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

[COwoman]

Democrats are the party for the people. I think that any attempt to take this election from us, the people, will be the end of the Democratic Party. The best bet is for the Supers to go with the will of the electorate. Whoever has the most votes, the most delegates should have their support.
After the so called election of 2000, if anyone tries to upend the will of the electorate will find Denver looking a hell of a lot like 1968. I live here please don't do that.

[RealistDem]

Obama will stand by the rules. But make no mistake Obama supporters this thing has been rigged from the get go. We Obama supporters dont have a problem with super delegates being independent we would just ask them to be OBJECTIVE.

So far 35 states and the district of columbia have participated in the democratic primary. One candidate has won the most votes, pledged delegates and states(by a large margin). So what have the super delegate elites determined so far? That its Clinton 60% of super delegates and Obama 40% of super delegates. Thats almost exactly what Clinton won her home state by.

Be careful super delegates thwart the will of the people at your own risk and the future of this party.

[hank48188]

Most of The DEMOCRATIC Super-Delegates probably live in DEMOCRATIC STATES that Hillary has won or will win. How many do you think would be living in Utah Idaho, Alabama, or Alaska? That is why Hillary will get most of them.

[RealistDem]

Also will Obama going 10 and 0 in the last 10 primaries and caucuses even move the super delegate needle? Hillary merely announces shes running and shes up by a 100 super delegates. Obama out performs her two thirds through this process and still the remaining super delegates sit on their hands.

So what is this about what your last name is or performance? Oh wait I forgot Hillary is a victim.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

now wait a minute. you keep saying you want the super delegates to vote by the will of the people. The will of the people hasn't been established yet. There are still many states that haven't voted. But, now you're mad that they aren't deciding right now. Make up your mind.

You are aware that super delegates can change their mind anytime they want to right?

[AtlantaBill]

Calm Down Fellas,
No thinking person would ever imagine the dems doing anything but lining-up the "supers" behind the candidate with the higher number of "pledged" delegates. The party elders will not standby and let the Clintons convert a "loss" into a "victory". These people are not stupid and I am certain they will stand-up to those who will attempt to win at any cost. Lanny and the other Clinton hacks posting here are engaged in a crude attempt to "sow seeds of plausibility" for their undemocratic arguments. I for one would hope they would spend their time attempting to convince others as to why Senator Clinton should win. Specifically, I'd like have information to support her "inevitability" claims: 1) ready on day one; and, 2) thirty-five years of experience - doing what? What successes, what failures, anything ... HIllary supporters want the american people to believe that being married to a president qualifies one to be president. Now that Biden and Dodd are gone they are quick to tout experience but wanted no part of the truly experienced guys.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

COwoman,

You claim democrats are the party of the people.

But actually democrats are the party of those people who join it and actively participate in it.

[research]

What bull!

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.

[indc]

I don't remember President Stevenson.­.. I do remember President Carter. He probably is in favor of seating MI and FL delegates.­. he was a Clinton lawyer, so he know about double standards and how to practice them.

[hank48188]

If you remember Carter you must have remembered the 4 years of indecision and malaise he brought, and don't forget the Humiliation of the Iranian Hostages for 444 days of hand-wringing by Carter/Brzezinski until an angry American public removed them from power by giving Reagan a huge landslide in 1980

[jsinclair]

What's your definition of "independent", Mr. Davis?

Is it someone who can be strongarmed by one candidate with whom they have long-time personal ties?

Is it "independent" to make up your mind who you're going to cast your vote for BEFORE the first primary or caucus is even held?

You're a superdelegate with a long-time friendship (and profession­al/busines­s ties) to Bill and Hillary Clinton and are supporting her. Sorry, I don't call that "independe­nt."

[HeyHeyLBJ]

I agree that we can't change the rules mid-game in relation to the superdelegates or the Florida and Michigan primaries. However, if Obama wins the delegate count, but loses on superdelegates it would cause a huge split in the democratic party that could destroy them in the short term.

[JerfyT]

Then I am sure you will be a vocal critic of allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to count

[grendl]

"An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason."


