By Deanna Pantín Parrish

With or without knowing it, we are involved in a nationwide discussion about process. Be still my dispute system designer heart.  

In the very eventful weeks since the debate between President Biden and former President Trump, voices from across the political spectrum have weighed in on whether and how the Democratic Party should select a new nominee. Before ending his bid for reelection, many Democrats justified their support of President Biden largely on procedural grounds. As Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez put it, “I’m looking at a watch, and I’m looking at a clock, and I’m looking at a calendar.” Since suspending his campaign, commentators have imagined a contested convention in which a parade of Democratic hopefuls make their pitch to superdelegates who will determine the nominee via a live ballot vote. Others suggest a virtual roll call in the first week of August, which would officially lock in a Democratic nominee before the convention starts. At the time of this writing, Vice President Harris’ recently announced candidacy has garnered historic support from across the Democratic Party, including from President Biden.  

Like so many aspects of political discourse, the public narrative about selecting a Democratic nominee has been dominated by a binary. Turn on any news outlet and you will hear pundits fearing one of two seemingly inevitable outcomes: a contested convention that replicates violent and unsuccessful histories within the party, or, a purely ceremonial DNC that “anoints” a candidate without a primary vote. This flurry of process-talk affirms what I have referenced on this blog before: that democracy is a dispute system. The language of dispute systems design allows us to navigate, and see beyond, the binary of chaos versus coronation.  

Fearing Chaos Inside and Outside of the Convention 

Since President Biden left the Presidential race, public concerns about a chaotic DNC have abounded. Strategists are worried about the disorganization and disunity an open or contested convention might convey: “scenes of chaos could project[] a sense of disorder and ineffectiveness on the world stage.” Moreover, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned that a change to the Democratic ticket might inspire legal chaos. Fair enough—former president Trump’s legal team has already contested Vice President Harris’ use of campaign funds, submitting a complaint to the Federal Election Commission less than 48 hours after she announced her candidacy. 

Behind these concerns lurks the memory of the last contested DNC, also held in Chicago, in 1968 in which Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern looked to fill the void left by sitting President Johnson who did not seek reelection. The event was marked by political infighting on the floor of the convention largely relating to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and a violent faceoff between tens of thousands of antiwar protesters and the National Guard. Though the 7-day deliberations resulted in a nominee—Humphrey—the event is considered a historic failure that wounded the Democratic party.  

A delegate present at the event said that “the average American would look at the Democrats and conclude that ‘this was a party that had lost its mind.’” By the end of that year, Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were on their way to the White House and over 16,500 American lives had been lost in Vietnam.  

The parallels are hard to miss. Today we also have a sitting Democratic president who pulled out of the race. His Vice President has bid to replace him on the Democratic ticket. The country at-large is concerned with the sitting administration’s involvement in a bloody international war. And activists have publicly announced their intent to disrupt the DNC as a show of power.  

If today’s Democrats are clinging to order, it’s because history suggests that the alternative could be disastrous. How have Democrats managed the fears that echo across 56 years? Full throated support of Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy. Technically, anyone with 300 delegate signatures could still challenge her for the nomination. The DNC’s Chief Technology Officer even built a virtual nomination system to support it. But no one has. 

Resisting a ‘Coronation’  

Technically speaking, the race is still open. The DNC has explicit rules for selecting a nominee. However, in a show of party unity and low risk tolerance, state delegations are increasingly pledging support of Vice President Harris’ nomination. Though these state party endorsements are not binding, Harris has more than the required 1,976 votes needed to secure the nomination. This means that though the convention will technically be considered open, the proceedings will likely feel familiar, if not ceremonial.  

This approach comes with some risks. President Obama’s noticeably late endorsement of Harris has sparked a national conversation about procedural integrity and avoiding a “coronation.” He called for “creat[ing] a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges.” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib has withheld her endorsement of Harris, calling instead for “the opportunity to engage Vice President Harris… [and] a transparent democratic process at an open convention next month.” President of the United Auto Workers, Shawn Fain, refused to immediately endorse Harris, saying, “We’re not going to rush in and just throw it out there. We want to have fruitful discussions when we meet [with Harris’s team]. And I think it’s important we do that.” 

Perhaps most notably, Black Lives Matter has publicly criticized the Democratic Party for “attempting to manipulate Black voters by anointing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the new Democratic ticket.” The organization has called the DNC to “immediately host an informal, virtual snap primary across the country prior to the DNC convention in August. . . . create a process that allows for public participation in the nomination process, not just a nomination by party delegates.” 

In the parlance of dispute systems design (DSD), people skeptical of Harris’ perceived coronation lament a lack of stakeholder engagement. Through the lens of DSD, we, the citizens, are the key stakeholders. Our democracy, like any effective dispute system, should be accountable and adaptive to our interests. And it’s the job of our elected officials to make sure that happens. By denying the opportunity to be heard, stakeholders are likely to find other, and potentially more disruptive, ways to build power and communicate their needs. In that way, sticking to the default process—a convention that is open in name only—might create the same political or procedural chaos it seeks to avoid.   

DSD’s Invitation: Imagining Another Way  

In the time between the Presidential debate and when President Biden ended his reelection campaign, Democrats, sensing urgency and doom, proliferated ideas for whether and how Biden should be replaced as the Democratic nominee. Strategist James Carville set out a vision of an “open” and “superdemocratic” nominee selection process of consulting Democratic governors in town halls moderated by Presidents Clinton and Obama. Representative Jim Clyburn suggested a “mini primary” take place during the virtual roll call needed to appear on the Ohio ballot. Ezra Klein of The New York Times suggested a “middle path” where multiple VP hopefuls run alongside Harris for the Democratic nomination, in a positive display of party power. He writes, “Think of it not as a contest. Think of it as an exhibition.” 

However, in the week since Harris’ campaign officially launched, procedural innovations like these aren’t making headlines. It seems that in the choice between perceived chaos or coronation, Democratic leadership sides with the latter.  

Dispute system design urges us not to let go of the potential of this moment. Regardless of who ultimately emerges as the nominee, Democrats have an opportunity to use the road to the DNC and the convention itself to engage stakeholders—us, the voters—in novel ways. Unearth and actively listen to the differences between Democratic voters, and use them as a source of value. Grow the party’s information about voters’ interests, and use them to build a comprehensive campaign platform that is reflective of the People. 

Want to combat a narrative of coronation? Make this the most “superdemocratic” process the party has ever seen. Run a nationwide survey on voter priorities. Host facilitated discussions on key issues at the state level. Invite voters—not delegates—from different states to interview the candidate and respond in real time to their concerns. Want to control procedural chaos? Don’t resist it. Make stakeholder engagement processes open and visible to the public—broadcast them as a vision of what democracy could look like. Give protestors a permit instead of shutting them out of the room. Give voters the opportunity for the “genuine participation” they seek—the opportunity to be heard.  

In the speech that launched her campaign, Vice President Harris said that it was her “intention to go out and earn this nomination and to win.” Democrats have the chance to hold her to that promise. DSD can help. Step away from the fears of total chaos or coronation, and instead design intentional opportunities for Democratic voters to shape how democracy happens. 

Deanna Pantín Parrish ’16 is a Senior Clinical Instructor at the Harvard Negotiaton and Mediation Clinic and a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. She is a certified mediator and a member of the District of Columbia Bar.