I suspect that this might be more hyperbole than solemn vow, but in an effort to wean out hyperbole, I’d to ask, seriously, for a dialog on what the effects of such a move might be. The superdelegate system certainly makes it possible. Considering that the system itself arose out of a reform effort, would this be enough cause to eliminate it, and would that in fact happen?
I like the Democrats’ proportional award of delegates, much better than I like my own party’s “winner-take-all” system – but I dislike the superdelegate aspect. And even the winner-take-all is analogous to the electoral college system, so it arguably helps select a candidate who can do well in that system… but that’s irrelevant to this discussion, so I’ll shut up about it.
What would really be the effects on the party, and the party’s rules, of an outcome this year in which Senator Obama wins the majority of popular vote delegates, but Senator Clinton wins the nomination?
I think the chances of a third party run by Obama are as close to zero as possible, were he to lose the nomination.
However, if the superdelegates go against the “will” of the primaries, in either direction, I believe it would disasterous for the general election, and probably would be enough to hand what should be an easy win over to the Republicans. It wouldn’t take more than a small percentage of disillusioned voters just staying home to do so.
I’ve said numerous times, long before this became a genuine issue, that the Democrats would lose their moral authority. For eight years they have talked about the Republicans and how they stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. Were they to usurp the mandate given to them by members of their own party I don’t see how they could ever claim that anything is illegitimate ever again.
For the record, if this happens McCain wins big. By big I mean 70-30 big. How can you legitimately ask people who wanted a candidate to vote for his usurper in the name of “party unity”?
I’ll tell you this, though: somewhere, right now, Al Gore is shaking his head at the irony of it all.
askeptic is absolutely right. The effect on the party would be terrible, psychologically it’d be depressing, and HRC could look forward to losing in the national because she’s a snarky woman no one turned out to vote for her. Saddly we do not live in that world and people would turn out to vote for her. I wouldn’t. As for how it would effect the party rules, I’ll let someone else get to that.
While I appreciate this, and while I guess I invited it with my thread title, I’m more interested in exploring what the rules changes might ensue for the Democrats – what the effects on the party might be. So… after your election day stay-home, what do you want to see the party do?
On preview, seeing other reposnes…
Again, not looking so much for a commentary on how bad the image would be, but what changes the party might consider, if any, and how the various factions within the DNC might respond. The superdelegate system arose after concerns that the party faithful would lose all influence – would this cook thier goose? Or could they cast this as an abberation and keep the system?
It is a tempting scenario. The Dem “leadership” leans heavily to Clinton and would probably be inclined to put their thumb on the scales so long as it isn’t actually blatant. But if Obama wins a substantial majority, they will suck it up. They will have no option, if the base sees their will thwarted by the DNC, they will organize from the grass roots and chuck them out on their ears.
Of course, they could take it to the Supreme Court, and the Supremes will decide that Bush won the Democratic nomination.
I can imagine few scenarios where I would willingly choose not to vote in a Presidential election, but this would be one of them. What a waste it would be, and the Clintons could count on having their legacy being permanently redefined for the worse.
Plus, even if Obama were to run again post-McCain, I wouldn’t blame him for being a changed man–less hopeful, more disillusioned and cynical, more jaded with the process (and I couldn’t blame the larger citizenry to feed off that vibe as well).
And Airman Doors makes a very good point–the establishment Democrats would look like a bunch of hypocrites, and it wouldn’t surprise me if an enormous backlash against all superdelegates (read: congressional Dems) who chose her over Obama would be shortcoming as well.
Of course if the pledged delegate match was a toss up (within a dozen) and the popular vote was very close then I could see the justification and would not let it influence my vote. I would question their judgement strenuously, but give them the benefit of the doubt. But if there is a clear leader and the superdelegates went against that desire of the electorate then I would be among many who would actively work against HRC. It might not destroy the party but it would cripple it for years to come. Losses would follow at all levels.
I do not see such an outcome as very possible and I actually do not mind the superdelegate system albeit I think their proportion is too great.
The point of the system is to help make sure that the party’s best interests are represented. The classic hypothetical would be a three or four way race and back room deals between various losing factions for support such that a candidate with less popular support got the nod over the one with more. Superdelegates are there to quash that. They are professionals at putting their fingers in the air.
