But some of the actual participants interpret things differently. In August, two Mondale supporters, one of whom serves on the commission, wrote an op-ed piece in the Post calling for, among other things, a rule guaranteeing uncommitted positions to a large number of elected officials. Scott Lang, one of Kennedy's representatives on the panel, says bluntly. "They believe that would help Mondale. Their motivation should be what's better for the party, not what's better for a candidate. That's the way we're approaching it," he adds.

But whether or not candidates have representatives working for their own interests, it is clear that specific groups are already doing so. Most everyone points to labor--the AFL-CIO alone has 14 members on the commission, and Douglas Fraser, head of the United Auto Workers, is a co-chair. Testifying at the November hearing, representatives of the AFL-CIO backed the call for a large block of uncommitteds.

John Perkins, associate director of the labor federation's research branch, says the AFL-CIO "feels that the elected officials would represent those Democrats who do not participate in caucuses [or] primaries."

A non-labor member of the advisory committee says. "They cut a deal with Hunt. They feel that they can have greater influence among elected officials and may even get some of the uncommitted slots themselves," the member, who asked not to be named, said, adding, "They are paying for it."

If the Democrats take the rule changes seriously--and the reams of paper and the hours of testimony indicate that they do--they are unclear about what exactly it is they hope to accomplish. Preliminary position papers from advisory committee members range from the view that "the primary business of the Democratic Party should be nominating a presidential candidate and winning the presidency," to one advocating a presidential nominating process which would "exclude no important party constituency and maximize popular participation by Democrats in the selection of their party's nominee."

Deatherage argues, "I don't think rules make that much difference, given the limitations of parties in America today." Understanding those restrictions, she believes the best the Hunt commission can do is "keep the rules open and simple."

Lang, too, discusses the limitations of the commission's work. "The nominating process has to have a melding of ideas. We have to have a reason to win," he argues, saying the focus should be on developing a presentable program.

The proper perspective. Orren says, is what the rules can do for the party. "One of the least important things is whether this type of candidate or that type of candidate wins. The old rules gave you Millard Fillmores as well as Lincolns."

The key, Orren stresses, "is what impact rules changes have on life between elections." The rules should increase the strength of the party and the responsiveness of the party because "political parties allow both good and bad candidates to be better presidents."