Superdelegates: Support the will of the people! (But which people?)
A number of our commenters - and a few contributors - have been sounding the alarm about the role that superdelegates might play in our presidential nominating process if neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton achieves a majority via the primaries and caucuses.
Many people - here at BlueOregon and elsewhere - have argued that they should "respect the will of the voters." A fine idea. But which voters?
How would you recommend that Oregon's 12 superdelegates decide whom to support?
Should they reflect the will of Oregon's primary voters? Should they vote en masse for the winner? Or, if the vote is 50/50, should they vote 6 and 6?
Should the superdelegates that are members of Congress reflect the will of Oregon's primary voters statewide? Or just the voters in their districts?
Or, should they reflect the will of the national primary electorate? Should they simply vote en masse for the candidate that gets the most popular votes nationwide? Or, should they vote for the candidate that wins the most elected pledged delegates nationwide? (And yes, given Obama's strength in small-state caucuses, he could win more delegates while getting fewer raw votes.)
And finally, put yourself in their shoes: If you were a superdelegate and were absolutely convinced that Candidate A would make a better candidate and better president than Candidate B... could you really vote for the lesser candidate in your judgment? Do you have a responsibility to your party and your country to cast your vote for the best person? Or does the voter's will trump your personal judgment?
Sure, if one candidate has a strong lead, the superdelegates should be loath to overturn that. But what if the outcome of the elected pledged delegate count is within a half-dozen delegates - a photo finish, a dead heat? What then? Should that narrow margin mean anything to the superdelegates?
I know that much of the concern about superdelegates comes from Obama supporters who think that the superdelegates will support Hillary Clinton, despite primary and caucus victories by Barack Obama.
Maybe I'm just a contrarian, but I think it's possible that it'll be the other way around.
There's a substantial possibility that Hillary Clinton will finish the primaries with more popular vote and more elected delegates. And yet, I suspect that more of the as-yet-uncommitted superdelegates really want to support Obama.
After all, he's exciting the grassroots to donate big money, does better in red states, and many of the new DNC members are Howard Dean power-to-the-people types. Three months ago, the smart and safe thing was to endorse Hillary. I doubt there are many secret Hillary supporters left among the superdelegates. Rather, I suspect there are many more "Don't tell Mama, I'm for Obama" folks hiding out in the superdelegate pool - supportive of Obama, but terrified that Hillary will win.
If Hillary finishes the primaries with more delegates, will the Obama folks who today are opposed to superdelegate participation still support the "will of the people"? Or will they suddenly change their tune and support the superdelegates who want to flip it to Obama?
|
February 11, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (97 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Al Wimbish | Feb 11, 2008 6:10:05 AM
This should be a no-brainer. Senators should represent the will of the majority of the people in their respaective states, representatives, the will of the majority in their districts. Whatever their personal beliefs or desires may, they may express this in the voting booth as all other americans have a right to do.
As for the others, their votes need to be tied to the popular vote in some manner, otherwise politics as usual will not reflect the will of the People.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 11, 2008 6:28:55 AM
Super-delegates should have no vote at all.. period. they should all stand down.Democracy is process and their action as a voting bloc with no connection to the actual voting process destroys the legitimacy of this process and the potential outcome. My solution for this nomination cycle- an emergency meeting of the DNC with suspension of the rules giving super-delegates any vote at all, and assigning the nomination to the candidate with a simple majority or plurality of the pledged delegates.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 11, 2008 6:44:25 AM
This is the headline today in the Salem Statesman-Journal:
(Translation: Party bosses trump voters choice. A great statement to the emerging young voter and the nation about the values of the Democratic Party and its commitment to democractic process.)
Superdelegates may sway Democrats' pick
Clinton leads with party insiders as Obama adds wins
The Associated Press
February 11, 2008
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20080211/state/802110313/1042&GID=DHhFzib13phyoE0P7DUE+dLm3yDfiIrNI43mHgqDHm0%3D
Posted by: paul g. | Feb 11, 2008 7:25:13 AM
Al,
Sorry to be troublesome, but "the will of the majority" provides insufficient guidance.
-
The will of the majority of registered Democrats, the will of the majority of those who chose to vote in the Oregon primary, or the will of the majority of their whole constituency?
Their majority will as expressed at the time of the primary or at the time of the convention?
You say the representative's view counts for nothing other than the single vote he or she may cast at the ballot box. Are you arguing, then, that our representatives are nothing more than a vessel for the re-expression of the majority view of their constituents?
Posted by: paul g. | Feb 11, 2008 7:28:41 AM
(trying to fix an open boldface and my own clumsy editing)
Al,
Sorry to be troublesome, but "the will of the majority" provides insufficient guidance.
- The will of the majority of registered Democrats, the will of the majority of those who chose to vote in the Oregon primary, or the will of the majority of their whole constituency?
- Their majority will as expressed at the time of the primary or at the time of the convention?
- You say the representative's view counts for nothing other than the single vote he or she may cast at the ballot box. Are you arguing, then, that our representatives are nothing more than a vessel for the re-expression of the majority view of their constituents?
Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Feb 11, 2008 7:34:06 AM
I think unless the super delegates are truly undecided, they should tell us who they support. Super delegates have met the candidates, they've heard them speak at party meetings, they've received a steady flow of information about the campaign that the general public has not. Heck, I hear they are getting calls from the likes of Bill Clinton and John Kerry right now. If they know who they are supporting, they should tell us. They should share their insight with regular voters for that will help all of us make a decision. If they are like so many of us and truly undecided, we should know that too -- it also sends a message. Sitting on the sidelines to follow isn't something I expect from my political leaders
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 11, 2008 7:42:23 AM
This from Political Wire:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/11/my_brother_the_superdelegate.html
My Brother the Superdelegate
Ari Emanuel: "My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago. So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States."
