Podcasts > The Ezra Klein Show > Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

By New York Times Opinion

Delve into the intricate workings of the United States' primary system with "The Ezra Klein Show," featuring a discussion with Elaine Kamarck on the potential scenarios for an open Democratic convention. Understand how the process evolved from a time when party elites held sway to the post-1968 era of binding primaries that heightened the public's role in choosing nominees. Witness the transformation of American political conventions from closed-door dealings to a system influenced heavily by voter participation and media coverage. Kamarck explores the pivotal shifts that have redefined the dynamics between delegates, candidates, and the electorate, painting a picture of an electoral system in constant flux.

As the 2024 presidential election looms, Ezra Klein and Elaine Kamarck analyze the strategic maneuvers hopeful candidates would need to undertake if faced with an open convention in the absence of an incumbent. They lay out the intense undertaking of securing delegate loyalty and the importance of maintaining a positive image within the condensed campaigning period. The speakers candidly discuss the potential challenges to party unity and legitimacy that may arise, comparing past and present internal party rifts. Although acknowledging the potential for ideological disputes, the conversation indicates that the Democratic Party today might navigate the hurdles of a divided convention with more cohesion than in previous decades or than its Republican counterpart.

Listen to the original

Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Feb 21, 2024 episode of the The Ezra Klein Show

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

1-Page Summary

The primary system's evolution from the pre- to post-1968 era

Before 1972, the primary system featured non-binding "beauty contest" primaries, where outcomes did not ensure delegates for the candidates, allowing party leaders to exercise substantial influence over the nomination. Elaine Kamarck emphasizes the dominance of uncommitted delegates and the control wielded by party figures, highlighting the minimal impact of public opinion on the nominee selection process.

The chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention prompted significant reforms, including the institution of binding primaries, which fortified the connection between primary results and delegate commitments. These changes brought about a transition from a system largely under the purview of party leaders to one where voter influence was markedly increased. Additionally, the requirement for caucuses to occur simultaneously and the extension of the primary season's timespan gave the media a prominent role in shaping and reflecting public sentiment. The post-1968 reforms led the way to a system where the actual primary races largely pre-determine the course of the nominating process.

How an open 2024 convention could play out if Biden steps down

According to Ezra Klein, an open 2024 convention in the absence of President Joe Biden might ignite intense pre-primary campaigning as potential candidates mobilize to elect delegates loyal to their cause. This phase would be critical for candidates to introduce themselves and win delegate support without negative campaigning due to the limited timeframe leading to the convention.

Elaine Kamarck points out that the post-primary period for swaying already-elected delegates is exceptionally brief, pushing candidates to present themselves positively. Influential figures such as governors, senators, and labor leaders play critical roles in directing delegate choices. The battle for nomination becomes more convoluted when multiple candidates vie for dominance, requiring a careful balance of diverse support bases and potentially drawing the party leadership into the selection process.

