* I The role of elected and party officials. Many maintain that previous reforms have discouraged party leaders from participating in the nominating process, resulting in a decline in experienced judgment, weakening ties between the nominee and the party and between the party and its constituencies. Critics point to Democratic President Jimmy Carter's inability to deal with a Democratically controlled Congress as an example. To stem the decline of the participation of elected officials, the DNC adopted the Winograd Commission's recommendation to increase state delegations by 10 percent and reserve those spots for elected officials.

Though it has yet to vote officially on anything, the commission reached a consensus on two issues at its last meeting, held November 7 in Washington. Rule 11H, the "faithless delegate" rule, was scrapped without debate. Continuation of the equal division between men and women was also accepted without question.

But no agreement was even approached on what has turned into the most controversial topic--what to do about the role of party and elected officials in the primary and convention process. Since 1968, the percentage of Democratic United States Senators serving as delegates has declined from 68 percent to 14 percent. For U.S. Representatives, the comparable statistics are 39 percent and 15 per cent.

Most have agreed they need to play a greater role once again; Eugene Eidenberg, executive director of the DNC--who was an IOP fellow last spring--says one of the main goals of the commission is to determine "how we can best get together elected officials in the process of party decision-making. I am reasonably confident we will produce changes that will crease their role."

But 83 percent of elected officials and parties are white, and 72 percent are males. The problem of preserving equal division between the sexes and proportional representation of minorities while increasing the voice of the office-holders has divided the commission.

In a paper she prepared last September, Susan Estrich, assistant professor of Law and a member of the advisory committee to the commission, wrote, "I know of no one who has suggested that the Democratic Party should turn its back on our historic commitments to equal division and affirmative action in delegate selection. And yet, that will be the 'unintended consequence' of any rule which automatically involves all Governors, Senators and members of Congress as ex officio, un-committed delegates to the 1984 convention."

"You would be giving the process over to white males." Estrich says, arguing that a specific revision of the present system is unnecessary. "The 1980 convention was not nearly so exclusive [of party officials] as one might think." she added, alluding to a CBS convention floor poll which indicated that 64 percent of the delegates were elected officials.

Indeed. Richard E. Neustadt, Littauer Professor of Public Administration, says that changes aimed at increasing the role of officials will occur only when women and minorities hold a greater proportion of those positions.

The other big question is whether elected officials should be allowed to come as uncommitted delegates. The Association of Democratic State Chairs recommended at the last meeting that 30 percent of the slots be held open for such delegates. They argue that elected officials will only come if they do not have to declare a preference before the convention and risk alienating one faction or another in their districts.

But several members of the commission see such a move as a repudiation of the past 12 years of reforms, a removal of power from the "grassroots," returning it to the "smoke-filled rooms" of the past. Patrick H. Caddell '72, a member of the advisory committee and the chief pollster for the Democratic nominee in the last three elections wrote last September: "I believe we must hold fast to the principle of the sovereignty of our party's rank and file. As Democrats we must be willing to trust the people. The ultimate real power ought to be theirs."

The length of the whole nominating process is another issue that has dominated debate. Eidenberg, noting that Republicans outspent Democrats two-to-one in 1980, says the lengthy primary season is "trying up millions of dollars which have no effect on the selection of delegates." The current system's "circus-like atmosphere" tests the credibility of the party, he argues, and all primaries should be held within the "window"--the buzzword for the three-month period from March 1 to June 1.

But can the DNC really change the process? Estrich notes that "you can't stop New Hampshire from having a straw vote early on. You can't stop candidates from going there. And you can't stop CBS from covering it."

Others question whether the issue is really that crucial. Cleta Deatherage, a state representative from Oklahoma, a member of the commission and an IOP fellow, says the issue was created by members of the media who are bored with covering the current long process. Noting that the window closes off only six weeks before the convention, she calls it a "silly idea. We're just wasting our time."

With 25 months left before the 1984 lowa caucus, the DNC has hopes of conducting an objective reform without all the politicking which comes naturally to such a review. But political considerations have inevitably snuck into the proceedings. Kennedy and former Vice President Walter F. Mondale were each allowed two members on the 69-member commission. Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) has a personal aide on the advisory committee, and Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-N.Y.) are both on the mailing list.

It is difficult to say at this point which rules will help which candidates, so few observers publicly read political motives into the actions of the representatives. David S. Broder, who has been covering the commission for the Washington Post, says, "Those of us sitting there watching the proceedings were stupefied to see how little maneuvering" went on.