February 11, 2008 |
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 11, 2008 7:49:11 AM
If there were a commitment all across the country to do likewise, the Oregon superdelegates should vote in proportion to the delegate allocation in Oregon by the primary, except slightly adjusted if a shift of a superdelegate would more accurately make the proportions of delegates reflect the primary votes.
In the absence of a national agreement, all of the Oregon superdelegates should vote for the winner of the overall national elected/caucused delegate count, to help insure that the superdelegates do not override that result, except if there is evidence that one of the campaigns has gained that lead in some illegitimate manner.
Yes, the superdelegates should vote for a person they think the lesser candidate in order not to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses.
The entire issue here is what it will do to the party if the primary/caucus results are overturned by the ex-officio delegates. Which is massively divide the party and depress the D vote by our own doing. There is no difference between the candidates that justifies the damage that overturning the primary/caucus results would do.
That this is media generated doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, because the media will go into overdrive on it if the ex-officios overturn the primary/caucus vote. Those who say let the ex-officios do what they want because this is media hype need to face the reality of those media.
The issue is not absolute democracy per se. The arguments about primaries vs. caucuses have some merit, but then again there are differences about who can vote in different primaries, and about the 15% threshhold. The established rules should be followed. That includes the freedom of the ex-officio delegates -- which they should exercise to preserve the results of the primary/caucus vote because to do otherwise will split the party and depress our vote.
Then the rules should be changed, to require in future elections that ex-officio delegates vote on presidential nominations in proportion to the delegate outcome in their state per primary or caucus, with safeguards for challenges based on primary or caucus irregularities. In the case of a more than two-way race in which no candidate has a majority of primary/caucus delegates, the ex-officios should be freed after the first round.
There are good reasons to have ex-officio delegates for purposes of other party business. Possibly their numbers as a % of the whole should be reduced. But there is no good reason why the ex-officios should be able to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 11, 2008 8:00:08 AM
"Super delegates have met the candidates, they've heard them speak at party meetings, they've received a steady flow of information about the campaign that the general public has not."
Oh ye of so little faith in democracy and Americans' ability to make judgments when they have all the facts.
What's with all the paternalism about a small group of elites who are thee to save us from ourselves?
I think people here, espeecially those with close ties to the party (ie they make their living from it) are confused about the Democratic Party.
The office holders, their minions and the party apparatchucks are not "The Party." The millions of registered Democrats and the values they believe in are "The Party."
The office holders, their minions, and the people who comprise the party machinery are not the party. They are the hired help.
And you don't let the waiters at the restaurant order for you.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 11, 2008 8:10:43 AM
"There's a substantial possibility that Hillary Clinton will finish the primaries with more popular vote and more elected delegates."
I would place the possibility more in the theoretical and plausible realm, rather than a "substantial" one. She's behind on both at the moment, and will fall "substantially" further behind on Tuesday. Hillary's running out of states, and she's losing her grip on the must-haves.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 11, 2008 8:18:26 AM
People! Please make sure to close your tags.
Posted by: Janice Manuel | Feb 11, 2008 8:30:31 AM
If Obama and Clinton gather remaining pledged and super delegates at the same percentage as they have thus far, we will have a situation where Obama has a clear victory with pledged delegates--reflecting the voters' choice--but Clinton will have enough more superdelegates to "win" the nomination. This would be experienced as a terrible slap in the face to every citizen who cared enough to get out and participate in his/her primary or caucus and tend to confirm the dark suspicion that power is NOT in the hands of the people but belongs to an establishment elite. I am afraid it would tend to alienate for years many who had gained new hope and belief in the process and taken part in the primary round of voting. Put another way, how could I ever again convince my daughter and grandchildren that their voices count and it's important for them to vote? I also fear that another, immediate outcome would be a greater likelihood of a Republican win in the fall.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 11, 2008 8:35:55 AM
I agree with Bill R. - the SD's should stand down. Period. Although, my hunch is that TJ is correct and this will end up being a theoretical issue.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 11, 2008 8:46:59 AM
Posted by: paul g. | Feb 11, 2008 7:28:41 AMSorry to be troublesome, but "the will of the majority" provides insufficient guidance.
The will of the majority of registered Democrats, the will of the majority of those who chose to vote in the Oregon primary, or the will of the majority of their whole constituency?
The majority of those who vote, of course. Hence the name "Democratic" Party.
Their majority will as expressed at the time of the primary or at the time of the convention?
At the time of the primary vote.
You say the representative's view counts for nothing other than the single vote he or she may cast at the ballot box. Are you arguing, then, that our representatives are nothing more than a vessel for the re-expression of the majority view of their constituents?
Red herring. Our representatives are our representatives for a reason. But, representing us (and themselves) in the capacity to which they were elected is utterly unrelated to whether their vote at the convention ought to carry more weight than ours. None of them were elected to outvote us at the convention.
I fail to understand why some don't see an inherent disconnect between a political party which enshrines democracy in it's very name and the potential for super delegates to effectively negate the will of the majority as each individual state determines said majority ought to be recorded and represented at the convention.
