Tyranny of Super-Delegates will destroy Democratic unity

Super delegates may sink the Democrats
Super delegates may sink the Democrats
By Joshua Spivak, a public relations executive and attorney, frequently writes about election issues.
January 19, 2008

Rules adopted in 1982 to take back the nominating process could haunt the party's leaders.

With the presidential nominations still very much up for grabs, the 2008 primaries have quickly shaped up as the most interesting in recent memory.

Some early predictions were that the nominations would be a foregone conclusion by now or, at the latest, after Feb. 5, when 24 states, including California, hold primaries and caucuses. But both parties' races are still so tight and in flux that there is a chance in each party that no candidate will capture enough votes to secure the nomination before the conventions. This development would lead to great upheaval for either party, but it may be a significantly bigger danger for the Democrats because of a rule enacted in 1982 by party leaders. In 2008, the result may be a Democratic convention choosing a nominee who lacks the legitimacy of being the "people's choice."

Until 1972, there was no uniform primary-and-caucus system; the nominees of both parties were chosen by the convention delegates. But after the tumultuous 1968 Democratic primary races, and after party leaders ensured then-Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey received the nomination despite not running in any primary, the party opened up the process. Suddenly, primaries and caucuses became the important component to the nominee selection process.

However, this did not help the party win the presidency. The 1972 nominee, George McGovern, did very well in the primaries but went on to a crushing defeat in the general election. The party leaders saw further erosion of their own power in the two succeeding elections, as little-heralded Jimmy Carter won the nomination and the presidency in 1976, and Edward Kennedy was able to mount an unsuccessful but damaging primary challenge to Carter in 1980. In response, party leaders made a significant revision to the selection process.

In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.

In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes.

This year might be different. Because no front-runner has emerged, and the compressed time frame of the election may prevent any candidate from gaining enough momentum, no candidate may have enough delegates by convention time. In that case, the super delegates, the majority of whom currently support Hillary Rodham Clinton -- but who could switch sides at any time -- could well be the decision-makers at the convention. And this could be a real problem for the Democratic Party.

In general, the last place the public would want the nominee selected is on the convention floor. In the heyday of the conventions, when the presidential candidates were selected in backrooms and on the floor, there were always rumors of vote buying and corrupt bargains for the nomination. Today, such events could fatally weaken the candidate in the public's eyes. The existence of super delegates would compound the problem.

The elected delegates, though virtually unknown, are at least selected by the voters and pledged to the candidate those voters chose. Most of the super delegates aren't chosen by the general populace, and they are not bound by the votes in their respective states. If they end up making the difference in the nomination -- especially if the winner came into the convention in second place -- there is a strong possibility of disenchanting a good portion of the party's base, potentially costing the party the election.

Democratic Party leaders should be forewarned: The 1982 attempt to control the nomination could very well come back to haunt them in 2008.

Anger over the Super Delegates the biggest threat
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in a close election. The Super Delegates may determine the outcome.

Can you imagine the fury felt by voters of both Clinton and Obama if the Super Delegates don't vote for the candidates winning the peoples' votes in each of their states?

Super Delegates are the time bomb threatening Democratic unity and winning the White House in 2008.

BBB

list of superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Superdelegate Endorsement List

Here's a list of superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention that have officially announced who they plan to nominate. If you know of any others or are a superdelegate please post a comment.

We have also created a list of superdelegates that have not endorsed a candidate. There are 796 total Democratic superdelegates that the nominees are trying to be endorsed by.

From the Democratic Convention Website:

UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES


The procedure to be used for certifying unpledged party leader and elected official delegates is as follows:
Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state's delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party;

The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,

The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,

All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,

The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,

All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

We will be adding the unpledged add-ons as soon as they are named by each state.

See the list:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Dems may see superdelegate "chaos"

Superdelegates can vote against the tide

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8190382

"Super Delegates are Super Awful.
Letting the political elite choose a candidate is the most un-democratic idea ever.
The nominee should be the candidate who wins the most delegates in primaries and caucuses, a man/woman chosen by the people,
not by the political elite!"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8381.html

Let the super delecates take time to visit my hut to sip a nice potato soup
or BANANA desert.

Voters Not Superdelegates
Voters Not Superdelegates
by Dan Abrams, MSNBC
Posted February 8, 2008

As Republicans get their political house in order with Romney bowing out and Mccain making nice with the conservative wing of the party, Democrats appear to be heading towards chaos.