Challenges to legitimacy and party cohesion

Kamarck speculates that the increased transparency in the candidate selection process could lead to a spectacle that appears chaotic to the public. This visibility may enhance engagement but also risk perceptions of disorder. However, despite concerns regarding legitimacy and potential party divides, recent history suggests that the Democratic Party may withstand such challenges better than it did in 1968 or in comparison to the current Republican Party. Klein suggests that the severity of internal Democratic divisions is not as acute as those experienced either in the party's past or within the Republican Party today, alluding to a potentially more cohesive contemporary Democratic community. The conversation acknowledges the potential for fractious conventions due to ideological splits but indicates that such deep divides are not currently as pronounced within the Democratic Party.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Before 1972, "beauty contest" primaries were non-binding elections where the results did not guarantee delegates for the candidates. This meant that party leaders had significant influence over the nomination process, as the outcomes of these primaries were more symbolic than determinative. The term "beauty contest" reflects the idea that these primaries were more about showcasing candidates' popularity and appeal to voters rather than directly allocating delegates based on the results. These non-binding primaries allowed party figures to maintain control over the nomination process, as they could still sway delegate support regardless of the primary outcomes.
  • After the chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, significant reforms were implemented, including the institution of binding primaries. These binding primaries ensured that the results directly influenced delegate commitments, strengthening the connection between primary outcomes and delegate allocations. Additionally, reforms required caucuses to occur simultaneously and extended the primary season's timespan, giving the media a more prominent role in shaping public sentiment. These changes shifted the nomination process from one dominated by party leaders to a system where voter influence was significantly increased.
  • In the post-1968 era, caucuses were required to occur simultaneously with primaries, providing a structured forum for party members to discuss and select delegates. This change aimed to increase transparency and inclusivity in the delegate selection process. Additionally, the extended primary season allowed the media to play a more significant role in shaping public opinion by covering the various contests and influencing voter perceptions. The media's coverage of primary races and candidate performances helped inform and engage the public, impacting the narrative surrounding the nomination process.
  • An open 2024 convention, in the scenario where President Joe Biden steps down, could lead to intense pre-primary campaigning as potential candidates compete to secure loyal delegates. This phase is crucial for candidates to build support without resorting to negative tactics due to the limited time before the convention. The post-primary period for influencing already-elected delegates is short, emphasizing the importance of presenting oneself positively. The involvement of influential figures like governors, senators, and labor leaders becomes significant in directing delegate choices and navigating a potentially complex nomination process.
  • The brief post-primary period for swaying already-elected delegates refers to the limited time candidates have after the primaries to influence delegates who have already been chosen to support them at the party's convention. This period is crucial for candidates to make a positive impression on the delegates and secure their loyalty before the convention takes place. The window for persuasion is short, intensifying the competition among candidates to garner support swiftly and effectively. Influential party figures like governors, senators, and labor leaders often play significant roles in guiding the decisions of these delegates during this critical phase.
  • In the context of delegate choices in the nomination process, influential figures like governors and senators play crucial roles in directing delegate support towards specific candidates. Their endorsements and influence can sway delegate decisions, especially in the post-primary period leading up to the convention. These influential figures often have established networks and political capital that can significantly impact the outcome of delegate commitments. Their support can help shape the trajectory of the nomination battle by mobilizing delegates and consolidating support for a particular candidate.
  • Fractious conventions within the Democratic Party can occur when there are significant disagreements among party members on key issues or candidates. These ideological splits can lead to intense debates and conflicts during the nominating process, potentially causing divisions within the party. Such disagreements may manifest in differing policy priorities, visions for the party's future, or preferred leadership styles. Resolving these ideological divides is crucial for maintaining party cohesion and presenting a united front during the convention and the general election.

Counterarguments

  • The reforms post-1968 may have increased voter influence, but it could be argued that the influence of money in politics and the role of super PACs still allows for substantial indirect influence by party elites and wealthy donors.
  • While Elaine Kamarck emphasizes the minimal impact of public opinion pre-1972, one could argue that even with binding primaries, the will of the electorate can be overridden by superdelegates in certain situations, as seen in past Democratic primaries.
  • The assertion that primary races largely determine the nominating process overlooks the potential for brokered conventions and the influence of late primary states, which can still play a pivotal role in the outcome.
  • The idea that an open 2024 convention would lead to positive campaigning might be overly optimistic, as history has shown that negative campaigning can emerge even in tight timeframes, especially when stakes are high.
  • The role of influential figures like governors and senators in directing delegate choices could be criticized for perpetuating an insider-driven process that may not fully reflect the broader party base's preferences.
  • The claim that the Democratic Party may withstand challenges better than in the past or compared to the Republican Party could be contested, as internal divisions and the rise of progressive movements within the party could lead to significant challenges in maintaining cohesion.
  • The notion that Democratic divisions are not as severe as within the Republican Party might be challenged by pointing out that ideological splits within the Democratic Party, such as between progressive and moderate factions, have been significant and could affect party unity.
  • The idea that fractious conventions are less likely within the Democratic Party could be countered by historical examples of contentious conventions and the unpredictable nature of political dynamics, which could lead to unexpected outcomes.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

The primary system's evolution from the pre- to post-1968 era

The 1968 Democratic National Convention's turmoil led to a critical reevaluation and subsequent overhaul of the delegate selection process, which has since had lasting implications on the primary system and the control voters have over selecting nominees.

