What Is So Undemocratic About Super Delegates?

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:42


I spent this morning in South Philly conducting a long interview with Anne Dicker that I will post sometime next week (it needs to be heavily edited down from one hour and twelve minutes). Anne is one of the key organizers of the Democrat (capital D) reform movement in Philadelphia, running against indicted State Senator Vince Fumo in the first Senatorial district of Pennsylvania. While I was talking to Anne, I was reminded how only five years ago, when our little movement began by supporting Howard Dean for President, the idea of serving on the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee would never have crossed my mind. However, one of the main pillars of the grassroots reform movement in the party that started with Dean's campaign was, in fact, to run for party office. If progressives really want to reform the Democratic Party, then we need to take over positions of power within the Democratic Party, instead of only applying outside pressure. No matter who we supported, this is why we were all involved in the DNC Chair's campaign three years ago, for example. When it comes to the strategy, message, infrastructure, ideology, nominations, and expenditures of the Democratic Party, it goes without saying that it really matters who controls official party positions. If we want a smarter, more effective, more progressive, and more transparent Democratic Party, then we need to run for elected positions within the Democratic Party.

Let me emphasize one word in that last sentence: elected. Every Democratic Super Delegate was elected to his or her position in some way. Of the 796 Super Delegates, nearly 300 of them are either in Congress, or are Democratic Governors, and all of them won both Democratic primaries and general elections. How are these people not elected officials? Further, almost all of the remaining Super Delegates are DNC members, and all of them were elected to those positions. In fact, now that I am on the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee, to which I was elected, I vote for national DNC members from Pennsylvania. I guess that makes me about 0.3% of a Super Delegate. I am also circulating petitions for a couple of friends who are trying to become Obama delegates to the DNC (all of my local friends who are running for national delegate are Obama supporters, and Obama probably has about 70-80% of Democratic support in my congressional district).

My point is this: every Super Delegate was elected to his or her position by other Democrats, just as every pledged delegate was also elected by other Democrats. So, why, exactly, are the Super Delegates less democratic than the Pledged Delegates? I guess an argument could be made that some of the Super Delegates were elected by State Democratic Committees rather than in Democratic primaries open to all registered Democrats, and that when people elected the Super Delegates to public office, they didn't know who those Super Delegates supported for President. However, rather than ditching the idea of Super Delegates altogether, don't those arguments lead to procedural fixes, like the direct election of DNC members in Democratic primaries (one per congressional district every four years), and performing due diligence to know how someone leans for President during a Democratic primary?

At MyDD, Oreo has a post on Jenny Greenleaf entitled Super Delegates are People, Too. I would add to that by saying that Super Delegates are elected, too. Really, Super Delegates are just as, if not more, democratic as pledged delegates elected from caucuses, or those elected from states that come late in the primary season calendar. Further, a partisan nomination process is not the same as a public general election, and different standards of democracy should apply. Democrats should decide who the Democratic nominee is, not the public at large. And Democrats will decide, via a wide variety of internal elections, who the next Democratic nominee for President will be. I know that some will disagree, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure about this myself. However, I wanted to throw this idea out there, because I'm not sure that Super Delegates are as undemocratic as some people online, including myself, have made them out to be.

Thoughts? 
Chris Bowers :: What Is So Undemocratic About Super Delegates?

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What Is So Undemocratic About Super Delegates? | 33 comments
It violates one person, one vote (0.00 / 0)
although this is a party selection process and not a general election for a federal position, that's still a pretty fundamental part of any fair election process (which is the same argument being made against Iowa and NH having so much influence over the process)
It shouldn't be one person, one vote (4.00 / 1)
It should be one Democrat, one vote. Of course, the delegate system itself violates that principle.

Maybe I should rephrase: how are Super Delegates less democratic than pledged delegates? That is not clear to me.
[ Parent ]
aside from states with open primaries (4.00 / 1)
how is it not one democrat one vote? if you limit party nomination to party members, with some party registration far out enough in advance, then what's the problem? get rid of the open primary silliness.

this super delegate business is a way for entrenched power to continue to hold power. elected party members getting to tip the scales with extra votes. the game disproportionately favors those closet to those holding power and those who have the resources to play the game.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Several ways (0.00 / 0)
Here is how, even in states with closed primaries:

1. Candidates who receive less than 15% of the vote don't receive any delegates.

2. Caucuses don't even record a popular vote, they only record delegates.

3. States vote in different orders, so they know the results of other states before they vote.

4. If the convention goes beyond one ballot, then delegates don't even have to vote for the candidate they were elected under.

