Superdelegates Revisited
I find it funny how many have attacked the superdelegate 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 to say this), I don’t think they’re all that bad. As a matter of fact, I think they will end up serving a purpose that I’m quite keen to.
We should keep in mind to begin with what the purpose of a political party is. They were not created to further democracy. They are entities that arise within democracies to make democracies as undemocratic as possible. Parties are about power. Not representation. Superdelegates are simply a modern-day manifestation of that truth.
In this case, the mandatory delegate count needed to secure the party’s nomination is quite high. It is set that way so that a candidate must have a very overwhelming popular support to secure a nomination. In the instance that that support is not high enough to create a clear consensus, the party has a way of deciding which candidate will be the most electable in their judgement. This is the purpose, as I see it, of a superdelegate. This is not about democracy. It is about electability and power. Not just for the presidency but for the various other party members and their interests. If you are a supporter of the party system and you are an adherent to a political party, this should not be such a setback to you. You should embrace this system.
This is where my interest kick in. I don’t believe people are very comfortable with this reality in our pluralistic age. I tend to think that once these realities surface (as they will probably surface in the coming months leading to the Democratic Party Convention), people will begin to see the horrors of the party system. People will begin to sever their ties to that system and will begin to align themselves simply to their own beliefs. All I have to say is: “Hillary, do your thing!”
The number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is not “quite high”. Its a simple majority. It is a relatively large number because of the number of overall delegates the party chooses to seat. Superdelegates could make up the difference in a tight three way race (an unlikely scenario), but their explicit purpose is to be a check on the possibly misguided passions of the party rank and file. Obama has argued that superdelegates are obligated to ratify the decisions of their constituents or the public at large (a plainly stupid claim, but one he seems to have sold well to the chattering class). Oh, and political parties aren’t going anywhere.
jkkuwitzky
7 Apr 08 at 12:04 pm
People may not be comfortable with super-delegates, but they are not at all likely to abandon the concept of political parties. The US probably has one of the weakest party structures among states with a multiparty political system. Very few people actively identify with a political party in the US, our parties don’t charge dues, and they only meet once every four years to nominate a presidential candidate. We simply have a decentralized party structure. Chris, your hope that people will abandon the party system in favor of a political free-for-all is as unrealistic as my fervent hope that the American people will recognize that they are being duped by the wealthy capitalists and old-money power-holding families in this country and achieve a socialist society through the ballot box. It just isn’t gonna happen, no matter how much you wish it would.
krjohns
7 Apr 08 at 12:10 pm
“We should keep in mind to begin with what the purpose of a political party is . . . to make democracies as undemocratic as possible.”
Parties represent a particular set of views and beliefs. The lack of multi-party systems is undemocratic, not the American Political Party system.
Political Parties are about coalescing similar ideologies, visions, and goals. Without Political Parties, how would anything get done? If we had 435 differing personal opinions about how things should get done — would anything get done?
We identify with a particular party for means of political potency. Republics (democracies, whatever) at such a large scale as Americas would not function without power fusing parties.
Since we’re on the topic of undemocratic schemes, tell me again how Superdelegates are at all representative and democratic? They act completely independent of the popular vote, accountable to no one. That sounds awfully undemocratic to me, since your standard seems to be representation, no?
S.C. Denney
7 Apr 08 at 12:51 pm
Kyle: The very fact that Americans loosely identify with parties is the very reason why my argument makes sense. If we were in a system such as Great Britain’s, what I am proposing would not be possible. Because the individual is valued in America more than any country, we have the greatest capacity to move beyond the party system. In the countries with many political parties, you find a collectivist culture in society. Because Americans do not have a collectivist culture, political independence is much more possible. Over time (not immediately), I see more and more people running as independents and the coming months of Democratic chaos are going to be a catalyst for that change.
Steven: That is an underlying assumption that you and I don’t share. The main purpose of parties in my view is consensus-building, not plurality. And sure, we might have 435 candidates (such as California’s recent gubernatorial recall) but only a few will rise to the top. There certainly will not be 435 ideas.
I find too often that instead of, say, five ideas on a particular issue, there are only two ideas. This is the essence of my grief with our party structure.