How uncommitted delegates and beauty contest primaries drove brokered conventions and party control pre-1968

Lack of binding primaries let party leaders influence delegate selection

Before 1972, the primary system was dominated by so-called beauty contest primaries, which indicated a candidate's popularity but did not necessarily translate to delegate support. Elaine Kamarck highlights that in this era, many delegates entered the convention uncommitted and were able to cast their votes as they or party leaders wished. This led to a system where party processes superseded public input in the selection of the nominee. Primaries before 1968, numbering only about 16, were non-binding, which meant that they did not guarantee delegates to candidates, allowing party leaders to retain considerable control over delegate allocation.

Kamarck details past scenarios where political leaders, exemplified by figures like Governor Lawrence of Pennsylvania, exerted substantial influence in selecting delegates. She muses that had such "peer review" mechanisms persisted, propositions like Donald Trump's campaign promise to build a wall paid for by Mexico might have faced tougher vetting from such influential figures.

Reforms after the 1968 convention chaos

Primaries became binding, increasing voter control over the nominee

In response to the disorder of the 1968 convention, the Democratic Party established a commission to reform the delegate selection process. This resulted in primaries becoming binding, meaning the winners would secure a proportionate number of committed delegates. Kamarck underscores that after the commission's reforms, the link between primary outcomes and delegate commitments strengthened, thus amplifying voter influence over nominee selection.

Delegates were still required to get elected, but now they had to pledge their allegiance to a pres ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The primary system's evolution from the pre- to post-1968 era

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • A brokered convention occurs when no candidate receives a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot at a party's nominating convention. In this scenario, delegates can switch their allegiance in subsequent rounds of voting, leading to intense negotiations and potential compromises among party members. The term "brokered" historically implies a significant role for political leaders in influencing the final outcome of the nomination process. This process contrasts with a straightforward nomination where a candidate secures a majority of delegate votes in the initial round.
  • Uncommitted delegates in the context of US presidential primaries are individuals who are not bound to support a specific candidate. They have the flexibility to choose which candidate to support at the party's nominating convention. This system allows for a degree of uncertainty and strategic maneuvering in delegate selection processes. Uncommitted delegates can play a significant role in shaping the outcome of a party's nomination process, especially in cases where no candidate has a clear majority of delegates.
  • Beauty contest primaries were non-binding elections held before 1972 where voters could indicate their preference for a candidate, but the results did not directly determine delegate allocation. Party leaders often had significant influence over delegate selection, as delegates were not bound to support the candidate chosen by voters in these primaries. This system allowed for party processes to override public input in selecting the nominee, leading to a lack of direct correlation between primary results and delegate commitments.
  • Delegate allocation is the process of assigning delegates to candidates based on the results of primary elections or caucuses. Each state has a certain number of delegates who represent the state at the party's national convention. Delegates can be allocated proportionally based on the percentage of votes a candidate receives or winner-takes-all, where the candidate with the most votes gets all the delegates. This allocation system plays a crucial role in determining the party's nominee for the presidential election.
  • Caucuses in caucus states are a method of selecting delegates where voters gather at local meetings to express their preferences for candidates. These meetings involve discussions and voting rounds to determine the allocation of delegates. Unlike primaries, which are more straightforward voting processes, caucuses require participants to engage in more interactive ...

Counterarguments

  • While the reforms post-1968 did increase voter control, some argue that the current primary system still allows for a significant amount of party influence through superdelegates who are not bound by primary or caucus results.
  • The increased influence of voters in the primary process has led to concerns about the "tyranny of the majority," where the views of a passionate minority within the party may be overlooked.
  • The binding primary system may contribute to increased polarization, as candidates may cater to the more extreme positions of their party's base to win primaries, rather than seeking a broader appeal that could be more effective in a general election.
  • The reforms have made the primary process longer and more expensive, potentially favoring wealthier candidates with more resources to sustain prolonged campaigns.
  • The shift towards a primary-centric system may disadvantage lesser-known or outsider candidates who might have previously gained traction through the convention process.
  • The simultaneous caucuses requirement, while intended to make the process more organized, may also disadvantage smaller states or those with less political influence by reducing their ability to draw attention to their issues or can ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

How an open 2024 convention could play out if Biden steps down

The scenario of an open 2024 convention without President Joe Biden, as detailed by Ezra Klein and Elaine Kamarck, is a whirlwind of political manoeuvring and intensive campaigning.

