Is the "Fix" in?
It's possible that the average voter will be participating in an election farce because of the unelected "Super Delegates" in the Democratic Party? Super Delegates have the potential to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. Imagine, for example that Obama wins the rest of the states and pledged Clinton Super Delegates give her the election. Imagine Clinton wins the rest of the states and pledged Obama Super Delegates delegates give him the nomination.
The Democratic Party may be circumventing the democratic process by allowing unelected Super Delegates the power to decide who will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. I smell smoke coming from backrooms.
We must call upon every Super Delegate to follow the popular vote! Otherwise average voters, unlike the oh-so-special Super Delegates may have participated in a travesty. Tell the National Democratic Party to instruct the Super Delegates to follow the popular vote. No wonder some folks can't stand party politics.
Discuss.
|
February 10, 2008 |
Paulie Brading | Comments (85 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kaleb N. | Feb 10, 2008 9:17:58 AM
I don't see the fraud. In a race as close as Clinton and Obama's, the "popular vote" could almost be decided by confusing ballots or the various state primary rules. Think about Michigan. An unregistered w/ party voter, like myself, could make the difference in a state like New Hampshire, but I don't have a say in the Oregon primary. Dropped-out, spoiler candidates could also make things unfair, something the GOP may have to deal with.
IMO, the system has weeded out the unpopular candidates. Let the superdelegates (who may personally met the candidates, instead of being influenced by thirty-second campaign ads) decide between the two options presented by the people, a sort of check and balance, another idea our democracy was founded on.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Feb 10, 2008 9:34:46 AM
Frankly, I'm not all that concerned.
There are two extremes:
1. Party leadership selects the nominee
2. Popular vote decides the nominee
What we have is a decent balance between the two, with heavy emphasis on voters, and tie-breaking ability in leadership (people we've elected).
We currently have the state-by-state variations. Should primaries uniformly be open to people of all parties? And isn't the current delegate selection process undemocratic, as it values voters in certain districts and states more than others? In short, we don't have a pure one person, one vote nationwide system. So the current non-super delegate selection process is skewed and muddy, not a system where there's a single "popular vote" that can be followed.
Having super-delegates with actual power, instead of making their votes meaningless (as the above proposal suggests), encourages people to get involved in their party work. It rewards people who've done decades of hard work getting other people elected, and it rewards people who do the tireless work of public service.
On the off chance that we have, such as this year, a race that's extremely tight -- almost exactly half the voters supporting each candidate -- then having the superdelegates break the tie seems just fine to me.
In one hypothetical case, we disenfranchise the 50.1% of the voters who support candidate A. In the other, we disenfranchise the 49.9% of voters who support candidate B. Or, said another way, 49.9% of primary voters will have their choice validated, 49.9% will be disappointed, and only 0.2%'s mood will depend on the choice of the superdelegates.
Posted by: DAN GRADY | Feb 10, 2008 9:42:14 AM
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I suppose I'm contaminated some how with my past when I notice a mark that can't help to behave as a "loser" when they have every advantage to win. When a player plays not to loose. I have taken money off the table against many better players than I, it's easy, just create doubt in your opponent. It's the cancer that eats away at their confidence, and their ability to win.
When a player thinks they have to try not to loose, when they see failure behind every shot, behind every opportunity, it's best to stand back and politely speak sweet admirations, and let them beat themselves. The result 95% of the time is they do all the work for you, leave the nine ball hung up in the pocket after choking on the money shot.
This fortunately for Democrats is never going to happen!
Let me say that again for those "looser lobel" Democrats that can't help but see what happened in 2000 & 2004 and have waking nightmares of Republicans pulling off the miracle with McCain in the White House. This presumes the candidates are loosers, I'm here to tell you that either one of these candidates are WINNERS!
I would lay money on either candidates if Ronald Reagan's spirit were to possess McCain's body on RNC Convention Floor on national T.V. it would stil not help the Republican! The American electorate of most likely voters, primary voters, have been doubling the Republican turnout, and likely will be bigger in the general election.
I think this energy should be directed at voter registration. Let your panic be the fuel to volunteer for Obama, or Clinton! When the general election begins in earnest in August '08 and November '08 comes around let's show the Neo-Con what Americans really think of their vision for America. We'll gouge their eyes out with a landslide the likes never seen in my 32years of voting, and likely in American history.
I'm happy to lay money down, and stand back as the Republicans do all the work and hang the nine ball up in the pocket in the general. I'll be happy to pick-up that money.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Feb 10, 2008 9:47:37 AM
unelected "Super Delegates"
The word I had was some of these positions are held by the likes of US Senators, Governors, etc. Most gain these positions through an election. If folks don't know who are super delegates, should their ignorance rule the situation? Haven't we had enough of that kind of government?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 10, 2008 9:54:24 AM
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 10, 2008 8:57:47 AMThe existence of the super-delegates is a fraud and a scandal.
Agreed. What is the point of having primary elections or caucuses AND super delegates? To give the appearance of democracy? It's a potential farce either way. The very existance of "super-delegates" is inherently undemocratic.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 10, 2008 9:55:52 AM
...another idea our democracy was founded on.
You mean like "one person, one vote."
It's always nice to see Democrats argue that a tiny group of elites should decide the election, or that certain people should be rewarded with "super" election powers that defeat the principle of one person one vote.