Most troubling is that party insiders, members of Congress, union leaders, party officials and an assortment of activists known as superdelegates, now hold the key to the nomination for Obama or Clinton.

Each of the superdelegates' votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters. With the candidates almost tied in delegates to date and with battles brewing over currently disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan, the Democrats must move now--before the fight moves from a principled one to a purely political one. Once it becomes clear exactly how the superdelegates will impact the vote, an objective assessment will be impossible.

In an effort to avoid another Bush v. Gore crisis of confidence, we have called for all the superdelegates to simply support the vote of their state or district and effectively disqualify themselves now.

Build a Grassroots Movement against super delegates
Build a Grassroots Movement to Prevent the Democratic Presidential Nominee From Being Selected by Unelected Super Delegates
by Miles Mogulescu
Posted February 8, 2008

There now seems to be a strong possibility that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will emerge at the end of the primary season with enough elected delegates to gain the nomination at the Democratic Convention. The nomination would then go to the candidate who can garner the most Super Delegates (mostly Democratic office holders who are not chosen by voters in the primaries and caucuses but are automatically awarded approximately 800 out of the 2025 delegates necessary to nominate a Presidential candidate).

This would be analogous to the Supreme Court giving the Presidency to George W. Bush in 2008 and would lack legitimacy in the eyes of millions of voters. If either Obama or Clinton win the nomination through this kind of back room deal, it would be a disaster for the Democratic Party, for the nominee, and for Democratic candidates for the House, Senate, and local office.

By the end of the primary season, tens of millions of Democrats and independents will have voted in primaries and caucuses; close to two million people will have made campaign contributions to Democratic contenders; nearly 300 million dollars will have been spent on the campaign; and tens of thousands of volunteers will have made phone calls, stuffed envelopes, and knocked on doors for their preferred candidate.

If after all of this, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has more elected delegates, but is denied the nomination by the Super Delegates, millions of supporters of the losing candidate will be enraged. Many will stay home in November, many will vote for John McCain or a third party candidate, many potential contributors will zip their wallets, and many potential volunteers will suddenly have no time to help out.

This is not an issue only for Obama supporters or for Clinton supporters. While Clinton may temporarily lead among Super Delegates, it is impossible to know how the majority of Super Delegates will ultimately vote. Many elected officials who are Super Delegates owe favors to the Clintons and lean towards Hillary. On the other hand, many red and purple state elected officials will support Obama because they think he will be more helpful to them in local elections. It is vital to both Clinton and Obama that whoever wins the nomination is viewed as legitimate by the voters.

If Democrats hope to defeat John McCain and increase their congressional majorities, Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee must immediately take steps to assure Democratic primary and caucus voters that their votes will determine the Democratic nominee. Before voter cynicism starts to escalate, they must devise a solution that will deter Clinton and Obama surrogates from twisting arms and making promises to garner the support of Super Delegates for a backroom deal that would override the will of the voters.

Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee should immediately take two steps:

1. They should demand that all Democratic Super Delegates sign a pledge that would read something like this: "I pledge that at the Democratic National Convention I will vote for the presidential candidate with the most elected delegates at the end of Democratic primaries and caucuses. This pledge will become effective automatically when enough other Super Delegates have signed this pledge to guarantee that the candidate with the most elected delegates, when combined with the votes of the Super Delegates who have signed this pledge, will win the Democratic presidential nomination."

2. The Democratic National Committee should organize and pay for new primaries or caucuses in Michigan and Florida. It would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to disenfranchise Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida, two states that will be vital to a Democratic victory in November. At the same time, it would be illegitimate if a candidate wins the Presidential nomination by the votes of the current delegates from Michigan where all of the candidates except Hillary Clinton (and Dennis Kucinich) took their names off the ballot, and from Florida where none of the candidates were permitted to campaign. A new primary or caucus in Michigan and Florida is not a perfect solution, but it's better than the alternatives. Since Clinton seems to do better in primaries and Obama seems to do better in caucuses, perhaps a primary should be held in one of these states and a caucus in the other, to be determined by a flip of a coin.

