A Short-Term Solution to the Potential Superdelegate Problem

There's a lot of legitimate concern out there about so-called superdelegates deciding who receives the Democratic presidential nomination. Superdelegates, as a refresher, are delegates (mostly elected officials) who are free floaters -- they can decide who to support for the nomination without any regard to the outcomes of primaries or caucuses. Your state voted for Obama? Sorry, your state's superdelegates are fully allowed to cast their nominating votes for Clinton. Same thing the other way around -- it's just straight up undemocratic.

As I discuss more fully in my upcoming book, The Uprising, superdelegate system was created to make sure the party establishment -- not rank-and-file voters -- gets control over the nomination. And if such superdelegates make up the margin of victory for the nominee this year, then it means the establishment will have control over who the nominee is -- not us the voters.

So how do we prevent the Democratic nomination from becoming a smoky backroom deal? The Chairman of the Maine Democratic Party provides a model.

Here's a press release that just came over the transom:

Party Chairman John Knutson Announces his Choice for President

AUGUSTA- This Sunday, Democrats all over Maine will participate in the Maine Democratic Party Caucus and choose who they want to nominate as this year's Democratic presidential candidate. The results of the caucus will determine how Maine's 24 Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are allocated. Above and beyond the state delegates, who are allocated through the caucus and State Convention, Maine also has 10 unpledged delegates, called "Super-Delegates," who are able to support any candidate they choose.

These "Super-Delegates" are made up of elected officials like our Governor and two Congressmen, as well as party leaders like John Knutson, who is Chair of the Maine Democratic Party.

On Thursday, Knutson announced that he will support the candidate who wins the majority of the vote in Maine. "For all intents and purposes, Maine now has 25 delegates up for grabs since I will be embracing the candidate who wins Maine's caucuses," said Knutson. As a Super-Delegate, Knutson will represent this winning candidate at the Democratic National Convention.

Knutson continued, "I see this as a way to further empower Democrats across the state of Maine and make the results of our caucus more influential. It is clear that this Presidential campaign will come down to a race for delegates, and I believe that by pledging to support the winner of Maine's caucuses, I will help to increase Maine's importance in the nomination process."

This is a smart and moral move by Knutson -- and one we should start encouraging everywhere. We're not going to be able to reform the superdelegate system before this year's convention, so the best we can hope for is pressure on existing superdelegates to simply represent how their states voted. This is a short-term solution and in no way would substitute for longer-term reform of the nominating process. But within the confines of this specific election, this solution is critically important.

Find out who the superdelegates are in your state, and then start putting pressure on them to do what Knutson did. We've got to get ahead of this thing before the horse-trading and backroom dealing starts.

Comments

[Lalo]

This party was hijacked by extreme left-wing in the 80s. That's when we started loosing presidential elections because the party was no longer moderate. The superdelegate system allows the party to maintain it's near-center position. There's nothing wrong with super-delegates, there's everything right with them. Regardless of Clinton or Obama win.

[Querent]

Everybody has their ideas about what is democratic and what isn't democratic. Most of this discussion is a bunch of solutions in search of a problem.

The superdelegates include elected members of the government. These people have been selected by the party in primaries, and then elected to public office by the public at large. Don't like the fact that they have status and an important voice in the party? Tough.

Also included among the superdelegates are important party officials. These people are the people who make the party function, who prepare the filings, who set up the local and state conventions, who get the business of the party done. Want to have as much influence as they do? Maybe next election. After you show the purpose and dedication they have shown.

Always in the past, the consensus of the superdelegates has followed the consensus of the party at large. This time there's a split in the party at large. There's also a split among the superdelegates. No problem. We'll work it out. We're all Democrats. I think we can safely trust the superdelegates to participate in the consensus just as much as we trust the voters to do so. At least as much.

[Meanwhile]

So what you are saying is, "these people are more important than you because they have better connections with the Party and earned the Party's trust by not trying to buck the system that keeps the Party in power."

