February 14, 2008
The 'Superdelegates': Always Intended to be Independent (Lanny Davis)
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 (DNC) 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 percent, 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 — Sen. 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 up their minds. Others have already decided, in conscience, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) 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 to some people — after 26 years — 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 we all should agree, whether we’re supporters of Sen. Obama or Sen. 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 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), served as a Maryland Democratic National Committeeman from 1980-1992, and served as special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996-1998.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 15 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I like the idea of not changing the rules mid-season. So why doesn't Hillary follow that? Why is she trying to get the delegates seating in Florida and Michigan AFTER the fact?
Comment by Jamie — February 14, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Somebody must be in charge in the Democratic Party. It's ironic to hear about gaming the rules since it's Hillary Clinton who is trying to get the rules changed.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — February 14, 2008 @ 9:55 am
As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates – not the candidate who wins the most states. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He ceded Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale also lost a series of major primaries before winning the nomination, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Ohio, and California. And in 1976, Jimmy Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination, including: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.
All the names were on the Ballot in Florida, these delegates should be seated. Neither candidate campaigned there.
It was the Republican governor and legislature that changed the primary date at the serious OBJECTIONS of the Florida Democratic Party.
No one should be denied the right to vote, FOR ANY REASON.
The best bet would be to have run off elections in boths states, this way the issue of super delegates becomes moot.
Comment by Daniel — February 14, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Dear Mr. Davis,
If I am a super delegate and find that candidate "A" won the popular vote and won in states that carry the largest electoral vote in the general, can I chose candidate "A" over candidate "B" who may have earned slightly more delegates???
In 1972, Hubert Humphrey won the popular vote over George McGovern. As you know, McGovern got nuked in the general election.
Obama's rock start appeal ignores that he has very limited experience. Three years ago he was in the state legislature voting present on some hot issues. This is not to say he wouldn't make a fine leader now, but the press has not put him under the same microscope as they would any ither newcomer, and I'm wondering if his popularity has been fueled by the press. The media seem to be a major arm of his public relations team. But I know less and less about him as the days go by. All I know is the right now, Hillary is down and Obama is up and to stay tuned….
I know all about Hillary's fashion choices her harmless remarks about LBJ, but I know little of the proposed policies of either candidate. Their policies have not been given the same scrutiny as the gamesmanship between the two.
I have never hated the press more than I have in the last decade. They are so lame. The evening news these days is hard to differentiate between "Entertainment Tonight."
Politics now seems more tabloid then it does real news.
Comment by Daniel — February 14, 2008 @ 11:51 am
In the next few months, we are finally going to have the privilege of Senator Obama finally be vetted, by the Republicans and the media. Up to this point Senator Obama has been given a free ride by the Democratic party and media, but that is all about to change, on March 4 Obama's friend and benefactor Rezko trial begins.
At this time(all should get interesting unless of course the media and Democratic Party fails to ignore this living it to the Republicans to use to unravel Senator Obama's run for the White House after the primarys )if it is finally exposed in March and not until after our convention regarding Obama and Rezko at this time we will hopefully be blessed with super delegates who willingly give their vote to Senator Clinton, otherwise people we are probably going to have Senator McCain for President… his honesty will look refreshing after Obama is exposed!
Comment by diane b — February 14, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
John McCain? The man that was AGAINST the taxcuts in 2001 and 2003 BEFORE he was against them?
John McCain? The man that claims to have demanded Rumsfeld's resignation then had to reverse that statement?
John McCain? The man that wants to privatize social security?
John McCain? The man that want amnesty for illegals?
John McCain? The man that wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years if need be and setup SHOP there? The man that wants MORE troops there along Iran's border?
LANNY- superdelegates are NOT independents. They ALL can be BOUGHT.
Comment by Connie Manes — February 14, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
If social security isn't changed in some manner, the U.S. dollar won't have the buying power of a peso.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — February 14, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
I agree with Lanny, you can't change rules in the middle of an election.
As far as honesty and Mc Cain once again after Rezko and Obama are exposed, he will look honest by the Republicans. This is a fact!
McCain is a War Hero. We Democrats can not take that away from him.
Please tell me what has Obama done? Plenty wait till Spring, and he is not a War hero or former First Lady, Senator, who has traveled the world in behalf of our Country.
I do not want McCain but neither do I want a Man as President who can not come clean on his relationship with a very possible felon.The times are difficult and our Country faces, very difficult times and I would much rather have a President with the guts and courage, and experience necessary to be our Commander in Chief. That is Hillary Clinton!
