A Little Sunlight Please: The Super-Delegate Transparency Project

Between the battle over whether citizens of Michigan and Florida will see their delegates seated at the convention, and the uproar over what effect the super-delegates may have in this mother-of-all-races for the Democratic nomination, rank-and-file Democrats have plenty to be anxious about this primary season.

One of these problems was, quite simply, a very ill-conceived way to punish those states for moving up their primary dates. But, while I don't agree with the decision the DNC made in that instance, the more insidious and institutional of these un-democratic dealings is the shadowy super-delegate process.

The very real possibility of some kind of super-delegate debacle has got people on both sides of the Clinton-Obama divide all hopped up, with good reason. It brings into sharp focus the reality of how un-democratic our Democratic nomination process might be, and threatens the legitimacy of whichever candidate ends up winning.

If the super-delegates' votes count so much more than regular voters', it just seems fair that super-delegates should take the will of their constituents (if they currently represent some) into account when making their decisions.

Here's my question: Why are any super-delegates allowed to pledge anything before the primaries and caucuses actually start to take place? Part of the problem here is that back when Hillary Clinton was "inevitable," her campaign went around collecting early pledges. Some folks believe this could have had the effect of encouraging people like my U.S. representative, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey to play "inside baseball." For example, Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan is surprised by Woolsey's alignment with Clinton, but attributes it to "realpolitik considerations by the congresswoman known for adherence to liberal principles."

So, imagine being the other candidates in the months leading up to the primaries, going around like beggars, with hats in hand, trying to live off Clinton's super-delegate scraps.

And then The People started voting last month, and it was suddenly a very different political landscape. Shouldn't our political process represent that different landscape? Shouldn't the people's will be legitimized rather than flouted?

It cuts both ways for me, too. Super-delegates should vote according to the will of the people-the popular vote -- whether Clinton won that district or state, or whether they fall into the Obama column. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just scrap the current super-deg count and say "Do-Over!!" Members of Congress should vote according to who won their districts. Senators and governors should vote how their states go, etc. Wouldn't it be nice if they all planned to act like John Knutson, Maine's Democratic Party Chairman? Not sure what you do about super-delegates who are just sort of free-floating party power-brokers. Anyway. Sadly, it ain't gonna happen.

But, at the very, very least, it should be a completely transparent process. Which is why the Super-Delegate Transparency Project is striking a chord with folks. It's a joint effort of my blog, Literary Outpost, OpenLeft, numerous other blogs and volunteers, and we're drawing off the fine work being done at DemConWatch.

We seek to gather the primary and caucus results (district by district), to date and going forward, and then to track those results against how super-delegates are currently pledged -- and how they ultimately vote. We'd like to be able to call on solid evidence, not hypotheticals, when we attempt to decipher what kind of impact these super-delegates end up having on the Democratic nomination process.

When it's all over, we'll know who was naughty and who was nice to the rank-and-file voters across this land.

Volunteers are signing up to help compile the district numbers, and identify super-delegates. There's plenty of work to be done, so if your skills and passion are a good match for this project, by all means: Please sign up to help!

More Americans (especially Democrats!) than ever before are standing up to have their voices and choices heard in this election year. A small, elite group should not be able to cancel out the will of the people.

Isn't that called oligarchy?

Comments

[Nic]

The time to undo the crazy system is not during an election year. It should have been decided years ago. Maybe if more of you spent time working for and w/the Dems you could have made a difference. This isn't a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama invention. Don't get mad at or sad for one or the other candidate re:the awarding of delegates and super delegates.

[vsign]

Obama wants the super delegates to vote for him or he doesn't want them at all to be allowed to vote. He wants to be the affirmative action candidate. He has gotten everything that way in his life.

I hope the party stands tall for working people like me and says no to affirmative action for Obama. If he takes over my party - I'll walk.

I like working people. I don't really like the elites, the evangelicals, the republican independents he is bringing into the party. They are ok - they just are not who WE ARE.