And those are just the ones that come off the top of my head. There are many, many ways in which the pledged delegate selection process is not one Democrat, one vote.

[ Parent ]
Exactly... 5 wrongs don't make a right (0.00 / 0)
all of those also strike me as unfair, with the possible exception of the last one, because having a majority may be important in a situation where one candidate is running on a platform that would never be acceptable to the majority of the party (think if Lieberman had run for the Democratic nomination this time, and wound up sneaking into first place with some coalition of Blue Dogs and bloodlusters while Obama, Clinton, and Edwards split the more typical Democratic voters evenly. In that scenario, just because Lieberman won 26-25-25-24 or something doesn't mean he should be the nominee).

Otherwise, I think all the rules that you mentioned are un-democratic and un-Democratic, and should probably be tossed aside along with the superdelegates.

[ Parent ]
another one (0.00 / 0)
States get bonus delegates for many reasons. How well they vote for Democrats. When the primary is held - something like after March gets a (30%?) delegate bonus?

DemConWatch
[ Parent ]
I think that there is merit to this idea. (4.00 / 1)
But I might feel differently if the super delegates decide the nomination in favor of a candidate who lost the pledged delegate count, regardless if it were Obama or Clinton, I wouldn't like it.  And of course, since that's the only situation in which they would matter anyway, I guess I don't particularly like the super delegate situation.

The fact is, yes, these super delegates were elected, but you can't credibly claim that when the voters selected that person in a primary or general election that they based their vote in any way on who that person would vote for as a super delegate.  That kind of undercuts the argument that they are representing anyone as a super delegate.

I think that you're right about controlling party positions though.

that sounds about right (0.00 / 0)
However, even if people did not know who they were voting for, the ability of certain candidate for public office to be a super delegate at the DNC was part of the package when they became a Democratic nominee. That rule is out there, people just don't know about it (or know who that candidate will support, of course). 
[ Parent ]
its just beyond rediculous (0.00 / 0)
ok - so let these governors and other reps list who they will vote for in the future so that I know who they are going to vote for when i vote for them. oh, but darn, we can't know who they will vote for because they don't even know who will be running. additionally, what if I am stuck with having to pick between chuck schumer (horrible) and al damato (worse). now, just because I pick the lesser of two evils i know get evil^n because that lesser of two evils gets to sway the vote for more cruddy candidates - whom I might likely be voting against in a later primary with my now diluted vote.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
That's the problem (0.00 / 0)
"That rule is out there, people just don't know about it (or know who that candidate will support, of course)."
That's precisely my point.  If people dont know about it or have no way of knowing who the person would support as a super delegate, then we can't actually claim that the super delegate is a democratic (small d) representative.

That isn't to say that there aren't good reasons for super delegates, and I think you hit one some of them, but it would be wrong to claim the mantle of democratic representation.

[ Parent ]
Let's look at New Jersey (0.00 / 0)
Governor Jon Corzine entered politics by spending part of his vast fortune.  He did win a primary  and then the general election.

He became governor because the way was cleared for him, even though polls showed Dick Codey was more popular.

He appointed Bob Menendez to office, who never faced a primary -- even though we know many NJ House members want to be senator -- because the field was cleared. 

Frank Lautenberg was a last-minute ballot substitution when Senator Torricelli  withdraw.

In other words, of the three most powerful super-delegates, not one was "elected" by Democrats in a primary process.  In general, the party works hard to ensure there are no primaries.

Of them, two (Menendez and Corzine) have pushed very hard (reportedly pressuring many) to support Hillary Clinton, who herself benefited from a field cleared to make her Senator, based on her political connections to her husband, the President.

I'd need to look into the House members, but there is nothing democratic about the Super-Delegates in New Jersey. 


