FeedsSuperdelegates?
So, despite Barack Obama's momentum and Hillary's Clinton's strengths, the Democratic nomination for President is expected to end in a tie. Indeed, many are discussing the coming fight for the nomination, which will occur either at the August convention or in advance meetings. Is it unfair that a pre-convention leader in pledged delegates could lose the nomination due to superdelegates? I'd like to unfurl a couple of different perspectives, and then offer my own opinion.
Regardless, we could have a big problem here.
First, from Pennsylvania's own Chris Bowers, author at Open Left. He believes that the fight is a danger to Democracy itself, and will have dire consequences. He is grim in his opinion: if the nominee is not supported by a simple majority of Democratic primary voters, then he will quit the party. From his post:
If the institution that exists to resolve disputes within the American center-left does not operate according to democratic principles, then I see no reason to continue participating within that institution. If that institution fails to respect democratic principles in its most important internal contest of all--nominating an individual for President of the United States--then I will quit the Democratic Party. And yes, I am perfectly serious about this. If someone is nominated for POTUS from the Democratic Party despite another candidate receiving more poplar support from Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, I will resign as local precinct captain, resign my seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, immediately cease all fund-raising for all Democrats, refuse to endorse the Democratic "nominee" for any office, and otherwise disengage from the Democratic Party through all available means of doing so.
On the other side of the debate we have Paul Gronke, posting at Blue Oregon. He doesn't see the problem with superdelegates deciding the nomination, arguing that it's merely a tie-breaking procedure. From his comment:
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.
What we have here are two very, very different opinions. Interesting enough, both are right. It is a party's process, so why shouldn't they decide the nominee? But Bowers is also right, saying that it would be unfair to the mass of Democratic primary voters if the nominee is not the popular pick.
So, what's the solution? While I don't share Bowers' gloom, and won't quit the party if the outcome is as undemocratic as he notes it could be, I agree that any nomination dependent on the superdelegates has the chance to disenfranchise the voters. We're not a party of smoke-filled nomination processes and bureaucracy; we're a party of the people. As such, the will of the people is paramount. So, if the nominee is not the popular pick, then that's a problem. We all remember the mess that was 2000, when Al Gore won the election (and popular vote), only to have it stolen from him (by the electoral college and Supreme Court).
The solution? Paulie Brading over at Blue Oregon is right, as is Bowers: this whole problem can be avoided if Democratic superdelegates agree to support the will of the people, and vote according to the popular vote and/or pledged delegates. If they support the overall will of Democratic primary-goers, via the raw vote or the pledged delegate count, then we can avoid the pending democratic crisis. And, in the end, we will emerge unified to face McCain in November.
If we can come up with a compromise before we get to that point, fine. If it's a split "dream" ticket of Hillary and Barack, then fine. I would be fine with that one-two punch.
What are your thoughts on this mess? Is it really a mess, like Bowers thinks, or is Gronke right?
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.I'd like to point out that the "unholy alliance" of superdelegates are actually elected by the people. Governor, Dem Congressional Delegation, etc electeds. Then the "Party Insiders" are elected, the Party Chair and Vice and DNC Committee People are all elected inside the Democratic Party. The voters for those are your Democrat neighbors who give enough of a damn to participate in local Party politics, these aren't some big money boys, they're your 2nd grade teacher, your carpenter, your coffee shop owner, plain as day folks. At least one Super Delegate was just laid off from work, last hire on a struggling start up business....
It is simply Democracy in action and these people were elected.
BTW, I'd vastly prefer not to see a Convention that deadlocked.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Agreed.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Ben
You mischaracterize my remarks. I didn't say there is 'nothing wrong' with superdelegates. My comments about ties merely raised the issue that you need SOME way to broker a tie
The Democratic regulars in Oregon are, at times, strongly populist in a way that I find empowering and charming, but sometimes frustrating, and this is one of those times. There are many, many undemocratic features in this primary process that don't seem to evoke such outrage.
The larger issue is the claim being made in many places that this is a violation of voting rights (wrong: this is not a general election), or that allowing elites a larger role in decision making is an undesirable way for a political party to function (wrong: every large organization has to rely on elite decision making).
Your own posting betrays a lack of careful thinking about this.
If the votes of the superdelegates count IN ADDITION TO the votes of the primary voters, no one has been "disenfranchised" (i.e. vote not counted or disallowed).
Gore's victory was not "stolen by the electoral college" but by the SCOTUS decision to stop the recount in Florida. The Electoral College functioned as it has always functioned, and by your description, this is the fourth time in American history that the final result deviated from the popular vote--were 1824, 1876, and 1888 also "thefts"?
What "people's will" should be represented by the super delegates? Tell me the "people" you mean? Oregonians? Voting Oregonians? Oregonians who voted in the primary?
Should they look at a national poll? Should they rely on the results of primaries? What about caucuses, which are badly unrepresentative? You say "delegate count" then you say "popular vote". Which is it? What if they lead to different conclusions?
This is my point: when you start slinging around big terms like 'democracy' and 'will of the people' and election 'thefts' you'd better be damn sure you know what you mean.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
You make many fine points, and underline the problem: we're bandying about ideas and, if we're not careful, the specifics get lost in the wake. I confess that I'm still torn in reading over many fine arguments one way or another, but it's not for lake of careful thought.
The "will of the people" idea is where it gets really sticky. How the heck do you define that in a system like our primary? There are several solutions out there, either via the pledged delegates or popular vote or some other. For me, I think I was aiming for the superdelegates-to-pledged solution, but I accept your argument on superdelegates as compelling. Sorry for the confusion, but I was still turning it all over in my head while I was writing.
And, on a sidenote, I would entertain the idea of throwing out the electoral college altogether for a national popular vote. Do you have any thoughts on that?
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
The popular vote should be THE VOTE. Superdelegates as well as electoral colleges need to be outlawed. Who has ever tied EXACTLY? Who ever wins the people gets the nomination. Now if the delegates are tied, then the popular vote should be counted as the winner and THAT winner should be urged by his own party to take the one in second place as the running mate. This is the only fair and real solution to a possible corrupt system of superdelegates that while they may not be "bought off" for their vote, the temptation is there which makes it possible. And if it's possible, do not be shocked if you see it happen one day. This is why superdelegates and electorals should be outlawed.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I think that in a real democracy the popular vote of the people should decide who our President should be. The electoral college is out of date with TV and the internet, we do not need delegates telling us the American people who should be the leader of this great country. American are far more educated and smarter that most people in congress.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Are we?
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.