I say, we the Democratic Party, need to be proud of who we are in this time of crisis that Obama has laid at our doorstep. Obama - the unifier? I think - NOT!

Bush the decider. Obama the unifier. Creepy!

[Estev]

Is there a "Flag as ill-informed" button?

If you don't like elites then you should be against super delegates deciding this nomination.

elite = a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party (courtesy of dictionary.com)

[Sceptic42]

Please stop spamming.

[jennix]

I second that.

[faust2001]

Being a registered independent, I find the whole process rather Soviet to begin with.

[jennix]

Funny you should say that...

Check this out:

http://literaryoutpost.com/blog/2008/02/07/who-pays-for-the-primaries/

[ProudLiberalDan]

The whole process is a crock -- from letting two small, rural states winnow our nominees to an electoral college that empowers small "states" at the expense of real-life citizens and voters.

However, even if it is a crock, it should be a transparent one, I think the proposal outline here is a common sense one.

If there are going to be superdelegates and they go against the votes of their district or state constituents, they should at least be asked to explain why.

A far better system would have been a two-round or ranked-choice voting primary, nationwide, similar to how we should directly elect our President.

[politicsnut]

just say no to super delegates. They encourage corruption and backroom dealings. The people has to make decisions in the Democratic party! Otherwise change the party's name to Russian party!
Let's create a movement and stop this nonsense, let only the votes count!

[Markometer10000]

As the person who came up with the idea for this wiki, I would like to put to bed any notion that the motivations are somehow 'pro-Obama'.

That simply isn't the case.

The project is focused on providing citizens with visibility to how the SDs impact their representation in the process of selecting a nomination.

If a certain rep wants to use their SD powers to vote in a way that is against the prevailing mood of their constituents, then this project isn't going to stop them.

But what this project will do is allow voters to know that it happened and to ask their representative to explain why it happened.

And since when is that sort of accountability a bad thing? It would seem to me that we need more of it.

So there are no hidden agendas here.If you want to join us, great. If you don't, that's fine too. But we are going to move ahead in our effort to centralize and make available information which we feel should be a matter of public record.

[DemPartyGirl]

"I would like to put to bed any notion that the motivations are somehow 'pro-Obama'."

That's because he whined that [superdelegates] "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'" And you're surprised people think you're pro-Obama?

I think you and the others behind this project are hyperventilating.

Superdelegates are defined as unpledged. Period. And actually, if the will of the people isn't clear about choosing a specific candidate as the nominee, then the superdelegates do have a legitimate role to play.

There is no law that superdelegates have to support whoever wins the popular vote, despite the fact that superdelegates like Jenny Greenleaf of Oregon and John Knutsen of Maine have gone on the record to say they will support whoever wins.

Your mistake is in treating superdelegates as though they vote in a monolithic bloc. Superdelegates aren't all "party elites." Many of them are average people are elected by county and state parties.

You are doing many superdelegates a disservice by making assumptions about them. Most of them came from the grassroots and are as far from elites as you can get.

[jennix]

Wrong, DemPartyGirl.

No one is saying anything about super-delegates all voting "as a bloc." Your imagination at work?

And the S-Ds ARE are a group of elites--that term doesn't only apply to the wealthy. Elites are any group that holds power over a larger group.

What exactly is your beef with transparency, friend?

[Markometer10000]

It's fine. You can make whatever judgements you want. If you think I'm hyperventilating, it really doesn't bother me. I am doing what I think is right as a citizen, as should you and everyone else.

Yes, many super-delegates are average people. You're right. But they are average people whose preference for the nominee will count about 100,000 times more than the average voter.

I don't you can give people that kind of authority over the process and expect that people won't ask questions.

[research]

Fixed at both ends: the war profiteering corporations pick the acceptable candidates and shut the rest out of the debates.

The DLC.ORG dem leadership picks loyal super deligates for swaying the final pick.

What a broken primary system we have.

[messy]

a super delegate's vote is worth no more and no less than a regular delegate's vote.

[jennix]

False.

