Howard: Make The Superdelegates Vote Now

Earlier this week, Howard Dean echoed what many are thinking, a protracted struggle for the nomination running into and perhaps to the end of the convention makes it hard to imagine we would have much success in November - I started writing about this before the Super Tuesday tie.

"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario. So, after the primaries are over, the last primary is June 8th in Puerto Rico - Puerto Rico I think, there may be another state with there - and after that if we don't have a nominee, I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement."

His odd statement in the middle about March or April following June is actually his opinion that someone was going to break apart on Super Tuesday which, of course, didn't happen.

While the campaigns are obsessing over the current delegate count, when the dust settles, it will be clear that the candidates are within 50-75 delegates of each other and there are just under 1,500 delegates left in the primaries and caucuses.

So, on June 3, we won't have a winner.

We will wait through June, July and August until the ever-so-mysterious Superdelegates vote, the 796 members of the Democratic National Committee whose votes are now far more important than anyone thought they would be.

Here is the best link to a list of these men and women I have found.

And here's the rough breakdown.

796 Total

4 former Presidents and Vice-Presidents

30 Democratic Governors

51 Current Democratic Senators Plus 2 former Senators

226 Current Democratic Congressmen Plus 2 former Speakers of the House

485 Members of the DNC and a few 'others'

Even though some have argued that SuperDelegates should vote with their states popular votes, even Senator Obama has been calling for this, I both disagree and don't see that as practical.

For one, Senator Obama might not be so interested in having John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick vote for Senator Clinton. And unless one candidate got 100% of the vote in a state, the state had supporters for the other candidate so I don't think this will happen.

However, there is one way to avoid a brokered convention and it appears to me that the rules could be changed to allow this to happen.

Make the 796 vote now or as soon is possible, two weeks away perhaps.

Call a meeting in Washington DC, where the majority of Superdelegates either are, or can be relatively easily.

Any that don't show to vote lose their vote and the total required delegates for the nomination declines but an amount equaling no shows.

This way, the last 1,000 delegates in the primaries and caucuses will determine the nominee, not party insiders at the end. I actually think Paul Abrams also has a good idea, re-schedule the Michigan and Florida primaries at the end - in early June.

Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is more likely than Howard Dean being able to broker an arrangement; and it is far preferable to not having a nominee until September.

This way, the public gets the last word, not the party - and that's the way it should be.

Howard, what do you think?

Comments

[harlembells]

It seems pretty ridiculous to change the rules in the middle of the process. The superdelegates have been a known part of the process for years. The disenfranchisement of the voters in MI and FL is a result of Howard Dean's failed leadership. By trying to bully those states' party leaders into bowing to his will, he has created a mess. The only fair thing is to go ahead and seat the delegates: NO candidates campaigned in MI or FL so NO candidate is disadvantaged. Obama and Edwards supporters were told to vote uncommitted in MI and all three candidates were on the ballot in FL. These efforts to have a "do-over" or to change the role of superdelegates are simply unfair and will be very detrimental to the party. Maybe if the delegate count ends up in a near-tie, we should put both candidates on the ticket - let them flip a coin to see who is at the top and who is the vice president. Makes as much sense as any of the recommendations on this blog so far.

[JayHub]

Both candidates should pledge NOW that the superdelegate votes should be split pro-rata based on the number of delegate votes each candidate got in the primaries. That way the choice of the people is validated, and we'll have a final decision after the last primary, if not before. 15,000,000 people voted in the Democratic primaries and the count was 50.2% Clinton 49.8% Obama, a difference of only about 50,000. We can't allow all the work and votes cast be thrown away and have a decision made by 800+ insiders and professional politicos. It needs to be fair, and perceived as such.

[BUSHsurvivor]

And...make a decision now on Florida and Michigan.

Those states will be very important come November...do not just hand them over to McVain!

[dinger]

This idea solves nothing. The problem is that the entire notion of a super-delegate is completely ridiculous. One person, one vote. Mine should count as much as anyone else's. The whole thing is anti-democratic.

[KDH]

Changing the rules in the middle of the game? Obama supporters wouldn't condone that would they?

[fariqabdulaziz]

I say leave it as it is, since the public will most likely continue to stalemate, I want to see who these Nietzsche-esque Ubermensch* are and what they will decide is "good" for the public.

*Since apparently the party considers them more important than us regular schmoes.

[Democrab]

They were interviewing one of them the other day on CNN. Can't remember his name.

He said they wanted to look at trends and especially electibility. They're first consideration was who would have the big states. Ahem!

[cambio]

Either way it is a bad situation. If they all voted now, and leaned heavily to one side, it would pretty much determine the nomination right there, because they may make it impossible for the lower person to make up the delegates in elections. So really either way, whether they do it now or later, it is deciding the election. I'm okay with how it is going now, people trickle here and there, change their vote if they want, not shake it too much one way or another, and wait to see where the pieces fall. Most superdelegates will probably wait to see how the people vote and then pile behind the frontrunner, just like later primaries and caucuses have always done after the first couple contests in recent years. This really isn't any different.

