My Representative, the Superdelegate

So let me get this straight: superdelegates can either A) echo the voice of the people or B) circumvent the will of the people.

They can either do nothing or fuck everything up. Great.

In the nominating process, they are a vestigial tail that serves no positive purpose but can get cancer.

My rep, the Honorable Diane Watson of California's Fightin' 33rd, has pledged her support to Hillary Rodham Clinton. No word on whether the 61-37 asskicking Barack Obama administered in her district will sway her one way or the other.

Rep. Watson is hardly alone in being out of step with her constituents. But at least she has constituents.

You know who else has pledged his allegiance to Hillary? Superdelegate Walter Mondale. No kidding. Mondale, who enjoyed the support of almost all 700 superdelegates in 1984, has thrown in with the establishment candidate, for the moment ignoring the 67-32 thumping HRC received in Minnesota (the only state Fritz carried in '84). Is there a better illustration of this whole past v. future meme than Walter Mondale casting his superdelegate vote for Hillary Clinton despite a 35-point victory by Barack Obama in Minnesota?

At least Rep. Watson will have to stand for election in November after possibly alienating 61 percent of her support with her convention vote. Mondale can tell the Democrats of the Husker Du state to go jump in one of their 10,000 lakes with impunity.

Same with former House Speaker Tom Foley. He's a Hillary guy too. Never mind that Washington state went 68-31 for Obama. Both of Washington's senators -- Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray -- have pledged support to Hillary, though one would hope they might fear electoral reprisal if they don't quietly align with their constituents by the time of the convention. But Tom Foley? What's to keep him from essentially exercising voter nullification? (Note: Foley's predecessor as House Speaker, Jim Wright, is also on board for Hillary, though his former Texas district won't vote until next month.)

Now the standard party establishment talking point here is to throw Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick back in the face of Obama supporters. Fair enough. I'd be perfectly comfortable with elected officials being obliged to vote in lockstep with their constituencies. I don't think you'd hear any complaints from the Obama camp on that one.

But what goalpost-moving campaign do you suppose would be mortified if superdelegates were forced to echo the votes of their constituents? (Bill Clinton likes to say how often the voters get it right, but just in case they don't in this instance, I'm guessing he won't be above some superdelegate arm-twisting.)

What if all those chyrons on all the cable news shows suddenly removed Sen. Clinton's superdelegate advantage and we saw her trailing by almost a hundred pledged delegates?

Superdelegates may have been created by the party to protect the voters from themselves. But in the event that -- by a very narrow margin -- the voters get it right, who will protect us from the party?

Comments

[jason10006]

What is funny about these hourly posts from bloggers on Huffpost is that they ALL seem to assume that Obama will go into the convention with the most votes and/or delagates. What if he doesn't, and Hilary is ahead by 1 delagate and like 1,000 voters? Will they get out there spreadsheets and figure out which formuala neta Obama the most supers? (By district, by state, by some combination of both.)

I can gurentee you that no matter what the outcome, the Obamaniacs will be screaming "we wuz robbed!" because obvioulsy their messiah cannot lose.

[zull2]

Not just your rep, it's also the heads of various associations that you do not belong to, whom were never voted into office by ordinary voters. The purpose of superdelegates could be in part due to a snotty disdain of the common man by the party establishment, or they could just be the safety net when deciding close primaries. Either way, though, the potential for them to "spoil" a nomination away from the average party voter is there, and that's not good for the party at all. The result is you end up with a lot of voters that pledged votes, time, work, money to their favored candidate that was just sent down by party insiders. Makes it rather hard to get up the motivation to go out and vote in the general election for whomever the superdelegates decided to appoint as king or queen. The thought "well, all those superdelegates and that person's supporters will probably be enough" will go through a lot of folks heads...then they will decide they have something else that they have to do.

Not saying its the most responsible thing to do at all, quite the opposite, but when it happens, Republicans get elected even though they shouldn't have had a prayer.

[Hilton]

I was a newly arrived immigrant in 2000. I watched fascinated as that year’s presidential election played out. Did the Republicans steal the election? Did Theresa LePore make a monumental blunder by inventing and implementing the infamous “butterfly ballot” thereby confusing the elderly voters in Palm Beach County and costing Al Gore Florida?

One fact that is clear is that the Democrats won the popular vote. They have been griping ever since and the country has become increasingly divided on partisan lines.

How then can the Democrats even contemplate allowing the primary elections to be decided by any method other than the popular vote? The candidates have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the elections and now it seems that the candidate will be selected by the old buddy system. One of the candidates and his/her supporters will be left feeling aggrieved. And they will be right.

The party appears to be following the old adage of “do as I say, not as I do”. By so doing the Democrats will be a divided party, come November. They should win this election, but for the third straight Presidential election, the Republicans will be in a position to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

[WASanford]

I think we should do away with the party nomination process all together. There is a way to accomplish that, but it might mean changing the archaic Electoral College. The present system disenfranchises too many of our citizens and smaller parties such as the Greens and Libertarians.