Sounds a LOT like the People's Republic of China.

[duh]

The whole bs about super delegates being undemocratic is just trying to get the nomination from senator Clinton at all cost. This is the Democratic party. It set its own rules which everybody knew. Nobody in the Obama camp is squealing about the unfairness of the way some of the delegates are worth more votes than others. Nor are they squealing about the fact that non registered democrats ie independent voters have helped push the Obama bubble.

[SShaw490]

In such a singular election, it makes the most sense to suspend superdelegate voting at all this time. Whoever goes to the convention with the most delegates earned in primaries and caucuses is the winner. No ifs, ands or buts. And no delegates for Florida and Michigan - they were told they weren't going to have a vote and they don't. If you try to re-vote those, you'd have to allow independents who voted in the Republican primary to vote in the Democratic primary, too - if they'd known the Democratic primary meant something, who knows what they'd have done?

Basically, make the whole thing above board. There's no way you can do this in some back room. If you do, the Democratic party will lose not only this election, but its (already shaky) credibility.

[HighBeam]

First let me say that this is the Democratic Party and they have developed rules by which they run their party. Super Delegates status is awarded to Dem. officials that have been elected by the people, such as Congress persons, Senators, Mayors, State Congress persons, etc. Some SDs are elected at the local Dem party level to represent their districts. It is a representative group of the Dem. party. Secondly, most SDs can vote for whomever they please when they vote at the convention. Some are tied to the locals rules that they set for their SDs. Most SDs have worked in the Dem party and they have earned the right to vote at the convention. Thirdly, you can petition your SD reps to try to influence their vote, but they don"t have to listen to you. Fourthly, if you don"t like the rules, you can petition to have the rules changed, but the rules will not change unless the rules committee agrees to the change. Every candidate should have known the rules before they got into the race, so you can"t plead ignorance at this point. Fifthly, if you still don"t like the rules, get your own party.

[SShaw490]

The "get your own party" part is where this is likely to go. The superdelegate issue has to be dealt with in some kind of transparent manner in such a tight and historical election. This isn't a normal election. It would be disaterous for the Democratic party to award a nomination to a candidate due to back room deals. I sense a lot of resistance to this idea from die-hard Democrats, but you have to keep in mind that die-hard Democrats have a history of losing big, important elections; and they'll lose this one too, if they allow political deals to decide the candidate.

Really, the Clintons will do whatever they can to get a superdelegate vote. They'll make any promise, provide any perk, exert any leverage to do it. I don't think Obama will - that would violate his central campaign theme, which is a new kind of politics that is transparent and finds common ground. Obama knows that - and frankly, it's time for him to strongly consider an independent run. I think, no matter how many delegates he earns in primaries, it'll come down to superdelegates, and the Clintons will bribe/threaten enough of them to win.

It's time for Obama to go independent - he has the organization, he has the money, he has the support - frankly, the Democratic party is going to nominate Hillary regardless of how the primaries go, she'll absolutely lose the election, and that's how it'll be. The Democratic party will basically fall apart - if the Democrats can't win this election, they'll never win any election. They have, by far, the best candidates, the best political environment, the most money, the wind at their backs in terms of public sentiment - but they're going to find a way to lose. And they'll lose because "if you don't like it, go get your own party."

[BillZBubb]

I hope you Obama backers who now want to change the super-delegate rules after the primaries have started will remember that when the Clinton backers start asking for those Florida and Michigan delegates that they feel should be heard from as well.

[9to5]

What do you mean 'when'? She started that last week already, right after she 'won' Florida. BTW I'm not an Obama fan either.

[soupcity]

No Obama will demand a re-do of each election and will probably get it cause what's good for him is well, what's good for him.

[davidgreenson]

Your proposal would be better than the smoke-filled room, but still leaves something to be desired. It essentially makes the superdelegates in each state a winner-take-all kitty. Because the rest of the delegates were awarded proportionately, you could still get a scenario where the pledged delegate leader loses.

