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

[MrReasonable]

If somebody has already mentioned it, I apologize, but Lanny did not tell the whole story (typical for a Clinton lackey). The reason the superdelegates were created was to prevent someone the elites in the party didn't want from getting nominated. It was affectionately called the Jesse Jackson rule.

So the big question is, will it be used for the purpose it was intended, to keep a black man out of the White House? I would have a hard time being in a party with such an openly racist rule, but I guess it isn't possible for it to be racist, since it is impossible to be a racist if you're a Democrat, so never mind.

I would also have a hard time being in a party that says to its voters "we know better than you." But then again, that is what the Democrat party stands for, a group of elites deciding what is best for everyone else and making rules that everyone else has to follow (while writing in loopholes for themselves). I cannot be in a party that believes in elitism like the Democrats do. Isn't that why we broke away from England, because people were tired of elites telling them what to do? Why do Democrats want to go back to that?

[broilinginhouston]

Sorry, Lanny, it's not happening. If HRC (or Obama, for that matter) gets the nomination by strong-arming or palm-greasing the superdelegates, seating delegates "won" in bogus primaries, or through similar shenanigans, then you, your candidate, and the whole national party apparatus can go "Dick Cheney" yourselves.

I'll show up in November to vote for Rick Noriega and the rest of the Democrats running in the down-ticket races. But I'll be damned if I'll vote another Republican-style cheat into MY whitehouse.

[cardtosser]

In one party countries, the party elite join together and choose a candidate that is nearly unanamously elected. In our two party nation, the parties choose their delegates using cobbled together rules that use party meetings and a variety of election schemes that vary from territory to territory in advance of a national convention where the only vote that matters before the general election occurs.

One man / one vote counts neither in the primary nor in the general election. At least in the general election there are statutes (in the Constitution) which let the electorate knows what is supposed to happen. In the primaries, it is still the backroom deal that decides.

[Northlite]

A few weeks ago, after more than a year as a Hillary supporter and mid-sized donor, I was having doubts, mostly because of Bill's and the campaign's racially-tinged remarks about Obama and his supporters. I happened to hear Lanny Davis on NPR, I believe Tom Ashbrook's show, defending Hillary. His legalistic parsing defense of Hillary and Co. while perhaps technically correct(perhaps not) reminded me of nothing so much as the Alberto Gonsalves underling Deputy Attorney Generals 'testifying' before congress last fall. By the end of the hour, rather than being convinced by Lanny Davis, I had decided to become an Obama supporter.

So Lanny, Go F yourself! The more you defend Hillary and her tactics, the worse she will do. This is not a legal decision, but a moral and a political decision. The last ten years of legalistic parsing is enough for this voter and donor.

[hinnis]

It is Obama who has been primarily responsible for injecting race into the contest. Watch this video until the end, where Obama is busted by Tim Russert for playing the race card. He even says he regrets it, and then tries to blow it off.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXXjWy-OztQ&feature=related

You may have to cut and paste this link to view it.

[OTOH]

Lanny Davis is right: Don't change the rules during the game -- we are not a banana republic. That means two things of course in this case:

1. Keep the superdelegates this time.
2. Don't seat Michigan and Florida after having declared (ahead of time) that those "primaries" would elect no delegates.

It's fair to do both of the above this time around. Then talk hard about superdelegates, and about primary dates, for next.

[army193]

Your right Lenny...same goes for FL & MI

[diamndpeace]

Um...last I checked, Adlai Stevenson was never the President of the United States, Mr. Davis. Might want to fire your fact checker.

[KPinSEA]

I'm not a fan of the impression that will be left if the superdelegates are decisive in this nomination. McCain will make a meal out of it.

But .... time for the sports analogy!

This process is a little like the NFL's Pro Bowl. The fans get to vote, and generally they vote for whose beer commercials they like most, who had the funniest ESPN interview, or who had one spectacular highlight that they remember.