Pre-primary: intensive behind-the-scenes campaigning to elect loyalist delegates

Ezra Klein outlines a mad dash among potential candidates to secure their positions should Joe Biden step down, leading to a media-fueled spectacle of forums, speeches, and interviews to appeal to delegates. In the lead-up to the national convention, prospective candidates engage in robust grassroots campaigns to have their loyalists elected as delegates. Politics among Democratic activists come into play as they campaign to secure a spot at the convention. If Biden endorses Kamala Harris, other potential candidates may be discouraged from entering the race, potentially clearing the path for Harris.

If, however, powerful figures like Governor Gavin Newsom join the fray, it could result in delegate division. Elaine Kamarck remarks on the influence that elected party figures like senators, congressmen, mayors, and governors possess in such scenarios, acting as a form of representative government. Candidates would use this pre-primary period to introduce themselves to delegates and avoid toxicity as there would be little time for persuasive efforts before the convention.

Post-primary: persuading already-elected delegates in a short timeframe

Kamarck suggests that the time for swaying delegates is exceedingly short, which discourages negative campaigning. Instead, candidates must establish themselves in a positive light to the approximately 4,000 delegates preparing for the convention. If powerful figures enter the race following a hypothetical announcement from Biden, an open battle for the nomination could ensue. In such a case, it might become necessary for party leadership to engage in selecting a nominee.

Factors swaying delegates: governors, senators, labor leaders

To influence delegates, candidates, their surrogates, and spouses would visit delegations at their hotels to lobby for support. Powerful local political figures, such as governors and senators, have a significant impact on delegate preferences. Additionally, labor leaders hold considerable influence, especially over union member delegates who respect the direction of their union's leadership. Though not explicitly mentioned in the provided transcript, these power brokers can play a c ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

How an open 2024 convention could play out if Biden steps down

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The superdelegate compromise restricts superdelegates from voting until the second ballot in a contested convention. This safeguard aims to prevent superdelegates, who are party insiders and officials, from unduly influencing the primary outcome. By delaying their voting rights, the compromise allows for a more democratic process where pledged delegates have a greater initial impact on selecting the nominee. This mechanism helps ensure that the voices of regular delegates and voters are prioritized over the party establishment's preferences.
  • Delegate persuasion involves candidates and their supporters actively engaging with delegates to secure their support. Strategies include personal visits, lobbying efforts, and highlighting endorsements from influential figures like governors, senators, and labor leaders. The goal is to sway delegates to vote in favor of a particular candidate during a convention or primary, emphasizing the importance of building relationships and showcasing strengths to win over delegate support. This process is crucial in political scenarios where delegate decisions can significantly impact the outcome of a nomination or election.
  • Labor leaders play a crucial role in influencing delegate preferences due to their influence over union member delegates. Union members often respect and follow the guidance of their union leadership when it comes to political decisions. Labor leaders can sway delegate votes by advocating for specific candidates or policies that align with the interests of the labor movement. Their endorsement can carry significant weight in shaping delegate support during conventions and elections.
  • Local political figures like governors and senators can sway delegate decisions due to their influence and connections within the party. Their endorsements can signal to delegates which candidate is preferred by established party leadership. Delegates may align with these figures to support candidates who have the backing of influential politicians in their respective states. Governors and senators often have strong networks and resources that can be pivotal in garnering support from delegates during the nomination process.
  • Elected party figures like senators, congressmen, mayors, and governors play a significant role in delegate selection due to their influence within the party. They are often seen as representatives of the party establishment and can sway delegate preferences through endorsements and support. Their backing can signal to delegates which candidates align closely with the party's interests and values. These figures can help shape the direction of the party's nomination process by mobilizing support and resources for specific candidates.
  • In the context of an open convention scenario, intense campaigning occurs as potential candidates vie to secure delegate support in the absence of a clear frontrunner. This involves behind-the-scenes efforts to elect loyalist delegates and sway already-elected delegates in a short timeframe. Influential figures like governors, senators, and labor leaders play a crucial role in swaying delegate preferences and can impact the outco ...

