Local Pressure Builds On Superdelegates

Above, you can watch a the local story that led the news last night here in Colorado - a local news story that is likely coming to your state as the Democratic National Convention approaches. What we have on our hands is a potential back room effort to use undemocratic "superdelegates" to anoint a Democratic presidential nominee - with many superdelegates potentially using their power in defiance of how their states and communities voted.

As a good example of what I'm talking about, consider what's going on here in Colorado. On February 5th, voters overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in the caucuses. However, as Channel 2 News reports, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) has already endorsed Hillary Clinton and is refusing to say whether she will cast her superdelegate convention vote with Colorado voters, or for Hillary Clinton. DeGette refused to comment for Channel 2's story.

The question is whether politicians and party officials with superdelegate votes will be loyal to a fellow politician or loyal to small-d democracy. The history of the superdelegates, which I trace in my upcoming book The Uprising, is one that designed the superdelegates to thwart democracy.

In order to stop that this year, I have written that we need to start pressuring superdelegates to do what the Maine Democratic Party chairman did: pledge their superdelegate vote to whomever their voters support in primaries and caucuses.

You can bet this kind of story will be reported throughout the country - with the same kinds of issues popping up lots of places. Miles Mogulescu at the Huffington Post is starting a petition that you can sign to demand your superdelegates vote the way your state's voters voted. Go check it out here. Also, make sure to check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project.

UPDATE: Another interesting idea has been floated that superdelegates should all go with the candidate who won the most total delegates. This is certainly another way to do it, in that it prioritizes democracy over any one candidate. The issue with this is organizing all the superdelegates to do one thing, rather than creating local pressure to support who local voters supported. This plan certainly has its merits, but it might be more difficult to build local pressure for it because in many instances local communities will have voted for a different candidate than won the national delegate count. But bottom line: Any plan to consistently demand a loyalty to democracy across the board should be acceptable, whether that is getting all the superdelegates to vote for the overall delegate winner, or getting all superdelegates to follow the will of their local voters. And remember, this is not about rigging the nomination for one candidate or another - it is about making sure democracy is the most important thing to the Democratic Party.

Comments

[Karenina44]

Those of you who are concerned about the super delegate situation, I urge you to lodge your opinion with the DNC ... http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Remember, bringing our voices together is the only way to rock the establishment.

[PatriotActor]

The issue with having superdelegates support the candidate who won the local popular vote is that it gives disproportionate advantage to the winner of the population-dense states... Wasn't there a reason the Dems assign delegates proportionately, rather than the Republican-style winner-take-all delegate allotment?

[John Warren Gotsch]

Either the "super-delegates" ratify the popular will or a "race-man" like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton will no doubt ask why have Blacks been carrying Democrat water for sixty years only to be thrown out of the truck with predictable results.
While you are at it, ask HRC why she and WJC threw Marian Wright Edelman, Lani Guinier and Joycelyn Elders over the side without a word of comfort or support? And she presents herself as the feminist advocate and 'Wild-Bill' as 'America's First Black President'.
Balderdash!

[Benton]

Why all the obsessive race baiting?

[May9th2005]

I wonder if Sirota would feel the same way if Clinton lead the pledged delegate count and Obama lead with superdelegates? Me thinks not. However, I'm certain Sirota would continue to pimp out his sydicated column using other bogus issues, like how Obama supporters should stay home this November to show the establishment that it's not ok to disenfranchise voters and elect a woman like HRC (which, no doubt, he covers extensively in his upcoming book).

[nads2985]

Agreed.

Notice the example he uses is a Clinton endorser who's district voted the other way, while the first paragraph describes some sort of secret behind-the-scenes conspiracy to ahdn the election to Clinton.

He could just as easily have chosen John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick, all superdelegates from MA, a state that went overwhelmingly for Clinton. But no, its the Clinton supporter who deserves to be singled out and chastised.

This is happening on both sides.

[DudeE]

Here's bit more perspective:

13 delegates are apportioned from North Dakota and fewer than 20,000 people voted. So roughly 1,500 North Dakotans account for 1 delegate. That's about 0.001% of the population awarding 0.03% of total Democratic delegates.

Neither are the state delegates required to award theirs to the candidate chosen by the state's primary voters.

So the question is why all the focus is on superdelegates when there are numerous 'imperfections' in the underlying process. And let's not even get into the peculiarities of a caucus.

[DudeE]

This is such a tired story. "Undemocratic" superdelegates? Why? This is not a general election for public office. It's a nomination RUN BY THE PARTY to select a nominee. Why is it so difficult to understand that?