If some states choose to go with a caucus in which only a small minority of the registered members end up having a say... that's up to that state, not the national party. If the national party wants a different system then it needs to make rules to that effect so that each individual state retains sovereingty over how it conducts it's own elections.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Feb 11, 2008 8:54:45 AM
I agree with those who argue that the existence of the subcategory superdelegates is undemocratic.
I agree with those who argue that our superdelegates are not lockstep drones.
I agree with the argument that the whole superdelegate thing ought to be made a part of history,
but;
if we need to revamp the national party's delegate selection process it ain't gonna happen in the middle of a very close and hotly contested primary,
and,
Our grief or relief will come from the Usual Suspect states, like California, Texas, Florida, New York, and so on. Oregon will still be a sideshow, even in a brokered convention.
Posted by: Hayes Ingraham | Feb 11, 2008 9:15:34 AM
There's an interesting story going around where MSNBC's David Shuster is being ripped into for saying Chelsea Clinton was being pimped out. The reason he said the former first daughter was being pimped out, was because she was personally calling superdelegates.
I find that a lot more troublesome than someone describing her actions as being pimped out.
The fact that these superdelegates are being courted in ways that the average Democratic party member is not, just feels wrong.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 11, 2008 9:35:29 AM
These are all good questions, Kari. What a shame the party leaders didn't have the foresight to figure out answers before we got into the middle of a hotly contested primary. If it were up to me, the superdelegates would be like regular delegates and pledged to candidates according to the same rules. Since we're already halfway to the nomination, the next best option is for all the superdelegates to pledge their votes to the winner of their respective state primary/caucus. At the very least, they should pledge their support for the candidate with the most real delegates at the convention.
if neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton achieves a majority via the primaries and caucuses.
Keep in mind that the system is designed to make it difficult to achieve a "majority" among just pledged delegates. There are 4,049 total delegates, and a candidate needs 2,025 to win. Since 796 of those are superdelegates, that means a candidate needs to win more than 62% of the 3,253 regular delegates to win a majority via the primaries and caucuses. In contested races, the system is designed to take the decision away from party members and put it in the hands of party leaders. (By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to make the case that party leaders should have the power to overturn the decision made by party members. Anyone?)
If Hillary finishes the primaries with more delegates, will the Obama folks who today are opposed to superdelegate participation still support the "will of the people"?
Yes, 100%. I far prefer Obama, but will gladly support Clinton and volunteer for her campaign if my Democratic party colleagues throughout the country view her as the best nominee. It will be hard for me to support her if the party leadership makes her the nominee over the objections of party members. I don't want to be part of a political party with those values.
Posted by: joebob | Feb 11, 2008 9:43:39 AM
Let's quit agonizing about superdelegates for a minute and start thinking about what has to happen to end the nasty tone and support whichever candidate wins.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 11, 2008 9:43:42 AM
I'm curious to hear from the people crying potential foul here, about their feelings on proportional vote systems in general. Because the Democratic Party's nominating process - a mix of voters and party officeholders is nearly identical to the way Parliamentary democracies chose their leaders.
In Parliamentary systems, voters don't chose their Prime Minister any more than they directly write laws. Instead, they vote for people they trust to make a good choice for them, and leave it at that. If anything, this process our party is going through is far more direct than they use.
So, haters of unpledged automatic delegates, in your opinion are the nations of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan "undemocratic"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 11, 2008 9:50:27 AM
Miles said, "Yes, 100%. I far prefer Obama, but will gladly support Clinton and volunteer for her campaign if my Democratic party colleagues throughout the country view her as the best nominee. It will be hard for me to support her if the party leadership makes her the nominee over the objections of party members. I don't want to be part of a political party with those values."
That echoes my intentions exactly. A democratic process that has integrity leaves me at least with the option to support a candidate I don't like but who might be a better option than McCain. In that case I just need to deal with the fact that our side lost and move on.
However.....
This morning I just got through listening to Darlene Hooley on OPB. It was most disappointing. Here is someone I knew through the Clackamas Co. Central Committee years before she went to Congress and liked. And she makes the declaration to a caller that her primary loyalty is to Hillary Clinton in her super-delegate vote. She will not change that, regardless of how Oregon Democrats vote, unless Hillary Clinton releases her. That reveals precisely just how elitist these insiders can get. After 12 years I'm glad she is leaving if this what happens when you spend that much time in Washington. This reinforces my argument that the whole super-delegate system is inherently corrupt and rigs the nominating process for the insider and the party machine.
Posted by: Elizabeth | Feb 11, 2008 9:51:12 AM
I like all this debate, but I still don't understand why we need "parental supervision" in the form of Super delegates. Gov. Kulongoski & co. already get to vote once in the primary. Why should we allow them a second vote at the convention that outweighs each of our singular votes? Why do we need the electoral college? When will we as a nation shun representative democracy in favor of direct democracy?
Hasn't our lesson been painful enough? When America's form of democracy chose a Bush over a Gore, against the will of the people, we should have said, "Enough!" But we didn't. And when Super delegates choose Clinton over Obama, despite the will of the true voters everywhere, our democratic system will have failed the people it is supposed to represent.
That's when I move out of the country.
Posted by: E. | Feb 11, 2008 9:54:40 AM
I agree with Janice.
If this primary goes by "superdelegates", we will lose a lot of the younger vote that has just starting getting galvanized the past 4 years. Including myself.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 11, 2008 9:58:22 AM
Janice Manuel is almost certainly wrong that Obama will arrive having "a clear majority with pledged delegates," though he might have a clear majority among pledged delegates. That's the problem.
