The "Superdelegates": Always Intended to be Independent

There is certainly a valid concern expressed by those who fear that the 796 "superdelegates" to the August 2008 Democratic National Convention -- Democratic elected officials, party officials and VIPs - might make the difference in delivering the nomination to the candidate who wins fewer pledged delegates out of the primaries and caucuses. To some, such a result would seem "undemocratic."

But let's not rewrite history. When the superdelegates were first created by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, they were intended to be independent, able to vote for any candidate, regardless of the outcome of the primaries or caucuses in their own congressional districts or states.

I know, because I was a member of the DNC from Maryland in 1982 when the first superdelegates were created. I and many other DNC members initially had concerns about the concept.

One of the main reasons I and others changed our minds was the data on Democratic turnout since the 1972 party reforms mandating that all delegates be elected in primaries or caucuses.

That data showed that in primary elections, the turnout among Democrats was often well below 50 percent. And in caucus states, where voters had to show up at a particular time and place and wait up to several hours before voting, the turn out was often as small as 10%-20% or often much less.

That data raised a real concern as to how truly representative a convention elected by such a narrow band of base activists truly was. We noticed, for example, that at the 1980 convention there were few governors, members of Congress, and mayors who represented the broader electorate of voters in the Democratic Party and in the general election.

It did not seem entirely coincidental that the nominees since the Democratic Party reforms -- Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter for reelection in 1980 -- suffered landslide defeats.

We were also reminded that before these reforms, the "smoke-filled rooms" of Democratic Party leaders had led to the nomination and election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. Not bad.

So we understood that there needed to be some adjustment. The compromise decision finally adopted after much debate was to permit a relatively small percentage of the convention of elected and party officials -- 20 percent -- to be independent delegates. That meant that four-out-of-five delegates then and now at the 2008 convention would be elected from primaries and caucuses.

The suggestion now being made by some that the original intention was for superdelegates merely to mirror the results of their respective congressional district primaries and caucuses, is nonsense. That would have been illogical. Why create them at all if that were the case?

Some superdelegates may prefer to wait until all the primaries and caucuses are over before making their minds up. Others have already decided, in conscience, that Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would make the strongest candidate and the best president. The rules that have been in place permit either decision.

But if independent superdelegates now seem problematic after 26 years to some people, then let the debate begin about eliminating them. But only after the 2008 Democratic Convention - not before.

There is one principle we learned as kids in schoolyards and on which all should agree, whether supporters of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton:

Don't change the rules in the middle of the game or, more accurately, don't game the rules to change the outcome.

Mr. Davis, a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, served as a Maryland Democratic National Committeeman from 1980-1992, and served as Special Counsel to President Clinton from 1996-98.

Comments

[MrsBoomer]

Oh Lanny, seems like in a democracy the superdelegates would cast their votes to the candidate the PEOPLE choose in the primaries. Why would you think otherwise, unless of course your pal Hillary stands to gain from your so-called "independent" superdelegates?
Do you believe we'll stand by quietly with our thumbs in our ears while our Democratic candidate with the majority of the popular vote loses to votes cast by "independent" superdelegates? Dream on, dear.

[kingofscotts]

What part of Mr. Davis' post are you huffbots unable (or unwilling) to understand?

If the superdelegates simply voted the way their precinct or state voted then why would you have them? Present a logical argument on that and I will crown you the smartest person on Huffpo.

If your argument is that we shouldn't have superdelegates (which I agree with) then make it after the election not in the middle of it.

Maybe if you huffbots had been more informed about your own party a year or more ago you would have been championing the removal of this system BEFORE the election.

Instead you have no idea how your own party works until you feel it could hurt your candidate.

[PresidentRaygun]

Don't change the rules in the middle of the game or, more accurately, don't game the rules to change the outcome.

Mr. Davis, a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, served as a Maryland Democratic National Committeeman from 1980-1992, and served as Special Counsel to President Clinton from 1996-98.