Kaleb and Evan's lack of faith in democracy by The People would make Wayne Morse roll over in his grave: "Why you're a man of little faith in democracy if you make that kind of a comment. I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them."
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 10, 2008 9:58:35 AM
The question is, "If the insiders in the Democratic Party overrule the choice of the party's members, will Democrats behave as democratic republicans or sheep?"
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 10, 2008 9:59:33 AM
Thanks Paulie. Mathematically it is almost certain that superdelegates will hold the power of deciding the nominee at the convention (see below).
The superdelegates pose a problem even with the best intentions in the world. There was some debate over on the Who's Ahead?. I hope Steve Maurer restates here his spirited defense of superdelegates as guardians of the good of the party against possible shenigans of another sort. At this point what I am most worried about is not superdelegates overturning a strong winner in the elected delegate race, but a narrow winner who is deemed "less electable," out of a combination of political dealmaking and misjudged "for the good of the party." Overturning even a narrow electoral decision would be hugely divisive, suppress D voter turnout, and give independent and some D votes to McCain.
Here is a somewhat edited draft guest column that I submitted to BlueOregon relating to the subject:
----
It is nearly certain that the Democratic nomination this year will be decided at the convention by the ex-officio "superdelegates" plus a few uncommitted elected delegates & Edwards delegates.
The Feb 7 print edition of The Oregonian carries (p. A6) a wire service report compilation on post-Super Duper Tuesday delegate results that isn't online.
Here's the math, per the article: Out of total of 4049 delegates to the convention, 2106 have now been decided. That leaves 1943 delegate slots still outstanding, including 796 unelected "superdelegates."
A total of 1147 delegates still remain to be decided by election or caucus.
To win, a candidate needs 2025 delegates. Per the article, as of Feb 7, Senator Clinton has 1045 delegates, needing 980 elected delegates to win outright, or 86% of those still outstanding.
Senator Obama has 960 delegates. To win outright, he'd have to get 1065 or fully 93% of the remaining elected delegates.
Either result seems surpassingly unlikely under party rules that divide delegates from each state in some proportion to electoral results. Superdelegate deciders, here we come!
[Feb 10: After yesterday's results, it is likely that Obama now is slightly ahead of Clinton instead of the other way around. Neither will have gained anything like 80% of the delegates at stake. The percentage Clinton needs of remaining elected delegates to win without superdelegates will have gone up. It may have gone up for Obama too, or if not, probably remains in the 90% range.
That result is just an artifact of their splitting votes and the number of outstanding non-superdelegate slots shrinking faster than either is gaining.]
A great deal is at stake: protecting the courts from four more years of Republican ideological tampering, threatening women's right to control their own bodies, civil rights and liberties, labor rights, and many other things; getting the U.S. out of Iraq before imperial adventurism flushes away our economic future; taking on the ecological and climate crisis in some serious manner; at least trying to make progress in reforming the healthcare system; passing major worker rights legislation, and more.
Regardless of which candidate one favors, if either, what is the best way this could turn out for Democratic prospects in November? What is the worst way it could turn out? What path should the candidates, the party leadership, and the superdelegates follow to avoid a train wreck at the convention that tears the party apart and dashes our hopes for 2008?
What should we ask or demand of our party, our candidates and ourselves to avert a potential disaster?
Posted by: joebob | Feb 10, 2008 10:00:01 AM
Barring some startling event that causes a vote stampede towards one of either Obama or Clinton, it is now certain that the superdelegates will wind up deciding the nomination. Look, the closeness of the race is radically different than anything seen for 40 to 50 years. Regardless which candidate wins, the difference in delegate numbers is going to be small. But does this translate into "disenfranchising" the minority? Not obviously. Not unless some truly odious shenanigans become apparent. So angst-filled speculation about the fix being in may be appealing to some, but not obviously merited.
Posted by: DAN GRADY | Feb 10, 2008 10:07:49 AM
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The Super-Delegates will follow the will of the Party, the will of it's voters in this election, and don't see a movement that would usurp the will of the primarys and caucusses.
This is another 'loser's' mentality that would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, fortunately we have two true WINNERS left on the ticket, and either one will choose to WIN!
I stil don't hear anybody making a line on whether the Super Delegates will pooch this Democratic election? I'm happy to make that bet!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Posted by: paulie | Feb 10, 2008 10:21:11 AM
"The Democratic Party is engaged in a nominating process - this time between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama - in which the margin of victory will be achieved only with the broad support of the superdelegates, the nearly 800 party leaders and elected officials who became delegates not on the basis of votes cast in primaries and caucuses, but because of their status under party rules."
"After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do wht the Democratic Party's rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucues in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters - not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration..."
Tad Devine, Democratic strategist
NYT
Posted by: paul g. | Feb 10, 2008 10:24:32 AM
The superdelegates were created after the 1980 election in response to a feeling that opening up the primary process to the grassroots after the McGovern/Fraser reforms had gone so far that elected officials had been cut out of the process.
Far from being the "small elite" described by Pat, there are nearly 800 superdelegates, comprising all Democratic members of Congress, governors, other elected officials, members of the DNC, and all former Chairs of the DNC and former majority leaders of Congress. They represent a wide swath of national Democratic opinion.
