The latest news, as you may know, in the on-going saga of Florida and Michigan is that the states are considering holding snap mail-in primaries:
Democratic leaders in the two states are considering a mail-in election to allocate delegates to the Democratic National Convention between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Democratic National Committee will not seat delegates chosen by primaries held in January, earlier than allowed under party rules.
There are a lot of good reasons to think this might not work. But what if it does?
This of course is making some uneasy; supporters of both Obama and Clinton have expressed reservations. As the Saint Petersburg Times notes:
But the hurdles are immense for pulling off an enormously high stakes election within the next three months:
- Growing skepticism from the Obama campaign and from key supporters of the Illinois senator. They note that Oregon spent 10 years developing and building up to a statewide mail election.
"Does anyone really believe we're going to get this right? And does anyone really want another screwed up election in Florida?," asked Tallahassee City Commissioner Allan Katz, a DNC member and top Obama supporter.
- Divisions among Clinton supporters about whether a new election, mail or otherwise, makes sense. In Florida, Sen. Bill Nelson is touting a vote-by-mail election, while U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trashing the idea.
- Little help from the Democratic National Committee's chairman, Howard Dean, in reaching a compromise. Dean has yet to discuss the options with state Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman.
- No consensus on even basic logistical and legal issues about whether the Democratic election should or must be run by the state. Gov. Charlie Crist says the state must run the election, but most Democratic leaders disagree.
NPR's Michelle Norris interviewed Fairvote.org's Rob Richie on this topic yesterday.
The upshot -- there are pros and cons to mail-in voting. The con is fairly obvious -- when the ballot leaves the hands of the State, the opportunity for fraud increases dramatically.
But perhaps the biggest pro, though, from the perspective of our elected officials, is that it is cheaper to run an election by mail. Oregon's system is about 30 percent cheaper than a traditional in-person voting system. And the reduced cost has been a major factor in its appeal to the DNC and the state Democratic parties.
So if Florida and Michigan proceed with a mail-in vote -- and if it, as appears possible, could be decisive in determining our nominee this year -- essentially we're going to have a massive experiment as to whether a cut-rate process can work in a cut-throat environment.
If Florida and Michigan pull this off with no or few problems, there may be a certain temptation for other states and state Democratic Party organizations to adopt this approach.
Especially after this year's caucuses; many caucus-goers were angered by the long waits and complicated rules. There will undoubtedly be pressure on the Texas Democratic Party to change or scrap the caucus system. And as I understand it, there may be similar sentiments in other states (see this article from Minnesota).
So imagine you are a party or state official in a caucus state, and you see this wonderful, cost-effective solution in mail-in primaries. Imagine you see Florida and Michigan getting rave reviews for their ingenious last-minute solution. You hear that 81 percent of Oregon voters (who have used mail-in voting for decades) like their system. What do you do?
If a mail-in primary ends up working out sufficiently well for Florida and Michigan, the state delegate selection plans for 2012 could be radically different.
Indeed, might the DNC decide to simply have a big, nationwide mail-in primary and skip the "silly season" entirely?
Of course, this all hinges on what happens in Michigan and Florida. The vote-by-mail trial balloon may burst; if it even happens, it could result in a mess (experiments do sometimes fail).
It'll be interesting to see what happens.