A Superdelegate Scandal
Over half of the delegates for the Democratic nomination have already been cast and as you well know, Obama and Clinton are virtually deadlocked. Obama has the support of 923 pledged delegates while Clinton has 876. The next several weeks look good for him, but then there are a couple big states that could be good for her. No matter how it comes out, it is almost a certainty that the decision will come down to which candidate has the most superdelegates.
As Steve posted earlier this year, superdelegates hold completely undemocratic power in the Demcratic Party and they are poised to make the final decision for the 2008 nominee. That in and of itself is not necessarily where the scandal lies, though.
Suppose Clinton goes into the convention with a reasonable lead in both pledged delegates and superdelegates. It will be much harder to cry foul on that one. But what if Obama has the lead in the pledged delegates, which are seen as representative of the people’s choice, while Clinton wins the nomination thanks to the superdelegates? Buckle your seatbelts if that happens.
Of course, anything could happen in the next months, but I hope that the Democratic Party doesn’t try to nominate a minority candidate (from the people’s perspective) who won the support of the superdelegates. Everyone keeps saying that 2008 is the Democrats’ to lose. Well starting off the general election with a scandal like that is a great way to lose.
Using superdelegates doesn’t seem anymore unfair than not counting the delegates in Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton has won the majority of the larger more populace states where there are larger numbers of delegates, so far. If you don’t like the rules of the Democratic Party…then change them. The time to change the rules isn’t in the middle of a primary. How many delegate votes would Hillary Clinton have if Michigan and Florida’s millions of disinfranchised voters counted? Where is the outrage in the fact that millions of voter’s votes don’t count? While they are changing rules..what about the caucuses? Individual votes should count…in caucuses, groups of people all over the state band together to chose the winner in the primary. Each individual in the state should cast their ballet and the candidate with the most votes wins. If you don’t have caucuses you don’t need superdelegates. Get rid of both.
Nina
12 Feb 08 at 3:30 pm
Individual votes, for the most part, don’t count in primaries either. If you vote for one candidate while the rest of your district/region/county votes differently, then your vote is moot. It’s no different in caucuses. Now if you wanted to argue that caucuses are unfair because they leave out voters who must work or have kids to care for or any number of things, then that’s a little more acceptable.
The thing about FL/MI is that they knew what was going to happen if they broke party rules. It’s not like the disinfranchisment was a sneak attack.
Ian
12 Feb 08 at 4:13 pm
On FL and MI: As Ian said, those states broke the rules. Also, because they broke the rules, there never was any campaigning there and the race was just a beauty contest (MI didn’t even have Obama on the ballot). That’s why those states shouldn’t count.
I am not advocating changing the party nominating rules in the middle of the process, either. I am just observing that it would be illegitimate if one candidate wins the nomination purely as a result of the superdelegates when that person would not have otherwise won. That will project an extremely undemocratic image for the Democratic party.
On a larger scale, I think the entire primary system is screwy. Caucuses are way too weird and the current calendar makes no sense at all. And the Democratic way of allocating delegates makes no sense at all. I think that all delegates should be eliminated and the candidates should just collect votes at the various states. And the calendar should rotate around from year to year so that different, representative states and regions have the chance to first vet the presidential nominees.
But that’s why they call me crazy. I think those ideas make too much sense.
David M Manes
12 Feb 08 at 5:28 pm
Nina, like ian said, the Democratic party effectively disenfranchised Florida and Michigan primary voters for the states’ blatant disregard for primary rules and operating procedures. I think it would an affront to the election process if they got anyway with that unpunished.
The primary, for the most part, is more democratic than the actual election is. Presidential primaries are proportional and much more representative than a winner-take-all system. I’m not complaining, but to say that individual votes in a primary “don’t count” is a bit irrational. It’s always about collective voting in a republic. Unless we want to revert back to Athenian direct democracy — that would be fun… and destructive.
S.C. Denney
12 Feb 08 at 5:38 pm
I am well aware that Michigan and Florida broke the “rules”. They knew that going in…I don’t really have a problem with that . I was just using that as an example of one of the party “rules”..like superdelegates voting is a party “rule”. My problem is with the whole system of voting in this country. I would prefer a voting system where every single vote would count. Majority wins. What a dumb idea. And as for caucuses…I do find them unfair because of the very reasons that were stated above. It is not like you can just run to the voting place and cast your ballot. These caucuses take a lot of time that many people, for whatever reasons, can’t participate in the process. That doesn’t seem very equitable to me.
Nina
12 Feb 08 at 7:04 pm
So it sounds like we agree for the most part.
Do we also agree that it would be disastrous if Clinton won the nomination with less than half of the pledged delegate count? That was really the main observation I was trying to make in this post.
David M Manes
12 Feb 08 at 8:25 pm
Ok. I misinterpreted your post a bit, my apologies. And your right, it isn’t quite equitable.
S.C. Denney
12 Feb 08 at 9:54 pm
David…Are those the rules? I must admit that I have been voting for a long time and I never knew about superdelegates..if I did I never paid any attention to them. I also wasn’t aware of how cacuses worked either. So of course I had to read up on them and find out why the Democratic Party has them. We do have a few more states that have to hold primaries….big states. I actually don’t think that is going to happen. Only if we get to the convention and there is literally a tie or only a few pledged delegate votes separating Obama and Clinton do I see a major fight over pleged delegates and superdelegates. That could be disastrous for the Democratic Party.
Nina
13 Feb 08 at 10:32 pm
Those are indeed the rules.
S.C. Denney
13 Feb 08 at 10:47 pm
Pardon the interruption, but the superdelegates have no hard rules.
They were originally given their *super* power to stop an insurgent candidate from overtaking a more mainstream *electable* candidate.
The problem this cycle is the superdelegates are stepping out in front of the people voting. They have either waited until the convention before casting their super vote, thereby tipping the scales to a party favorite, or the race has been so lop sided that their votes were largely inconsequential.
My contention in this race is they should not be casting their *super* vote in an attempt to sway the regular voting process before it happens.
Thank you for allowing me to interrupt.
Murphy
14 Feb 08 at 6:42 am
That is a very good poin, murphy. There are no hard rules for the superdelegates. It would solve a large part of the problem if they kept their support private until the convention, but that is essentially impossible.
David M Manes
14 Feb 08 at 3:59 pm
[...] March 22, 2008 in 2008 election, Politics by David M. Manes Tags: barack obama, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, superdelegates Why are so many, including most in the mainstream media, describing the Democratic primary as a tight race? Most serious analysts (even the Clinton campaign itself) agree that it is essentially impossible that Clinton will catch Obama in the delegate count before the convention at the end of August. It is almost as impossible for her to catch him in the popular vote. So the only way that she could walk out of the convention with the nomination would be if it came through the superdelegates, which would create a huge scandal. [...]
Race Not Neck and Neck « Political Cartel
22 Mar 08 at 1:45 am
[...] component of presidential primaries. We have already written about them. You can read what David has already said about them. Personally (and you might find it ironic that I’d be the one [...]
Superdelegates Revisited « Political Cartel
7 Apr 08 at 11:32 am
[...] can dramatically win the superdelegate battle. We have talked extensively about this kind of “superdelegate scandal,” but now it looks like it is becoming less and less likely. According to this article from [...]
Clinton’s Chance to Win « Political Cartel
30 Apr 08 at 10:53 am