What's a Superdelegate To Do?A map for choosing between the candidates.
By Jeff GreenfieldPosted Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2008, at 11:05 AM ET
Imagine for a moment you're a member of what's becoming the most scrutinized group of political players in years: the 796 superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention. You are unbound by any rule or custom in choosing whether to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It's increasingly likely that you and your fellow supers—senators, House members, governors, state party chairs, national committee members, and other worthies—will hold the key to the nomination. So, how do you decide whom to support?
Let's assume you're determined to apply the soundest principles of fairness and justice (I know, I know, you're a political animal, but indulge me). Let's also assume that you've somehow put on one of John Rawls' "veils of ignorance," which means you're making your decision free of knowing which candidate would benefit from it. What, then, are the questions you need to answer?
Related in Slate
Brendan I. Koerner shed some additional light on the confusing world of
superdelegates. Timothy Noah wrote about how
bean counters control our elections. Jim Holt dived deeper into political philosopher John Rawls'
"Veil of Ignorance" method of making equitable decisions.
Are you more like a presidential elector or an elected legislator? Whatever the original intention of the founders, presidential electors—the 538 folks who actually cast the votes that elect the president—are supposed to be automatons. (Here's my satiric look at what happens when they refuse to act the part.) As far back as the first contested election, an angry Pennsylvania voter wrote to the Gazette of the United States, "What, do I choose Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No! I choose him to act, not to think."
When the 2000 election ended in a dead heat, a Bush elector wrapped in a veil of ignorance might have decided to abstain or to vote for a third candidate, on the ground that no clear winner could conceivably be determined in so close a contest. If two of the 271 electors had done that, Bush would have been deprived of an electoral majority, and the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives. But not one did; they were following the choice of the voters who had chosen them. By this standard, the job of the superdelegates is to follow the will of the voters, not to substitute their judgment. But don't be fooled into thinking the problem is solved if you decide to do this. There's a trickier question lurking:
Which voters will you follow? Suppose you're a member of the House of Representatives and your district voted for Obama, your state voted for Clinton, and Obama has won the votes of more primary and caucus participants nationally. Whose will are you supposed to reflect? Does it make a difference if you're a governor or senator (follow the state?) or a national committee member (reflect the national total)? Suppose at the end of the process, one candidate has more delegates and the other has won more votes? (Let's not even think about whether you plan to count the votes of Florida and Michigan Democrats when you figure out the total vote.)
How decisive must the vote be? In 1984, the spread in pledged delegates between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart was narrow, but Mondale had more of them than Hart did and had won a small plurality of the total votes cast. The superdelegates, in their first appearance at a Democratic convention, provided a substantial part of his 1,000-vote margin when the first and only ballot was taken. In the five elections since, the winning Democratic candidate wrapped up the nomination long before the convention.
Jeff Greenfield is the senior political correspondent for CBS News. Illustration by Robert Neubecker. Photograph of Barack Obama on Slate's home page by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images.
Remarks from the Fray:
The superdelegates are political pros. They'll vote for whoever they think can win in November. Some will admit that; some will give bullshit reasons. But the bottom line is: who can win? Jobs, funding for local projects, influence in the region -- all these things don't happen if their candidate loses to McCain.
There is one big upside to this mindset -- the superdelegates will almost certainly squash any attempt to seat the MI and FL delegations on a full delegate basis, because political pros don't need to be told that if those delegations swing the nomination to Clinton, McCain can begin measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.
How the decision is made will vary from state-to-state, but I have to believe Obama has an advantage. First of all, he's almost surely going to be leading in the delegate count when the primaries are over -- possibly by more than 100 delegates, which might be enough to get the superdelegates to seal the deal without further consideration. If the lead is under 50 delegates, however, the supers will probably take the view that this is essentially a tie, and they can vote their judgment, which is precisely the situation which the supers were designed to deal with.
