scored the last time, it was as an economical, self assured, and well rehearsed unit.

   when NY scored it seemed improbable, surprising, and very entertaining.

   we dems are fortunate to have such eminent politicians to choose from. I mean it. they are articulate and thoughtful.

   look at the other side:

   will the old, old soldier succeed by waving the bloody shirt once more?

   or will the Max Headroom like operator, who unlike the competition, has never been re-elected, prevail.

   America has had a lot of growing up to do. it now has the opportunity to make grown up choices. leaders who are adaptable to change, as well as the leadership for change to happen.

   or same old, same old ina new wrapper.

   funny how the dead certitude of Frank and Mett aroused emotions so.

   Hillary is disparaged for her senate career. nothing could be more preposterous. senators on both sides of the aisle have not exactly been outstanding.I'm willing to grade her on the curve.

   I hope it doesn't get decided until the convention. we can use plenty of hoopla. if not always more bread, let's by all means have more circus.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/04/2008 @ 2:48pm

6. Posted by METTEYYA 02/04/2008 @ 2:28pm

   Thanks, METT, that's a beaut. Lest we forget, previous bright shining editors-in-chief of the Yale Daily News have been Joe Lieberman & Wm F. Buckley.

   Posted by sloper at 02/04/2008 @ 3:12pm

7. Roger Cohen NYTimes displayed his usual fraudulence last week (is he a CIA asset?) with a piece on how the rest of the world is marveling, simply marveling, at the US democratic system in action.

   Posted by SLOPER 02/04/2008 @ 1:00pm

   but it's soooooo goofy.

   and expensive.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 3:58pm

8. "It was civil war! I mean, civil war in the Democratic Party."

   Well, thank goodness THAT can't happen again....heheh

   Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 4:41pm

9. or will the Max Headroom like operator, who unlike the competition, has never been re-elected, prevail.----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/04/2008 @ 2:48pm

   What were you, like two or three, when "Max Headroom" debuted?!?!??

   Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 4:42pm

10. What were you, like two or three, when "Max Headroom" debuted?!?!??

    Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 4:42pm

    hey, i'm listening to chopin right now.

    i was about minus 136 when he made his debut.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:02pm

11. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 5:02pm

    They play Chopin on the Classical Music stations.

    Find any "MH" re-runs on the Sci Fi Channel, lately?!??!?

    (Though I have seen Matt Frewer on "Eureka"!)

    Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 5:05pm

12. hey, i teach ac/dc and sabbath tunes to 7 year olds. [youtube.com]

    with digital technology, the distinction between past and present in "art" is disappearing.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:54pm

13. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    not a tom petty fan?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 7:00pm

14. with digital technology, the distinction between past and present in "art" is disappearing.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    it is? how so?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 08:24am

15. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    I too work with digital technology. what has changed is that there is no longer a distinction between "original" and "copy".

    your turn

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 08:55am