Why Are There Delegates?
Bill Clinton's big speech at Sunday's California Democratic Party (CDP) convention in San Jose carried one message: "chill out." Let the ten remaining states cast their votes before deciding who the nominee is. Although the message seemed to be directed at the three thousand or so in the hall and the media beyond, it was, in fact, narrowcast. The former president had delayed his speech by an hour in order to meet individually with every super delegate the CDP hierarchy could wrangle for him where he delivered a different message: now is the time to support Hillary so that she can win the nomination regardless of the popular vote.
During his speech, again the real show was off-stage as the delegates to the State Central committee amped up for yet another insider battle: would State Senator Carole Migden -- the subject of $350,000 in fines and a $9 million law suit by the state's Fair Political Practices Committee -- receive the CDP's endorsement before the June 3 primary? Or, perish the thought, would she have to face the voters to find out which of the three Democrats gets the Democratic Party nomination?
If this sounds confusing, it is. Candidates covet the state Party's endorsement because with it comes the right to send mail at a big discount and to funnel nearly unlimited sums of money into otherwise contribution-capped campaigns. In the case of Ms. Migden, her senate colleagues were poised to pump in hundreds of thousands of dollars, just so one of their own would not be challenged, even though Ms. Migden has become the poster woman for insider corruption. The Party's incumbency protection machinery was in overdrive, but this time it failed.
Chances are that few other than insiders and political junkies would even have known there was a convention, were it not for Mr. Clinton's appeal to the delegates. That made (brief) national news. But why, in this age of instantaneous communication, are there are so many intermediaries between voters and candidates? Why indeed should nominating conventions exist? And why would the state party in California endorse a candidate before the voters decide who wins the Party's primary?
The simple answer is that intermediaries and complex rules favor insiders and those already in power. If you don't know how to play the game, chances are you won't win. And that helps assure that incumbents and power brokers retain their hammer lock on democracy.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been or are on the ballot in every state in the union (save the disputed Michigan and Florida) plus the territories and DC. And in every one of those states, people vote directly (except for caucus states, which are part of the problem) for their choice. Thereafter, the nomination itself is actually conferred at the national convention not by totaling the number of people who voted for each candidate, but by a mathematical allocation of delegates plus those pesky superdelegates. Similarly, in California, every Democrat gets to vote in the June partisan primary, but as the rules now stand, state delegates determine which, if any, candidates are endorsed by the Democratic Party prior to that primary at convention.
Conventions should energize, organize and highlight. They should not be a filter to prevent the people from electing leaders. And they certainly should not be an incumbency protection racket that allows insiders to control the political process. As Howard Dean famously said, "elections are too important to be left up to the politicians."
The Dean and Obama candidacies demonstrate clearly that voters engage in spite of the outdated party structures. Literally millions of people have joined the process this cycle because of the Internet, because their friends and neighbors talk about the energy in the race and because they think that their votes count. Unfortunately, very little of that energy seems to translate to the state level here in California, where polls show that the public believes that special interests decide the outcome of elections. With a Party endorsement available prior to the Party election and with rules that overtly favor incumbents, no wonder the voters pay little attention to the election.
The framers of the constitution did not trust the public to select the chief executive. They also needed a series of compromises to convince the small states to sign the Constitution. The Electoral College addressed both concerns handily. In today's world, the prospect of introducing a mechanism by which to buffer the people's will would be laughable. 2008 should be the last year that any democratic institution insulates itself from the people. While it takes a constitutional amendment to end the Electoral College, it takes only a vote of the Democratic Party delegates to end indirect, manipulated elections. If leaders can't trust their own members and voters, how can the people trust our leaders?
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
Look at the picture of Elizabeth Edwards at the top of this page, then look at the picture of Barack Obama.
Interesting.
Personally, I have become discouraged with political parties period! Why not have all voters simply register to vote, not register to a particular party. Allow all candidates who wish to run start campaigning one year prior to the actual election. Then let every registered voter go to the polls on that day and vote for who they want. The President would then be elected by the citizens of the United States in one day! All the rest of this is nonsense! We definitely need to update this process!
If the delegates to the Democratic party convention had been elected strictly by popular vote shortly after the beginning of the Iraq war, do you think any anti war candidate would have been selected? We would probably have President Lieberman in office right now and the current Patriot Law would look positively progressive by comparison with what would have been enacted then by popular vote.
You say "The Dean and Obama candidacies demonstrate clearly that voters engage in spite of the outdated party structures." You should add McGovern to the list and there was no internet in 1972.
There may be problems with the current system but as the McGovern revolution demonstrated, changes have consequences and they are not always good. We don't simply need change, we need improvements and that requires hard work, a thorough analysis of what is wrong with the current system and a deep understanding of history.
THANK YOU!!!!
I could hav enot framed the question better myself.
Why are we Locked into antiquated and irrelevant processes- WE Have the Technology, for all states to Vote for all candidates running ON THE SAME DAY! this process derails True Democratic Process. The "PARTY" rules have been implemented to Undermine OUR Democracy for far too long.