I find it interesting this admonition at the bottom from Mr. Harris, a Clinton Supporter. Has he taken to task Clinton's wanting to seat delegates from two states that violated rules, that she agreed would not have delegate representation at the convention. This seems to be talking out of two sides of your mouth, Mr. Harris.

[desertblues]

I don't want my party's candidate chosen by those who are not Democrats but have been allowed to participate. The superdelegates are probably a necessary evil this time. Read Gail Collins op-ed in todays NY Times on the caucus voting for a real eye-opener!

[AnninCA]

Thanks, I will. This entire momentum over caucus states has peaked my interest.

[raptor]

The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/opinion/14collins.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ghiaurov1]

The opponents to the superdelegates do so primarliy on the ground that they might not represent the "vote of the people." What they fail to realize is that the participant in caucases are effectively superdelegates on a state-level. No one has, or can, argue that a caucus allows for a representative cross-section of any state. The very nature of a caucas excludes a signitificant portion of the Democratic base, working-class voters unable to get the time off from work needed to participate in an hours-long process. (Caucus in the evening? Guess what, a lot of people, like me, are required to work an evening-shift.) Yes, get rid of the superdelegates, after the convention. (You can't change rules in mid-stream just because you fear the result. Candidates based their strategy on the rules as they were laid out at the start.) But put a halt to the caucus system as well; it's equally unrepresentative. I was denied my right to vote because of the caucus system and have an equal right to complain.

[SethBLiNK]

Like so many things the democrats do, Superdelegates were a permanent solution to a temporary problem and nobody has ever before bothered to look at the situation between elections and adjust it.

McGovern and Carter were selected in low turnout primaries. That is certainly not the case this year and, one would suppose will never again be the case in a tight election without a clear runaway favorite being decided ahead of time.

I don't oppose the idea of superdelegates. Governors, Senators and Representatives, all of whom have been elected by constituencies can help decide a nomination. A handful of other party dignataries make sense as well. But 500 unelected officials. That's crazy.

If you need those party faithful to steer the platform, fine, but leave them out of the presidential race.

The democrats seem incapable of seeing into the future. Had Howard Dean said to Florida and Michigan... "this year we have a close race and having your primary late rather than early will make it more important," we wouldn't have the mess we do now.

The superdelegate system as it stands now stinks, but you're right. The time to change it is right after this election.

[ajax2]

Start of debate:

Get rid of Superdelegates.

End of debate.

[myskylark]

Start of debate - part 2
Get rid of super-undemocratic caucuses.
End of debate - part 2

[colleen2]

The fact that the Democratic party has been engaged in such a blatantly undemocratic practice for 26 years does not make it any less repulsive. The notion that one vote is the equivalent of almost 10,000 votes from ordinary people belongs to the 19th century. I am not at all surprised to see this spin coming from a Clintonista.

[AnninCA]

Yes, we wierdos actually think commitment matters.

What odd balls we are!

[Yman]

I wholeheartedly agree with those who feel the use of "super"delegates is undemocratic. The nomination rules need to be changed, although it will have to happen after this election. That being said, those of you who are complaining about this because you're Clinton-haters are not going to persuade anyone. Anyone who uses words like "Clintonista" and lumping "Slick Willy" in with Bush to claim that "they" destroyed this country (see prior posts) is in dire need of a reality check. My candidate (john Edwards) is already out. If Obama wins the nomination, I'll gladly support him as his policies will be vastly superior to the "Bush 3" offerings of McCain. On the other hand, if Clinton is the nominee, it would not be surprising that those of you on the Clinton-hating left will be responsible for electing McCain. If you do, the responsibility will be yours, but we'll all have to live with the consequences.

P.S. Oh - by the way, stating that "Abortion will become rare when men learn self control" is sophomoric. Except is cases of rape, BOTH parties need to use self-contr­ol/birth-c­ontrol of they want to avoid an unintended pregnancy. Although the reasons for all of the "Slick Willy" hatred is becoming pretty obvious.