On preview, rule changes? It would be too late. The party would be toast for many years to come.
What probably would happen is that the superdelegates would be gotten rid of, or their role in the party diminished. What I’d like to see happen is the party go back to winner take all primaries. That would help guarantee an earlier nominee and decrease the ability of minority candidates to serve as spoilers. If that change were made, then it would be unlikely that superdelegate votes would ever be neccesary.
I think the superdelegate system is doomed. Many people did not know about it or understand it. Now that we see first hand what COULD happen I bet most people will feel as I do and try to get rid of it as a system. The Democratic party should be controlled by democratic principles and processes. The superdelegate system is not part of what I understand as democracy.
Ok – devil’s advocate for a moment, since I am not a member of the party to begin with…
But as I understand it, the superdelegates are: Democratic governors, senators, and representatives from each state and DNC members from each state. DNC members are elected by their state convention delegates; the elected officials are (obviously) elected by the populace at large. So in a sense, this mirrors the democratic republic we have now: we elect leaders, and the leaders do their thing, even if “their thing” is contrary to the desires of the people. More than half the country didn’t think President Clinton should have been impeached, but the House did it anyway, because in our system, we don’t require that every step our elected leaders take be approved by the people.
So if the superdelegates select Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, aren’t they doing that same kind of thing? Voting their own agenda, their own conscience, based on what they were voted into office to do?
Interestingly enough, it looks like Clinton’s campaign may be banking on just such a thing. Link
I can’t see her winning if she pulls something like that, there’s still a decent sized portion of the Democratic Party base pissed off about the 2000 general election popular vote/electoral vote disparity. To have something like that come from within the party would be the last straw. Eventually, lacking a real alternative, they might trickle back, but for a cycle or two the Democratic Party would be broken. In the meantime, as an effort to woo back the lost, I think the superdelegate system would receive an overhaul.
I’d be happy to see a system where a simple majority of the pledged delegates wins the nomination. Move some of the later primaries up a bit, so you don’t have to wait until June before the last ones are picked and can schedule the convention well ahead of the general election. I think the idea that the party should have a spoiler against the popular vote of its supporters is wrong and undemocratic.
I can’t argue with anything you said. I hope you will note that I voted for HRC I still feel that the Democratic nominee should be the person who gets the most votes even if it is not the person I voted for. I don’t think the party should get to pick ringers nor do I think already elected Senators or Representatives should get more than one vote. One person, one vote. I think the best system would scrap the antiquated convention and move to a popular vote system with run-offs if no one got 50%+1. The conventions are from another era. Technology would allow all states to vote on the same day and have a run-off a month later if needed. That would eliminate the race to be first on the primary calendar.
I think those superdelegates who voted “against the will of the people” would find their re-election chances to be very slim. Not only would the Republicans coast to a win for the Presidency, but they would see the Dems in total dis-array at all levels for the next few election cycles, as voters vented their wrath on those they’d hold responsible for the debacle. Any attempt to crown Hillary without the regular delegates will doom the Democrats for a decade.
She’d crash and burn, if for no other reason than a win like that would depress turnout and she would have to spend a bunch of time over the summer trying to win over Obama supporters while McCain ran to the middle and tried to pick off independents.
What would I do personally? Stay home or write in my own candidate, and change my registration to independent. Of course, I’m thinking about changing my registration anyway, and even if Obama wins, I won’t vote for him if I don’t like what I hear during the campaign.
If everybody votes on the same day you give a huge advantage to those with the most name recognition and money, and to large states because in that system they’d receive the majority of the attention every time. In this primary year it would have meant Clinton and either Romney or Guiliani with nobody else having much of a chance. I think there’s merit in allowing a couple small states to go first and then following with larger ones later as is done now. The small states should have to rotate though, to make it more fair.
I don’t necessarily agree but I have not given this issue much thought. You may have a point but I still think the only fair way is all to vote at the same time. That way candidates without unlimited financial war chests could stand for election. As it is, frequently a nominee is chosen before many people get a chance to vote and that seems like disenfranchisement.