I'm disgusted with Both Parties. I'll Vote for Obama- if the Regime doesn't eliminate him as a choice. Otherwise - a candidate for anything with Dem Or Repug associated with their name On th eBallot is OUT! Tiem for these Old dinosaurs to Play by OUR RULES- or they don't play!
I do agree in principle, but I think another thing to consider is the way a system like California's voter initiatives actually plays out in reality. On its surface it's the most basic, direct democratic instrument. Voters have a direct say in what are typically legislative level decisions. Many buffers have been removed, the primary mechanism for inclusion is getting enough petition signatures. Great right? The only problem is that a number of crippling initiatives have been incredibly reactionary and conservative because the backers of those initiatives have had the money and political clout to gather the necessary signatures and to promote those measures through the media.
So in a situation like this, while I do agree that these layers of party controlled gatekeeping need to be unraveled and examined, I also think there always needs to be serious voter education and a higher level of critical thinking in order for there to be any true and responsible shifts in these election processes.
Just a note from the North, here in Oregon they are considering a randomly selected citizen advisory panel to review potential initiatives before they are allowed on the ballott, to try to weed out the initiatives that are being pushed by big money interests posing as grass roots action.
I just read a tiny article about it last week so I don't know much detail, but I agree something needs to be put in place to filter out the frauds.
The answer to the superdelegate question is easy, simple, and fair. Simply add half of the superdelegate vote to each candidate's total. This neutralizes them and lets the votes of the other delegates (the people) decide the race. It also ends the race sooner, probably far ahead of the convention, and lets the winner (the people's winner) get on with fighting McCain. If the Democrats don't adopt this plan they are wasting time, effort, money, and the good will of American voters. And of course they should dump the superdelegates first thing when they hit Denver.
Delegates exist to insure the status quo. Imagine a renegade campaign of someone who could independently raise money, fund a campaign and win the popular votes in the democratic primary. Such a candidate would threaten all of the special interest groups and lobbyists - America might end up with a president by the people, for the people; is the reason delegates are needed. Even the republicans have delegates - although not as many as the democrats and with their winner take all system the role of republican delegates is rarely called into question.
HuffPost's Pick
Again with the red tape of political stagnation! We have outgrown a lot of our antiquated political practices , especially when they didn't change with the times. Change is something we hear a lot, but, something we rarely see. Congress has gone about chasing its tail as it has since the 1800s. Nothings changed just some names, pork spending has continued unchecked, even voted down again. The people who are supposed to be representing us have turned their backs on us again, they don't need us because they are not up for re-election. And its not time for another round of promises they don't ever keep. Government is the only job in the world where you give your self pay raises spend someone else's money like water and don't answer to anybody. and, ethics is a word not found anywhere in Washington. Hillary wants to get four or eight years of business as usual, Obama talks change but, congress will tie his shoelaces together as they did with every President since FDR. McCain is a war hero so lets make more excuses to fight a war that was wrong from day one, The imperialist army of Japan in 1941 attacked another country without provocation, was Iraq worth the lies? and the lives? and the money? What will history say in 50 years?
Antiquated? The superdelegate idea occurred AFTER George McGovern won the party nomination in 1972, succeeding Alf Landon as the all-time presidential loser to keep the whacko liberals from shoving the Democratic party into outerspace again. Congress tied presidential shoelaces together? For forty years, Congress was totally Democratic. It is in bed with so many special interests Washington is practically incestuous. I was unable to vote for a Democratic nominee for the second time when Bill Clinton ran for office. His record as a babykiller was kept intact in his administration and I was not going to be a party to it. As a Truman Democrat I've watched the party slide downhill, diminishing the traditional base of the Democratic party for party globalwarming Gnostics and the "HateAmericaFirst" crowd. After supporting Hillary for so long, after she lost Super Tuesday Democratic wags like Huffington. jumped ship to support the Obamarama. Well, I'm convinced, tired of watching the party blow with the wind and waffle. that the party is unwilling to equip the Ship of State with a rudder or a strong helmsman to keep it on course. I cannot become a Republican. Though they do not have the same kind of politically correct Gestapo and thought police as the Democrats, they are still too enamored of Big Business for my tastes. So I am going to register as an independent. I encourage other thoughtful Democrats of whatever division you belong to - if you love America, leave the Democratic party.
How bout that idea of the Democratic Party being democratic.
Heads would spin.
We are through the looking glass people.
Money changing hands, back room deals, protecting the party... not the constitution, the ends always justifying the means, etc... sounds like tribal politics as usual.
Just Say No... to God's & Gov'ts!
Yes Bobonthis - the system that has shaped the Democratic party since 1972. Hate America. In division the Democrats find strength.
Locksley, you use the simpleton slang of the Goofy Old Phudpuckers to describe democrats- you know, us "Hate America First" people.
I like to think we make an effort to be aware of what we have done in the past so that we don't get blind-sided by retaliatory acts from other countries- think Iranian Embassy Hostage Crisis. If we own up to our mistakes and try to refocus our efforts to actually stand on the principles that our country was founded on, then we might find better harmony in our co-existence with the rest of the world.