There is no "disenfranchisement" going on here, and I'm disappointed to see this same word that has been bandied about so cavalierly by the media appear here.
Let's keep in mind that this is a party nomination , not a general election. There are no constitutionally protected voting rights at stake here--if there were, we'd not have caucuses or closed primaries.
Where is the democratic outrage at the specter of a few tens of thousands of Nevadans and a few hundred thousand Iowans having such a influential voice in the nomination process? Why aren't you all arguing for primaries where any voter can participate in the Democratic primary, regardless of their party affiliation. Isn't anything else an insult to the "democratic ideals that this nation was founded on"?
If the nomination is a practical tie, as it seems likely to be, then you need some sort of tiebreaker, and I don't see why having the elected members of a political party choose their party standard bearer evokes such outrage.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Feb 10, 2008 10:33:18 AM
This last week I've been watching the "super delegate" issue coming at us from the media.
Frankly, its bullshit.
First, for any worst case scenario to arise, we would have to have a race over turned by the Super Delegates. We have way to many votes yet to be cast for us to be at that turn. The convention in Denver is still a long time in the future.
So, why the debate now?
Voter suppression. This media sponsored issue will have only one effect, to reduce voter turnout. If my vote doesn't count, why vote?
Who Gains? Well, Republicans gain of course. And remember who owns the media...
In reality, the Super Delegates would be delegates no matter. When we vote in our elections or caucases, we are not electing delegates directly, we are telling our delegates who to vote for. If there were no Super delegates, these people would squeeze out local people at the Congressional District level to get the seats at the convention. By keeping the State Central Committee officers, the members of the Democratic National Committee, a few appointed people who otherwise do good works for the Democratic Party, and the elected Democrats as Super Delegates -- democracy is enhanced as that frees up more seats for local people from our Congressional Districts to attend the convention.
Please people, be careful what you grasp onto from the media. This is a bullshit issue from top to bottom.
Posted by: DAN GRADY | Feb 10, 2008 10:34:43 AM
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I hate this constant worrying, this constant complaining about the choice being the problem, their both progressive Democrats, their are both candidates that can win in Novemeber '08, yet we angst, we play not to loose.
I have faith in the candidates! They are not going to be remembered as the reason why Republicans won in a year projected to be a landslide for Democrats. Let's not make voters anxiety for which winner to pick cost us the general election by shooting ourselves between the eyes while the Republicans coyly tell us how much we should win by.
Come time for primary ballots make your vote for whom you like, and be assured that you'll be at the polls in November '08, and bring a few voters you registered with you.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 10, 2008 10:51:33 AM
The easiest way to prevent a problem would be to ask the two candidates to commit to concede prior to the convention once the primary/caucus outcome is clear. The candidates hold the power to take the issue out of the superdelegates' hands.
-----
Absent that, I agree with your original suggestion that we call upon Oregon's superdelegates and the DNC to support the outcome of the elections & caucuses.
More specifically: we should call upon those in the Oregon delegation who have "committed" themselves as delegates to a candidate to convert those commitments to endorsements during the primary/caucus season. They should make a real commitment to follow the results of the primaries and caucuses.
We should do this in our county organizations. We should do this by directly contacting the superdelegates. We should do this by talking to our PCPs and DP elected officials and asking them to communicate to our superdelegates.
We should call upon Democrats in other states to bring similar pressure.
If our superdelegates take the pledge, they should publicize that fact and call upon other superdelegates to do the same, and on the DNC to call for following the election/caucus results.
We should ask our party officials and Democratic elected officials to press the DNC, and to contact other state organizations and superdelegates or people they may know who could influence superdelegates in other states.
-----
No "do-overs" in Florida or Michigan. Rules is rules.
Steve M.'s strongest case in favor of superdelegates over at the other thread is that they could be a "firewall" against such changes. To me it seems that about the only way such a rule change could go through would be with the support of a bunch of superdelegates, the point of which I suppose would be to change a very tight elected delegate count in Clinton's favor, so that then super-delegate support for her could be argued to be backing the electoral will.
----
Dan, I doubt there would be intentional conspiratorial efforts, but unfortunately there is some risk that the sum of individual superdelegate actions could unintentionally collectively "pooch" (screw up) the elections. I don't want to bet on it, but rather to prevent it.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 10, 2008 10:58:00 AM
"Far from being the "small elite" described by Pat, there are nearly 800 superdelegates."
Compare that with how many millions of votes cast in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and it's not just a relatively small elite, it is microscopic.
"Let's keep in mind that this is a party nomination, not a general election. There are no constitutionally protected voting rights at stake here"
No, but a political party's integrity is.
"Where is the democratic outrage at the specter of a few tens of thousands of Nevadans and a few hundred thousand Iowans having such a influential voice in the nomination process?"
Well, the facts on the ground (i.e. the contest continues quite vigorously) are that Iowa and Nevada haven't been all that influential in deciding the final outcome.
"democracy is enhanced as that frees up more seats for local people from our Congressional Districts to attend the convention."
The idea that democracy is greatly enhanced because the "super" delegates allow a few extra party activists to get an invite to the convention is, umm, interesting.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 10, 2008 11:05:51 AM
Steve, even if you're right that it's a made-up media issue, if the superdelegates overturn the results of the elections & caucuses, the same media will make that an issue and it will depress or convert otherwise pro-D votes. Depend on it.