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

By that logic (0.00 / 0)
I think, if one were to push that logic further, you would have to argue that if a local, state or national party plays any role in primaries at all--including, say, prominent officials endorsing other candidates--then it isn't a democratic process. Are making endorsements or asking people not to run in a primary undemocratic?

Perhaps a more abstract question would be better: what would you consider to be a democratic primary process? In your view, what needs to happen in order for Corzine, Menendez or Lautenberg to have been democraticly elected?
 
[ Parent ]
well (0.00 / 0)
I was responding to this statement in the original post:

My point is this: every Super Delegate was elected to his or her position by other Democrats, just as every pledged delegate was also elected by other Democrats. So, why, exactly, are the Super Delegates less democratic than the Pledged Delegates?... performing due diligence to know how someone leans for President during a Democratic primary?

I am simply pointing out that in practice -- certainly in New Jersey -- there is no "due diligence" possible.  Certainly I could run myself, or support a fringe candidate, but in practice nominations for major elected offices are not decided by voters. 

Corzine, et al., have certainly been democratically elected because they won the General election.  But they have NOT been democratically chosen to select a Presidential candidate.  Oh yes, it is true that we could elect DNC members who would take away the superdelegate position.

Now, as far the the role of the super-delegates, though I do not think they are democratic, maybe I should quote what I said last week in Twenty-One Primary Elections on February 5, and that's just New Jersey:

I sometimes notice online comments -- typically by Brits or Canadians -- mocking this process as undemocratic, but remember that in their countries voters get the same say in their national leader as we do in deciding whether Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Rush Holt, or some other Democrat is Speaker of the House.  (That influence, if you haven't noticed, is none.)  Our bizarre process balances the developing national tradition of allowing voters some say in the Presidential candidate, and the longer tradition of leaving it up to party leaders.

I do think that balancing these traditions -- or failing to have complete inter-party Democracy -- is okay, and that was lost in my answer to your post.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
to the final question (0.00 / 0)
Obviously the Democratic party - both leadership and voters -- have endorsed these three through the General Election.

Nevertheless, I think that ideally the party should be open to primaries, especially for open seats.  As it is, it seems that opportunities are controlled by some combination of influence, money, political bosses, etc., but certainly not voters. 

It's obvious, for example, that the party benefited enormously from State Senator Obama getting his shot, along with 5 others, at what looked to be a difficult senate race.  [Oddly enough, he says in his book that this in turn was made possible when Carol Moseley-Braun ran for President.) He would have been squeezed out.  I think Obama also benefited from losing to Bobby Rush in an earlier challenge.  One can think of many other examples, though I'll confess that "clearing the field" also works sometimes. 

--
Lautenberg, of course, was an emergency situation, and I would certainly like to emphasize that I was grateful to get to vote for a fine senator like him instead of a crook like Torricelli who would have lost.  And I genuinely like Bob Menendez and Jon Corzine.  But note that although a majority of Democrats (IIRC) would like to see someone else replace Lautenberg, and we know that there are three or four House Democrats who want to run for senate, Lautenberg has a lock on the job. 


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Why "Super" delegates? (0.00 / 0)
I always seem to be hung-up on semantics.  That very phrase makes me think of them as a bunch of caped crusaders flying in to St. Paul to save the party from mortal danger.

I think "At-Large Delegates" is a more descriptive term, as they are not pledged to any particular candidate, and are up for grabs, as it were. 

Of course, being a "super" delegate probably strokes the egos a bit more effectively, eh?

Personally, I don't know why the MSPs sponor open primaries, or caucuses - its a party decision and should be made by party members.  And --- I say this as a non-aligned voter. 

If you want to "take money out of politics" - start by shortening the campaign "season" by dropping these primaries.  Pick your nominees at the conventions - THEN start the campaigns.