Every four years, anyone who wants to run for president registers with the Federal Registers Office (or we could call it the Federal Elections Office). There should be some requirements such as a large number of signatures of endorsement, etc to qualify for the ballot, enough to keep the ballot from becoming a large book. Give the candidates say, 3 months or so to convince us to vote for him/her. On Election Day, the voters fill out a ballot that allows them to pick three names and rank them in their order of preference this allows for an immediate run off in the event of a tie. The Electoral College meets to rubberstamp the results of the election.

Bang there it is, no more bitching about super delegates, no more caucuses, and no intervention by the Supreme Court, just one short and sweet, federally financed election!

[DHeil]

Kevin: You nailed it. Spot on. Imagine this headline if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination on the backs of superdelegate votes:

"Party Insiders Overturn Potential First Black President"

I am not saying Barack deserves to win because he is black. I am saying that the Democratic establishment, which is largely white, will have that DIRECT EFFECT. And that establishment will be guilty of killing a black man's nomination, supported by the votes of the American people.

Riots in the streets? I'm a white man, but damn, I'd support the riots if superdelegates override the will of the people to elect Barack.

[kellygrrrl]

should the Democratic Nominee be chosen by the Superdelegates, that would be a SHAME

Should the nominee be chosen by the FLA and MI primaries, that would be a CRIME!!!!

I am far more worried about the latter than the former

[Halsey]

I have asked EVERYONE..how did "we" end up..with both caucuses AND superdelegates..I don't get it...my parent..both rapid republicans..didn't get to vote...NO...it was a caucus!...winner take all...my gawd..when did this happen..who invented this crap..to say nothing of the "electoral college"... what the hell is wrong with a popular vote? am I nuts? isn't that democracy? (yes...I know.Nixon won the popular vote over Kennedy's electoral college vote...BUT ...GORE won hands down (even with chits)...the popular vote in 2000.

I want democracy...whatever the outcome...
each person, one vote..period..end of story..

[sandyfeets]

And you should have democracy if you were living in one. But this is a republic, not a democracy, despite the way that word is bandied about. And republics are designed to protect the important people and throw enough bones to the rest of us to keep us quiet. So if you expect the party leadership to look out for you, forget it. I live in Florida and saw my vote dismissed by the party. And they call themselves Democratic! My vote for President didn't count, so why should yours?

[jwb]

Does anybody have a list of names and addresses of these superdelegates?

[BillCarson]

Good question. A quick Google search gives..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Democratic_Party_Superdelegates

The following one seems more up to date, they also have a count of delegates (w/o MI & FL) (Obama's ahead) vs superdelegates (Hillary's ahead)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

If Obama wins the delegate count, but the supers (or Michigan or Florida, etc) throw the nomination to Hillary, you can watch it all hit the fan.

[jwb]

Thank you, BillCarson.

[babyboomerorig]

We just found out last night that here in WI, we have a superdelegate who is 21 and never voted. How ignorant is that?

[WASanford]

Kevin maybe you should go over to the Daily Kos and read DHinMI's post titled "The Doctor is [IN]" where the Democratic Party's nominatiating process is breifly explained.
I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't be complaining about this process if all of the superdelegates were committed to Obama and Hillary was ahead in committed delegates. If you want to change the rules for this election it's too late, 2005 was the year to do that. I agree with you that it's a screwed up process but changing the rules during the game is even worse!

[Myrrhis]

No argument there, WA, the rules for this go round are set.

Ok, so the super delegates can vote in any way they choose. And what if they vote against the candidate who won the popular vote and the highest number of pledged delegates as well as the greatest number of states? What should our response be?

I don't think you'll see too many people deciding to vote in lock step with that one.

[frenchynyc]

...the "rules" are against the very tenents of democracy...but "to change the during the game is worse"...jesus...this is why McCain will win - if you think the majority of the party that is alienated by super delegates will then vote for the "imposed" nominee...WRONG! I sure wont' be...will just vote for McCain...at least he won his primary "fair and square"!

[MidwestBlue]

"I'm so proud of Justice Alito. I'm so proud of playing a role in getting his nomination through the United States Senate, he and Justice Roberts; and, I've said many times that my nominees as President will be people like Roberts and Alito," McCain said.

[JohnDavidMyself]

Okay, one more time. Right or wrong, the existence of superdelegates has been part of the Democratic Party's nominating process since the early 80's. The implementation of superdelegates did not include a requirement that they vote as did their district, state, etc (irrelevant anyway for the superdelegates who do not or have not held an elective office). They were intentionally left as 'independent' votes. One may not like that system, but sorry man, it is what it is.

Don't like that arrangement, then work with your party to change the nature (or even existence) of superdelegates. Whining about it in the midst of the nominating season is just, well...whiny.

The candidates knew of and understood the system (I'm making an assumption here). I believe that one plays by the rules in force at the beginning of the contest. You're concerned that the actions of superdelegates may interfere with your perception of 'the voters getting it right'. Fair enough. Then work harder to have your preferred candidate win. Don't like the height of the net; then your shot will have to change to clear it. Do what you think needs to be done to accomplish your goals. Fretting about the rules and conditions diminish you.