Paul, you have a good point about the word "disfranchisement" but if it already is coming up, you can bet we'll be seeing much more of it from the many true believers on both sides if the superdelegates overturn a result from the primaries and caucuses favoring their favorite. Depend on it. Then the R's will use it to cloud the waters of their own vote-suppression dirty tricks in the general.
I don't expect a virtual tie from the primaries and caucuses. I hope there will be a clear leader (say 54 or 55%) & that the supers will ratify.
What I worry about is a 51% or 52% margin that the supers overturn in some manner combining deal-making with honest but mistaken "best for the party" paternalism (as in "we know better than the voters").
In that case there will be huge divisions. Some significant part of the many ardent supporters of each candidate will refuse to back the nominee. The losing candidate may similarly refuse herself or himself to back the other. The controversy will be further ginned up by the media and it will overshadow the issues. The Rs will take advantage of the mess and make the campaign about Democratic incompetence at a level above the issues.
If it really is a "virtual tie" -- a matter of a handful of delegates, the risk still seems to be there although it may be smaller.
Posted by: lin qiao | Feb 10, 2008 11:26:26 AM
All this angst works well as a full-employment act for the professional campaign advisers and wannabes, and it probably boosts sales of Zantac and Prilosec. Clearly it's a even cabal by the candidates in league with Big Pharma.
Posted by: rural resident | Feb 10, 2008 11:26:36 AM
Paulie … Which “popular vote” are you referring to? The delegate count? Total vote count? Some hybrid that pro rates the caucus results in those states and projects it to an assumed total of votes had there actually been a primary?
Total vote count – which certainly emphasizes results in big states – would seem to be the best measure. By that standard, Hillary would almost certainly get the superdelegate support if she wins Texas and either Ohio or Pennsylvania. That won’t sit well with the Obama supporters.
Obama has scored big in caucus states, but those participating in causes aren’t necessarily representative of a state’s total population. The party faithful, young voters, urban residents, and those who are wealthier are disproportionately represented. That’s Obama’s following. It’s one thing to ask people to spend a few minutes voting. It’s another to require that they spend several hours traveling to a site and spending several hours at a meeting. People who are working, who live far from the caucus sites, and those who simply have more pressing matters to deal with (like attending their kids’ basketball games) may have strong feelings, but don’t get a say.
Hillary won the California primary by 400,000 votes and won about 45 more delegates than Obama. While we won’t know for certain for a few days, it looks as though Obama won about that many more than Clinton in the Washington and Nebraska caucuses. His total margin of victory between the two: about 24,000 votes. This certainly doesn't look like "one man, one vote."
Obama has done very well in many small and moderate-sized states that the Dems have little or no chance of winning this fall (Idaho, Utah, Alabama, North Dakota, Georgia). Hillary is winning larger states that are essential, including Michigan and Florida (yes, those count, too, if we’re making a case for the superdelegates.)
When you claim, “the fix is in,” you might be right. I’m just not sure which side the fix is in for. Right now, the playing field seems to be titled in Obama’s favor, even though he isn’t getting the majority of the actual votes.
Posted by: Ross Day | Feb 10, 2008 11:30:17 AM
To my Democrat friends:
As a pseudo political scientist, I have to admit that what is shaping up in the Democrat primary is truly fascinating. So much so that I actually watched Meet the Press to try and learn what the potential scenarios are in choosing your party's nominee.
I know, I know. You are probably reading this saying "Ross is a Republican, who cares what he thinks." And you are probably right. So I have a question. I have read the 19 previous comments, and I cannot figure out what the general consensus is on Blue: does the likelihood that the superdelegates will ultimately decide who the Democrat nominee is going to be bother the grassroots Democrats or not?
Posted by: lin qiao | Feb 10, 2008 11:31:43 AM
Also, aside from the fact that you can draw your own conclusions from simple arithmetic, bear in mind that the news media bringing you the "smoke-filled roomful of superdelegates" scenario are the same news media bringing you the highly accurate polls (yes, many are commissioned by news agencies) that successfully predicted Obama's victory in New Hampshire and the tie in California, for example.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 10, 2008 11:35:47 AM
The problem with super delegates deciding the party's nominee is that it suggests a parallel with the Supreme Court deciding who the president would be in 2000 by over-ruling the majority of the people. In your calculations, you should not leave perception out of the equation.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Feb 10, 2008 11:43:37 AM
Steve Bucknam is exactly right. This is part of the narrative that the media has been constructing: that the evil Clintons will “steal” the nomination and the Obama voters will sit out the general election.
And let’s make no mistake about it, despite the half-hearted attempts to be neutral, this narrative only goes one way. It’s the underhanded Clinton "machine" versus Obama, the candidate who presumably would win if the system wasn’t rigged.
Nevermind that millions of people have voted for Hillary Clinton… all those votes must have been stolen too, right? The Clintons will stop at nothing.
Please people.
J
Posted by: JHL | Feb 10, 2008 11:49:39 AM
In one hypothetical case, we disenfranchise the 50.1% of the voters who support candidate A. In the other, we disenfranchise the 49.9% of voters who support candidate B.
