Thursday, February 14, 2008

What's wrong with Super-Delegates?

Perhaps it is because I am a political junkie who finds fascinating the mechanics of government, but I really don’t understand why people are getting all bent out of shape about the concept of un-pledged delegates making the final decision for the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

“It’s unfair.” “It ignores the will of the people.” “It sounds like a Communist/Fascist/(insert immoral political philosophy of your choice here) plot.”

“It's Un-American.”

Those are the thoughts being expressed by the Professional Political Pontificators these days about the “super-delegates” who may wind up casting the final votes and deciding whether Barack Obama or Hillary R. Clinton will be the Democrat who gets to tangle with likely GOP nominee John McCain come the Nov. 4 general election.

Those people (many of whom are professional pundits who prostitute their viewpoints for money) want to think it is wrong for several classifications of delegates to be included this year in Denver at the Democratic National Convention.

While most of those delegates were either allocated to supporters of whichever candidate won the popular vote in each congressional district or which candidate took the popular vote across the state, some delegates have a different status.

The delegates who were allocated based on elections results are obligated to go to the nominating convention and support (at least initially) the candidate for whom they declared support early on.

When former Illinois Attorney General and state Comptroller Roland Burris (one of the delegates I voted for in a district that solidly went for Obama) travels to Denver, he is required to remain true to Barack. Only if the convention turns into a free-for-all with no candidate being able to take a majority would he be allowed to consider changing his mind.

Then, there are the un-pledged delegates, also known as the “super-delegates.” They do not have to declare a preference, and they can vote at the nominating convention for whichever candidate they choose.

The triple-P’s of the world would have you think that all these “super-delegates” are craven individuals who are going to ignore the will of the people in their respective states and pick a presidential nominee based on which one is willing to offer them personally the best perks.

They also state these “super-delegates” are, “elected by no one” and are, “accountable to nobody.” They want to believe this is the equivalent of the days of old when Tammany Hall and Chicago Machine politicos would cut political deals that did not have the interests of the public in mind.

I don’t buy it.

For one thing, it is not true that the “super delegates” are un-elected. In reality, they are elected government officials – they just weren’t elected specifically to be “super-delegates.”

In each of the 50 states, the “super-delegates” include every member of Congress (including the two senators). Also included are the governors and other high-ranking state officials. There also are a few slots in each state that are filled at the last minute, and party officials usually pick people who are reliable when it comes to voting along with the mood of the political party.

In Illinois, there are 35 super-delegate slots among the delegates at the convention. Of those, 32 are set and the other three will be filled some time in May.

Some choices are likely to be made based on the desires of the Democratic Party to have a convention of presidential nominators that bears some resemblance to the overall racial and ethnic makeup of the United States of America. There also are party rules that require the delegations from each state to consist of an equal number of women and men.

The bottom line is that for those of us from Illinois, the Democratic “super-delegates” are going to be people like Sen. Richard Durbin, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

I expect Mayor Richard M. Daley also will be a “super-delegate,” unless Rich decides he doesn’t feel like spending a week in Denver this summer. In which case, he will probably arrange for one of his brothers (former Commerce Secretary William or Cook County Board member John) to fill the slot.

These people were elected to their positions of influence in large part because they know how to reflect the moods of the people who live in their respective districts. If they really behave in a manner as reprehensible as the triple-P commentators would have us believe, we can always take it out on them come Election Day.

Would Sen. Durbin (who probably is a shoo-in for re-election to his third term in the U.S. Senate) really be willing to risk the wrath of the voter and give his token Republican opponent a legitimate campaign issue to use against him? Does Blagojevich want to stir up the wrath of Democrats even more than he already has by cutting a sleazy presidential deal?

There is another factor to consider.

The “super-delegate” issue only comes into play if the regularly chosen delegates who are publicly bound to a specific candidate cannot reach a decision on their own as to who the presidential nominee should be.

The critics would have you think that the “will of the people” was being ignored by the super-delegates. In reality, the “will” is uncertainty. If the will of the people was as strong for one candidate as these pundits want us to believe, then one of the candidates would wind up with a majority of the elected delegates.

There would be no need for the next step of “super-delegates,” whose purpose would be to serve as a tiebreaker mechanism used by the political party if the majority of declared delegates become hopelessly deadlocked and cannot choose a candidate.

Insofar as political mechanisms are concerned, “super-delegates” sounds to me like a reasonable way to break ties. At least those individuals have to put themselves on the record, and their political legacies (always a priority with elected officials) would be at stake if they truly voted for someone the locals hated.

I always hate it when government matters are decided on something that is the equivalent of a coin toss. For those who think I’m exaggerating, all too many decisions with great effects on public policy were made by dumb luck.