[john456]

I do not support Hillary Clinton, but you are correct. The Super delegates are doing exactly what they are supposed to do; break a deadlock where no candidate has a majority. The problem is that the primaries were pushed up to ensure an easy road for Hillary (kind'a trying to make sure it is an early coronation) That didn't work and my guess is that Hillary would have far fewer delegates if we were still operating under the older strungout primary system. The problem now is what to do about Florida and Michigan. Michigan has an August 5th primary (I know August 5th is late but think of the media coverage and free publicity) that can be used and the Party may have to suck it up and pay for a redo of the Florida Primary.

[FirstShirt]

From CNN:

"[Superdelegates] are the keepers of the faith," said former San Francisco, California, Mayor Willie Brown. "You have superdelegates because this is the Democratic Party. You don't want the bleed-over from the Green Party, the independents and others in deciding who your nominee will be."

Heaven forbid we let those independents and others who don't know the secret handshake in to the process.

[MSaldana]

I take it that those "independents and others" need not be shut out of the primaries -- they need just register as democrats! They can't complain about not being at the party if they don't respond to the invitation!

Relatedly, it is interesting to note that those states with "open" primaries are the only ones susceptible to the shenanigans of people from the opposition party, who can skew the results for what are surely less than noble reasons.

-MS

[SouthCentralDel]

change the rules? No one wants to change the rules. For better or worse, the Democratic party will be torn apart if the superdeligates go against the electorate, period. Voters will rebel in large numbers, jeopardizing the presidential election.

I hate that Florida and Michigan's votes will not count. We must make some amend so that a true election with all Democratic parties are fully participating--so we ensure an accurate vote in those states.

[ntmessage]

The issue is that FL and MI already voted - fair and square - from their perspective. We are talking about millions of voters. Changing the rules has already happened.

Re-voting now changes the dynamic of the voter’s intent at that time. These votes must be counted, for any resemblance of consistency of the "let the voters decide" rhetoric. The same so-called super delegates are the same group insiders that disenfranchised FL and MI.

Do over’s advantage Obama. Not counting super delegate advantage Obama as well as constitutes a change of the rules again. Not counting FL and MI also constitute a change of the rules. Now we want to make them up as we go along. Brilliant!

All the “rule changes” just before during and after the election all look like they advantage Obama and make the process look corrupt.

Why not just count all the votes – voters, delegates, super delegates as accepted democratic processes dictate?

[JimR]

The rules, including stripping FL and MI of their delegates, were set before the primaries got started - before the "game" started, if you will. You can change the rules before the game. You can change the rules after the game. But not during.

[suntzu]

"Why not just count all the votes " voters, delegates, super delegates as accepted democratic processes dictate?"

If in fact the processes are democratic, yes, this is the ideal. But I am not as sanguine as you are that by "democratic" some pols understand "insider dealing."

[jeanniem]

Mr. Harris, I am 54, a lifelong Democratic voter, with absolutely no involvement in the mechanics and machinery of the Democratic party. You must come to grips with the fact that the Democratic party has shown a significant failure in seizing the initiative and addressing the critical and root rot that is threatening middle class America. We feel it, Obama recognizes it and speaks to us.

There are two scenarios I find unacceptable:
-Changing the rules in the middle of the game.
-A majority of elected delegates supporting Obama, even by 1 vote, and Clinton getting the nomination by superdelegate support.

There is an inherent contradiction, but the nation is in crisis. The Dem party faces the possibility of becoming an irrelevancy, unable to address the very real and critical demands of the day. You can count on the mass defection of voters like me and the formation of a new major political party. There is no rhetoric capable of masking a tin ear.

The path forward must embrace transparency. The vital needs of this country and its citizens must be paramount in your decisions, and personal ambition secondary. If you can't do that, you will lose.

[mikekev58]

Who is Mr. Harris?

[ntmessage]

Characterizing the arguments for Obama as “the will of the people”, juxtaposing Clinton as “the will of the state” continues as the most inconsistent and hypocritical out there.