Then the players and coaches, the "superdelegates", get to vote. They vote for who is most respected among their peers, who actually had the best year, who they like more, but they generally ignore the popular vote.

Then they actually play the Pro Bowl and nobody much cares. Of course that's where it's nothing at all like the general election. Right? Right???

[JCP]

Bingo!

[cadawa]

Nonsense! Anything that stands in the way of the popular vote is a danger to the country and should be changed immediately.
That should be apparent to a baby.
Our selected president and vice president have run the country into the ground.
A selected DINO candidate would be adding insult to injury.
This government works best when the people instead of the plutocracy have power. Get used to it.

[mslindab]

One only has to look at the news coverage of HRC and her earmarks for New York to realize what she must have promised superdelegates to get their loyalty. According to Bay Buchanan the other night she said they are probably offering to sell the national parks! Another quote from Bill to Bill Richardson: aren't two cabinet posts enough to get your endorsement for Hillary? The Clintons need to get off the stage!

[DeLuxe]

Lanny, You are one of the prime reasons I grew to dislike Bill Clinton so much in 1990s. Your constant willingness to parade implausible, insulting claims in the guise of legalistic arguments was one of the most disstasteful aspects of the Clinton presidency.

Now, you defend an un-democratic process. I promise you this -- if the will of the voters is thwarted by party elites, there will be an intractable civil war within the the Democratic party. I, for one, will be on the side of the people. You, apparently, on the side of the plutocrats.

Finally, you say "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."

I assume the same thing rule applies to Michigan and Florida? The party decided the "rules" there, and no delegates are to be awarded. I bet, though, you have a weaselly argument regarding that little problem for the Clintons, don't you? That is your way, Lanny.

[LeeFromVA]

I'm fine with sticking with the rules. Superdelegates can vote however they want, but if they're smart they'll go with the candidate that has the most pledged delegates. If the superdelegates are precieved as stealing the nomination for Hillary, then they'll lose virtually all of the Obama supporters and John McCain will be the President. She has a hard time winning them over as it is. There is no possible way she could win under those circumstances. Maybe if she were running against Gulliani, but McCain is way too popular with independents and moderate Dems.

[mslindab]

If they are to be independent, why not consider precluding any candidate or surrogate from contacting them?

[kingofscotts]

They are to be "independent" from the electorate (should they choose to be). Not from the candidates influence. If they are going to make an informed decision a discussion with the cadidate or a representative of the candidate makes perfect sense.

Of all the posts on superdelegates we have seen here on Huffpo this is by far the best written and most accurate.

Thanks Mr. Davis.

[Vik]

Lanny is Clinton toady.

Who ever gets the most elected delegates should win the nomination - PERIOD - Whether it is Clinton or Obama

[kingofscotts]

Perhaps you could bring that up after the election and see about having it changed.

typical of an Obama supporter to cry about the rules in the middle of the game.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

It's ironic that in the very same sentence that a well-known Hillary supporter says that the superdelegates were intended to be independent, he also says to make sure you don't get rid of them until *after* the convention.

As independent observer, he obviously thinks that keeping the superdelegates this year will *hurt* Hillary's chances, but that's how impartial he is.

There's also that word "intended." As in, I intended to do the dishes, honey, but I decided to sit on the couch instead. I intended to follow the will of the people who voted, but I finally decided, after much thought, nah, maybe I won't.

There is a certain amount of inconsistency on both sides-- from Obama's camp as well as Hillary's-- when it comes to superdelegates.

But with Hillary there is a pattern. A pattern of whining. Caucuses are unfair. Break the rules and seat Florida's delegates. Don't break the rules by arguing that one superdelegate's vote shouldn't count the same as nearly 10,000 regular votes. Obama won't debate me-- and I need the two hours of free TV time because my campaign is going broke.

There's a whiff of desperation in the air, and it's overwhelming the stench of hypocrisy from both campaigns regarding superdelegates.