Comment by diane b — February 14, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
Have you met these so-called SUPERdelegates. They aren't super at all. A great many of them are KIDS under the age of 25 who have absolutely no qualifications to select the next leader of the free world. Now, you can whine and cry all day long that people should not be asking superdelegates to vote for the candidate who garners the most pledged delegates, but you're the one asking the rules to be changed. Because the last time I checked, the rules of this country said that I have free speech. I can lobby anyone to do anything, and if the person I want to lobby happens to be a superdelegate, and I want to ask them to vote for the candidate who got the most pledged delegates, then that's my right, and you aren't taking that away from me. Nor will you take away from the American people the right to revolt against the Democratic Party the day you idiots go back into smoke filled rooms to betray us.
Comment by Dawn — February 16, 2008 @ 2:16 am
If the Democratic Party has to have brokered convention because there is no clear nominee, it's in trouble, regardless of who ends up as the nominee.
The winner of a brokered convention will have little legitimacy outside of the supporters that got them to the convention in the first place.
There's a lot of rhetoric about supporting the Democratic nominee regardless of the outcome. Given the amount of time and resources that Hillary and Obama are spending on attempting destroying each other, I am skeptical as to how many people would actually crossover, in the event of a brokered convention.
Comment by l6877 — February 16, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Obama is using the double standard for sure. He wants to void one agreement, the agreement to let Super Delegates be independent, but stick to the agreement to violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act by denying voters in Florida and Michigan representation at the convention.
The press is not calling Obama on his double standard because he is black. They are giving him a lot of leeway because they're afraid of the RACE antagonists.
I would love to see black President in my life time, but if it comes at the expense of voiding two million votes, then I will vote for McCain.
It was blacks who stuggled harder than anyone for the right to vote, and now we will elevate a candidate to the Presidency by denying two states representation?
As far as the rules are concerned. It was not for Howard Dean at the DNC, or the candidates themselves to agree to void my vote. This agreement was done in ERROR. As third parties, they can't decide where and when my vote is valid– it has nothing to do with them. They don't negotiate the meaning of my vote under any circumstances.
It doesn't matter who leads in the polls in Florida, or who would be hurt or benefit from a new primary.
Two million people got in their cars and stood in line to vote. How dare ANYONE, whether it be Hillary, Barack, or John to pre-determine what my vote means.
Comment by Daniel — February 17, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Remarkable.
Lanny's remarks and total spin this morning on CNN was shameful. And don't get me started on Hillary's new Stepford Wife, Ted Strickland?!?
Lanny accusing Obama of "gaming" the system?… Wow. Just wow.
Spin, spin, spin.
And Harold Ickes doesn't want the media (or the people) calling them "Super Delegates" anymore…
I didn't think there was any chance at all I'd vote for the republican in the general for prez this year.
Thanks to Bill Clinton's remarks before South Carolina… and this new dishonest strategy by Hillary Clinton's campaign, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that me and many, many others who support Obama will vote for McCain in the fall.
I'd rather have McCain in the White House and a dem-controlled congress over a polarizing president like Hillary Clinton who will most definitely give us a Republican house AND senate.
Let's see… with a republican house and senate and Hillary in the White House, what sort of "universal health care" will we get???……… unsuspecting 20-somethings forced to carry COBRA???
… and comment #8 is highly ironic– compare Rezko to Whitewater… rinse, repeat.
35 years of so-called Clinton experience??? How many years of that is Rose Law Firm, WalMart Board and failed first lady experience?…. hmmm.
Spin, spin… hyperbole… spin.
Geez.
Comment by Jeff McCollum — February 17, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Senator Cinton has been vetted, over and over. Please let Obama be vetted.
If we do not do this, well it will happen in the fall. I don't think he can win!
I won't vote for him, until I get some clear cut answers.
Comment by diane b — February 18, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Lanny,
Please bring to the public's consciousness the following:
Even though Obama has swept smaller and mid-size states, no one is talking about the fact that most, if not ALL of the states Obama has won held OPEN primaries or OPEN caucuses.
Clinton, so far, has won almost all the states a Democrat needs to win the general election, AND the Democratic turn out in these states was MUCH larger than the Republican and/or Independent turn out.
No one has talked about the fact that Republicans, who will either vote for McCain in the general election OR abstain from voting altogether, went to these open primaries and open caucuses EXPLICITLY to vote for or support Obama as an ANTI-Clinton vote. These people are not going to jump the fence for Obama when they can't get past McCain's so-called liberal tendencies.
The Superdelegates have the opportunity to correct what this phenomenon has caused. Of course, if they do, then everyone will accuse Hillary Clinton of being evil and divisive, and Obama will run as an independent.
Horror.
Comment by Christopher Appleton — February 19, 2008 @ 4:59 am
As Sen. Hillary Clinton has ‘managed’ to take the Pennsylvania state, the Democratic race for nomination is very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates. Indiana ,Idaho and west Virginia are still to come.
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Obama in office?!
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy…
Clinton Supporters:
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?!
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy…
REALLY easy to identify the superdelegates and reach out to them ! It includes a list of names, addresses, and affiliations of superdelegates from each state including your state
Comment by Jack — April 28, 2008 @ 7:40 am