Either candidate would have to win well over 80% of remaining pledged delegates to get to the convention with a majority involving no ex-officio delegates. The rules that divide each state's delegation make that vanishingly unlikely.
The problematic situation is going to arise. The only question is whether just to trust that the superdelegates will do the right and democratic thing, or whether to create pressure on them to do so.
Paul Gronke, the "representative" issue is a red herring for another reason than Kevin's, though I don't disagree with him. Elected pledged delegate are not not representatives in the sense that an elected representative is. They are elected to be conveyor belts, at least for the first few number of ballots -- at the point when the rules release them, at that point they become representatives in your sense.
Our party should not have a body of ex-officio delegates able to overrule the results of the primary and caucus process.
This system was set up under pressure from the people who formed Democrats for Nixon (Al From et al.) in order, in extreme cases, to be able to blow up the party for an election cycle or two if necessary to prevent someone "too liberal" from getting nominated.
We are now facing unintended possibilities of blowing up the party under quite different circumstances, unless the ex-officios do the right and democratic thing.
Supporting this on your grounds means we should change our name to the Paternalistic Party (don't forget the -ic!).
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 11, 2008 10:09:28 AM
And finally, put yourself in their shoes: If you were a superdelegate and were absolutely convinced that Candidate A would make a better candidate and better president than Candidate B... could you really vote for the lesser candidate in your judgment? Do you have a responsibility to your party and your country to cast your vote for the best person? Or does the voter's will trump your personal judgment?
Unfortunately, too many politicians will decide on whom to give their vote to on what is best for themselves and not the nation. "Personal judgment" often equates to "what's in it for me." The senators and representatives in Congress sure as hell weren't thinking of what was best for the nation when they voted to give Bush authority to wage war on Iraq.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 11, 2008 10:28:34 AM
Counterpunch has an interesting article on superdelegates.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 11, 2008 10:31:59 AM
In Parliamentary systems, voters don't chose their Prime Minister any more than they directly write laws. Instead, they vote for people they trust to make a good choice for them, and leave it at that.
American democracy is more direct than European democracies. So what? If your point is that you believe party control should be retained by party leaders and not given to party members, please just say that, Steve, instead of beating around the bush.
I believe that our superdelegates will probably do the right thing. What you haven't answered is why you think they should have the power to do the wrong thing.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 11, 2008 10:32:44 AM
Let's not confuse a majority and a plurality. Even if there's no one who has 2,025 delegates, there's a fairly reasonable chance one candidate will have a clear plurality of total delegates. In other words, in the current hypothesis if Clinton is behind even WITH her superdelegates (which she will be on Tuesday), it's hard to imagine more than a few Hooleyesque diehards would remain rigidly supportive of Clinton.
If there's a plurality where one candidate has more pledged delegates, but the other candidate has the overall lead based on more supers--THEN you have a problem. But as long as one candidate is clearly ahead on all delegates, I think things will be OK.
Posted by: Sue Brown | Feb 11, 2008 10:48:23 AM
My first problem with the super delegates going back to their creation in the '81 Hunt commission was that it was made clear by many of the party folks who pushed for them that an outsider and southerner, Jimmy Carter had won in '76. Yes he WON, one of the very few winners we've had since '64. The clear favorite of the superdeleagtes in '84 was Mondale who LOST and lost big. The bigwigs thought they were so smart, but really didn't have a clue where the voters stood. Mondale and Hart essentially tied in the primary vote, but the SD were overwhelmingly for Mondale.
I can see the point of making Sens. Reps. and Govs automatic delegates, to both honor them and their place in our party, and to motivate them to be a part of the process and attend the convention. I'm not so sure about the state party offciers. Although they clearly have a place at the convention, I think that they should have to run for delegate like the rest of us. Maybe they could be automatic alternates instead.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 11, 2008 10:54:29 AM
Steve,
In the 1980s I was an active supporter in this country of the African National Congress of South Africa, which today probably would make me a candidate for special spying.
When the ANC entered constitutional negotiations, they sought and won a PR system based on pure "party lists." The party in its inner politics arranges a priority for its candidates and depending on the proportion of the votes it wins, the candidates down to number X go to parliament. There is no geographic representation at all. I think this is undemocratic and bad for South Africa and regret that the ANC has taken that course. That's the extreme of what you're talking about.
Our system is nothing like a parliamentary system, however. Parties run on programmatic and ideological platforms that mean a great deal more than they do in the U.S. Our system requests much more in the way of trust from me than a parliamentary system would.
The elections/caucus features of the DP presidential nominating system are indeed more like the PR / parliamentary system, in that if I vote in Oregon's primary, I know that my vote will go to a delegate committed to my candidate, but I don't know who the delegate is. But I know the "platform" -- will vote for X -- and that the rules require following it, at least for a few votes.
In fact, the ex-officio delegates in the DP nominating process are more like the British House of Lords, except that the convention isn't bi-cameral. So it's as if the Lords sat in the same house as the Commons.
These delegates are not hereditary, of course. But their status as delegates is still "ascribed" to an extent, to use a sociological or political science term. They are delegates because of who they are in holding an office other than that of delegate, or having done so in the past. They are not chosen specifically to be delegates.
The ability of those ascribed delegates to overturn the results of the imperfect popular delegate selection process that the DP has chosen to use is undemocratic.
My views on other electoral systems don't change that.
The facts or my views of other undemocratic features of the the DP process also don't change that. Two undemocratics dont make a democratic, they make an even less democratic.