C.S. Lewis

[PeaceChristBwithU]

Mr. Davis - you in the Clinton campaign want it both ways. We must stick with the rules with regard to super delegates, but we must abandon the rules with regard to seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. It is time to stop playing these games. The world has changed, and an enormous number of people have been energized by this election. These people will not stick with the party if the party ignores the popular vote. If Barack Obama continues to win, there is a point where Clinton must stop her campaign for the good of the party. If Clinton refuses to acknowledge that a majority of Democratic voters want another choice, and if she instead chooses to use her connections to remove the decision from the voters, she will do unimaginable damage to the Democratic party. Loosing is never easy, Mr. Davis, but there are ways to do it with grace and dignity. If you are the friend to Mrs. Clinton that you say you are, you will begin preparing her for a course of conduct that will save the party, the election and her dignity. It is time for her to leave the race.

[JXB]

This reminder of "original intent" is helpful background, but I don't see too many people advocating for a change of the rules in the middle of the game. I do, however, see many people warning about the consequences that will follow from "superdelegates" causing the candidate who did not prevail in the contest for pledged delegates to become the nominee. Such a result would be undemocratic, rules or no rules.

The candidate who prevails in the primary/caucus process for pledged delegates is the electoral winner, the voters' choice. That is the real issue, and one easily addressed if the superdelegates support as a block the candidate with the most pledged delegates. The concerns cited above that originally led to the creation of the superdelegate system -- very low voter turnout, unrepresentative primary electorate comprised chiefly of "base activists," etc. -- clearly don't apply here. Under the high turnout conditions of this nomination cycle, the only arguably appropriate role for superdelegates to play, even with the original reasons for their creation in mind, is to ensure that the will of the primary electorate is not thwarted.

By all means, continue to play by the rules. But superdelegates in this nomination cycle who ignore democratic principles and the public's sense of fundamental fairness will do so at their Party's peril.

[vibarama]

did you even read his article?

[useyourbrain]

The electoral winner??? Now that's a real democratic thing - NOT. With open voting in many primaries and caucuses, Repukians, independents can vote in the dem primaries/caucuses. Also, even with great turnout, the general elections will have anywhere from 10x to 100x of people voting. don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[JXB]

Yes, the electoral winner, as in the candidate who prevailed among the millions of primary and caucus voters nationwide. And yes, some primaries are open, making them a bit more similar to the general election, but not even Mr. Davis argues that the "superdelegates" are needed here to protect the nominating process from Republican cross-over shenanigans (nor does he cite this as the original reason for the creation of the superdelegate system).

The bottom line is this: when the majority of primary/caucus voters, representing he collective voice of millions of American voters, have chosen one candidate, would you really be satisfied if a few hundred "superdelegates" choose the other one as nominee? Should any of us be satisfied with this (other than those promised ambassorships or something, of course, but that too makes the point)? The rules don't need to be changed to avoid such an undemocratic outcome, not if the superdelegates support as a block the winner of the primary/caucus process.

This is not a Hillary vs. Obama issue. At this point, either one could be the loser according to the primary/caucus voters and nonetheless be chosen as the nominee by a small number of party officials. It is an issue of fundamental fairness and basic democratic principles that the Democratic Party should always wish to count among its most important ideals.

[VeganMilitia]

M.O.N.D.A.­L.E

How well did that play out?

How well do you expect your 1970's philosophy of 'Father knows best' to play out in 2008 after we've already witnessed 'Poppy (Bush) knows best' in 2000?

[TurnThePageGA]

Another thing, this ain't 1984. You will disenfranchise the one core constituency that the democrats have had the last say 50 years. They vote 85 to 95 percent democrat. I can guarantee we will sit this out if Obama is leading by 50 "Pledged" delegates and the "Automatic (ha-ha)" delegates overturn the decision. Hillary will make history as the First Women to be nominated for POTUS but she won't make history as the first women president if African American participation is down 50 percent. We will sit it 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.

[jade7243]

Mr. Davis... you're entitled to your opinion, and like the rest of us, support the candidate that you believe will best serve the country. In your case, you believe it is Sen. Clinton. I disagree.

The problem with your argument about the role of superdelegates is not their "historical significance" or the intentions of party bosses 26 years ago, but the means and methods your candidate has indicated that she intends to use to -- a pause to determine the right way to say this -- to "insure" that "it will be her."

Specifically, your candidate along with all of the original candidates, were required by the DNC to sign an agreement to abide by the sanctions applied to Florida and Michigan. Those two states chose willingly to violate the order of the primary calendar. The candidates agreed they would not campaign in those states. In Michigan, most candidates removed their names from the ballot. Only your candidate and Mr. Kucinich stayed on. In Florida, the candidates were enjoined from campaigning in the state. Your candidate exploited a loophole and attended fundraisers in the state. Call me a stickler for detail but "fundraising" is a form of campaigning. She also went beyond using grassroots organizations, and used AFSCME to actively campaign on her behalf.

Now your candidate wants those sanctioned delegations seated. But those "votes" only became an issue AFTER she lost two elections and was not seen as "inevitabl­e." By seating Florida and Michigan delegations, she believes she might muster enough votes to sway any remaining superdelegates her way. But seating those delegations would be the "original sin." And any superdelegates gained, "fruit of the tainted tree."

Based on your candidate's and her husband's past (including impeachment), I believe they simply cannot be trusted to follow the rules set forth by the DNC. I believe they will do anything to get "re-electe­d."

So your spirited "defense" of the role of superdelegates is as disingenuous as the claims of "voter disenfranchisement" made by your candidate.

[RealistDem]

Hey Lanny how did that mondale thing work out in 84? Oops he forgot to mention that.

[schmuckwithearlaps]

Is the the new Obama camp line,

"Based on your candidate's and her husband's past including impeachment, I believe they simply can't be trusted...­"

Congratulations! You have achieved a new low, even for Obama supporters.

[hank48188]

Obama also had fundraisers in Florida and even went across the street to talk to the press at one. Obama was running as many TV ads in Florida as Mitt Romney according to Craig Crawford from C.Q.

[hank48188]

The people of Michigan and Florida want our voices heard, all the votes were cast in good faith and Obama said he would do right by the voters of Florida before the primary. You know almost 2,000,000 DEMS voted in Florida, Hillary got over 900,000 votes, you mean they don't count but Utah does? They are always a RED STATE, no ELECTORAL VOTES THERE

[kellygrrrl]

I absolutely agree. If people don't like the system with the SuperD's, fine, go through the process of changing those rules.

As a CA Dem, as long and hard as we worked to get our Primary moved up, we finally did it. Now some rogue states decide to move their primary up and they are told by the DNC that their delegates will not count. If they let these delegates in now, that is criminal. Play by the rules, or don't play at all, period.

If I was Hillary, I would be ashamed to try to get those in, especially if it's going to be the deal-maker.

Talk about MORE OF THE SAME!!!!!

[useyourbrain]

Damn it!!! The Republican Legislature set the Florida primary date and the State Dem Party could not change it. Those votes should count or you're doing what GWB and his team did in Florida -- disenfranchising the vote of millions of people.

[BitJam]

In my state, New Mexico, as well as many other states, the Republicans and the Democrats hold primaries and caucuses on different days. The Republicans don't control when the Democrats have to vote. You all could have easily voted on Super Tuesday along with most of the rest of the country.

If you are worried about disenfranchisement then simply tell Hillary Clinton to let both FL and MI have do-over elections after both candidates have had a chance to campaign.

Like the author of the article said,

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~

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

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~

[kellygrrrl]

what about the fact that ALL Dem candidates agreed NOT to campaign in those states that were breaking the DNC rules and then ONE candidate goes ahead and makes a play for that state? Does that not seem a bit under-handed to you? My feeling is that it is LESS a punitive action against the voters, and more of punishment for the candidate who broke their word.

[BufoAmericanus]

Like in 2000... Let cooler heads prevail?

[llozano]

I have not heard anyone talking of changing the rules in the middle of the game. I think what most people are concerned with is that the issue of super-delegates never came up in the elections since they were created, at least I had not heard about them and I've been following these elections for a few years now. That is not to say they were not mentioned. This year the results have been close and the amount of regular delegates is almost 50/50 which makes these super-delegates so important. Part of the problem is the proportional allocation of delegates and the mathematical formulas created to allocated these delegates. We have these year to very qualified candidates and they will in all likelihood go in to the convention with a similar amount of delegates, neither one with enough to win the required amount to take the nomination. It will be interesting to see the dynamics at the convention when this scenario plays out.

[irishchicago]

Lanny, you wrote:

"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".

Why doesn't the Clinton campaign feel the same way about the Michigan or Florida delegates even though long before the votes in those states were cast EVERYONE KNEW no delegates would be awarded because they defied the party rules that you now argue so strongly be adhered to.

The decision to follow or not to follow the party's rules seems to rest on which decision benefits Sen Clinton the most.

[vibarama]

The opposite is true.

Obamam had made the statement that he would try to seat the Florida delegates as well.
I agree that they should not be seated, but only if the Obama people stop saying the super delegates aren't fair if they vote for Hillary.

As this article just explained the PURPOSE of the super delegates is to vote with their expert knowledge of the political realities, for the candidate that they feel is best.
If Obama had put this election away, as his supporters erroneously think he has, mostly due to 24 hour Pro-Obama "commercials" by the MSM, then they wouldn't matter, and no one would care about them. they only matter because, despite Obama's media and republican cheering sections, the candidates are still very close.

Why not have faith that if it comes down to the super delegates, that they will choose your candidate? Maybe they will, maybe not, but THOSE are the rules.

[useyourbrain]

"They" were 1.5 million Democratic voters that went to the polls since the State Legislature set that date and the party could not afford to pay for a separate election. Lose millions of Dem votes in November if they are not counted. I don't want any party telling me I cannot vote or my vote won't count.

[jsinclair]

Count Florida then, or proportionally, like the Republicans. But don't count Michigan.

It's too much like an election in the Soviet Union to award delegates when only one candidate's name was on the ballot.

Michigan should have caucuses at later date, since primaries are too expensive for a re-do.

[Mrrar]

There was a contradiction in your blog.

You said the Superdelegates were created in response to Low Voter Turnout, resulting in a Few choosing the party leader.

Now you are asserting that despite there being massive party participation, the few should choose the party leader.

I am certain you will take full responsibility for this contradiction and correct your stance appropriately.

[useyourbrain]

WRONG! No contradiction. He said if the delagates to the convention want to change the existence or the nature of supers they can change the rules for the next election cycle.

Something that wasn't mentioned that it was felt that the more experienced pols could temper an of the moment "movement". We lost big with McGovern and Carter.
This was the balance -- sort of like the founding fathers did with the House and Senate -- you do know that the 2 Senators from Wyoming represent 522,000 people or one per 261,000 people. California's Senators represent 18,250,000 people. Not fair but was put there to "temper" the common people (rabble). I think it's good there is someone there not drinking the preacher-man's kool aid. I cringe at the thought of him trying to deal with the economy, etc.

[jsinclair]

Well, democracy can be messy.

Government by a select group of elites could be neat and clean. But is it really better?

Dictators make mistakes, too.

[hank48188]

Obama once said "I am the walking embodiment of Internationalism" and that is quite understand able because the people behind the curtain promoting Obama are the Internationalists, and they are the same people who took an unknown peanut farmer from Plains Georgia to the White House in 1976. Ziggy Brzezinski, sort of the Democratic Henry Kissenger and former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter first brought Carter to the attention of David Rockerfeller and the rest of the ultra-rich elite eastern liberals with the power to make things happen. I knew Brzezinski was a Obama advisor, as is his son, from listening to his daughter, Mika, on the Morning Joe Show on MSNBC. But when I saw a piece in the NEW YORK MAG. nymag.comm) April 16,2007 called "Money Chooses Sides" and in a photo with the piece George Soros was sitting in the front row at an Obama fundraiser. I could see at that point that this was JIMMY CARTER PART II, with another weak, indecisive, slick talker being promoted to the job of DECIDER. Just look at the Iranian Hostage situation that caused the Humiliation of America abd showed the countries in the middle-east that they could kick sand in the face of America without fear of retribution. Carter/Brzezinski sat on their hands for 444 days until an angry American public removed them from power.