We should encourage responsible citizenship. If our foreign policy advisers tell us that we must defend a plot of quicksand for the next hundred years, you sound like you would step right up, step right in and have at it ( or at least expect other citizens children to). Good luck!
There was a sci-fi story that I read a long time ago about 'true' democracy. My memory is somewhat fuzzy, but it went something like this:
When an important issue arose, folks interested in the subject came together to debate. Anyone could join in, although there were always people with expertise in certain areas that led the debate on those particular questions. The debate was available to everyone over the internet. People would show support for one position or another electronically. The debates could take days, weeks. But when a predetermined tipping point of public opinion was reached, the debate ended and the law was enacted. Pure democracy and certainly available to us in this day and age.
We could simply declare that Congress no longer has the power to enact laws. Congress can debate the issues, broadcast on C-Span, and when a certain percentage of the eligible electorate support one position, that's that. The problem is, as folks have pointed out, majority rule gave us slavery, then separate but equal...gave us the white male vote, then the white female vote before the Voter's Rights Act.
The Democratic Party is a political party. It's basically a club that makes it's own rules. One of the rules is that there will be certain people, in the majority folks who've demonstrated an ability to understand and abide by the club's rules, to make a determination in a close race. What's the beef?
We keep saying the same things about the general elections. Just count the ACTUAL votes cast and let it be the will of the people.
Everyone seems to think there is some magical merit in all these complicated delegates and conventions etc. I think it is just an excuse to party and spend money.
Is there something inherently WRONG with my one vote that you can't just add it to everyone else's vote and see who gets to run?
Another reason to replace them all and start over. http://www.reelectnoone.com
PK
The only problem is that we are not a democracy, we are a Republic, In a democracy it is the power of the people, however in a Republic, we have a governing body.
Semantic games. We are a democratic republic. There is no need to elect people who's sole job is to cast a vote on your behalf.
Yes there is - most people don't give a damn enough to investigate and know what is going on and will follow demogogues, charlatans and rabble-rousers. As John Adams put very well, "There has not been a democracy that did not commit suicide." When you get rid of the res publica, as the Romans called it, you get tyranny. When you read history - as opposed to being taught history in the socialist schooling we get now - you learn things like this.
There is a mix here with it comes to deciding who our governing body is. It is a "democratic process" used to select our leaders. One citizen, one vote. Or so it should be, definitions aside.
Like I said earlier. I think the whole process in the primaries is to make sure everyone gets to go to a big party paid for by someone else. They would lose that if they just counted the votes and left it at that. Why should I have to vote for someone to vote on my behalf...without even being able to tell them how I want them to vote?
You can't fix stupid. You have to replace them.
You can fix stupid. Unhappily, our socialist schooling doesn't want to fix stupid.
In essence, this how the whole mix up got started. Some wanted to be Republic-ans to run the government. Some wanted to be Democrats to allow the people to run the government. This kicked off in to two 2 groups. The irony is, the groups lost sight of the purpose, and the purpose got lost in the surge. Now folks call themselves Democrats but they want it to become the governing body and the folks who run this body call themselves Democrats, This was suppose to be good for the POOR people. Then we had the Republicans who also wanted to become the governing body and their folks wanted to run the body be called Republicans. When asking a Rep what is it with this Party? You get many diversed descriptions. The same is with Dems. We have voted in either party so long, that the best ans is I am this , and the other that. Therefore, Obama has a good idea. TURN the page and start a new Chapter. WE need Change. Obama will lead us with our help to the new page of Restoration of America. Our troops will come home too.
Discouraging that the convention process is as clubbish and old school in California as it is in Texas. Is it any wonder that young people today feel so disenfranchised from their government? This years primary election process has rallied the masses as never before. It started feeling like just maybe we could recover and move on from the farce of the election of 2000. But apparently, insiders at every level of government, and in both parties, are too interested in preserving the status quo. Are we to alienate another generation of young voters? People are calling for candidates to quit. I think we should start calling for candidates to join, or re-join, and wipe these old schoolers out of the party!
Bill Clinton is right. The Obama camp knows the momentum is about to shift Hillary's way as the primary voting resumes. Chill out and see it happen, don't try to stop it.
Even if that were true, which is dubious, there is no realistic or plausible way for it to shift enough for her take the lead either in pledged delegates (which I don't care about) or the primary popular vote (which I do care about). She's just hanging around to see if Obama will implode. He won't. So she loses nothing by suspending her campaign after Pennsylvania. She can keep all her delegates and still be the backup. There is no reason to rip the party apart.
Was this a misspoke to spoof folks? BC's word WE referred to the Dems, not Hil. BC wants Hil to enjoy each savoring moment of this election, because he knows this will not pass her way again. Hil will not win this nomination, and these C's will never get a chance to return to the WH. Where were you When the C's left the WH? Whew! Go read about it. Yes the Dems will win this election. Yes Obama will win this Nominee. The Dems will not rob Obama, for Hil. She is too far behind to beat Obama. The folks have spoken. Obama leads in delegates, leads in Primaries and Caucauses won
Obama has won the Popular Vote, too. Hil is just riding time, hoping for a free ride. NOT THIS TIME,Hil will not win in 08
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
