The Democratic Party Isn’t Very Democratic
February 7, 2008 – 12:46 pm —
I am a democrat for the same reasons that many of you reading this are- I believe in (most of) what the Democratic Party stands for and am confident that democratic leadership in government is best for the American people. But when I say I’m a democrat, I’m talking about the Democratic Party as a collection of ideals; the Democratic Party as an institution is much, much different. In fact, this primary season has illustrated a fundamental weakness of the institutions of the Democratic Party. Namely, the Democratic Party isn’t actually very democratic.
While different news sources are still allocating the last of the delegates from last Tuesday (see CNN.comand MSNBC.com for examples), Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have essentially split the delegates pledged on Super Tuesday. This puts them in a virtual tie as far as delegate count is concerned. And delegate count is important - the candidate who wins 2,025 delegates by the convention later this year will be our party’s nominee for the 2008 presidential election. Their split in delegates can be attributed to party rules that pledged delegates are allocated based on both statewide victory and victories in congressional districts throughout the state. Emphasis here is on pledged. These are the delegates who we as voters send to the convention when we vote in our state’s primary. But out of a total 4,049 delegates that will nominate a candidate in Denver this August, the total number of pledged delegates only amounts to 3,253. And the other 796? I think you get the point, as I’m not the first to ever use the term “superdelegate.”
These superdelegates, or unpledged delegates, therefore make up between 19 and 20% of the total number of delegates who will have a say in nominating our presidential candidate. In fact, this number may change, as the DNC Delegation Selection Rules do not require confirmation of the superdelegates until March 1, 2008 (see extract below). The number has always hovered between 15 and 20 percent since these new rules were adopted by the Democratic Party for the 1984 DNC National Convention, according to the New York Times. However, given the neck and neck battle for pledged delegates going on right now between Clinton and Obama, this large contingent of remaining delegates could very well decide who our candidate is for us.
To make matters worse (even more undemocratic), not all of these superdelegates are even elected officials themselves! This excerpt is from the DNC Delegation Selection Rules :
Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state’s delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party:1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.”
June Kronholz highlighted this exact problem in today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. She sums up well what makes me mad about our selection process: “The party’s bigwigs, rather than its voters, may end up choosing the presidential nominee.” Even more illuminating is the history her article offers to reasons behind why the Democratic Party would have such a rule.
Superdelegate votes were allocated to Democratic governors, senators and other party honchos in a series of party rules changes in 1984. The idea was to encourage the party’s office holders to attend the convention and provide a firewall in case someone unelectable — say, a Huey Long populist or Norman Thomas socialist — swept the primaries, says Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who helped write the rules.”
The reasoning behind this reminds me of why the founders created an Electoral College: we normal voters might not be capable of picking the best candidate to represent us as democrats, so our helpful party leaders have been nice enough to make that decision for us.
As I was writing this, news sources and blogs have all been reporting that Mitt Romney has dropped out of the Republican race. That means now that John McCain is basically a lock as the Republican nominee. Republican voters should be proud of McCain (if he does actually become their candidate); they voted for him. I don’t know if I can feel the same way about our own candidate if he or she is picked instead by Howard Dean and the DNC.
3 Comments
I would like to let Senator Clinton know that Im proud of you. You truly bring a positive message to the american people. the Constitution says we are to promote the general welfare of the people. I know that to mean every single american not some, not most, but all the people. I firmly believe that your health care plan will definitely set the wheels in motion toward true universal health care.
I believe you will move the troops out of iraq in a responsible manner that will keep our allies on the ground in Iraq safe and will also help us keep face with the other powers that be around the world.
Most people I talk to as well as I believe you and Bill are a team and have always been a team and that is what angered the macho republicans in the 90’s and why it was easy for them to spread a smear campaign on you and why a lot of men are looking to disparage you. Lets face it most boys want to control the toys. lol.
On the economy I believe Clintonomics not Reaganomics is why we are not completely sunk as a country into depression in-spite of Bush and the republican congress best efforts to sink us.
An important point that is not being properly examined i think because the right wing (fox news) and left wing (cnn news) doesn’t support you. {Quick note: extreme conservatives and liberals only represent together 40% or less of the american population but 90 percent of the media in this country.} Most people are in the middle just like you. Matter of fact just like the state of Missouri showed. You are not getting much activist support because you see the whole solution and do not pander to the other special interest groups in this country, the diehard conservatives or the bleeding heart liberals. But instead have the pragmatic views that the silent majority represent. (Silent Majority being the thing not properly examined by the media.)
You Senator Clinton are the voice of the silent majority aka the people that carry the country on there back. But if you do not get more of us to talk for you, you will lose because these other guys get free advertising from the media powers that be and all you get is negative press and joy from news anchors and pundits when you have a set back.
My suggestion to you is hit the bricks and redouble your efforts because no one is carry a torch for us but you and no news organization is carrying the torch for you either. (triple your appearances per day that you currently make and on top of that go everywhere that your opponent has in effect spread your message as his own and disguised it in a bunch of rhetoric.) He is now more confident as is actually blatantly touting your agenda with minor modifications. i respect your originality and substance of message so will the american people if you go out more and deliver it. In you me and many others have found reason to believe in your pragmatic views, and in many other who just care about being uplifted instead of lifted up have leaned toward the great talker.
Senator Clinton I wish you all the best and even though the silent majority is supporting you as the primary results show, you have to remember we are tired people who are struggling to take of our families, homes and bills and dont have the time to advocate for you as loudly as we would like too but you are getting our votes.
We are counting on “YES WE WILL” to make a comeback because “yes we can” has been promised time and time again and all we ever have gotten is a “yes we tried”.
YES WE WILL 2008
Caucuses are anti democratic.
Superdelegates are activists, party leaders, and elected officials who deserve a say in the future of the party. They are not some smoking bourbon drinking fat cats.
do away with the caucus system which disenfranchises thousands.
Over 4 million voted in the Cali primary. Less than 50,000 caucused in the Washington and Maine caucuses.
The only good reason that I’ve come up with for having superdelegates is that it is one means by which flexibility can be granted to picking the best Democratic presidential candidate at the Democratic Convention.
Speaking purely hypothetically, suppose Candidate A beats Candidate B in a majority of primaries in early February. Suppose further that in late May a big scandal envelops Candidate A, who by this time is now notably ahead in pledged delegates. Having a significant degree of unpledged superdelegates would better enable the Democrats to avoid having to have Candidate A chosen as their presidential nominee at the late-summer Democratic Convention.
I do, however, suspect that there are other, more Democratic methods by which a certain degree of desirable flexibility could be introduced into choosing the best Democratic nominee.