Chris McNeal
7 Apr 08 at 3:03 pm
Chris, do you think that the parties themselves are monolithic? Say, N.E. Democrats are the same as Southern Democrats?
And I would agree that parties are consensus-builders. How else would we get things accomplished in D.C. with consensus? We can’t have 435 different House Rep opinions, we need parties (which have parties within themselves).
It sort of seems you want a more Athenian/Jacksonian direct democracy? Do you really think that’s politically viable or politically smart?
S.C. Denney
7 Apr 08 at 3:28 pm
So the party system will fall away just like it did in…
Hmmm…
?
You can’t seriously think that has even a remote chance of happening, can you?
David M. Manes
7 Apr 08 at 4:09 pm
Parties will remain the dominant forces in American politics as long as they remain the strongest fundraisers, organizers, and communicators in the system. Technology has loosened the control that the insular party poo bahs once held, but the fact is that the broad left will not dissolve for fear of being dominated by a concentrated right (see, the Democratic party 1975-1992). The level of disagreement between members of the same coalitions are not nearly strong enough to break the conventional (and, in this case, correct) wisdom that the party is the most effective vehicle for their agenda.
jkkuwitzky
7 Apr 08 at 4:22 pm
As stated, there will not be 435 different ideas. Clearly, politicians who want progress will have to form coalitions. However, I see this happening on an issue by issue basis. This is natural and desirable.
And by the way, this is a process I am talking about. The downfall of the party paradigm will not happen overnight. I’m talking about an evolution of people beginning to see its irrelevance.
And so, to answer your question David, yes, I do think it has a remote chance of happening. I even think it has a good chance of happening.
Chris McNeal
7 Apr 08 at 4:24 pm
Jkkuwitzky: Your argument assumes a centralized decision on behalf of the parties to dissolve. There is no way a power-hungry party will do that.
However, it is this very power-hunger that will drive voters and candidates away from party loyalties and eventually away from parties over time.
Chris McNeal
7 Apr 08 at 4:26 pm
There is no way that power-hungry politicians will depart from the powerful parties on any sort of scale. If any do, they tend not to get reelected, so it is hard for the process to happen gradually.
Do you have any historical examples of the party system falling apart in a comparable political society? I am not aware that anything like what you are talking about has ever happened.
David M. Manes
7 Apr 08 at 5:15 pm
I’m not sure why I need historical examples.
Chris McNeal
7 Apr 08 at 5:38 pm
Parties have been power hungry since their earliest days. They have done things much more “undemocratic” than superdelegates tilting an extremely close race to Clinton.
And no, my argument does not assume a centralized decision. It assumes that the varied and often disparate forces that broadly constitute the American left (or right) of center coalitions will continue to decide that, given the relatively unified state of the opposition, the Democratic (or Republican) party is the best vehicle for the realization of their agenda.
jkkuwitzky
7 Apr 08 at 5:46 pm
I guess that means you can’t think of any either.
It isn’t that you need historical examples to support a prediction, per se. But a prediction that is this drastic and contradicted by this much political logic, and not supported by any historical examples is highly suspect.
David M. Manes
7 Apr 08 at 5:48 pm
What would our political system look like if we didn’t have political parties? And how effective would any one person, or group of people, be at garnering political support and passing legislation?
Political efficacy is inextricably linked to consensus, mobilization, and support. A political party supplies all of these. Without political parties, I don’t see any real political action possible.
S.C. Denney
7 Apr 08 at 6:52 pm
Chris, your coalitions that form on individual issues and then split up was the prevailing form of politics in Britain. In the 1600s. Then the coalitions became more and more permanent and they coalesced into Tories and Whigs. You’re wanting political evolution to work in reverse. Political parties will no more devolve into casual coalitions that form and reform than humanity will devolve back into homo neandertalensis.
krjohns
7 Apr 08 at 6:55 pm
What if associations were made on an issue by issue ad-hoc basis? Progress would still be possible and candidates would have the capacity to stand out however they felt they should. I think this would be a perfectly feasible way to pass laws.
As for historical examples, you don’t usually support drastic predictions with historical examples. That is usually what makes them drastic.
Chris McNeal
7 Apr 08 at 6:58 pm