When you count Florida and Michigan, which is clearly the will of the people who have voted; Clinton's chances look much better – remember those are the voter’s decisions. When you take those states away which was clearly the will of the state as it favors Obama – remember that was the states decision.

Now – disingenuously and vapid of most remote objective analysis – the super delegates are the “will of the state”. That is rich, and would be hilarious except that the stakes are the highest possible, equal to Bush unilaterally invading Iraq.

How obviously wrongheaded and dangerous for the country. The media continues to ignore this fact by characterizing the serious issue the other way around. Just as they did not have the guts to challenge Bush on the war, they are scared to death to challenge the “state” - in this case the unilateral decision of the DNC/DLC to disenfranchise millions of voters.

In addition, our country will again be worse for it since the media has again abdicated their duties to be objective and ask the hard questions equally on principal – no matter how unpopular that decision is at the time.

[TurnThePageGA]

Let me say this again. If Hillary is within 10 pledged delegates of Obama at the end of the process then I would say give her the nomination since she is the incumbent and a tie (10 vote different is essentially a tie) goes to existing champion. But if Obama has anything near a 50 "PLEDGED" candidate lead and it is overturned by superdelegates then she will lose in the fall cause this party will not be united. The most loyal of all constituencies of the Democratic Party will sit this election out and there won't be a DAMN thing Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, John Lewis, Maya Angelou, Magic Johnson, Andy Young, 50 Cent, Bob Johnson, Alcee Hastings, Quincy Jones, Bill Gray, Willie Gary, Tavis Smilley, Ron Dellums, David Scott, Corrine Brown, David Dinkins, Kendrick Meek, Stephanie Tubbs, Iyala Vanzant, Julian Bond, Diane Watson, John Street, and the rest of 'um can do about it. There will be no KUMBAYA if they pull that BS.

[Beamreach]

Hillary is no more the encumbent than Obama. They are both simply US Senators - they are equal.

[JamesEB]

Wait, how is Hillary the "incumbent?"

[AnninCA]

There will not be a united party at this point.

That's a dream.

So get over it, Democrats.

This is McCain's to lose.

[JimR]

There's a problem with your logic, especially in Michigan. If the will of any of the voters there was to vote for Obama or Edwards or Kucinich, etc., they were out of luck, because only Hillary Clinton's name appeared on the ballot.

[jakibaez]

The democrats should release the Florida's delegates to Hillary. I happen to be one of the voters and I didn't vote for nothing. Once again,Florida will not go to the polls for the democrats in November. This state will stay red, mind you. What bothers me the most is that every media and newspapers have enjoyed this year in bashing Mrs. Clinton on past mistakes, and not bring Mr. Obama's errors. One error in that in August, 2006 US Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] made a special trip to visit a special man in Kenya. The man's name was Raila Amolo Odinga. He is the head of the National Muslim Leaders Forum .But, by hook or crook, Odinga is determined to become the president of Kenya. If he succeeds, he will be president for life and Kenya will become another Afghanistan. Why would our american nominee be involved in "this country's" future. This does not go well with me.

[AnninCA]

That sucks, big-time!

My regrets to you. Florida voters DO matter....­.terrifica­lly.

You are a swing state. You matter a lot.

[hinnis]

This is just one of the many things voters do not know about Obama. The Republicans, however, do, and they will be attacking him with glee if he becomes the nominee. It is no accident that the same press, who once ignored virtually all of Bush's failures and blunders, is now ignoring all of Obama's weaknesses. We are being set up again, and we will have only ourselves to blame.

[hinnis]

P.S. Odinga claims to be Obama's cousin. Don't know if that's true.

[vsign]

I don't think there will be freedom of speech under a President Barack Obama. His followers don't want it.

I could compare this Obama movement to Jim Jones leadership. The drinking of the kool aid came when an investigation began.

Maybe it is more like the religious right taking over the republican party.