The real issue is that if the ex-officio delegates don't choose to compensate for the undemocratic manner of their selection, by following the primary/caucus delegate results ("the rules" as most people participating understand them) it will blow up the party for this cycle and probably several more and cost us the election in a year we could win.
This is unlikely because the margin probably will be big enough one way or another to make ratification straightforward. But it could get close enough that deal-making and paternalism could lead a section of the ex-officios to wreck the party. They need to understand before they go what the stakes are, that if they overturn the (relatively) popular results, they will be shooting themselves and all the rest of us in the foot.
Posted by: LT | Feb 11, 2008 11:08:44 AM
OK folks, some reality here.
1) Superdelegates are not going to "stand down". They have been part of the landscape for decades--it is just that they were ignored by most people until now.
2) Tad Devine and Donna Brazile (who worked in former campaigns and know the system well) and others have raised valid concerns. But let's see how the upcoming primaries go. If Obama were to win Virginia and some of the other upcoming primaries, the landscape would look a lot different.
3) Someone who reads this should be able to tell us if under the current rules one must be a pct. person to vote on delegates at district delegate selection conventions. If so, anyone concerned about this has just about a month to file for pct. person and get elected on the ballot (when I ran for delegate, only pct. people elected on the ballot could vote). Get involved in the campaign of your choice, find out where the delegate selection convention will take place in your district (county Democratic Party officers should know that information), and GO !
4) Conventions do more than nominate. They can also change party rules. Andrew Plambeck often comments here. In 1984 Doug Plambeck was a Rules Comm. member from Oregon. Are Andrew and Doug related?
There are those of us around who have participated in this process in the past. As I understand it, Wayne Kinney is doing tutorials on the current process for county parties. That is a very worthwhile effort.
5)As has been said, if one candidate collects more actual voters, more elected delegates, wins more states and the majority of the superdelegates vote the same way, that is as the system was intended. But if a majority of them vote for the other candidate, that would be going against history, as the convention could then turn out to be as unruly as the 1964, 1968, 1972 conventions that all the delegate selection rules AND superdelegates were designed to avoid.
6) Communicate your views(email, phone calls, etc. not just on a blog) with our superdelegates, and also with the DNC regarding this matter.
7) Unless the system has changed, Rules, Credential, and Platform delegates are elected by each state during the delegate selection process. The district conventions are open to either all pct. people or whatever the rules say, and district conventions elect people for national convention delegate slots from the district level and also delegates to the state conventions which elect statewide category delegates and also the members of the standing committees like Rules (if memory serves).
8) Changing the superdelegate system would be a dandy issue for people running for delegate or wanting to be on the standing committees to use as a campaign issue. Many people who got involved in party politics got their start on a presidential campaign. And folks, if you have the time, transportation, and persuasive skills (sometimes nothing more than organizing a group of friends, knowing the subject, and talking up such issues with people who have the power to change them) you too could become a part of history by getting involved in this process. I count my election as a delegate and my work on revision of delegate selection rules as one of the highlights of my political life.
9) Whatever DNC Chair Howard Dean says about the process now, he once wrote a book titled YOU HAVE THE POWER. That is true in this case. No shadowy figures created the system, it was individuals who cared about the process (agree or disagree with what they did). There have been a generation of Democratic activists dedicated to the proposition of an open party where all who were willing to get involved could have a voice in the process.
10) Proportional representation (like anything else in rules ) exists for a reason. There are male delegate slots and female delegate slots for a reason--fairness but also no one can campaign on "vote for me because I am a woman/man".
The alternative to proportional representation is winner take all. In 1984, 95% of the party establishment in Oregon supported Mondale and expected him to win. Hart got 59% of the vote. Had there been a winner take all system, all the delegates would have been Hart delegates and no one from the Mondale campaign would have gone to the convention. Since many of the people who had been involved in party politics for years had been Mondale supporters, do you think they would have created a system where the losing candidate's supporters were denied the chance to attend national convention?
This may sound like a complex subject, but it can be very exciting. Carter used one paragraph of the delegate selection rules in a way some people didn't like, and there were people still arguing about that in 1984.
Folks, if this stuff really matters to you, get involved.
E, the primary doesn't choose superdelegates. Superdelegates are chosen by title (Former Presidents and Vice Presidents, current Democratic Governors, Senators, Members of Congress, certain party officers) because some people who wrote those rules wanted to make sure such individuals didn't have to compete with ordinary activists just to become delegates.
The way the system works (at least in Oregon unless the rules have drastically changed) is that Candidate A wins the Oregon primary and then the delegates are apportioned (most going to A, some going to B). Then the actual people who will serve as delegates are chosen at delegate selection conventions. Yes, it really does matter whether Bill or Fred or Rod, Liz or Judy or Rose are the actual delegates. You can get involved in this process by helping the candidate of your choice win the Oregon primary (results here still matter even if one candidate has 2000 elected delegates by the time the Oregon primary happens) and then finding out about and if possible getting involved in the delegate selection process.
In answer to Kari's question, it is the will of the people who get involved!
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 11, 2008 11:27:38 AM
Chris, I take it then, that your position is that representative democracy is, perforce, less "democratic" than direct democracy? Because I find your objection that "[Major Democratic Party Office Holders] are not chosen specifically to be delegates" to be, perhaps, one of the weakest arguments I've heard in a while.
While nobody, probably including either of us, can fully enumerate all the various powers of major political offices, do you honestly believe that average voters are unaware that they're giving the people they're voting for far more say in the makeup of our government and party than, say, the average guy off the street?