Had then-Illinois Secretary of State George H. Ryan reached into the antique glass bowl once used by Abraham Lincoln and picked out the name of a Democrat in 1991, Republicans likely NEVER would have gained control of the state Legislature in the 1990s.

But Ryan picked out the Republican name, and the commission that drew political boundaries for the decade used their influence to favor their political party. Likewise, Democrats gained control in the 1980s and in the current decade because that same random drawing ended in their favor.

Would you really want the Democratic Party’s nominee being chosen by putting the names of Obama and Clinton into a hat (perhaps one once worn by Franklin D. Roosevelt), and picking one out at random?

What I find ironic is that both Clinton and Obama (in their roles as U.S. senators from New York and Illinois respectively) are “super-delegates” themselves. Both will get the chance in Denver to personally try to sway their “super-delegate” colleagues over to their side. It’s not like either one of them will be at a disadvantage due to access.

Besides, the concept of political party officials getting together to decide who should represent their party for president is a good thing, particularly if the convention turns into a debate.

The last thing that a healthy Democracy needs is a nominating convention that is a pre-set schedule of events intended to be a candidate coronation or an over-glorified political pep rally.

Regardless of the celebration that one campaign will do at convention’s end, the other side will wind up the loser. Then, the winner has to reach out to the losing faction and remind them of the issues they have in common (which in the case of Obama and Clinton is most everything). If the winning Democrat can’t do that, then we the people of the United States of America get President McCain.

It will be messy to watch the politicos at work while they figure out whether we are better off with Obama or Clinton at the top of the ballot. But the “mess” IS Democracy at work.

Democracy is often rambunctious and raucous. It is not neat and pretty. As far as I’m concerned, anybody who would want “neat and pretty” politics is asking for something that is really and truly Un-American.

-30-

Originally posted at www.ChicagoArgus.blogspot.com

4 comments:

Anonymous,  2:01 AM  

I don't know if anyone's asked him, but I'm pretty sure that if Bill Foster is elected to Congress, he'd use his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.

Perhaps he should mention the fact that a vote for him is a convention vote for Barack in order to help get out the Democratic vote, especially disaffected Laesch supporters.

Anonymous,  4:49 PM  

-- this is the equivalent of the days of old when Tammany Hall and Chicago Machine politicos would cut political deals that did not have the interests of the public in mind. --

Days of old? I know New York has reformed, but Chicago is far from renouncing this type of technique. "Machine politicos would cut political deals that did not have the interests of the public in mind." That pretty much sums up evrything the Dems do in Chicago, Cook County, and the State of Illinois.

Vote McCain and keep the dirt of Chicago and Illinois politics out of the White House!!

Anonymous,  5:03 PM  

I have no problem with super delegates and I agree 100% with your post here. It's ironic that a lot of the people that think this is undemocratic also think the old fashion caucus system is democracy at its best. Wrong. That system is so disenfranchising (if thats a word). Having to show up at a certain time leaves out many potential voters (nurses, McDonalds workers, police, etc). Plus having to vote openly flys in the face a fair election. Can you imagin having caucuses in Chicago with your precinct captain in the room? Having superdelegates represent me for my party nominee makes sense.

Roger 8:08 AM  

It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To

It’s called the Democratic Party, but there's no democracy left in it. The aspect of the party’s nominating process is completely at odds with democracy. I wish it wasn't true because it has been my party for many years. The vote was once denied to women. It was denied to blacks. It was denied to those without land. Today there’s a new kind of voter suffrage! A lack of primary election uniformity gives the residents of some states far more leverage than others. Some votes can even be denied. Now, through rules and schedules, the DNC can apparently deny votes to anyone it wishes!

The party that cries that everyone has right to vote and every vote should count, is and has been a down right bunch of soviet style hypocrites right out of George Orwell's Animal Farm. Remember the phrase “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." How true it is.

First of all, there's that primary system that prevents many people from choosing the nominee. Usually at this stage in the election cycle, the candidates have already been chosen by about 13 to 15 states. Voters are left to rubberstamp the nominee. Many choice candidates have already had to drop out. As a rule, by now the nominee has the majority of delegates, the primary season is pretty much over and the will of 35 -37 states has been disenfranchised. Big deal! I think so! Three fourths of the country hasn’t voted and the nominee has been chosen. This is unequivocally wrong. We all know this, really. We've been putting up with this nonsense for years. We act like there’s nothing that can be done about it. Why? We are paying the salaries of enough politicians to examine more than steroid use in baseball. The truth is the front-end big money quickly guarantees the nominee. Democracy? Are you kidding?

Those who believe this are in denial. And that’s not a state of denial. It's a nation of denial.

