MoveOn Superdelegate Petition
After making a number of comments on Jack’s recent posting, I felt that it was time to put up or shut up and start posting my own contributions, so that I can aspire to being viciously attacked by anonymous ideologues.
As my first formal blog post on this great site, I’d like to take this opportunity to endorse an online petition by MoveOn.org that encourages superdelegates to support the people’s choice, and can be found at http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/. The full text reads as follows:
“The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people’s choice.”
In the interests of full disclosure, I want to say that I currently support Obama, who is the candidate that would most likely benefit from this petition, but I also support the principles of this petition regardless for the following reasons:
1) Increasing the responsiveness of the Democratic party to the American people to counteract the arcane rules put in place to maximize party control over the process. I’ve enjoyed the switch from “winner take all” primary states, but the effective outcome has been to increase the leverage of the superdelegates, who are not held to the same pledged standards. The outcome of a petition like this may be to increase the concentration of the candidates on persuading the American people of their merit, rather than wooing the party elites.
2) Manufacturing a substantial margin of victory for the winner of the primary process. This is much less of a concern, but I do like the idea that this will guarantee a close battle for the vote of the American people, but a definitive outcome to the entire process, in which the potentially small margin of victory will be augmented by the full weight of the superdelegates. Personally, I’d rather get rid of the superdelegates altogether, or possibly split them exactly in half, but getting them to vote 100% in favor of the primary winners will make that winner look more legitimate, give the appearance of party unity, and sidestep the complexity of guaranteeing the complexity of the other preferred outcomes.
There’s some interesting arguments on NYT blog.
Well? What do you think? If you’re interested in signing the petition, please check out the following link: http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/
Jack on 27 Feb 2008 at 4:36 am #
Good issues to raise, Chris. It does seem like the nomination is coming down to an electoral college of sorts (never caps; common noun). Mixed feelings about that.
My old colleagues have an interesting blog discussion brewing. Gets into the superdelegates issue and, if they were to go with a popular vote, what “popular” ought to mean (national, statewide, CD, et cetera).
Daniel Adams on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:39 am #
Also being an admitted Obama supporter, I have to say that I don’t really mine the super delegate thing. Perhaps the number of super delegates is a bit high, but I don’t really mind it.
First, while we are having an electoral process, this isn’t really an election. This is really an internal party decision making process. The parties are free to decide how they want to determine who their nominees are. One process may be more inclusive than the others, but it’s still a legitimate process.
Second, the rules have been known from day 1. Everyone knew that super delegates have an extra say if this process came down to the wire. This isn’t news, it’s just that this time it may actually impact the process.
Third, I really don’t think a majority of the super delegates will go against the “will of the people.” Depending on March 4, either one candidate will have significant momentum and you’ll see super delegates flock to that candidate, or it will be deadlocked again and you’ll probably see a number of super delegates sit it out until the convention.
Fourth, I would like to echo one of the issues Jack raised. What is the will of the people? If you a super delegate congressman, do you vote for the candidate that won your district and governors vote for who one your state? What if you’re a super delegate cause you are an official in the DNC? Do you vote reflecting the outcome in your home state?
Jack on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:59 am #
Actually, I’m re-raising an issue raised by someone else.
Seems to me that the strategically wisest option is to go with the statewide popular vote.
Christopher Neu on 27 Feb 2008 at 10:07 am #
I have to say that I agree with just about everything that Danny has mentioned on this, but I’d like to add two more comments to the discussion:
1) While yes, the rules have been known from day one, that doesn’t mean the rules have been ones that I would consider preferable from day one. This petition does not change the rules of the game for the Democratic party, but it does encourage them to cast their votes for the popular winner. Admittedly, the “will of the people” is left undefined, but the spirit is such to advocate against backroom deals.
2) My main disagreement with the superdelegate process is not unlike my hatred of the electoral college. It’s a known and relatively predictable part of the game, but it still ultimately distorts the peoples vote. I’d like to just take a little bit of agency away from the superdelegates and put it back in the hands of the American people.
MSS on 27 Feb 2008 at 8:20 pm #
As someone who both studies comparative parties for a living and is supporting Obama, I tend to agree with Daniel–up to a point. I see nothing wrong, in principle, with a party involving its elected officeholders and local party officials in the selection of the candidate for the highest elective office. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. The presidential candidate needs these people in the fall election, and will need them again as president if he or she is elected. And given separation of powers, there is precious little that actually binds the president and various parts of the party together, so putting these officials’ influence up front could help cement the reciprocity needed to elect and govern later.
The problem, as I see it, is the internal inconsistency and lack of transparency of the current process. On the one hand, we have primaries in which voters expect their vote to count. Caucuses are rather different–given lower turnout and the required heavier level of commitment to participate in one. Yet, to be honest, I don’t have any principled problem with them, either, other than that they add yet another layer of inconsistency to the whole process.
So voters/caucusers vote for their favorite pre-candidate, and their vote translates into delegates pledged to that candidate form their district or state. And then here come these other delegates who could overturn the popularly elected delegates’ majority choice. While the candidates certainly knew the game from the start, I doubt many voters knew that their choice could be overturned by unelected delegates–until recently. Actually, given the state of political knowledge in this country, I wonder how many understand the process now. (I wonder if I understand the process, and I am a political scientist!)
Seems to me it should be one or the other. Either the votes (or delegates allocated off those votes) are decisive, or let the officeholders and party leaders do it. Or the motivated activist type, as in a caucus. The current mix seems to combine the worst of all these approaches.
A smart institutional designer could probably think of coherent combinations of these principles–involving the voters, the activists, and the officeholders–but I don’t think anyone can claim that the process we have is either coherent or transparent.