The Governor, for instance, literally has power of life and death in whether a convicted murderer is executed, but you're saying that's nothing compared to a less than 1 out of 1000 vote on who is to be our nominee?
You certainly have the right to hold the position that the more direct our system is - government by ballot initiative - the more "democratic" it is. But if that isn't your position, don't claim that this extremely minor function is some overwhelming abuse of power.
Posted by: SC | Feb 11, 2008 11:30:18 AM
There's an on-going count at CNN.com
One in five delegates is a super delegate. That's skewing the results towards the urban, the wealthy, and the entrenched political bureaucracy. It disenfranchises the poor, the rural, and those outside the beltway. It reinforces the vote in large states with lots of representatives and disenfranchises voters in smaller states because every super delegate represents 10,000 votes.
The Superdelegates have existed since the 1984 election, not exactly entrenched in history.
If Obama wins the elected delegate count but is overridden by superdelegates, what do you expect will happen to the Democratic party in the future? What will the young people say who are voting in their first election? How will you explain it to them?
It opens the door to backdoor deals, influence peddling, and corruption. It's wrong on so many levels I'm shocked that many people here are so anxious to subvert democracy in my party this way. I don't like it and most of the people (all Democrats) don't like it either.
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 924
Superdelegates: 224
Total: 1,148
Barack Obama
Pledged: 986
Superdelegates: 135
Total: 1,121
John Edwards
Pledged: 26
Superdelegates: 0
Total: 26
Obama continues to win the voting but may lose the nomination to the Super Delegates.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 11, 2008 11:54:23 AM
Nice post, Kari. The superdelegate issue is fascinating, and you tease out the important pieces, I think. It's worth mentioning that this isn't really the election. I've heard a lot of people speak of the "will of the people," and so on, but the party has the right to choose its nominee. The constitutional rights we have as citizens is to vote for a candidate, not to vote for who the nominee will be.
I've always been registered Dem, and I'm a mostly-loyal voter, but this highlights the reason I have something other than pure delight over our two-party system.
(I also think the SD's are likely to swing Obama's way, for two reasons: 1) his chance of winning is greater, and it's better to be a supporter of the President rather than the nominee--ask those who backed Kerry, and 2) Obama's coattails are broader and will buoy the chances of those super delegates to get re-elected and/of find themselves among a roomier majority. In politics, loyalty goes only so far...)
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 11, 2008 11:59:04 AM
No, Steven, the Governor shouldn't have any greater say than anyone else in the selection of the next president. You know, the whole "All men are created equal" thing that the country was founded on, not "All Democrats are equal, but some Democrats are more equal than others."
The superdelegate system was devised in the '80s specifically as an anti-democratic mechanism in candidate selection. Their personal interests for candidates should matter no more than the pledged delegates.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 11, 2008 12:04:45 PM
That's skewing the results towards the urban, the wealthy, and the entrenched political bureaucracy. It disenfranchises the poor, the rural, and those outside the beltway. It reinforces the vote in large states with lots of representatives and disenfranchises voters in smaller states
Actually, SC, you've got that exactly backwards.
Governors are not apportioned by population. Ohio gets one. Montana gets one. Advantage: small states.
Senators are not apportioned by population. California gets two. Montana gets two. Advantage: small states.
State party chairs are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.
State party vice-chairs are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.
DNC Committemen are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.
DNC Committewomenmen are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.
Members of Congress are apportioned exactly by population. No advantage.
The only advantage that goes to big states or urban areas is related to where the Democrats are. Only Democratic congresscritters get to participate in our nomination process. So, yeah, there's a bunch from Los Angeles - and none from Omaha.
But the flip side is that there are a bunch of "make up" superdelegates for those states that don't have enough automatic superdelegates to fill out the 15% requirement. So, in Nebraska, for example - other statewide elected officials, mayors, legislative leaders fill the slots.
You're just plain wrong.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 11, 2008 12:05:17 PM
LT said: "OK folks, some reality here.
1) Superdelegates are not going to "stand down". They have been part of the landscape for decades--it is just that they were ignored by most people until now."
What you are saying here is get involved so you can change the super-delegate system down the road. In the meantime we are headed for a train wreck in my view and the entrenched interests who run the party don't have a clue or the willingness to make this work out so there is some legitimacy in the process. Darlene Hooley's statements this morning indicates clearly she puts her loyalty to HRC above the party and the voter so I have to think her 12 years in Washington, plus the fact she's leaving, have insulated her from any accountability. I will bet strongly a vast majority of Dems and Americans think this kind of elitist system is bad and has nothing to do with being "Democratic" and give a thumbs down to any party that practices it.
So in the meantime let the system run its course and maybe it won't be so bad. Sheesh.. I think those people, especially young people, who have been brought into the system through Obama will take a second look at the Democratic party and say "No way!" Any party that is fearful of activists and new energy is headed for extinction, and deserves to die.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 11, 2008 12:06:55 PM
This deserves repeating: If Obama wins the elected delegate count but is overridden by superdelegates, what do you expect will happen to the Democratic party in the future? What will the young people say who are voting in their first election? How will you explain it to them?
It isn't the only factor to consider but certainly an important one.
Posted by: SC | Feb 11, 2008 12:21:11 PM
How am I wrong?
20% of the delegates are appointed by the party. That's 40% of a half needed to win. What's democratic about that? Why should entrenched party insiders get the equivalent of 10,000 voters each?
How many of the SD make less than $50,000.00/year like 80% of the voters? How many are African American, Asian, Hispanic, &/or female?