[JoDeeVa]

Thanks, JohnDavidMyself..for providing some clarity about this issue for those hysterical naysayers. The candidates most certainly understood the rules. Given that, if popular vote, delegate count and SUPER delegates are not in sync, regardless of the rules..the Democratic Convention just might be the site of some "Chicago '68-ish" style riots, or at least, that 's what the threat is!

I'm with you..the heat of the election is not the time to be claiming prejudiciality on the part of the SUPER delegates..sour grapes and all. And, yeah..it's just plain whiney. Maybe those people raising hell about this will pay attention to campaign reform next time around, eh? But, for now? I'd have to say to all of them.."if it was YOUR candidate reaping the harvest of SUPER delegates, regardless of the circumstances, would you still be so intent on insisting that the opponent's argument (the one you offer now) be considered valid?" Because, if so, I have NO DOUBT, Hillary Clinton's camp will happily oblige!
And, BTW? I wonder if Ted Kennedy/John Kerry will be giving up their SUPER delegate status, along with all of Massachusetts delegates to Hillary? ...be careful what you ask for!

[DHeil]

JDMyself: You truly believe the argument you just threw out above? Read your argument again. What does it say?

1. "Sorry Man", but we've always done it this way, so why change what has always been?

2. If we don't like the unfairness of it, work within the rules made up by the rich and powerful to change those rules.

3. And if it IS unfair, wait till the next election to change it, not now.

If you see your own argument and can stand by it, you're dishonest and morally corrupt. If you don't see your own argument for what it is, you have a MASSIVE BLIND SPOT.

Either way, your argument is way off base.

[JimR]

Actually he's right on target. The rules for the Democratic nominating process were set going into this election season. Superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Florida, Michigan stripped of delegates, etc.

Now, some people don't like the potential outcome and want to change the rules. It's a bit like if the Patriots asked for a new rule in the third quarter of the Super Bowl that if a guy catches a ball with his helmet, it doesn't count.

If Democrats try to change their own rules midstream, the GOP is going to have a FIELD DAY with that. "They want to run the country? They can't even run their own convention!"

[nads2985]

The only one of those statements that is close to what the original poster is arguing is number three, which is precisely what Obama supporters are arguing regarding Michigan and Florida. THAT is a massive blind spot.

[oldpotsmuggler]

To me, it's an odd situation. Hillary went quite far right at the opening, seemingly to position herself against a charge of "flip flopping" in the general. Doing so, she left Obama plenty of room to the left. One might have thought that the battle in the Primary would be farther left, perhaps like Edwards, or even as far as Kucinich. Instead, Obama takes the opening and squeezes himself into the very next slot left of Clinton. Now we're fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party at a position that is right of center, and doing so in a time when we have both unpopular military adventurism, and an economic meltdown.

And the major concern I see exhibited on our side is that we may not be far enough right to win. After that, the mystery is still how far left each front runner is going to be willing to move in the process of trying to govern.

To make things even more peculiar, as if anyone would have thought that possible, no one seems to be able to find a strategy to move the votes of the majority of the American people as far left as their beliefs clearly are.

[Soulsurfer]

The Bush Administration is more responsible for pushing people to the left than anything else. Anyone paying attention for the past 8 years is unhappy with at least 1 of their policies, and people like me haven't seen anything that agreed with them. The warmongers are in the minority, but they own everything, so open wide and swallow unless you plan to get out and vote, and possibly do more if they succeed in stealing another election.

[Pietro]

94,000 votes of independents aren't being counted by the Dem machine! In California, an unprecedented number of Decline-to-State voters (mostly independents probably) rushed to the polls last Tuesday to vote in the Democratic Party primary. But at least HALF of these voters in Los Angeles County -- 20% of the electorate in the largest election jurisdiction in America -- are now finding out that their vote was rejected because they "failed" to fill out a meaningless bubble on a confusing ballot.

We don't know if -- as the Los Angeles Daily News speculated -- the "double bubble" debacle "could affect the number of delegates each candidate gets -- potentially determining the Democratic nominee for president." We do know that, no matter the speculation, we can't take one vote for granted.

Spread the word. Count every vote: http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdf9034d7f5ce27/OroJRX/VEsB/

[gallery]

Very astute (and funny) Kevin,
Good thing I was in between sips when I read the line about the "10,000 lakes".
This is going to either sink the party, or restore it.
I think it will be the latter. I loved Bill in office. I do not dislike Hillary, but if it's about the choice of the people, or the choice of the party, I'm going with the people.
We've already seen a presidential election stolen with the help of the supremes. I would hate to see how ripped this country becomes if the popular choice is disregarded because of an outdated concept to ensure "balance"
Bill was a great president. If it comes down to dirty tricks to win, his legacy will be shot.

[oceankat]

When Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry come out and say they will respect the will of the voters of Mass and support Clinton I'll believe you, Obama, and his supporters are serious about this. Until then I'll continue to think you're just playing to win and you don't care how. Same as Clinton.

[BadChristian]

Oh yeah...

Mondale going for Hillary... That is sad.

Urban center was absolute Obama.

This really could be the year that Democrats lose the urban centers.

I can't believe it.