March 7, 2008

Let the Super Delegates be Super

First, just the latest on where the presidential nomination race in the Democratic Party stands. As of today, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois leads Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the delegate race, 1575-1464, with both pledged and committed Super Delegates added in.

There are races coming up Saturday in Wyoming, a "closed" primary (that is Independents or Republicans cannot take part) then on Tuesday in Mississippi (an "open" primary in which party affiliation is not required). Wyoming has 12 unpledged delegates at stake out of 18 total, Missisippi has 33 pledged delegates at stake out of 40.

Sen. Obama is up by six points in a poll taken in Mississippi, I can't find much about Wyoming. But all eyes will be on the critical primary April 22 in Pennsylvania.

There are some other things going on in the day to day race that are pretty interesting but I will get to those tomorrow. For now, I want to talk about super delegates.

You've seen and heard the term perhaps without really knowing who and what these people are. I have alluded to them briefly but here is more background on them and an argument for them doing what they do.

While both parties have "pledged" delegates, that is, delegates who are selected in caucuses and primary elections, they also have delegates who are not determined by those mechanisms. These delegates in the Democratic Party are made up of current and former elected officials as well as party luminaries and retired office holders. There are 794 of them now and they comprise about one-fifth of the number of total delegates at the convention; that's why they are so important.

They were created in the early 1980s as a way of ensuring that party leaders and elected officials still have influence at the convention. The total number of these delegates have changed over the years and another category of these delegates called "add-ons" will hike the total of unpledged delegates from 794 to 870.

These 870 delegates will act as a counterbalance to the sentiments expressed by participants during the primary campaigns. These longtime party officials balance out the passions of new party members or people who vote in "open" contests who aren't members of the party at all.

Now the argument is heard that if neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton have enough votes to claim victory on the first ballot (and this is becoming more likely) these super delegates should reflect the will of the voters by affirming the candidate with the most delegate votes. Sounds pretty simple and straightforward.

But say the two combatants for the Democratic nomination are within 100 votes of each other after some 3,253 delegates have been chosen. That is a difference of only 1.5 percent! Not too much, is it?

That hardly qualifies as a mandate to me. Even though one candidate would be ahead of the other, it's a virtual tie. Now if the super delegates are supposed to merely reflect the will of the voters, is that enough of a margin to bear the entire voting weight of these delegates? One and a half percent? If that is the case, then why do you need them at all? That is not why they were created. They were created to break these ties--virtual or otherwise--by selecting the candidate who they think would be the best for the party.

There are those who say putting the choice of candidate selection in the hands of unelected officials is "undemocratic." On paper, that looks great, but in the U.S., there are dozens of examples of power concentrated in the hands of "unelected" officials. Judges can rule on political issues and in some cases, overturn elections. Many judges are appointed, not elected. Commissions, boards, and councils in the U.S. have varying degrees of power in our political system and their members and leaders are not elected.

One of the great things about the American system to me (warning: brag coming up) is the checks and balances on power in the American system. There are checks and balances on the president, Congress, the courts...and yes, even the voters. The Founding Fathers who set this all up way back when were not completely enthusiastic about democracy and were quick to cite its shortcomings (voters swayed by sentiment and emotion, the factor of corruption, the threat from outside influences, etc., the concentration of power in an individual). But nevertheless, they established a system where democracy was front and center but even some checks and balances were put on the people.

So it is not so un-American to my way of thinking that these super delegates were put in place for a reason and the reason was not to rubber-stamp voter choices. Besides, the political parties can set the rules they wish. Now of course, that is not completely true; they may be private organizations but they are so entwined with our political traditions and laws, that there are a whole series of laws and precedent involving them.

But if the Democrats (the Republicans have super delegates too but they are not called super delegates, there are not nearly as many--only 123!) want to set up a system in which ties are broken by more than 800 super delegates, then so be it. There is nothing, to my mind, inherently wrong, outside the mainstream, or undemocratic about it.

Obviously, others have different views. I would like to hear yours--should unelected party officials have the power to choose the Democratic Party's presidential candidate if neither have enough to triumph?

Of course, it will really get interesting if the super delegates split in a way that will still fail to produce a winner. That is a possibility, too.

All this is part of what makes American politics so fascinating and so thought-provoking. If you've got an opinion on this, shoot it my way via the comment or e-mail in the box to the right. I want to hear from you.

More later.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Neil,
The tally of 795 superdelegates includes the 76 unpledged add-on delegates - the total is 795, not 870. (For the curious, I've blogged about the UADs.)

