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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What is funny is that if...IF...
Obama started his run knowing this rule, as did Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton...
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.
And BTW, I am a 52 Year Old African American.
Mr. Davis' argument that the Super Delegates are in place largely because of low voter turnout in past elections is pretty much moot in this cycle i would say.
I look forward to Mr. Davis' post arguing that we not seat Florida and Michigan delegates so as not to change the rules in the middle of the game. Something tells me that I shouldn't hold my breath.
That sounds real DEMOCRATIC, telling the people of Michigan and Florida that their voices should be silenced. You know it's bad enough that they have all these un-democratic caucuses that limit the voices heard to the people that have 4 hours to devote to the process, and I thought this so called DEMOCRATIC party always wanted to increase access to the vote, not limit it. Two things are needed for DEMOCRACY, 12 hours to vote and a secret ballot, the DEMS are batting 0 for 2 on that count.
The Clinton definition of "fair and democratic":
~~~~~~~~~~
Anything that gets me more votes.
~~~~~~~~~~
The decision to not seat FL and MI delagates was pretty much a Howard Dean decision. There was no vote of the members of the party. I know I didn't and no rep of mine did. That rule was not set by the convention. Lose FL at your own risk. Remember 2000.
Are you suggesting that had super delegates been around in 1980, PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter would not have been the Dem nominee? Your argument in favor of super delegates is indicative of establishment dems like you and Sen. Rodham that want gov to run everything, since they know what's best for people.
ANY Dem would have won that year, it was after the Nixon resignation from Watergate, but the DEMS got stuck with Carter by the very same people that are promoting Obama. Ziggy Brzezinski,former National Security Advisor for Carter and Obama advisor, brought Carter to the attention of the ultra-rich David Rockerfeller and the rest of the Internationalists, as he did with Obama. Now they are pushing another weak and unprepared person, Obama. Carter was in way over his head and so is Obama. Good thing we have the Super-Delegates to prevent Brzezinski and the REAL insiders fron gaining power again, the 4 years of Carter seemed like 10 years of indecision and malaise. I would vote for Mccain
That's right. Now watch the Obamabots tear you a new one for this.
As discussed in other articles and comments here and elsewhere, superdelegates can bribed or infuenced to give their vote to Clinton or Obama. The current set up has no way to follow up on that. Many may give their vote to the one who offers the most government funding for very public and needed projects or pet projects to help with their consitutants in their state or district or offer them cushy or powerful office appointments in the government under them. There needs to be a way to make open any such offers, deals and influence that may be wrong and distort the procedure.
I agree with Mr.Davis. Therefore, I'm sure that he would agree with me (and AGAINST the Clintons) that the illegal Florida and Michigan delegates should not be counted. This, too, would be changing the rules in the middle of the contest.
How were their votes "illegal"? They voted in a State sanctioned official primary set by their Legislature.
The decision by Howard Dean not to seat them (as a sop to the early caucus dates which should be dropped at the next convention, as should all caucuses, since they are not democratic procedures
Bullshit. All the candidates, including Senator Clinton, agreed to not seat FL and MI.
Nice argument about not changing the rules in the middle of the game. I hope that Davis and other Clinton camp followers will apply that same logic to Hillary's plan to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Don't change horses in midstream!
You seem to be more concerned with the technicalities of Democratic party rules than with the ethics of democratic principles.
If Obama ends up with more pledged delegates when all the primary/caucus votes are counted (incl. any possible do-over of Florida & Michigan), should Clinton respect the will of the people and concede, or should she encourage superdelegates to hand her the nomination?
It's a good thing Sen. Clinton has gone on record on the issue:
"I have thought about this for a long time," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in an airport hangar in Syracuse. "I've always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed."
***
She said she wanted "to be on the side of the democratic process working," and so would support the effort to establish direct presidential elections.
***
"I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people."
http://que
The internet is such a nice thing isn't it.
But Hillary wins the DEMS in the DEM States like CA, NY, NJ,,MI, Fl, MA, many of Obama's wins are in places like Utah , idaho and Alabama where the DEMS never get electoral votes. Bet they don't have many super-delegates in those States either.
I think it's an excellent point. I think the super delegate system should remain as it is, but if we want to make it a more democratic process, we should debate replacing the caucus system with primaries.
Great post, Lanny.
Until now, I was very suspicious and critical of the mere existence of superdelegates. But you've gotten me to at least consider that the current rules may actually be the best compromise possible.
It is ironic that some Obama supporters want to change the rules on Superdelegates but abide by the rules on seating Florida and Michigan delegates. So much hope to change whatever benefits them the least. If they can.
They only like something if it's to their favor, if Obama had done well in Florida or Michigan he would be singing a different tune
I, for one, have not advocated changing the rules. I believe people who say that rules should remain as agreed upon at the outset of this process are correct.
What I AM saying, and very strongly, is that the party will no doubt suffer if there is a taint of backroom deal making. And it won't just be first time voters heading for the door, it will be lifelong Dems.
Oh, you might get their votes in the actual election, but I wouldn't count on it. And the backlash will affect every Dem running for office, not just for president.
Makes ya think. Wonder if it makes them think.
Mr Davis seems a bit insincere. "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." If I recall, when his super delegates called the nomination for Mondale over Hart in 84, I don't think it is any coincidence that Mondale suffered a landslide defeat. In fact Carter's so called landslide defeat was 9 percentage points, a healthy margin to be sure, but hardly a landslide. Mondale's was TWICE that margin, 18 percentage points. Sorry, the super delegates are Anti democratic, and the one election that they clearly changed, certainly did not benefit the democratic party or the American people.
It's not about Carter losing by 9%, the story was Reagan carried most of the States. After the Iranian Hostage failure it's a wonder that Carter won any States at all. He was weak and indecisive for all 4 years, nothing but hand-wringing and endless malaise, and if Obama gets the nomination you will get to see the sequal to the Jimmy Carter years and they are even bring back some of the folks that were in the first movie, Ziggy Brzezinski will have a big part again too.
Problem is you (Hillary lovers) might succeed in stealing the nomination from the democratic voters, by letting the Democratic establishment cronies decide the primary election, but you'll end up sinking the Democratic party for 2008. You'll be handing the presidency to John McCain, and creating much hatred for this party amongst a democratic majority.
Is it worth that to you?
I guess you already know that Bill Clinton and Terry McCaulif are "Super delegates". Does that sound fair to you?
maybe you're not old enough to remember the Reagan Democrats
Let's see, Bill Clinton was THE PRESIDENT, Terry Mc Caulif was chairman of the DNC, who exactlt should be a super-delegate in your opinion, Oprah?
So is Donna Brazille who is for Obama. Get off your high horse -- BO is on his knees for superdelegates too.
Is any of this surprising coming from Lanny Davis, a truly decent guy who's on TV every single day and identified as "on behalf of, but not part of, the Clinton campaign"?
Hint: No.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