[standforpeace]

Great post. It's about time that we started talking about these superdelegates. I've been wondering quite a bit about the Black members of Congress who pledged to Hillary Clinton early when many of their districts are going overwhelmingly to Barack Obama. What about John Lewis, civil rights movement legend and Georgia representative? Is he really going to defy the will of the voters in his district (and indeed his entire state) and stick it out with the Clintons to the end. My understanding is that the superdelegate decisions are not final until they vote at the convention. Am I wrong on this?

[thepilotswife]

Why is it that no one questioned the Super Delegates until it was known Senator Clinton had a substantial lead in endorsements??? Another attempt by the Obama campaign to whine......I will certainly enjoy watching Teddy and John Kerry forced to go with Hillary, since MA went to her!!!

[standforpeace]

I think a large part of the reason folks weren't questioning the role of the Super Delegates is that since the race is most often decided in January, most did not understand their role or even their existence. This reminds me of the furor over the Electoral College after the 2000 elections. Many on the losing side of that fight were arguing about the democratic principle involved in declaring a winner who had lost the popular vote. It's really not about whining but rather trying to make the Democratic Party selection process as fair as possible. I think that the people should decide elections plain and simple. Elected officials and party leaders should exercise their influence by organizing and mobilizing voters for the candidates they themselves support, not by getting to directly decide who the candidate will be.

If Hillary Clinton emerges as the winner of the primary process, then the Super Delegates should get behind her. Vice versa if Barack Obama is the winner. Otherwise we become the party of backroom deals and stolen elections.

[TASTIC]

Thanks for this article. There's no way that the so called "people's party" should be able to get away with hijacking Democracy.

I'll be going to the website and volunteering to do my part.

We have to keep these people honest. They have no allegiance to the voters and we need to remind them that they work for us.

[littleblackcat]

It's good to see everyone participating. Unhappily, we are very likely to simply have another spin on 2000 and 2004, The repus are doing everything they possibly can to make sure it comes down to a Clinton/mccain deal. Since some of the repus are not stupid, they will prey like buzzards on the brain-dead in this country who will NOT vote for either a woman or a black man. karl rove hasn't gone anywhere, his greasy fingerprints are all over the twisting and turning within the repu party. Repus are dancing with joy at the close contest and will have the Diebold toadies jimmy the workings on their machines if things don't seem to be going well for Hillary. It will amaze me if Obama wins since we are all dupes to electonic voting booths. If he does I fear for his very life, especially if he shows early on that too many people wrote him off for "inexperience" and stands the country on its ear with plans AND action, and we will have a repeat of the JFK-RFK horror. Their deaths killed the spirit of the nation and Obama's would start a strange groundswell of feelings. The repu party will go through mccain's "gates of hell" to make certain he is the next occupant of the oval office. And people still believe in God? May that entity, if it exists, help the dis-united States of America.

[Philip22]

Fairness for Florida and Michigan

It is my belief that Hillary will not get enough delegates to win the primary without Florida and Michigan. And, as we know, the DNC disowned the delegates of those two states. So why on the night of the Florida vote did Hillary say,
"I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence that you have given me today. And I promise you I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated, but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008."
This promise was directly against the rules that she herself had agreed to and the governing body, the DNC, had mandated. Why has she not been censured by the DNC?
We are facing a crisis even worse that 2000. I ask myself how can a country that is voting more than 2 to 1 democrat over republican in these primaries not elect a Democrat President? The answer that comes to mind is a delegate fight leading up to or at the convention. In my opinion the situation as it stands is untenable. The idea that the DNC would reverse itself and award the delegates would (or should) cause each Obama delegate to leave the convention. The idea that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would stand outside the Convention walls is unimaginable. Both events, and one is inevitable if things remain as is, spell one thing: President McCain.
It seems to me that each of us must call the DNC and Howard Dean to demand re-elections this spring in Florida and Michigan. The two states need a fresh start and this issue must be settled before the summer or the Democrats will look foolish, weak and disorganized. It is unfortunate that the DNC did not take the course that the RNC did which was to penalize the two states half their delegates but allow them to go ahead with their elections. We can not go back in time so the people of Florida and Michigan must be allowed to vote again.