Evan, if the Superdelegates decide this, about half of the voters will be disappointed, but 100% of the voters will be disenfranchised.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 10, 2008 12:08:05 PM
I have to agree with JHL. If the super delegates decide this then 100% of the primary voters will be disenfranchised, regardless of what percentage would be disappointed in the result.
That said... Obama has been surging for a while now. I don't foresee a 50/50 split in regular delegates. I predict that he will win a simple majority of regular delegates.
Another thing to keep in mind here is John Edwards' delegates.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Feb 10, 2008 12:38:45 PM
JHL- Thanks for noting my lack of precision of terms. My bad.
Disenfranchise (also, disfranchise) means, in this usage, to deprive of a constitutional or statutory right, esp. the right to vote.
By implication, it means deprivation of the right to have one's vote count.
However, in this case, voters have participated in a nomination system which includes superdelegates, weighs some voters more heavily because they live in more Democratic states, gives voters in low-turnout states more power, and so forth. This year's primary voters and caucus-goers were never given the right to have the single say in who the nominee was, hence that right has not been removed.
So, you're correct, roughly half of the voters will be disappointed depending on the outcome. But no one will have been disenfranchised (except, due to state and national party actions, Michigan and Florida voters).
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 10, 2008 1:03:44 PM
If Obama wins out in February, he's already starting to even things up in Ohio and Texas poll-wise and could end up winning those too--Ohio somewhat more likely, I'd think. Note the Plain Dealer just endorsed him, and I'll be curious about the mayors of Cleve and Cincy.
My point is that superdelegates are uncommitted, even when they've publicly stated a preference. If Obama looks like a fairly clear winner of a plurality of delegates (say, over 100 more pledged delegates by the convention), the supers will flip. And the way he's rolling at the moment, with seemingly only more Obama-favoring states coming up, he could soon overtake Clinton even WITH superdelegates. If they go into Denver without someone having 2,025 but with the overall delegate lead, then it's almost assured IMO that supers would switch.
Posted by: LT | Feb 10, 2008 1:03:48 PM
OK, I find this really interesting because 20 years ago I was immersed in all the arcane knowledge about delegate selection and party rules, and after that was over thought the knowledge would never be useful again.
First of all, a convention has power. Unless things have changed, the permanent members of the Rules and Credentials Committee will be chosen state by state as part of the delegate selection process: Obama states choosing Obama committee members, Clinton states choosing Clinton committee members, etc. Oregon elects members to the committees by votes among those voting on delegates, etc.
Regardless of what the press or anyone else may say, individuals have power. The Mondale people in 1984 tried to depose DNC Chair Manatt just before the convention, and Oregon's DNC member Larryanne Willis contacted other DNC members and discovered they didn't have the votes on the DNC to do that. Then she let the Mondale people know they would look bad if their attempt was not ratified by the actual DNC meeting at the end of the convention.
You should have heard the roar of applause the first time DNC Chair Manatt appeared on the stage of the convention--a rebuke to that attempted behind the scenes action!
In 1980, there were Oregon delegates I knew who talked about supporting one candidate for the nomination and another candidate on procedural issues. Just because we have lived through a period of cut-and-dried politics where grass roots activists had little or no voice, do not believe this is true now.
Our DNC members should have access to the Official Proceedings of the 1984 Democratic National Convention, as well as any former delegate who hung onto their copy (as I did). It lists all the delegates (although they got someone's address wrong in the Oregon delegation) all the members of the Committees (RP Joe Smith is listed on the Platform Comm., although many people now may know him more as the Dad of Jefferson Smith of the Bus Project and husband of DPO chair, he was also once state chair.)
On p. 201 the discussion of the Rules Committee report begins with speeches by Pat Schroeder and Maynard Jackson. That was a very important part of the convention, as it dealt with complaints about the delegate selection process and the creation of the Fairness Commission to adjudicate disputes. It was negotiated between the Mondale, Hart, Jackson campaigns and other groups. There is a difference between negotiations and brokering.
Among other things, the adopted report set the maximum delegate threshold at 15% and required caucuses to be held at the smallest voting unit used in other elections (pct. etc.) so people would not have to travel long distances. One of the Fairness Comm. issues had to do with what the Mondale people had forced Wisconsin to do (regardless of decades of experience otherwise, they were forced to elect delegates by caucus), and any solution to the Michigan/Florida problem (are they going to say rules aren't rules?) should keep that precedent in mind.
We have an Oregon DNC member named Jenny G. who was elected after the surge in Dean supporters in Oregon. She voted to elect Howard Dean the DNC Chair. Dean wrote the book YOU HAVE THE POWER, and if he or anyone on the DNC wants to go back on that and do something behind the scenes, each of us has the power to do any number of things, including:
*involvement in the delegate selection process here
*shaming anyone who advocates back room brokering of superdelegates into remembering Fannie Lou Hamer
* finding a way to contact every sitting DNC member (there should be contact info. somewhere) and saying that if the DNC website says open and honest elections are a priority, they'd better live that motto with regard to the national nominating convention.
Hamer was mentioned early in the Schroeder speech in 1984, and is the reason we have such structured delegate selection rules. If you do not know the story, Google the name Fannie Lou Hamer and Miss. Freedom Democrats and educate yourself.