Then there's the biggest slap in the face voters could ever get. Super Delegates! Able to leap frog over votes with a single bound. Super Delegates have the unchecked authority to override the will and the popular vote of its people. Wow! Sounds like the machinations of the evil empire.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40
percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. These delegates can vote contrary to the popular vote of the respective state party members.


This is the party that decries the Electoral College!

Furthermore, these people really vote twice for their nominee, once in their primary and then at the convention. Democratic? What happened to one man; one vote?
The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former
Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, many of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean. Many are not accountable to voters. Some even actively campaign for the candidates!

The Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard (talk about fear mongering) to guarantee party control over the nomination process. In case voters foolishly nominate the candidate of their choice; the overlords can …. override. It's not voter control; but insiders' control...sort of a veto over the nomination process. It sounds like something Putin’s party would do. No democracy in that. Interestingly, we criticize that kind of behavior all over the world. But not here.

Party spokesmen defend this apparatus by saying that it is not new. Well, neither is tyranny. I thought, We the people, were above all that.

Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate that's not viable. In that case, the Super Delegates come to the rescue. (How can the will of voters in a democracy be a mistake?) What is this myth that the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy? That’s only if the little guy doesn’t get it wrong! The Super delegates know best who the nominee should be.

So why have primaries at all?

Cosmetic purposes I suspect. In other words, “our” candidate can be chosen by someone, other than “our” vote. There's no democracy in that. There’s no democracy in the Democratic Party anymore.

The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process earlier this year, rejecting pleas from state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary. The DNC says Shame on you Florida!

Florida, as well as Michigan, and other states wanted to have a meaningful voice
in the nomination process. They were sick of wielding the rubber stamp, election cycle after election cycle. Florida and Michigan primary voters wanted their vote to have the same weight as other states, just as West Virginia voters would like. Imagine that. How terrible.





The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted to strip
Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in
Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal. This was done by the party big
Whigs, Not Republicans. Not the state legislature, but the "democratic party"
Get this clear; regardless of who moved the primary date, it was the party itself who denied the seating of delegates. Stop the spin on this; it’s transparent.

Where's the cries for "everyone should vote and every vote should count?" That sentiment is not for primary voters, I geuss.

The penalty did not take effect for 30 days, and rules committee members urged
officials from the nation's fourth-most-populous state to use the time to
schedule a later statewide caucus and thus regain its delegates. They could have scheduled a caucus. They did not!

By making an object lesson of Florida, Democrats hoped to squelch other renegade states'
efforts to move their voting earlier. This was an effort to stop the erosion of the DNC's control over the nomination process. Not too damned democratic!

Now they are caught in an unseemly situation! The internal contrivances are
very visible. It looks more like the Supreme Soviet version of the emperor has no clothes.

But wait there's more.

Here comes Hillary! With a Parse Accord!

Hillary Clinton feels their pain. As a press spokesman said last week, "The people of Florida and Michigan have already voted, and their voices ought to be heard. That's why Sen. Clinton is urging her delegates to vote to seat both delegations at the convention."

What a surprise. After all, she won both primaries. But she owes her victories to the fact that her opponents didn't campaign in Florida or Michigan while her ground crew was fully engaged. Having profited because her rivals followed the rules, she now wants to benefit because those states didn't.

She wants to benefit by breaking the rules she agreed to … on Day One!
(Well maybe she was ready (on Day One) to do this all along!)

Says DNC Chairman Howard Dean, "You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Florida and Michigan voted for a set of rules and then decided that, unlike the other 48 states, they would do something different. That's not fair, and it doesn't respect the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, or the other 48 states." And He is right!


You can’t change the rules in middle of the game, unless you are the DNC, Super Delegates or the Clintons. Voters can't change the rules by moving their primaries forward so they can have a choice. Voters can’t ever, ever, ever change the rules. And that’s a rule. You got that!

Now step by step, systematic and dubious arguments are being put forward by surrogates to cave into the Clintons, who apparently own the party, rather than we voters… Oh I forgot, we West Virginians aren’t voters, we haven't voted!

A revote is being proposed for these states Florida and Michigan, meanwhile West Virginia hasn't even voted once! (And her vote is not likely to matter with the looming super delegates!) This revote doesn't help Edwards or the rest of the guys who followed the rules.

This country needs primary election reform, including a change the archaic primary schedules, the elimination of non-proportional allocation of delegates and certainly the elimination of super delegates. Hopefully current events will act as the kryptonite needed. If we had primary voting reform, we may have a different set of nominees. Nominees that could be chosen by an equal opportunity electorate. Maybe we need some affirmative action here guys! As far as, the party goes I’m not laughing! Contrarily, perhaps, we need a party that does not make us cry... (Foul!) that is

After All,


It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to,
And if you are a democrat
You should cry too,
Cause it’s happening to you!

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP