Those Super Delegates
Last Tuesday I posted on the potential role of the superdelegates the Democratic Convention in selecting the party's nominee. Today's Los Angeles Times has an op-ed piece written by Joshua Spivak which provides some of the historical background to the development of the superdelegate system and what it could mean for this election.
In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.
In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes. [Emphasis added]
This year, however, it is entirely possible that even after Super Tuesday there will be no clear cut nominee going into the convention. Clinton and Obama are running neck-and-neck, and Edwards, if he stays in the race after February 5, could keep either of the current leaders from the magic 2,025 number. That could mean the Super Delegates will be the determining factor.
In general, the last place the public would want the nominee selected is on the convention floor. In the heyday of the conventions, when the presidential candidates were selected in backrooms and on the floor, there were always rumors of vote buying and corrupt bargains for the nomination. Today, such events could fatally weaken the candidate in the public's eyes. The existence of super delegates would compound the problem.
The elected delegates, though virtually unknown, are at least selected by the voters and pledged to the candidate those voters chose. Most of the super delegates aren't chosen by the general populace, and they are not bound by the votes in their respective states. If they end up making the difference in the nomination -- especially if the winner came into the convention in second place -- there is a strong possibility of disenchanting a good portion of the party's base, potentially costing the party the election. [Emphasis added]
Democratic voter turn-out has been enormous in the two states which have spoken so far, and there is every reason to believe that the turn-out will continue to be high, and not just because of the historical signficance of a woman and an African American leading the race. This has been a tumultuous seven years in every respect. Right now the economy is so bad that there is a great deal of discomfort, even fear, being felt by all of the electorate. Troops are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight. Our current government is cheerfully breaking international agreements against torture and spying on its own citizens. People want a change, a turning around of this country, so badly that they are actually getting off of their couches to vote.
However, if those in power at the party level decide to exert that power, thereby denying the rest of us a voice in selecting the nominee, the result could be as devastating as Mr. Spivak suggests. And then fixing the problem will be moot.
I am not optimistic.
In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.
In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes. [Emphasis added]
This year, however, it is entirely possible that even after Super Tuesday there will be no clear cut nominee going into the convention. Clinton and Obama are running neck-and-neck, and Edwards, if he stays in the race after February 5, could keep either of the current leaders from the magic 2,025 number. That could mean the Super Delegates will be the determining factor.
In general, the last place the public would want the nominee selected is on the convention floor. In the heyday of the conventions, when the presidential candidates were selected in backrooms and on the floor, there were always rumors of vote buying and corrupt bargains for the nomination. Today, such events could fatally weaken the candidate in the public's eyes. The existence of super delegates would compound the problem.
The elected delegates, though virtually unknown, are at least selected by the voters and pledged to the candidate those voters chose. Most of the super delegates aren't chosen by the general populace, and they are not bound by the votes in their respective states. If they end up making the difference in the nomination -- especially if the winner came into the convention in second place -- there is a strong possibility of disenchanting a good portion of the party's base, potentially costing the party the election. [Emphasis added]
Democratic voter turn-out has been enormous in the two states which have spoken so far, and there is every reason to believe that the turn-out will continue to be high, and not just because of the historical signficance of a woman and an African American leading the race. This has been a tumultuous seven years in every respect. Right now the economy is so bad that there is a great deal of discomfort, even fear, being felt by all of the electorate. Troops are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight. Our current government is cheerfully breaking international agreements against torture and spying on its own citizens. People want a change, a turning around of this country, so badly that they are actually getting off of their couches to vote.
However, if those in power at the party level decide to exert that power, thereby denying the rest of us a voice in selecting the nominee, the result could be as devastating as Mr. Spivak suggests. And then fixing the problem will be moot.
I am not optimistic.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by Diane at 4:46 AM
2 Comments:
I wonder if there's any way to make the superdelegates to commit to voting the way their state residents voted--Iowa superdelegates, for example, would have to give their votes in proportion to the Iowa caucus breakdown.
It makes me question the intent of creating the "superdelegates." Unaaccountable but to their conscience; this seems to defy the voting for the "regular" delegates to represent us at the Convention. The DNC wanted a safety valve, but now we are seeing the superdelegates' constituency pressuring to change their backing of Clinton to Obama, or from Obama to Clinton. This historic Democratic Presidential Campaign could come down to the "parliamentary" style election of a leader like we see in countries governed with a parliamentary system.
Post a Comment
<< Home