Such might have the added benefit of "forcing" the candidates to actually do the jobs they were elected to do - if, indeed, they already hold an elected office.  That is, we wouldn't be surprised, or excited that Sen. Clinton and/or Obama actually went to DC and participated in the business of the US Senate.  At least, no more surprised than my boss is when I show up at work.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

I assume you know the history? (0.00 / 0)
=== I always seem to be hung-up on semantics.  That very phrase makes me think of them as a bunch of caped crusaders flying in to St. Paul to save the party from mortal danger. ===
I assume you know the history of the self-styled superdelegates?  They were created exactly to prevent any more George McGoverns or Jimmy Carters from taking the Democratic nomination.  And one could speculate:  any John Edwardses.

sPh

[ Parent ]
Sorry, my sub-text is showing! (0.00 / 0)
and I ruined the effect with the whole St. Paul-instead-of-Denver debacle.

I gotta say - the whole thing has the makings of a humorous short-film, no?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
they'd be flying into Denver this year (0.00 / 0)
they could fly into St. Paul, but the Party that's having their convention their is beyond rescue
[ Parent ]
Superdelegate is not the official name (4.00 / 1)
The DNC doesn't call them superdelegates. It calls them Unpledged PLEOs - Unpledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials. Everyone else call them superdelegates. But don't blame the DNC for the name.

DemConWatch
[ Parent ]
UPLEO vs Super-Delegate? (0.00 / 0)
no contest.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I meant Denver, not St. Paul (4.00 / 1)
I've got that Republican convention on my mind because I can't wait to go across the river and pester the GOP while they visit my Twin Cities.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Super-delegates aren't picked by that year's primaries (0.00 / 0)
But seem the results of favorites playing, and backroom deals. 

Why else would Clinton have sewn up the lead in superdelegates she has, before there were ANY actual votes?

I sse the value of your argument - but then the superdelegates rule should be tweaked, whereby a super-delegate can't officially commit, until their state has already voted.

Something like that, I'm sure someone else has a better idea.

At least Superdelegates are actual (D)emocrats (0.00 / 0)

Over at Daily Kos, the poster who rejoices in the name "Trapper John" has a post titled "Members Only".

http://www.dailykos....

I hope that's the right link.  In any case, his position is even closer to mine than Chris's is.

My definition of a "Democrat" is a person who, at minimum, pledges TODAY to vote for the party's nominee in November.  If I had my way, only "card-carrying Democrats" would vote on who the party should nominate.  The Democratic Party is not a Constitutional entity, it's a private organization.  If I REALLY had my way, our election laws would be such that you could cast an early ballot (as in, 2 years head of the election if you felt like it) for President, said ballot being for "the nominee of party X" rather than requiring a particular candidate's name.  Ideally, you'd get your "party X" membership card in return for casting such a ballot.  You would then be able to participate in whatever candidate-selection process "party X" decides to use -- or even participate in deciding what that process should be.  Members of "party X", and ONLY members of "party X", would decide who "party X" shall offer up as its champion, to do Mortal Kombat with the candidate of "party Y" before the general electorate.

Superdelegates are (presumably) guaranteed to be "Democrats" by my definition.  They are NOT (again presumably) nobody-but-Barack or nobody-but-Hillary cult followers.  I, being a "Democrat" by my own definition, am willing to leave a tie-break to them.

By the way, I recognize that if I had my way, most Americans would NOT be members of any party.  Most Americans would refuse to sign up, long in advance, to vote for whoever a party nominates.  I say that would be a good thing.  The more-compact but more-unified parties would still have every incentive to offer up the "best" candidate they could, in the general election.  The vast "unenrolled" fraction of the electorate would still be free to vote for the taller, the sexier, or (god help us) the saner of the nominees.

-- TP

For so many reasons (0.00 / 0)
Superdelegates are not delegates on behalf of votes and they are not democratically accountable because of their votes.  It's just assinine.

And I'm on the executive committee of my state party and the chair of my congressional district's party. 

the system reminds me of the BCS (4.00 / 1)
It's the product of reform, and it's superior to (and more accountable than) the old system. Still, it's flawed.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
that's a good analogy (0.00 / 0)
Also, I admit that while I don't like the BCS (would prefer the playoff), I used to love the old, complicated BCS system itself. That was so awesomely complicated for its own sake, a geek like me had to enjoy it.
[ Parent ]
Less democratic (0.00 / 0)
I think Super Delegates are less democratic because they may be swayed by inner party loyalties. Pledged delegates represent each district of the U.S. It doesn't get more democratic than that. 