The last thing the Democratic Party wants to go into history doing this year is to have the kind of contentious situation seen with Hamer and others in 1964 in a year where the 2 top contenders couldn't have been imagined back then: a woman and an African American.
Very interesting discussion on Meet the Press today, with these quotes below this paragraph being especially relevant. The fix is not yet in, and anyone who worries about this should contact the DNC members from Oregon, AND let Howard Dean know that "You have the power" clashes with some kind of agreement among superdelegates behind the scenes. Do not think superdelegates are a bloc plotting behind the scenes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23095171/page/4/
MR. TODD: Right. And so why do you participate in caucuses? Because that's where you can continue to win delegates.
But let me throw in one big monkey wrench in all this, about these caucuses. When--there are delegates that are allocated to Obama that he's winning. All of these caucuses still have to go through state conventions and district conventions. And that's where--for instance, in '84, that's where Walter Mondale cleaned up and stole delegates, basically, from Gary Hart. Gary Hart would win in places, and they would go to the state conventions and somehow outmaneuver them.
---------
MR. DAVID BRODER: Well, this is a year where the scenarios have been invariably wrong. And so if our current scenario is it's all going to come down to the superdelegates, that's probably going to be wrong.
-----------
Ted Devine, who was the delegate counter for Walter Mondale way back in 1984, wrote in today's New York Times the following:
"In the 1984 Democratic primary the superdelegates did the work they were created to do: They provided the margin of victory to the candidate who had won the most support from primary and caucus voters.
"The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say."
And, David, you mentioned Donna Brazile. She said this. She was campaign manager for Al Gore.
"Superdelegates, in my judgment, should not decide this election. The last thing we need is politicians and insiders deciding this election. We need to let the voters decide this election. I think if 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I'll quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this. There's no reason why we should decide this election. I feel very strongly."
Gwen:
MS. IFILL: She actually is--has, has edited herself to say she would quit her position on the Democratic National Committee, not the party. But I do think that goes to the point that David was making, which is there's--there is a real fairness question.
Posted by: DeanOR | Feb 10, 2008 1:18:19 PM
It might be a good idea to consider changing the system regarding super-delegates AND caucuses, which are not a popular vote at all and are questionable due to group pressure and the lack of basic democratic protections like a secret ballot. But we shouldn't change the system in the middle of the process just because Obama supporters are afraid to have an open convention and allow delegates to make up their own minds. You're already shouting and chanting louder than anyone else. Yelling even louder will not help.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 10, 2008 1:18:52 PM
The word "democratic" in Democratic Party is worthy of a large belly laugh of contempt if we have a nomination determined by party officials, over that candidate who gains the most elected delegates. And the Democratic "brand" would certainly be held in utter ridicule should this happen. There are many, many progressives who have held out some thread of hope for this organization who are ready to go to the Greens or elsewhere if the insiders are so insistent in maintaining the Clinton co-presidency in power in order to quell an insurgent candidate.
That said I do believe the Obama express is gaining steam and the party bosses may find themselves overwhelmed and getting on board.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 10, 2008 1:20:11 PM
here's some good stuff on the pressure to get supers to switch, from David Sirota in part.
And here's a petition to demand your supers vote the way your state does...
Posted by: MCT | Feb 10, 2008 1:32:13 PM
Superdelegates...the very term upsets my sensibilities and my (apparently naive) perception of democracy and the Democratic Party. The idea that any group of Democrats should have the ultimate power to override the popular vote and the will of the people chills me. The implication that someone who has served in public office is wiser and more important than any other delegates seems feudal to me.
Who coined the term super-delegates? Could we be a bit more honest and call them the Decider-delegates? The Over-ride delegates? Power-delegates? How 'bout Omnipotent-delegates?
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 10, 2008 2:13:24 PM
Those damn Democratic grassroots. Always threatening to upset the established order. They must be kept down at all costs.
Here's a little Hunter S. Thompson from June of 1972, when Hubert Humphrey decided after he lost the California primary that maybe the winner-takes-all system wasn't such a good idea after all (more at my blog:
There have already been a few rumblings and muted threats along these lines from the Daly/Meany faction. Daley has privately threatened to dump Illinois to Nixon in November if McGovern persists in challenging Daley's eighty-five man slave delegation to the convention in Miami . . . and Meany is prone to muttering out loud from time to time that maybe Organized labor would be better off in the long run by enduring another four years under Nixon, rather than running the risk of whatever radical madness he fears McGovern might bring down on him.The only other person who has said anything about taking a dive for Nixon in November is Hubert Humphrey, who has already threatened in public—at the party's Credentials Committee hearings in Washington last week—to let his friend Joe Alioto, the mayor of San Francisco, throw the whole state of California to Nixon unless the party gives Hubert 151 California delegates—on the basis of his losing show of strength in that state's winner-take-all primary.
Ahhh, the good old days.
Posted by: The Southron | Feb 10, 2008 2:39:56 PM
Many interesting comments on this issue of Super Delegates. None, however, have commented on DNC Chair Howard Dean's reported statement to the NY Times, copied below. I greatly admire Dean's hard work to organize the Dems from the grassroots up, and his comments may be have taken out of context. Nonetheless, as an Oregon voter who must wait until May to cast my vote, I found them alarming, and yes, "disenfranchising." The excitement of this race has been terrific for party building, and I will work for our Democratic nominee, both good candidates, whichever one it is. But once we have the White House, I'll take a good look at sticking around with the Dem Party IF there has been wheeling and and back-room dealing. Anyone deeply concerned should let Dean and the DNC, and our Oregon superdelegates know how strongly they feel. Here's the excerpt from the New York Times, 2/7/2008, “Obama and Clinton Brace for Long Run” by Patrick Healy
___________
The narrow margin in delegates, and the growing likelihood that it will remain close, prompted concern on Wednesday from the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, who said Tuesday night that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should avoid taking the nominating fight all the way to the party convention in August.
“I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April,” Mr. Dean said Wednesday on the NY1 cable news channel, “but if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention; that would not be good news for either party.”
An adviser to Mr. Dean said Wednesday that he had not discussed the idea with either candidate.
“He was essentially laying down a marker that if need be, he is prepared to step in and try to help resolve the situation,” the adviser said.
Posted by: MCT | Feb 10, 2008 2:41:37 PM
Yeah....I can't help but compare the super delegate rule in the Dem party to the Patriot Act, (or some of Bush's Signing Statements, the way these things just slip into the record when no one is looking). Now I know that's going to tick off some people. But think about it...they are similar types of beasts. Conceived in the heat of the distracted moment, phrased in terms to candy coat the reality, sold to the public wrapped in the semantics of democracy and national pride, but untimately serving to strip rights and power from The People.
As far as this election cycle goes you just gotta wonder What Next? And we thought 2000 and 2004 were corkers.
It's like a light bulb went on and someone figured out 'hey, most folks don't have a clue about their rights, and don't understand any of the election process, They TRUST that nothing bad can happen to their right to vote in this democracy..... so we can just go ahead with whatever nefarious schemes we want, as long as we SAY it's for the common good.' After all this is America, home of the bold.
Super Donkey my ass. Pun intended. Maybe it's time to stop using that logo....the implications are getting nasty.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 10, 2008 2:47:49 PM
Voter suppression. This media sponsored issue will have only one effect, to reduce voter turnout. If my vote doesn't count, why vote?
Voter suppression has been practiced by both parties for generations. There is nothing unique about its application to this election regardless of what the corporate media might be up to. With Obama encouraging young people to become active in politics the party oligarchs must be giving some thought about how to discourage this civic activity. We don't want the people calling the shots, do we? Otherwise, we might have to initiate impeachment hearings against Cheney and Bush and bring the war on Iraq to an end. Let the party leaders collude and decide what is best for the rabble - and the parties' corporate sponsors.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Feb 10, 2008 2:48:04 PM
I was watching one of the cable news networks (they all blur together in my head), and a superdelegate (from Maryland, I believe) was on, claiming that if the nomination is left to her colleagues (i.e. the supers), she'll leave the Democratic Party this year. Her basis is the obvious idea of how this disenfranchises voters in favor of selection by a meritocracy, but still....
I suppose I have to commend her commitment to democracy, but I'd hate to see people leave the party as a result of what amounts to a tiebreaker in the primary.
Posted by: Harry K | Feb 10, 2008 3:25:07 PM
Bill R said: The word 'democratic' in Democratic Party is worthy of a large belly laugh of contempt if we have a nomination determined by party officials.
The following are majority positions among Americans, and overwhelmingly majority positions among Democrats: end the occupation of Iraq, impeach the vice president, create single-payer not-for-profit universal health coverage, withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA, and slash the Pentagon budget in order to invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy.
This is not the "loony left" of the party; it is the CENTER of American politics. So what does Obamary have to do with democracy? The belly-laugh you fear to hear already is a bipartisan phenomenon. It is one of contempt for democracy.
The fix was in a long time ago. The fix is what prevented Kucinich, the only Democrat candidate worthy of the name "progressive" from being able to compete effectively.
It was about being able to raise money from the fixers by proving one's corporatist/hegemonist credibility to the fixers.
Progressive Democrats have already lost, no matter what happens in the remaining nominating process or the general election.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 10, 2008 3:49:04 PM
So, if we are going to become concerned with democratic process, let's figure out how to wrest control of the presidential debates from from the corporate media. I'd much rather have the Democratic candidate selected by party insiders than by GE, Rupert Murdoch, and Microsoft.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 10, 2008 4:14:17 PM
The fix was in a long time ago. The fix is what prevented Kucinich, the only Democrat candidate worthy of the name "progressive" from being able to compete effectively.
While the oligarchs and corporate media had much to do with sidelining Kucinich, party members - that is, Democrats instead of democrats - colluded with them for one reason or another.
Posted by: Terry | Feb 10, 2008 4:52:02 PM
I'd like someone explain to me how super delegates, many of whom (as noted) are elected officials, are any less representative of the Democratic Party than the tiny percentage of voters who participate in caucuses, all of which have been won by Obama.
I have to agree with those who see this as a phony 'crisis' kept alive by the media. Not to mention Obamaniacs.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 10, 2008 5:22:43 PM
I'd like someone explain to me how super delegates, many of whom (as noted) are elected officials, are any less representative of the Democratic Party than the tiny percentage of voters who participate in caucuses
For the same reason that the 17 Amendment was passed.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 10, 2008 6:47:52 PM
Well, I just got back from this quarter's State Central Committee meeting. (I may not be a voting delegate, but it's open to the public.) And Wayne Kinney noted the new media meme of "Supah"-Delegates stealing the election.
