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.
These are the incumbent democratic leadership mucky mucks, NOT independents, and as you say: They picked Mondale!
Now is the time to DECIDE to change the system.
SuperDs were implemented to stop a bad candidate winning and not a firewall to over rule the will of the people when there are two worthy candidates. Stop with the mischaracterizations already. This is getting annoying coming from Clintonites that very obviously want to break the rules and the Party to get their way. It is almost sickening. It is comparable to Gore winning the popular vote, but the SuperDs give the Presidency to Bush.
This win at all cost strategy by the Clinton campaign is absolutely pathetic. Just like the load of bull you were spouting on TV today. It has got to stop! Obama supporters within the Party ranks will remember the lies that you spew and the unseemly tactics that the Clinton campaign is using. We will not forget.
A woman as President is simply not enough of a change that this Country needs. And if that is all you got, you got next to nothing.
Each of the Superdelegates Names should be posted on a Public Tote Board. Their vote for each candidate should reflect each individual superdelegates choice. On The Floor at the Convention. Problem solved...
You made the rules yourselves. Superdelegates carry about 20% of the democratic parties vote. The public has a right to visually see a recorded public vote.
http://www.superdelegates.org/
Then don't seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan. They didn't play by the rules and now Hillary wants to change the rules to her benefit.
If the superdelegates are truly "independent" then they all should feel free to vote as the majority of their electorate would like them to.
And if the genesis of the superdelegates was to correct a problem with Democratic voter turn out then obviously voter enthusiasm for Obama has rendered that argument moot.
I'm an Independent that registered Democratic to vote for Obama. I will be watching closely to see how the Democratic Party resolves this issue.
Eminently logical. The election may hinge on a small, but dedicated, proportion of voters. How to fix this "problem"? Hand a disproportionate share of the outcome to a much, much smaller number of voters.
(While the preceding was sarcasm, I do agree with: don't change/game the rules in the middle of the election)
And we're bad sports if we refuse to play by these rules?
That's democracy in action!
hillary would sell her soul and sell out the will of democratic party voters to have her power.
if she does so. i will advocate for her immediate resignation.
if she attains (not "wins") the white house she will be the same as bush and i will advocate for her IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT!!!!!
ABOLISH THE SUPERDELEGATES!!!!
NO ONE PERSON IS DESERVING OF A VOTE WITH THIS MUCH WEIGHT!!!!
ABOLISH THE SUPERDELEGATES OR ON PRINCIPLE WE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS AND DECLARE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE ILLEGITIMATE AND DEMAND THEIR RESIGNATION!!!
IF THEY DON'T RESIGN AND THEY WERE TO ATTAIN THE WHITE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL CALL FOR THE IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT OF WHAT WOULD THEN BE AN ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!
TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD MAKE US JUST LIKE BUSH!!!
I FOR ONE CANNOT LIVE WITH THAT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT IT!!!
The question isn't whether the citizens "trust" the insiders to do the right thing.
The question is why would a party insider be given 10,000 votes, while I just get one? I work for a living. I pay taxes. I vote democratic. I'm way over 21. Yet I see a 21 year old very young man on TV saying he's a superdelegate, and he gets to vote 10,000 times.
It is not democratic when a small group of party insiders select the candidate, while decieving the citizens into believing that their vote is what counts.
Nobody knew about this until recently. Or at least nobody except the party insiders.
Another thing. I have sent e-mails to several party insiders asking them whether superdelegates are prohibited from accepting anything of value from candidates or from anyone? Is there a disclosure requirement? This young man noted that he'd been getting calls from Bill Clinton, and Chelsea was wining and dining him. Isn't that a clear conflict of interest?
Nobody answers my question about the money. Is this just another system to allow party insiders to collect bribes? Maybe the author would like to respond.
Hillary is making the case that in this primary campaign Mr. Obama's delegate count is too heavy with caucus state delegates, and therefore they should be downgraded. If at convention time, she and Bill try to persuade the superdelegates to throw the decision her way because Mr. Obama "unfairly" has too many caucus delegates, she will precipitate a fight that could destroy the party and give the election to John McCain.
Does anyone for one second believe she would be taking this position if she had won most of the caucus delegates? Dream on.
The mere fact that her campaign has publicly announced that they will take the nomination through their superdelegate support gives away their game plan.
The Clintons once again prove the conventional wisdom about them---they will do anything to win. Including destroy the Democratic party.
This is another case of the Clintons putting their own ambitions ahead of the good of the party and the country. It's telling that the only public figures actively shilling for Hillary are people like Davis who seem to feel that they owe the Clintons. Davis's unstinting support for the Republican Joe Lieberman, who pulled a similarly underhanded stunt, should give some indication of his standards.
PS--Any reason why this comment has already disappeared twice?
This is another case of the Clintons putting their own ambitions ahead of the good of the party and the country. It's telling that the only public figures actively shilling for Hillary are people like Davis who seem to feel that they owe the Clintons. Davis's unstinting support for the Republican Joe Lieberman, who pulled a similarly underhanded stunt, should give some indication of his standards.