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
It gets a lot more democratic than that (0.00 / 0)
There are lots of ways that pledged delegates are undemocratic, as I detailed in a comment above. Some delegates may be selected by congressional district, but that is an arbitrary construct. Others are at large by state.

And besides, a delegate system doesn't get any more republican (in terms of democratic structures), not more democratic.
[ Parent ]
Let Me Count The Ways... (4.00 / 1)
...that Super Delegates are undemocratic.

1. Many, many of the super delegates are DNC members who are elected by a very narrow group of people.  Really Chris, how many people vote for DNC Members?

2. Super Delegates -- in the early stages at least -- always go with the party establishment candidate and thoy only change when they get scared of the voters.

3. Super Delegates and thier ilk -- the so-called regulars -- usually coalesce behind the most bland, won't rock the boat candidate like Humphrey, Dukakis, Kerry, etc.

4. Change come from the voters, rarely, if ever from people in power.

5. Some Super Delegates are elected to something, usually 2 to 4 years BEFORE a nomination race but the Presidential race almost never figures into the calculation of the voters.  Voters vote for, say in 2006, Jim Webb for Senate not for "whomever Jim Webb supports for President."  Those are two very different choices.  Voters pick Senators & Representatives, not de facto presidential electors.

6. In my home of Washington DC there will be 10 delegates picked as a result of our primary out of a total delegation of 44.  That is under 25% Democracy, not too great.  Clinton leads among Super Delegates and it will take a huge win in the primary and, frankly, putting the fear of the voters into thier mind before we reverse it.  That leads to unnecessary fights.

7. Let's be honest, the Super Delegate provision is in there because professional politicians in 1968 & 1972 got mad when thier choices were not the same as the voters and they had to miss out on a lot of parties at the Convention.  Dick Daley actually had to fight to go to the Convention after voters in Chicago rejected his slate.  The horror! Boo hoo.

8. This is not a parliamentary democracy.  People vote for the candidate more than the party.  I might prefer a parliamentary system and certainly every Pol Sci Ph. D would, but its beside the point.  Voters should be able to pick thier own candidate & not leave it up to backbenchers.

I could go on and hope to go on about this topic another time.

This was touched (0.00 / 0)
upon broadly upthread, but the problem is mainly that superdelegates are not accountable to their constituencies when they decide who to support.

I'm from Jersey, and the 10th Congressional District is a majority minority district, and primarily black. Given what information we have on African-Americans voting for Barack Obama, it is safe to predict that he would receive the most votes within the 10th District. Even so, Donald Payne, congressman from the 10th, has endorsed Hillary.  Likewise with the 9th District, Steve Rothman has endorsed Obama where his district is far more likely to go for Hillary. 

It's also worth considering the fact that a lot of elected representatives are likely to go with a home state pick, or someone they feel obligated to, whether they want to or not. So if you're a Congressman from Illinois or New York, you feel a lot of (hardly democratic) pressure to support Obama or Clinton, whether you truly want to or not.

Well (0.00 / 0)
they weren't elected to pick the presidential nominee. That's what would make it undemocratic.  More to the nuts and bolts, the ratio is apparently arbitrary.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
the 4/5 rule (0.00 / 0)
So when I vote in the WI primary, my vote only counts as 4/5 of a person ... and this is OK?

Bad for the movement (0.00 / 0)
My issue is not that it's any less democratic; it's that it's bad for the progressive movement.  Though the super delegates are elected, they are all part of the party establishment.  This isn't in and of itself a problem, but because members of the party establishment have something to gain by protecting the status quo, it is a problem.  Additionally, these people may actually personally profit by signing on with the winner ahead of time.  Because they are plugged in to the party establishment, get their information from DC punditry, and have something to gain by going with the winner, they are more likely to pick the candidate that the establishment picks early on to seal the deal.

In short, my issue with super delegates is that they are part of the machinery that creates the environment which leads to an "inevitability" campaign a la Mondale 1984, Gore 2000, and Clinton 2008.

[ Parent ]
What Is So Undemocratic About Super Delegates? | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox