Fair Solution To Delegate Fiasco

The Democrats in 1972 made the primary system truly democratic with a small D. The landslide loss by McGovern created the ridiculous super delegate category that was supposed to prevent the voters from making a so-called foolish decision. However, giving the party hacks a big vote in a close primary is the worst possible scenario for the voters in the primaries. What were the Democrats thinking in 1976 when they changed the rules? Did they think that an undemocratic tie breaker would be good for the Party?

Clearly a majority of the elected delegates should be the only way to choose a nominee. Otherwise, the winner of the elected delegates could possibly lose the nomination which would be a disaster for the Party. Can you imagine either Obama or Clinton losing the nomination to the super delegates if either wins the majority of elected delegates? It would confirm what Will Rogers said in the 1930s. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Since the DNC has voided the Florida and Michigan delegates totaling 366, it can easily void the 842 super delegates. Taking those numbers out of the total would make the elected delegates the only basis for winning the nomination. It would require the nominee to get 1421 out of the total of 2841 elected delegates to get the nomination. It would eliminate the controversies created by the unintended consequences created by foolish party elders that made up these rules over 30 years ago. It would also end the controversy and need to do a redo of Michigan and Florida. More importantly, the loser of the this process would not have any complaints because the winner would truly have a majority of the elected delegates.

I am hopeful that Howard Dean will have the wisdom to know that this is the fairest possible solution to this highly contested primary and the only way to prevent a split party in November.

Comments

[JustAnotherJoe]

Mr. Drobny,

Best solution I've heard, so far. Let the majority rule. It would be kind of nice if we could actually elect the president that way, too.

[linaya]

What's fair about this? It's a change of rules that benefits Obama. Believe it or not, some of us don't PREFER him. Clinton has worked hard for the super delegates and Obama hasn't or he'd have more. That should not result in punishment of her. I'm pretty sick of the Huffington Post love affair with him to begin with, but please don't suggest shortcuts to give Obama the advantage. That insults our intelligence.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Drobny,

I've heard many suggestions with regard to this issue, I didn't like any of them, until now. You've out done yourself, this is by far a wise solution. Kudos!

Yet, I afraid it makes too much sense, so of course no one will listen to you. Go figure?
Agape.

[FearlessFreep]

The expansion of superdelegates was a power grab by the party elite. (BTW, the Democrats would have lost badly in 1972 no matter who'd been the nominee.)

And frankly, I doubt that superdelegates have a much better understanding of "electability" than the party's supporters. Remember the election of 1912? Teddy Roosevelt won the Republican primaries, such as they were back then, but the party's "superdelegates" forced the renomination of William Howard Taft, who went on to win two states in November.

[davidglover]

What about a little declaration by Obama right now that says basically:

"We need to move forward once the primaries are over (June 6) For the good of the party I will state now that if Sen. Clinton has more pledged delegates from the contested Primaries and Caucuses I will step aside for the good of the party and let her nomination move forward, But the offer is good only if she would now state the same."

If she waivers or stalls I think the MO will flow to the O.

[BillZBubb]

You Obamists should have been pushing this line WELL BEFORE the primaries began. Now, you just look like a bunch of sore losers trying to game the system. Everyone knew the super-delegate rules before the primaries started. Rules are rules. Your "fair" solution manages to minimize Clinton delegates and maximize those for Obama. Yeah, that's fair!

Obama needs to win the super delegates too if he wants the nomination.

[Sheldon Drobny - Huffpost Blogger]

See Sheldon Drobny's Profile

Your comment is outrageous and has nothing to do with who has more super delegates. Obama never had a choice and would have certainly opted for that if Hillary would have agreed since she had the advantage with super delegates. The question is whether Hillary and Obama will both agree. You must believe that Obama has an advantage with elected delegates. If you do, than good luck if the Obama supporters win the elected delegate majority and say goodbye to Democratic unity.

[Semaj51]

The typical Democratic Party response: "Why fix something that is broken and still works?"

[LeftRight]

Nope, that's both parties! And bush.