Why not have all the superdelegates pledge to vote for the pledged delegate leader nationwide? That way, democracy is truly restored.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

you should award the super delegates proportionally by state just like the other delegates. Each congressional district super delegate votes based on who won that district. The senators and governor of the state go with the statewide winner. etc...

with your proposal, there isn't any point in having super delegates. You're just saying who ever is in the lead even wiothout getting the total number of delegates needed wins.

[TxWonderWoman]

David that makes no sense to me. If you're going to do that then why have them vote at all? And this thing still comes down to one candidate winning by less than a dozen delegates with over 4000 elected. That's sure failure in November. There will be lots of supporters on both sides who will not energize and maybe won't even vote. And don't tell me that Obama can win in November no matter what. If it goes down this way then Obama can write off Florida in November. That means he will have to win another red state that Bush won. I still believe that the only one he has a chance at is South Carolina...although that's not a given. Hillary will win Ohio and probably by a wide margin according to the Obama campaign... she he sure can't pick that one off.

[Herrington]

If the super delegates subvert the process to overrule the popular vote in their home states, there will be the same political hell to pay as there would be if an electoral college designee voted against the wishes of the public in the general election.

As each state primary result is locked in time, and the process is so long, who is the best candidate may not have shown itself until the end of the season. You could conceivably end up with a candidate that is no longer supported by the party.

Scary as it seems, the very design of this system, trusting the integrity of the political boiler room, is ultimately only as valuable as the integrity of the super delegates.

A series of synchronized primaries in all states at the same time might be a better system. We are clearly not going to get that done before Denver. For one thing I suspect the super delegates think its really cool to be one.

[jaramilr]

"it's just straight up undemocratic"

You seem to imply that this is some new travesty being forced on us. The Democratic primaries this year are perhaps the most democratic we've ever had. It wasn't that long ago when candidates for each party were only selected at the convention and no regular citizens had a say. With the Democratic states no longer being all or nothing, we are the closest ever to a pure popular vote for the Democratic candidate.

The continued use of super-delegates is a compromise between the old and new, but I'd say a weighted one. The party leaders have given up most of their influence.

Supporting and helping in the effort to make sure everyone gets a fair voice is something I believe in too. But lets not panic and get bogged down with conspiracy theories when election rules are accelerating in the direction that we want.

[CitizenFace]

The more I see of our system, the more I wonder why one should bother voting.

If it's a landslide election, then your vote was a drop of water in an ocean, and you may as well have stayed home. If it's a close election, your vote will be graciously accepted and then placed, ever so graciously and, of course, for my own good, into an incinerator.

Perhaps next primary season the superdelegates could get together, make their decision ahead of time, and just have Katherine Harris gimme a call to let me know which way the election will go. That way we can all stay home and save ourselves the suspense.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Weren't these rules on superdelegates known prior to any vote being cast in the primary?

So, are we to change the rules mid-way through the process?

Would Obama be leading in Superdelegates would this even be an issue?

[ICUP]

Did you ask that question about the Nevada lawsuit filed by Clinton proxies?

[HighBeam]

Anyone can file a lawsuit but the judge ruled that the State Dem party can set their own rules and dismissed the suit.

[radicalcentrist44]

If only we could be flies on the wall in the smoke-filled room where they will pick the nominee. This might actually make the convention worth watching since they are usually real boring.

[strangelet]

BTW, in your article you remark "We're not going to be able to reform the superdelegate system before this year's convention, ¦". May I assume from this that you are, in fact, a member of the Democratic Party? If not, why would you think that you had any chance (or right) to reform the internal workings of the party?

[strangelet]

Mr. Sirota -- you refer to the "Democratic establishment" as if it were some kind of evil cabal. Parties are coalitions of voters who hold similar (not identical) opinions on a range of issues and beliefs. Like other types of coalitions (such as labor unions), they derive their influence from the willingness of their members to support the party, even when the details of some of the party's positions may not be identical to those of an individual member.

I disagree with your implied premise that the Democratic Presidential candidate should be selected by a simple majority vote of whoever wants to vote in the Democratic primaries. First, the Democratic Party *is* a political party (although, as Will Rogers pointed out, not an "organized political party"). That means that it should respond to those who are prepared to support it. I know the blogosphere is not a cross-section of America, but I have seen at least 200 distinct IDs state that they are for Obama, but will never vote for Clinton. They are absolutely entitled to their opinions, but they are NOT (by definition) Democrats. Second, somebody needs to pay attention to: who has the best chance of winning. What is the likely electoral college impact (or not) of Obama"s ability to draw additional independent votes in Blue states? Can he draw enough black votes to flip one or more of the southern states? Will a Clinton candidacy cause an upsurge in GOP voters?

If the popularly elected delegates do not provide a landslide margin, the Democratic "establishment" have a responsibility to select the "best" (most likely to win, and most likely to uphold Democratic values) nominee. I disagree strongly with John Knutson. By pledging his vote to the numerical winner of the Maine caucus, he is abdicating his responsibility, which is to cast his vote in the way that he feels will best serve the party. If I lived in Maine, I would ask him to resign as State Chairman.

[pmorlan]

I've been a Democrat my entire adult life but this year I'm seriously thinking about changing my Party affiliation to Independent. The reason for this is that I don't think the Democratic Party represents the people anymore.

I agree with John Edwards that replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats is not the answer. And this latest argument over whether the movers and shakers in the Party should be the ones to determine the Party's nominee exposes more of the elitist mentality that is ruining our Party. I'm sick of elected Democrats making decisions about issues that impact all of us by thinking first and foremost about how it will benefit them personally, with no thought about what that decision will do to the rest of us.

Mr. Strangelet's post clearly captures how the elite Democrats and those who aspire to be in their ranks feel about the rest of us. Instead of trying to enlarge our Party they would rather define Democrat in very narrow terms that essentially boils down to agreeing with whatever the poobahs decide. If we disagree then we can't be "real" Democrats. For me that sounds more like the Republican Party. They've always been a top down organization. It sure doesn't sound like The Democratic Party I've always supported. We used to be a bottom up organization that was the Party of the people.

Our Party may make history this year by electing a woman or an African-American but unless we get back to our roots our Party may also become history.

[HighBeam]

Me thinks the Obama supporters see the writing on the wall and now want to do the moral thing and not do the immoral thing that they were doing before. These are the same people that complain about James Dobson.

[SShaw490]

I respectfully ask - Huh?

[HighBeam]

Sorry, there was an article above this one slamming James Dobson.

[Vic in Chicago]

David - You describe the superdelegate system as an example of the party insiders keeping control of the process (i.e. away from the voters). Yet, the overwhelming majority of convention delegates ARE elected by the voters, and the superdelegates only come into play if the primary results are "too close to call". At that point (and only at that point) I think party leaders have a right to step in and make decisions.

Let me offer another caution. With Romney's withdrawal, the Republican race is finished. Yet the Democratic race will probably continue for weeks, if not months. What's to stop Republican voters in upcoming primary states from taking Democratic ballots and voting for the Democrat they think will be easiest to defeat in November? (I guarantee you there will be a lot of that kind of mischief-making state-by-state. Heck, we'd do it to them if the situation were reversed.) So do we want those people to pick our nominee?

In that scenario, I think reserving a minority of 20% of the delegate count for party leaders via the superdelegate process is quite reasonable.

You describe it as backroom dealing, and that certainly is a colorful description, but in the end I think party leaders are going to ask two questions in choosing a nominee: 1. Who has the best chance to win in November, and 2. Who will best help other Democratic candidates up and down the ticket in their home states?

Those are my priorities also, and I think those are legitimate party concerns. As a loyal Democrat myself, and someone passionately interested in winning in November, I have no problem with the superdelegate process.