It's not at all clear, by the way, that superdelegates were created to break ties. The UADs were added to the mix in 1998 to mollify Jesse Jackson by providing an extra bonus for the winner of each state. Elected officials have their slots for two reasons - so that they won't have to compete against some of their most prominent and active constituents for delegate slots (or worse yet, face the humiliation of losing); and so that they'll be more involved in the primary process and hence more likely to campaign in the fall. They were added to the mix after their numbers at the convention dropped percipitously, and they disengaged from the election. No one's really sure what the DNC members are doing there; by the most persuasive account, they were given their superdelegate slots because the DNC is the body that needs to approve any delegate allocation plan. Reformers were pushing through a package of measures that included quotas for women and minorities, direct election of most of the delegates, and proportional representation - the superdelegate slots were a sop to the DNC members' egos, and an incentive for them to approve a plan that threatened to strip the traditional party machines of much of their power and influence in presidential years.

All of which is not to say that their exercising their independent judgment would somehow be illegitimate. Even if no one contemplated their breaking ties in this manner, they have that right under the rules, and the candidates are bound to play by the rules they committed to at the beginning of this process (however much that may irk them now). But I was apalled to see you write that 1.5% doesn't constitute a mandate. More than a few presidential elections have been decided by margins smaller than that. When that happens, we don't throw up our hands and call it a tie, and look for some other means of deciding the matter. One of the nice things about America - one of the values I hope that VOA is promoting abroad - is our fundamental commitment to fairness and to the rule of law. When one candidate wins, even by a single vote, the other candidate congratulates them and goes home (perhaps after a recount verifies the tally, but still). There are no riots in the streets. No massacres of their opponents. No appeals to superior powers to reverse the outcome. Everything happens proceduraly, no matter how small the margin. It's the American Way.

Anonymous said...

Obama is most likely winner of the democratic race. Superdelegate situation seem to be confusing, but according to some sources 210 already behind obama and 240 behind Hillary. So less than 300 left and I think Hillary has pushed more to have all possible superdelegates behind her now. So I assume that remaining superdelegates will split quite evenly. If Hillary plays some game and frustrates african-american voters and wins through some manipulation that group may not be behind her so fully and thus some key states may be lost.
I expect that Hillary together with her discustingly power-hungry husband will not be in the White House again. Obama has a chance, but this Hitler type of fighting until the bitter end by Hillary/Bill group may weaken his hopes decisively.
I can live with McCain or Obama. Hillary/Bill-ticket would be discusting choice.

Bill Wyatt said...

Fly..thanks for the post.

The "super delegates" as they have come to be called were created as you say. But their original purpose was changed over the years, and in the eyes of some observers (including this one) the purpose is now to reward party activists, elected officials, and Democratic National Committee members.

But another purpose has to be the ameliorating effect of these delegates on the primary/caucus process.

I will continue to say that a 1.5 percent win is not a mandate. When President Bush won re-election in 2004 by 2.5 percentage points over Sen. John Kerry, the New York Times and other media outlets rushed to say this was not a "mandate." So if 2.5 points is not a mandate, how can 1.5 points be?

I will be the first to say I don't know what a "mandate" is, but as one of our great Supreme Court justices once said in another context, "you'll know it when you see it."

I am also not one to go against the rule of law in vote totals but as we saw in 2000, our presidential elections can be a little more complicated than the idea of "first past the post."

And I would also argue this is not a presidential election, it is a contest within a political party which can establish the rules it desires. And with these super delegates (I agree I had the total incorrect, given the death of Rep. Tom Lantos and the disqualification of former Maine Governor Kenneth Curtis who moved from Maine to Florida, the total is now approximately 794.)

I presume this is going to change in the future as well, particularly if the delegations of Michigan and Florida are seated by the Democrats in some form.

And you are absolutely correct to point out the voluntary and peaceful transfer of power in the US after the administration changes from one party to another.

VOA will report on this, you can be sure.

Great comments, Fly, and stick around. Glad to have you on board!

Bill Wyatt said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for the comment on super delegates...

My thoughts here? The Washington Post on Sunday ran a piece that hints that super delegates may be holding their opinions and preferences until after all the races (particularly Pennsylvania) are run.

They will truly be faced with a tough choice if Sen. Clinton trails in the delegate count by 100, give or take, and is even or slightly ahead in the popular vote totals.

Several commentators have spoken to the issue of Sen. Clinton's determination to win the nomination and they think she has every right to contest the race as long as she wants, given its closeness.

I really can't foresee a conclusion at this point with these super delegates in play. Sen. Clinton has a slight lead in super delegates but that could expand if these delegates think she would stand a better chance of winning in the fall than Sen. Obama.

If that were to happen, I would agree with you wholeheartedly that African-Americans would not be behind the candidacy of Sen. Clinton--that is putting it mildly--not to mention the other voters Sen. Obama has brought into the process.

That would bring a whole new dimension to the presidential race for November.

Thanks for the comment and I hope you visit again.