We have some states with caucuses with varying rules, some states run primaries, some award proportional delegates while some do not. In short, the rules are all over the map and far from consistent.

Yet we're to believe this is a perfect process and therefore the inclusion of superdelegates is an upset to 'democracy'?

[soupcity]

Thanks Dude, it is only undemocratic because Obama has less. Where was Sirota(or anyone for that matter) screaming about this before the election process began, when changing it would have been much more fair and made much more sense?

[DudeE]

Personally I find it odd that many states run open primaries which allow Independents and Republicans to vote for the Democratic nominee. But then them's the rules. I find the notion of superdelegates more appropriate than that of allowing members of the opposition parties to have a voice in the nomination.

[nancytheragingliberal]

It boils down to fair vs. foul. If they vote with their common sense and the will of the dem. voters, there will not be a problem. If they go with politics, as usual, dems. will stay home and repubs. will win. It is as simple as that.

[Roboto]

The candidates themselves could pledge to abide by the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Whoever had less would voluntarily withdraw. This take it all out of the hands of the superdelegates and no rule changes or power politics need be played.

[DudeE]

Even the delegates awarded by states are not perfectly apportioned. This notion that superdelegates upset a perfect process is nothing more than nonsense foisted on the public by those with a vested interest in delegitimizing the same nominating process we've used for nearly 30 years. Ask yourself why?

[John]

Exactly why do we have Superdelegates? Can anyone provide a rational explanation? How in the f*ck does this twisted, prone-to-corruption scam conform to our basic concepts of representative democracy? It doesn't. It is pure political trickery, designed to subvert the will of voters.

End the bullsh*t Superdelegate scam now!

[AustinCynic]

Because pressure built after 1972 for the Democratic party establishment to reign in the party activists. Jimmy Carter's loss in 1980 after a bruising primary battle with Ted Kennedy sealed the deal. The party elders didn't want 3 electoral disasters in 4 elections.

So they nominated Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the next two races and made it 5 thumpings out of 6. And now their fix, which seems like it's never worked the way it was supposed to, is in danger of causing the most severe split in the party since 1968.

If superdelegates catapult the #2 candidate over the candidate who leads in delegates after the voting's done--whether that nominee is named Clinton or Obama--there will be Trouble in the Mile High City!

[Kantinflas]

The Democratic Party has superdelegates for the same reason that the United States has an Electoral College.

[DudeE]

What's interesting is that nobody screamed bloody murder when the reverse scenario occurred with Dean. In '04 he had the support of more superdelegates but was tanked in the primaries - apparently due to the 'Dean scream'

Not sure there is anything unseemly about elected governors, senators, and members of the house having a say in the nominee for their party. Back in '04, Dean was the upstart who would've been a 'fresh' face on the scene yet the people chose old, establishment Kerry. The flip-flop here in '08 is in stark contrast.

[kirotahoe]

i think the super delegates will not go with the will of the people or the wishes of their loyal political colleagues. they will go with the money! how much money can you turn an ambassadorship into, or a cabinet position. ask rumsfeld, or bill cohen. sell your superdelegate vote to the highest bidder, work just a small amount, write a book and watch the cash register ring. what does it take to influence a superdelegate? i don't know, how much you got?

[ac1]

The system as a whole really doesn't have a little "d" in it, either. This debate is comparing apples and oranges, starting with how each state even selects its delegates. Don't let "proportionality" fool you. Nothing in this has been uniform.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/the_rules_of_the_game.php

.

[AKJM]

As a lifelong democrat I am appalled that the ploy launched by the MSM has worked. After starting this campaign ridiculously early, the Media set about winnowing the list to suit their needs.
Media destroyed Kucinich, media neglect marginalized Edwards, and the Medias oft repeated "top tier, lower tier" categories eliminated the remainder.
We are left with candidates who support and would expand NAFTA, candidates who would normalize illegal immigrant workers and would import skilled immigrant workers. Candidates who believe world trade, free trade, brings all things good to America.
This is not a progressive agenda. The only addition Clinton and Obama bring is a push for National Health Care; Clinton"s plan seems better.
What is truly ironic is that Huckabee has a better position on these issues than our candidates.
I don"t understand the latent furor over whether super delegates must choose between Republican lite or Republican lite. The damage has been done.

[midtown]

You made great points in the clip, David.

[midtown]

Local politicians like Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) will find their political careers cut short . . . fast, if they engage in backroom politics that pay lip service to the electorate. They engage in that at their peril.

[desmirl]

Has there ever been a worse idea in Politics than the invention of the "superdelegate"? Oh... yeah... voting for George W. Bush.... Oh, my...