I propose that an internet petition be circulated addressed to the Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee, all Super Delegates and the Obama and Clinton campaigns in order to garner hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of signatures supporting the above proposals. Frankly, I don't know anything about the mechanics of organizing an online petition drive, but I suspect that there are readers of the Huffington Post who do know how. If readers agree with this proposal and have ideas on how best to implement it, please email me at [email protected]. Also, I would hope this petition drive can gain sponsorship from various democratic party and grassroots organizations, both for their name value as backers, and for the use of their email lists to circulate the petition. If you are associated with any such organizations which might want to lend support, please email me. Finally, it would help if the petition drive starts out with a set of sponsors with name recognition: activists, pundits, bloggers, political figures, members of the DNC and even members of Congress and other Superdelegates. If you can be helpful in convincing relevant people to offer their sponsorship, please email me.

Let's start a grass-roots movement to help prevent the Democratic Party from once again self-destructing.

Sunlight Please: The Super-Delegate Transparency Project
A Little Sunlight Please: The Super-Delegate Transparency Project
by Jennifer Nix
Posted February 7, 2008

Between the battle over whether citizens of Michigan and Florida will see their delegates seated at the convention, and the uproar over what effect the super-delegates may have in this mother-of-all-races for the Democratic nomination, rank-and-file Democrats have plenty to be anxious about this primary season.

One of these problems was, quite simply, a very ill-conceived way to punish those states for moving up their primary dates. But, while I don't agree with the decision the DNC made in that instance, the more insidious and institutional of these un-democratic dealings is the shadowy super-delegate process.

The very real possibility of some kind of super-delegate debacle has got people on both sides of the Clinton-Obama divide all hopped up, with good reason. It brings into sharp focus the reality of how un-democratic our Democratic nomination process might be, and threatens the legitimacy of whichever candidate ends up winning.

If the super-delegates' votes count so much more than regular voters', it just seems fair that super-delegates should take the will of their constituents (if they currently represent some) into account when making their decisions.

Here's my question: Why are any super-delegates allowed to pledge anything before the primaries and caucuses actually start to take place? Part of the problem here is that back when Hillary Clinton was "inevitable," her campaign went around collecting early pledges. Some folks believe this could have had the effect of encouraging people like my U.S. representative, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey to play "inside baseball." For example, Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan is surprised by Woolsey's alignment with Clinton, but attributes it to "realpolitik considerations by the congresswoman known for adherence to liberal principles."

So, imagine being the other candidates in the months leading up to the primaries, going around like beggars, with hats in hand, trying to live off Clinton's super-delegate scraps.

And then The People started voting last month, and it was suddenly a very different political landscape. Shouldn't our political process represent that different landscape? Shouldn't the people's will be legitimized rather than flouted?

It cuts both ways for me, too. Super-delegates should vote according to the will of the people-the popular vote -- whether Clinton won that district or state, or whether they fall into the Obama column. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just scrap the current super-deg count and say "Do-Over!!" Members of Congress should vote according to who won their districts. Senators and governors should vote how their states go, etc. Wouldn't it be nice if they all planned to act like John Knutson, Maine's Democratic Party Chairman? Not sure what you do about super-delegates who are just sort of free-floating party power-brokers. Anyway. Sadly, it ain't gonna happen.

But, at the very, very least, it should be a completely transparent process. Which is why the Super-Delegate Transparency Project is striking a chord with folks. It's a joint effort of my blog, Literary Outpost, OpenLeft, numerous other blogs and volunteers, and we're drawing off the fine work being done at DemConWatch.

We seek to gather the primary and caucus results (district by district), to date and going forward, and then to track those results against how super-delegates are currently pledged -- and how they ultimately vote. We'd like to be able to call on solid evidence, not hypotheticals, when we attempt to decipher what kind of impact these super-delegates end up having on the Democratic nomination process.

When it's all over, we'll know who was naughty and who was nice to the rank-and-file voters across this land.

Volunteers are signing up to help compile the district numbers, and identify super-delegates. There's plenty of work to be done, so if your skills and passion are a good match for this project, by all means: Please sign up to help!

More Americans (especially Democrats!) than ever before are standing up to have their voices and choices heard in this election year. A small, elite group should not be able to cancel out the will of the people.

Isn't that called oligarchy?

The notion of selecting a nominee is picking a candidate who can gain the support of everyone. However, in the Democratic or Republican convention races the delegates do not represent the whole public. The fact that Eugene McCarthy won the Democratic nomination shows those delegates were narrowly left-wing and did not represent the nation. I support the super delegates so that the nomination is not skewed.