Counterarguments

  • While grassroots campaigns are important, the influence of media and online platforms can also significantly shape delegate opinions and cannot be overlooked.
  • The endorsement of a sitting president like Biden could be a double-edged sword, potentially mobilizing opposition among those seeking a fresh face or different direction for the party.
  • The entry of high-profile figures such as Governor Newsom could energize the base and lead to a more dynamic and competitive primary process, rather than simply causing division.
  • The influence of elected party figures might be counterbalanced by the rise of outsider candidates who can leverage social media and grassroots support to challenge the establishment.
  • The pre-primary period could also be used by candidates to draw clear distinctions between themselves and their opponents, which could involve pointed criticism rather than solely positive self-presentation.
  • A short timeframe for swaying delegates might actually intensify campaigning efforts, including negative campaigning, as candidates seek to quickly differentiate themselves.
  • The role of powerful local political figures in influencing delegates may be mitigated by national issues or the personal appeal of the candidates themselves.
  • The influence of labor leaders may vary depending on the political climate and the degree to which union membership aligns with the broader Democratic electorate.
  • The superdelegate compromise, while designed to prevent undue influence, may also be criticized for potentially undermining the will of the primary electorate if the convention goes to a second ballot.
  • Candidates from smaller states or with less traditional political backgrounds may argue that their unique perspectives and policies are just as valuable as those from ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Here’s How an Open Democratic Convention Would Work

Challenges to legitimacy and party cohesion

Elaine Kamarck and Klein delve into the challenges political parties face in maintaining legitimacy and cohesion during the nomination process, weighing the potential for internal fracturing against historical precedents of party divides.

Greater transparency could increase perceptions of chaos

Kamarck speculates that the process of political parties choosing their candidates could appear wild to onlookers due to various activities such as social media campaigns and polling, possibly leading to perceptions of chaos. This heightened visibility, Kamarck suggests, might make the political process an engaging spectacle for the public and political reporters, akin to reality TV. Kamarck expresses faith that delegates would figure things out despite the possibility of procedural chaos because they are politically savvy.

But Democratic divides may not run as deep as 1968 or Republicans today

Klein and Kamarck discuss concerns about legitimacy and the anguish that could arise if it feels like the party, rather than the people, is making decisions. This disconnect could relate to altered expectations of party roles and the democratic process. Kamarck believes that greater transparency in the politicking process might make the process appear chaotic to voters—a sentiment that echoes the sometimes chaotic nature of debates on the House floor. However, she references the Democratic Party's unity during Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker, suggesting that divides within the party may not run ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Challenges to legitimacy and party cohesion

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The challenges to party legitimacy and cohesion discussed in the text include concerns about the perception of chaos during the candidate selection process, potential internal fracturing within parties, and the impact of transparency on public trust. The text also touches on historical divisions within parties, such as those seen in 1968, and compares them to the current landscape of party unity and ideological differences.
  • The comparison of current Democratic divides to those in 1968 or within the Republican Party highlights the historical context of party conflicts. In 1968, the Democratic Party faced significant internal divisions over the Vietnam War and civil rights, leading to a tumultuous convention. Comparatively, the Republican Party in recent times has experienced notable ideological clashes between different factions within the party. Understanding these historical precedents helps assess the level of cohesion and unity within the current Democratic Party.
  • Altered expectations of party roles and the democratic process suggest that people may have different or evolving beliefs about how political partie ...

Counterarguments

  • Transparency might not necessarily lead to perceptions of chaos; it could also foster trust and engagement by allowing voters to see the decision-making process more clearly.
  • The comparison of the political process to reality TV might trivialize the importance and seriousness of political decision-making.
  • Political savvy does not guarantee that delegates will always make decisions that are in the best interest of the party or the public.
  • The perception of legitimacy is subjective and can vary among different groups of people, regardless of the actual transparency or unity within a party.
  • Unity during Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker does not necessarily indicate the absence of deep divides; it could also be a result of strong leadership or other factors suppressing visible dissent.
  • The severity of intra-party fighting and its impact on party cohesion can fluctuate over time, and past stability does not guarant ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA