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
in other words, allow superdelegates to change the outcome of the primaries for the good of the party. but just what, or rather whom, would be better for the democratic party? ask the marginalized democrats in states like idaho and utah, who fear for the future of their state party organizations. I had a government teacher once who had supported bill bradley, and who believed that the democratic party would cease to be the second party in our two-party system; that continued electoral failures combined with the steady erosion of the party's liberal principles in pursuit of a moderate to conservative triangulation-type strategy would lead to grassroots abandonment of the democratic party establishment, and finally that the green party would emerge as the liberal opposition party to the republicans. i thought she was nuts at the time, but if superdelegates overturn senator obama's pledged delegate lead at the convention to anoint senator clinton as the nominee, i think she may be proven right. sorry about the run-on sentences.
Your government teacher was largely correct. The Democratic party has sold out, and the sooner we deal with it, the better.
Anointing Clinton after an Obama win would be only one of a countless string of sell-outs.
Every sensible organization respects the wisdom of its elders.
AW HELL NO!
I happen to be getting on into elderhood and even Shakespeare knew that just cuz some old person seems to be nodding sagely doesn't mean they have true wisdom to impart. It prolly means it's naptime.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is not wisdom in age, but there is nothing like a guarantee on it. What we _can_ expect is that people with power are loathe to give it up. That's watcha got right-cheer.
Whatever the reason they were created, the problem that is faced now is pretty simple. If a candidate has a clear majority of pledged delegates and the superdelegates go the other way, the party will tank. And with good reason.
This nomination contest has been well attended with record turnouts. There is no excuse for superdelegates to ignore the will of the people.
Mr. Davis ... lets put it this way, if the Clinton Machine strong arms the Super Delegates to give her the Nomination when the Pledge Delegates favor Obama then a lot of voters, including myself, will sit on their hands in November and not vote ...
and if the Republicans take the White House ... So Be It!
That is how i feel about Jimmy Carter Part II, I had enough of the hand-wringing and malaise the last time, I will never vote for someone that weak and indecisive again, Hillary is the right man for the job, not afraid to have an opinion or make a decision
You haven't explained how the idea of superdelegates is at all a democratic system, fair, or in keeping with the spirit this republic was founded upon. It is an unfair imbalance, where one American citizen's vote can count more than anothers, period.
Spin it any way you want to. Cite poor voter turnout, hell why not just come out and say it, you don't trust the average voting democrat to make the right choice on election night.
It is un-democratic, and rather than wait another four years, I'd like to see a candidate show some real courage for a change. Reject the system of super delegates, turn in your cape and cowl, or whatever rationalization you hide behind in supporting such an unjust institution.
We're tired of finding out, always too late, all the dirt in the machinery of this democracy. We want change now, not excuses, not
" wait until next year".
Explain how one American's vote counting more than mine is right, or fair, Mr. Davis. Please.
Excellent post grendl! Well said.
I'm not so concerned about them voting independent of the electorate as I am about the electorate worrying about their votes before they're cast. We say we don't want to empower them too much, but they are included in all delegate counts even if it means each media outlet has their own version of the totals.
I say let them do what they want, I would rather have elected officials and people who are knowledgeable about current politics swaying the vote if it's 50/50. However, leave their opinions and half-promises out of the count until the national convention. If that had been done from the beginning, Hillary's "lead" would've been considerably shrunken and any momentum for either candidate would have been earned.
excerpted from: http://www
I agree do not change the rules in the middle of the game.So stop counting Florida and Michigan as wins.If you truly love your party then dont let your loyalty to Hillary overturn the will of the people.I am a Obama supporter but if Hillary wins fair and sqare then she will have my vote.But if the superdelegates throw the nomination her way because of deals and promises of jobs then you people who support her will destroy the party and lose the election
When we see all the promises of administration jobs and ambassadorships that the Clintons will be throwing around, these Super Delegates will look more like whores than truly independent. That is what so many Dems fear...wat
We all know this is a game the Clintons are all too prepared to play. Hopefully, Obama will have enough of a pledged delegate lead to eliminate this distasteful game from happening.
For Mr Davis to think that the "independent" Super Delegates will make up their mind in a manner other than in the way I described above is what frightens so many of us.
Lanny, don't you get tired of licking Clinton boots (Bill or Hillary's)? The superdelegates were created for when there were instances when the primary/caucus process couldn't determine a clear winner. At the current pace, that won't be the case here. But, twisting arms to defy the will of the electorate is your only chance, so this is what you'll pursue.
First, jumping in bed with Joe Lieberman, and now pushing for the will of the people to be discarded for your dear friend Hillary. Have you no shame?
Whe Jimmy Carter was the nominee in 1976 the Party only wished they didn't have to take Carter, the DEMS had a lock on the upcoming election because of the Nixon's Watergate trouble. But Carter, much like Obama, was a good talker and people liked listening to his country style and the Ziggy Bezezinski,David Rockerfeller promotion took the White House. This was the big chance for the DEMS to hold power for a few terms perhaps but with the weak ineffectual leadership offered by Carter it was a complete disaster. It was 4 years of non-stop malaise and hand-wringing ending for the DEMS when an angry American public drove Carter from power. The very same promoters of Carter ARE BACK with their new promotion, Barry Obama, who bring the same thing as Carter to the table, weakness, indecision and the Ziggy Brzezinski led Internationalists running the Gov't. That is what you get when someone totally unprepared and without a good understanding of the world is put in a position far over their head. Hillary is not in over her head, has a good understanding of the world and the balls to make a decision without the handwringing Obama would bring.
The balls to make a decision like giving Bush the keys to Iraq? What, exactly, is her great record of 35 years of experience? When has she led, and not stuck a finger in the wind? Even if Hillary were to get the nomination without dividing the party, and manages to win in November, it will be the 50% + 1 Rovian solution, and nothing will get done for the next four years. Obama will carry along 40 states, have long coattails to get strong majorities in the House and Senate, and we'll finally get to do the things the country has been hungering for for years.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
