You Vote, They Decide
February 18th, 2008
Adam
Adam is Right to Vote Director at FairVote.
As the neck-and-neck race for the Democratic nomination moves into snowy Wisconsin tomorrow, party leaders have begun the debate over the role of superdelegates at their August convention in Denver. Superdelegates, nearly a fifth of the total number of delegates at the convention, are elected officials and party leaders who are not bound by the will of the people. Because the Democrats award their pledged (elected) delegates proportionally, it is increasingly likely that the unpledged superdelegates will tip the balance and choose the Democratic nominee for president.
Of the 795 superdelegates, only about 300 (according to the New York Times) have not publicly endorsed either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama. Last week, Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, switched his vote from Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama because of the overwhelming Obama victory in his district. Other superdelegates are likely to move to the popular vote winner of their district or state to avoid potential political complications.
Party leaders, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, are becoming increasingly vocal about how superdelegates should vote at the convention. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Speaker Pelosi said it would be “a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”
But what exactly will the public decide? Does she mean the national popular vote winner or the pledged delegate winner? Should superdelegates vote for the winner of their congressional district or the statewide popular vote winner? What if the delegate margin is so close (as many pundits expect it to be) that the “will of the people” is only a difference of a few pledged delegates? Is that enough to swing hundreds of superdelegates in the direction of the one of the candidates?
While all these questions will eventually have answers (and future blog posts), one thing is certain: the Democratic Party’s method of selecting a nominee is far more (small-d) democratic than the Republican method. The Republican’s winner-take-all delegate allocation rewards early wins and truncates the process by anointing the winner of a few large states. Inside the beltway, conventional wisdom is that this method (while less democratic) helps the Republicans because they can stop fighting with each other and begin focusing on the general election.
Unless the Democratic superdelegates vote with the people, they will be no more democratic than their Republican counterparts.
UPDATE: According to RealClearPolitics.com, the popular vote count today is:
Popular Vote Total- Obama - 9,534,440 Clinton - 8,830,610
Popular Vote (w/FL) Obama -10,110,654 Clinton - 9,701,596
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* Obama - 10,110,654 Clinton - 10,029,905
(*Obama Not on Michigan Ballot; Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals)
FairVote Board member Hendrik Hertzberg has an ongoing discussion about this topic on The New Yorker blog.
Check out this full page ad supported by FairVote Action that will appear this week in USA Today.
Other posts by Adam
- Election Deception and, of course, long lines... - November 4th, 2008
- VoterStory.org - November 3rd, 2008
- Organize After Election Day - October 31st, 2008
- National Report Shows Big Problems in Big Counties - October 27th, 2008
- New Report Shows Virginia May Have Election Day Problems - October 20th, 2008
- YouTube Wants You to "Video Your Vote" - October 16th, 2008
- Colorado May Have Election Day Problems - October 6th, 2008
- New FairVote Report Gives New Mexico Elections Mixed Review - September 8th, 2008
- New Study: Missouri May Experience Long Lines in November - August 28th, 2008
- NYTimes Features Upcoming FairVote Report - July 21st, 2008
February 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Wow. I am sorry to see the D party do this. From a life long Dem, mark my word, your going to put another Bush in the Whitehouse:(
February 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
You raise good questions, Adam. The superdelegates need to balance imperatives. On one hand, the primary process is designed to be democratic. On the other, the reason for superdelegates is to pick an electable nominee.
Going with statewide winners would strike a balance between democracy and electability. It would square the circle.
Congressional districts are undemocratic anyway. One, many are gerrymandered to reflect the will of the state or national party. Two, echoing a theme Rob Richie often invokes, geographic representation on such a physically small scale is an anachronism in an era of mass communication and spatial mobility. How many people live in one district and work in another? How media markets straddle congressional districts, to say nothing about mass communication on a wider scale? How many families will move from one district to another, remaining in the same state, over the courses of their lives?
Now, electoral college votes - I never capitalize the term because it’s actually a common noun - are allocated state-by-state. So competition in that race will be for the hearts and minds of statewide median voters. From the perspective of electability, going by congressional district seems to distort the location of that median voter. On average, the odds of approximating the general election statewide median voter seem to increase when one votes with the primary election statewide median voter. (Of course, there may be districts, by chance or design, where the median Democratic voter is closer to the statewide overall median voter. But I am looking for a general solution.)
February 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I would like to see another candidate for President besides the poor choices we have now, Ralph Nader has just entered the race, but I don’t think he is the one. I just checked his website votenader.org and found that the biggest issue hurting Americans at home, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, is not even on his 12 Issues That Matter Most in 2008. Illegal imigration should be a number one Priority, right up there with the Iraq war. I am looking for an anti-amnesty Presidential candidate, he’d get my vote!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Addressing the SuperDelegate issue is one important part of fixing the primary system. The public perception of a democratic process is a major factor in the reality of a democratic process. In other words, if it seems fair to most people, then in a real sense it IS more fair. While SuperDelegates may exist to increase the likelihood of an electable nominee, increasing Democrats’ perception of the fairness of the method of selecting that nominee will improve the support of that nominee. Therefore, if a substantial number of Democrats believe that the SuperDelegate factor contributes to an elitist and unfair method of selecting the nominee for the Democratic party, then those voters will be less likely to put their support behind that candidate, or their support will be less enthusiastic.
Your comments on SuperDelegates are welcome here, and also join the discussion of another primary reform issue, that of a regional or interregional primary system. Find thoughts, links, and a chance to voice your view at regionalprimary.wordpress.com.