What percentage are from small towns or rural areas?
How many young people are going as a percentage of the population?
This is a holdover from the fearful Democrats of the Reagan era and has got to go. It favors the entrenched and powerful.
Also, the Democratic party doesn't belong to the DNC, it belongs to US. We will change this in the future. It's undemocratic and wrong on every level.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 11, 2008 12:31:48 PM
*Sigh* I'm not sure I should dignify one of BlueOregon's most inane purity trolls with a response, but it's clear from him quoting George Orwell back at my query about parliamentary democracies, that darrelplant does not consider England, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan to be actually democratic.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Feb 11, 2008 1:02:47 PM
You're just plain wrong.
There seems to be some kind of mythical superiority attributed to a proportional representation system versus equal - I don't get it. In the first place one system is not more democratic that the other. I see it as claiming a hammer is a better tool than a saw.
Posted by: LT | Feb 11, 2008 1:04:15 PM
Bill R--I did not say to let the current system run its course. I sent the DNC an email on their webform and then copied it and sent it to a friend who has been politically active. I signed it with my name, that I was a 1984 delegate, and that I worked on revision of delegate selection rules.
Bill, you and anyone else you know can do the same thing. You can make your views known personally (not on a blog but in some form of direct communication) to our DNC members, state party officers, etc. You can run for delegate yourself or help a friend run for delegate or the permanent 2008 Rules or Credentials Committee. It is a process which falls under the general description of lobbying for an issue. The rules are the way they are because individuals put their time and energy into such lobbying and activism, and nothing can stop anyone in 2008 from doing the same thing.
OR, you could just post on a blog "Sheesh.. I think those people, especially young people, who have been brought into the system through Obama .....". Your choice.
Bill R and everyone else concerned about this, the choice is up to you. I speak as a former volunteer coordinator for a presidential campaign. Get involved in the Oregon primary campaign for president. Get involved in the delegate selection process. Contact the DNC and our local DNC members and others active in the party.
OR, just complain on a blog. Your choice.
My email to the DNC via their website:
I own Howard Dean's book YOU HAVE THE POWER.
I notice that the number one topic on the website is Honest Government & Open Government.
I suggest that before anyone starts discussing behind the scenes deals (Michigan and Florida changing the rules, superdelegates deciding the nominee, etc.) that you find a copy of the Official Proceedings of the 1984 Democratic National Convention and turn to page 201 to read the speeches on the Rules Committee Report by Pat Schroeder and Maynard Jackson.
Anything about the nomination which does not appear fair and above board to all concerned risks another Fannie Lou Hamer controversy, and the party of ordinary people having power does not want that.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 11, 2008 1:24:47 PM
first Kari, with Howard Dean, it's "Power from the people". remember his rallying cry from 2003: "You have the power!"
which leads to a point forgotten in all the hubbub over superdelegates (who won't even be in place for another 3 months): before we worry about them, we need to deal with the actual delegates. i'm not going to worry about SD's when winning enough "normal" delegates is still a major issue. before i worry about Obama's nomination being stolen, i need to help get him closer to that nomination that Hillary gets. instead of wasting energy over SD's, most of whom are not going to try and steal anything, and most of whom will try to act in a democratic manner (cf, WA Rep Adam Smith, Obama's WA chair who pledged long ago to support whoever won the state's caucus), my intention is to use that energy to make this whole argument moot. or at least mootish.
and then, of course, there's the whole issue of who those delegates will actually be: hard-core supporters or party faithful who would gladly accept either candidate and just want to go to Denver. start dwelling on that one if you want to have some fun.
Posted by: Steve Davis | Feb 11, 2008 1:29:58 PM
In my own mind, I think focusing on whether a superdelegate's vote should reflect the vote of that superdelegate's state, Congressional district, county, precinct, etc. is a case of losing sight of the forest for the trees. The only legitimate outcome is that the superdelegates should not overturn the outcome of the 50-state contest for pledged delegates.
The only scenario that looks like a total trainwreck to me is if Senator Obama is leading in pledged delegates when the results from 48 states are totaled, but Senator Clinton is leading if the delegations from Michigan and Florida are added to the count. I still think there's a relatively low chance of that happening, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Steve
Posted by: Miles | Feb 11, 2008 1:31:39 PM
It's worth mentioning that this isn't really the election. I've heard a lot of people speak of the "will of the people," and so on, but the party has the right to choose its nominee.
1. You're right, this isn't the "will of the people", it's the "will of those allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries/caucuses." The question is whether the party should adhere to the wishes of its members or the wisdom of its leaders. Personally, I'm troubled that my party believes there are situations where it's okay to disregard the views of its members.
2. As for this not being an election, the party gave up sole control over its process when it demanded money from all taxpayers to pay for its process. As a result, the primary belongs to everyone. [Taxpayer investment in party primaries is also why I support open primaries, because it's not just about the party anymore. The major parties also deserve open primaries after their repeated attempts to crush minor parties.]
Posted by: Miles | Feb 11, 2008 1:45:10 PM
instead of wasting energy over SD's, most of whom are not going to try and steal anything, and most of whom will try to act in a democratic manner
Well, T.A., except for Hooley, Kulongoski, and Blumenauer you mean, right? They're only 25% of Oregon's superdelegates, why worry? And what about Bill Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, and Ted Kennedy? Will they act in a "democratic" manner? And just so you know, it is mathematically impossible for Obama or Clinton to get a majority of pledged delegates, so this absolutely will end up in the hands of superdelegates. That's why some of us are worried.