However I think now that McCain is the nominee for the Republicans, smart Democrats will start waking up and realizing that Hillary vs McCain is not a winning battle for them (or for Democrats in red/purple districts all across the country). They will most likely get in line behind Obama, because they know backing Hillary against McCain will be electoral suicide, and they also know that Obama brings the opportunity for a landslide on account of his amazingly broad appeal. So the smart money is on Obama, and I think the superdelegates who are still undecided will for the most part follow that. Hillary already has her loyal followers who assumed she was the sure bet from the beginning, but now that that is over, we are left with the smarter delegates, and they take their votes seriously.

[NC4Obama]

Just dont count the super delegates.

[Boadicea]

Excellent idea.

Or have them all vote in one "superdelegate primary" and allot them the appropriate number of delegates.

And I think rescheduling Michigan and Florida is the only way to seat them in a brokered convention. If the DNC goes back on that decision and rolls over for the Clintons, that will definitely be the end for the Dems in November. There would be a revolt and the party would split.

[naschkatze]

Rep. Tim Walz, D-MN, just gave his superdelegate vote to Obama because he wanted his vote to reflect the will of the people of Minnesota. I think if the superdelegates do this from here out, the voters will feel that the Democratic primary process has been more, well, democratic. Those who have already cast their votes in states where the victory has clearly been either Clinton's or Obama's could recast them. What I don't like is the superdelegates who cast their votes before the voting took place in their constituencies. I also really don't like Dean's statement either. He did not do it single-handedly, but he helped to form the rules of this Democratic primary, and now he is wiping his hands of the problems like Pontius Pilate.

[Lemeritus]

Not only do the super delegates check the windsock before they land, but there are 489 of these masked marauders whose decisions are not tied to any popular mandate whatsoever. If we assume the governors, senators and representatives will at least go through the motions of voting their constituents' wishes, there are "the others" who can do anything they please.

I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't like it!

[TheOtherMaven]

It's been a long, LONG time since we had a nomination decided at the National Convention. And what's wrong with that, anyway? If the National Convention isn't the final arbiter, then GET RID OF IT.

If it IS the final arbiter, then cut down on the songs and dances beforehand. Forbid ANY primaries before, say, March 21 of the election year, divide the states up into a bunch of roughly equal groups (which may mean that 800-pound gorillas like New York and California have to be "groups" of one), spread them out evenly, and rotate them so that no one group has a permanent advantage.

But above all, PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

[ceu]

Agreed. I don't see what the huge problem is about having the nomination go to the convention - except for in-fighting among the supports of the candidates, many of whom are acting like the candidate they don't support is the spawn of Satan & anyone who supports him/her must be a complete idiot. Not good for party unity.
I remember (vaguely, I was young) the convention that nominated Kennedy. IIRC, it went to a number of rounds of voting and that worked out pretty well. Conventions used to be interesting and exciting to watch...now all they are are giant pep rallies. For the most part, the public doesn't watch or care.
I mentioned it on Bob Cesca's live blog Tuesday night & he insisted (repeatedly) that the DNC wouldn't let it go to a convention.

I would modify your suggestion about dividing the states into groups of roughly the same number of delegates. Rather, I would divide the states regionally. It would certainly save money if all of New England went to the primaries on the same day - advertising wouldn't have to be purchased repeatedly (once for NH, again a month later for MA & CT then again a few weeks later for VT, etc.), campaign trips could concentrate on one area rather than crisscrossing the country, from GA to CA to IL and back, etc. We in CT don't get a lot of attention from any of the candidates (although Clinton & Obama each held events here on Tuesday) so a lot of folks hit the roads to NH in order to get more than a soundbite on a candidate's position. Think of the savings in gasoline & plane fuel!! That's not even to mention that the candidates wouldn't be so exhausted from all the travel that they couldn't think straight.

[shawninCT]

you're nuts.

voting now doesn't mitigate controversy.

you think that if the delegates vote now and nominate the candidate with less non-superdelegates that's ok?

[JAJ2007]

The main problem I have with this idea is that superdelegates can change their votes (at least under the current rules)

So - let's say Maxine Waters (who endorsed Clinton and who is a superdelegate from California by way of her being a Congresswoman) decides (for what ever reason) she no longer wants to "vote" for Clinton. If the superdelegates vote now, they won't be able to change as easily.

In addition, most superdelegates (at least members of congress) wait until their districts vote, and then endorse (vote) for whoever takes their district (A Minnesota congressman did this yesterday.)

I think that if Obama continues the momentum and the fund-raising prowess, the superdelegates will support him.

[LunaNik]

I have a better idea. Get rid of the superdelegates. The very idea attacks the root of our democracy: one man, one vote. Not to mention it smacks of buying votes.

Here's an even better one: abolish the electoral college altogether. We no longer need it.

[Clinton]

Excellent ideas.

[TedB]

I agree. The superdelegate program was created to insulate the party insiders from the will of the people. Eliminate it!