He said it was all true. It was all a big conspiracy. His vote was definitely for sale. The first campaign that makes him Commissioner of Baseball gets his vote.
We all laughed.
Posted by: LT | Feb 10, 2008 8:12:43 PM
Thanks, Steve. You saw Superdelegates debated in a group which has the ability to let them (and others in the party) know where they stand.
I believe that the people who have the best handle on the situation are people who have lived through previous contested nominations.
And someone (maybe one of the superdelegates) said that if those superdelegates went with whoever had the most votes or delegates at the end of the primaries, that's the way the system is supposed to work. But if they didn't, it would be time to change the system.
And the national convention would be a great place if anyone wanted to change the system.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 10, 2008 8:13:52 PM
Right now, the playing field seems to be tilted in Obama’s favor, even though he isn’t getting the majority of the actual votes.
Not true. Obama has received the majority of votes cast so far in the Democratic primary, at least according to the Meet the Press calculation from this morning. Maybe someone else can find the specifics, but it pointed out that Obama is winning by about 1 percentage point in the overall popular vote.
Posted by: eric smith | Feb 10, 2008 8:21:11 PM
All these conspiracy theories.
1) Caucuses are by definition undemocratic - only certain people can attend (i.e. people who aren't working at the time, etc. unlike an election that you go in, vote, leave), in most of them so far you did not have to be a Democrat to participate. There is a problem that caucuses are open to a small group (as few as 2% of the party) dominating them and hijacking the nomination; to prevent this the party created superdelegates - people who have a vested interest in protecting the party: elected officials and party officials.
2) Party primaries and caucuses are regulated not by the 17th amendment but by party rules (the party need not have either, it's up to that state).
3) The notion that "superdelegates are going to steal the election' from someone who is winning caucuses but not so much primaries (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, etc.) is patently ridiculous. The superdelegates are split at this point 60 / 40 similar to the primaries Clinton / Obama as opposed to the caucuses.
4) watch also where each wins: Obama is winning in the republican states who are likely to vote for the republican candidate in November. Clinton is winning in the large democratic states that are likely to vote for a Democrat in November. Why?
Posted by: Miles | Feb 10, 2008 8:36:20 PM
Some obvious falsehoods:
1. "This is a corporate media conspiracy." Please. Some of us have been worried about this since long before the media started writing about it this week. Trying to discredit the millions of Demcrats who are troubled by this by saying that we've all been fooled by the media is a losing, insulting strategy. You can do better than that.
2. "The only ones concerned about this are Obama supporters trying to ensure his victory." Well, I think Obama supporters are more concerned than Clinton supporters because he has won more of the popular vote, has won more states, and has won more real (pledged) delegates -- yet he's losing the superdelegate "vote". So he certainly has the most to lose. But Obama supporters like myself are arguing a more principled point. I want the superdelegates to confirm the real delegate count, not overturn it, no matter who is ahead. I first said that before Obama took the lead in real delegates.
Those who are downplaying this issue, or patting on the head those of us concerned, are in danger of making a huge strategic blunder. I have never voted for a Republican in my life and I will be happy to support either Clinton or Obama in November. But if the superdelegates change the outcome of this nominating process, I'm going to think long and hard about whether to support my party's nominee. Elections matter, even if the leaders of our party don't like the outcome.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 10, 2008 8:37:34 PM
I just love how people keep talking about these super delegates that aren't elected like the delegates.
Almost every super delegate is elected - many directly on the ballot. They were elected to Congress. Or as a governor. They were elected as a PCP and then selected by fellow PCPs to be a state party leader or DNC Committee Person (much like we elect members of Congress and then those elected members elect their leaders). Or they're elected by those party leaders and DNC Committee members who were elected by their home states.
Being a super delegate is part of what they're elected to do. Maybe people don't realize that when they vote - but that still doesn't change whether or not super delegates are elected.
I honestly think the bulk of the super delegates will go with the will of the voters. Many of the super delegates we have who come from the state parties are people who have been elected to those positions in recent years - people who are there to fix the party and improve it, not tear it apart.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 10, 2008 8:57:47 AM
The existence of the super-delegates is a fraud and a scandal. Even today there is an article by a Dem. insider in the NY Times, "Super Delegates- Back-Off" by Tad Devine, former strategiest for Al Gore. It's hard for me to believe that the Dem. party would self-destruct, but anything is possible. If there is any hint of a "fix" - the super-delegates overturning the choice of a candidate who has the most elected delegates by voter choice- then there will be war of the worst kind, a split in the party, a convention walk-out, and a guarantee of a Republican victory in Nov. And the Dem. party would have discredited itself for a generation. If the insiders like Kulongoski and Hooley want to press their case to over-rule the choice of the voters to fix the outcome for their partisan choice, then we will need a brand new party for sure. The super-delegates need to stand-down now.. all of them! And let the voters decide, state by state. And at the Aug. convention the mere existence of the super-delegates should be eliminated. Their existence is a disgrace to the party.