Steve M., the problem with your "representative democracy" analogy is that you're talking about governing, which is different than party politics. There's nothing inconsistent about believing in representative democracy, yet still demanding direct member participation in party issues. Running a political party is far less complex than running a government. I'm fine with my representatives making decisions on my behalf when it comes to governance. I'm not fine with them making decisions on my behalf when it comes to my political party -- particularly not the most important issue the party decides every four years.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 11, 2008 1:49:26 PM
Steve, we're talking past one another, and you are confusing national electoral systems with party nomination systems for reasons I don't understand.
What Miles wrote last I completely agree with as a response to you.
Beyond that, if we were really going to have representative democracy in nominating our nominee, we should be voting for specific delegates to represent us.
In this sense those ex-officio delegates who are DNC members elected in local or state party processes are representative in the way you say, of those who vote, i.e. the most active in the party. And being a presidential convention delegate would in that grouping be a well-understood part of their job. Perhaps it's even a large one, since I don't know what else they do. But at all events they are meant to represent the local or state party in party decisions.
The same just isn't true of members of congress, senators, governors, ex-thingies etc.
And the party has also decided that it is better for it if people at large get to vote on the nominee, in either primaries or caucuses. Which I think is right. And it portrays those processes as democratic in a relatively direct sense. And it works to convey the impression that the nominee will be chosen by those electoral/caucus processes. It is making certain kinds of promises to the public that may not be legally binding but have moral character, such that if the ex-officio delegates overturn what would be the majority if only elected delegates were counted, it will be widely perceived as breaking faith. Including by me. I will see it as an abuse of power, and a violation of the generally understood rules of the game, what the historian E. P. Thompson called "the moral economy" of the system.
This differs from the situation in say 1960, when Kennedy got the nomination in part because of success in the primaries, but most delegations were not selected by primary. The DP didn't pretend to select its nominees by an electoral or quasi-electoral process.
Personally I don't have a fixed view in all circumstances about representative vs. direct democracy. In this case I mean "less democratic" in the sense of reducing the role of the people at large, the demos.
But the point about it really isn't about more or less democratic directly, but the implications for legitimacy.
The current system in the current election season with current delegate counts puts the DP at real risk of nominating a candidate whose practical, perceived legitimacy is weak, in ways that can deeply harm the party and give the reactionaries control of the presidency once more. I see that as a problem with the system.
You have said you think the feared outcome unlikely. I agree. But I think it is possible and I wish you'd be clearer about what should be done to make it even less likely.
Also, would you state clearly what you think in the case of Clinton having 51% of the elected/caucus delegates, if the ex-officio delegates were nonetheless to give Obama the nomination, out of some combination of their prior commitments, the political deal-making that we know goes on, and honest choices about who individual ex-officio delegates think will have the best chances of beating McCain? Would this be a legitimate result in your view? Would it perceived more widely as legitimate, even if you think it would be?
Would the party be able to avoid huge divisiveness, loss of morale, demobilization, non-voting, protest voting, votes for McCain, loss of independents? If it could avoid those disasters, how? How could an Obama (or a Clinton if we reverse the scenario) overcome the asterisk next to their "nominee" title?
Do you really think that most Democratic, D-leaning independent, and independent minded R voters accept the ex-officio delegates as having a legitimate form of power, as you do?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 11, 2008 1:54:57 PM
Actually I meant Miles at
Posted by: Miles | Feb 11, 2008 10:31:59 AM
but I do agree with his just before my last too.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 11, 2008 2:21:44 PM
As an Obama supporter my objection has come to the super-delegate system because of the current situation where we have a candidate who is winning, and likely to keep winning more of the delegates but who might have that win overturned by insiders in the party machine. If the Obama express continues to roll at good momentum this situation may be resolved by the sheer force of this momentum. It still doesn't resolve the problem. It's still a fraud and a disgrace to have this super-delegate system. And it needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible if this party is to have any kind of legitimacy or defensible values in facing the American electorate.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 11, 2008 2:23:30 PM
You can't change the rules after the game has begun. As unfair as the superdelegate advantage appears, we've known about it all along. My sense is that people upset about it now wouldn't complain if they thought the superdelegates overwhelmingly favored their candidate. Maybe Supers shouldn't get votes in 2012, but it's too late to change the rules this time around and still call the nomination of the eventually nominee valid.
Which brings up the bigger issue apparently no one is watching: the attempt to retroactively change this year's rules to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. Only one candidate was on the ballot in Michigan, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence this candidate is now the one most concerned about "disenfranchising" Michigan voters (cue the puppy dog eyes and violins). If Michigan and Florida delegates get to vote in Denver, then you've truly got an invalid nomination and an illegitimate nominee. We mustn't let this happen.
As for Oregon's uncommitted superdelegates, please stay uncommitted until after the primary and make the candidates make public commitments about what they are going to do that will help Oregon as well as America.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 11, 2008 3:29:34 AM
For the record, Oregon has twelve superdelegates:
Senator Ron Wyden, Governor Ted Kulongoski, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, Rep. David Wu, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Darlene Hooley, DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith, DPO Vice-Chair Frank Dixon, Oregon DNC Committeewoman Jenny Greenleaf, Oregon DNC Committeeman Wayne Kinney, and Oregon DNC Member At-Large Gail Rasmussen.
Kulongoski and Hooley have endorsed Hillary Clinton and Blumenauer has endorsed Obama. The rest are uncommitted. At least, in public.