[HighBeam]

I don"t think it will come to the convention for the SDs to decide. Howard Dean said he will get both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton together and get one to drop out of the race, probably after March 4th primaries. The person that has the most delegates, including Super Delegates will have the upper hand. The other will have the power to get what they want out of the deal. It could be VP, head of the Senate, or something like that. It appears that Sen. Obama won"t be in the strongest position and that is why you are seeing all of this "shine the light" stuff on HuffPost. They are trying to get more SDs to commit to Sen. Obama. It"s just another political ploy to help Sen. Obama win the nomination. Don"t get mad. It is just politics.

[CannaWupass]

As a Michigan voter, I have already called the state Democrat party and voiced my request for a Caucus in our state so I could cast a decisive vote...and we/they did move up our primary to elevate Michigan issues, so this would be a two-fer...we get to strip Hillary of her ill-gotten delegates and Michigan gets to be a king-maker instead of our heretofor status as primary jester.

Obama - 876 delegates
Clinton - 865 delegates

Obama has won more states and delegates. That's not including super delegates, which will no doubt switch to obama as he rolls the up-coming states.

[sjl106]

Here Canna. MSNBC and some others aren't giving you the accurate count on delegates, trying to keep the "dream alive".

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

Go to CNN also, they may have bias against Hillary but at least they aren't going to lie like others do.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[messy]

The Times' count is wrong. The only way the "suppressed" delegates could change is if Obama withdrew like Harkin did in 1992.

[Purple Girl]

THIS IS ANOTHER LAYER OF BULLSHIT!!
electorial College, nominating Delegates and now Super delegates. how many more layers will they stack on until they can say 'well Hillary won the ...' which supercedes the citizens votes.
CRIMINAL!!!!
I intend to scream and yell until a real election is held.
these Corp'ist have stacked the deck from day one of the campaigns.
they promised Hillary the win during the Lucheon with W. and they have fulfilled their promise to her to pull out all the stops and give her the Presidency.
I saw the change in her eyes when they walked out to the Rose Garden for the Media. That or they have been pumping her full of Afghany Heroine since( along w/ Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein- funny you can't see their eyes anymore ah? Reprogrammed products back on the market - but even more dangerous then before)
ELECTION FRAUD!!! they've moved far beyond the quaint use of changing chads and butterfly ballots - they pulled out all the bells and whistles for Her

an EX clinton supporter (supported Bill, will NOT supprt Hill)
Funny no one metions those of US who Hate Hillary Now BECAUSE of her Senate Tenure.

[messy]

No election fraud, it's transparent and strictly by the rules....which I think are unfair and should be changed by 2012, BUT the rules is the rules.

[HighBeam]

I don't want to sound mean, but have you ever taken a civics class? The Constitution of the United States establishes a representative government. You vote for representation. If you don't like it, you can work to change the Constitution. That's what amendments are for. Blogging on HuffPost will not get it done. And it won't stop the war, either.

[patrice37]

Purple is not making a constitutional argument. She is saying that party insiders should not be permitted to trump the choice of their own voters. You don't need a civics class to tell you that's a legitimate point.

Besides, we all know we all should chuck the electoral college. It should go the way of the constitutional provision that authorized state legislatures to elect U.S. Senators. But that's another story.

[horseface]

I came of political age in the 50s-60s: candidates weren't picked by the people, but by the PARTY, by die hards who got down & dirty and brokered deals that produced a great candidate. That process gave us JFK! Now what to we get? Celebrity voting with Ping And Pong - the Dem Twins.

Oh - and if you REALLY want to make change? Get rid of the Electoral College - otherwise a few big states will continue to count, while the rest of us SERFS wait to be counted.

[sjl106]

Purple show me where in the constitution it is up to the citizens to decide the vote. It has only been a progressive movement in this advance. Parties were never intended, elector's are embedded in the Constitution and the states have made it to reflect the will of the people. So far Obama doesn't have that will.