I think the best comparison is Nazi Germany where new technologies gave
Hitler's voice more influence than it should have had.

The republicans recognize the danger. They told their members to talk to
their children to make sure they weren't being influenced by Obama.

The danger is within.

[hank48188]

Obama is pretty good giving the "Big Speech, but I don't think he could work a crowd nearly as well as Hitler. If you've ever seen any footage of him in action you would be impressed, he would have the crowd almost foaming at the mouth.

[vsign]

Do you see any comparisons?

[Marrob]

Am a life long democrat and a Hillary supporter. I NEVER compare Obama to Hitler for ANYTHING!!

[SouthCentralDel]

vsign your paranoia maybe exceeds your possible drunkiness. Now I see how Bush got elected, with comments like those. But this is a free country, and you are free to think and feel as you wish.

[AnninCA]

Apparently, someone bothered to actually listen to his speech. Article on Real Clear Politics.

His surprise? The speech is filled with victimology and negativity.

I heard it from Day 1, but apparently people don't really listen carefully.

[JimR]

Link?

[AnninCA]

Bingo. We've been taken over by the Religious Left.

No doubt about it.

Except, I keep saying, if these people had any real spiritual life, they wouldn't have been so easily sucked in.

Now, whose fault is that?

Not Obamas, and I can't stand him.

But he simply took advantage of an obvious need in these people's lives.

[Roose]

"Don't change the rules in the middle of the game or, more accurately, don't game the rules to change the outcome."


This applies to Clinton's strategy, strong-arm the superdelegates into voting for her, seat both Michigan and Florida when she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan and the only one campaigning in Florida (breaking DNC rules) and finally, dismissing caucuses because they favored Obama.

If the Clintons should win by using any of the two scenarios listed above, John McCain will win in a landslide.

BTW: This Lanny Davis is the same one who was out shilling for Lieberman against Ned Lamont.

[ImayAgree]

I would love to find out when did Senator Clinton campaigned in Florida. I live in Fl and if what she did, attend a fund raiser, is campaigning then Senator Obama broke the rules too.

[sjl106]

Obama also ran national ads that directly hit Florida, he is just mad his magic kool-aid didn't work.

[TurnThePageGA]

I am from Pompano Beach, Fl. Lived in Jackonville, FL for 12 years. You can take the do over or ST Flip U.

[AnninCA]

She didn't. Obama put out that message. His supporters are still repeating it like it's fact.

It isn't.

They repeat a lot of stuff that's wrong.

[sjl106]

It is obama who wants to change the rules and not follow them, the Super Delegates were established to offset the dispairity among caucus goers and the will of the people, it also was established so repubs and independents weren't hijacking our party. The rightwing voted for obama overwhelmingly in VA not because they like him. Obama also wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million people in MI and FL he knows with those delegates Hillary is in a large lead.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Hillary did NOT campaign in Fla. But, Obama did run TV commercials there and broke the rules.

Both candidates did hold PRIVATE fund raisers in Fla which was within the rules.

Arriving in Fla after the voting finished to thank voters does not equal campaigning. Besides, the rule against campaigning in Fla ended AFTER the primary was over.

Also, Hillary's name was NOT theonly one on the ballot in Mich. Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd's name were on the ballet as well. And, the Mich state dem party begged ALL the candidates to leave their names on the ballot. Those who took their names off or left them on did not do so based on any requirement to do so. They each made their own decision based on what they wanted.

If you don't know what you are talking about, it's probably best to not talk.

[kinderworld]

Roose, you are right about Lanny Davis shilling for Lieberman (I am from CT and I remember seeing Davis on C-SPAN promoting Lieberman). It looks like he is pimping for Hillary now. He does not want to change the rules for the superdelegates but Hillary wants to change the rules for Florida and Michigan. Sounds inconsistent, but who cares about honesty and fairness when winning is all that matters?

[AnninCA]

WRONG. She never campaigned in Florida.

However, Obama ran ads.

Care to be truthful?