Obama's other advantage is that there is such visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in many places in this country -- even more visceral than the racism that will surely cost Obama votes in November. Living in upstate New York, I see some of this hatred but it's not a huge factor, and I was surprised that Obama was able to give her a run for her money. Members of my family who live in the South, however, are petrified at the prospect of a Clinton candidacy, and have been predicting for months now that Clinton wouldn't make it.
If I'm a superdelegate from such a region, I see Clinton, but not Obama as uniting the Republican Party behind McCain and going down in flames. And that thinking might be enough to get Obama nominated in Denver.
--the_slasher14
(To reply, click here.)
Looking at it today, with two candidates vying to split the vote, [superdelegates] seem like horribly un-democratic things. But unless I'm mistaken, they were created after a democratic convention that went round after round after round before finally ending up with a candidate... and the whole televised show of the democratic convention was a squabbling debate.
That year McGovern lost BADLY. But the problem wasn't McGovern... it was the complete bedlam of the convention... what is supposed to be a national introduction to the party nominee and platform was a 5-way battle royal, with no clear party leadership and no clear direction... It ruined the Democratic party for years.
So they brought in some power to act as mediators in the case of a primary season that didn't produce a clear winner. But they were envisioning a multiple candidate situation. When the highest vote-getting candidate received only 30% of the vote and there's 4 candidates splitting delegates, it makes sense to have someone act as a decider, unless you want to hold a runoff primary.
But the superdelegates were not intended to mitigate a situation like this. There are two [candidates] left... one of them will clearly win over the other among the electorate. That being the case, the superdelegates will be usurping an authority that had never been intended for them if they choose to overrule the will of the people.
The unaffiliated party leaders should encourage the superdelegates to each pledge - here and now - that they will follow either the national popular vote or the pledged delegate vote. The Democratic party should also raise money to fund a do-over primary in Florida and Michigan.
The issue of the superdelegate vote CANNOT be seen as a backroom deal. That will kill the Democratic Party's chances in the fall... and regardless of the rhetoric that kind of back-room deal was simply not what the superdelegates were empowered for.
--Tundrayeti
(To reply, click here.)
(2/26)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Obama's Small Masterpiece of a Speech at Fort Hood
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
Does Rupert Murdoch Really Hate Google?
The Crops That Are Secretly Terrible for the Planet
The Three Kinds of Liberals Who Could Bring Down the Health Care Bill
Short Sayings That Make Me Happy
Remarks from the Fray:
The superdelegates are political pros. They'll vote for whoever they think can win in November. Some will admit that; some will give bullshit reasons. But the bottom line is: who can win? Jobs, funding for local projects, influence in the region -- all these things don't happen if their candidate loses to McCain.
There is one big upside to this mindset -- the superdelegates will almost certainly squash any attempt to seat the MI and FL delegations on a full delegate basis, because political pros don't need to be told that if those delegations swing the nomination to Clinton, McCain can begin measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.
How the decision is made will vary from state-to-state, but I have to believe Obama has an advantage. First of all, he's almost surely going to be leading in the delegate count when the primaries are over -- possibly by more than 100 delegates, which might be enough to get the superdelegates to seal the deal without further consideration. If the lead is under 50 delegates, however, the supers will probably take the view that this is essentially a tie, and they can vote their judgment, which is precisely the situation which the supers were designed to deal with.
Obama's other advantage is that there is such visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in many places in this country -- even more visceral than the racism that will surely cost Obama votes in November. Living in upstate New York, I see some of this hatred but it's not a huge factor, and I was surprised that Obama was able to give her a run for her money. Members of my family who live in the South, however, are petrified at the prospect of a Clinton candidacy, and have been predicting for months now that Clinton wouldn't make it.
If I'm a superdelegate from such a region, I see Clinton, but not Obama as uniting the Republican Party behind McCain and going down in flames. And that thinking might be enough to get Obama nominated in Denver.
--the_slasher14
(To reply, click here.)
Looking at it today, with two candidates vying to split the vote, [superdelegates] seem like horribly un-democratic things. But unless I'm mistaken, they were created after a democratic convention that went round after round after round before finally ending up with a candidate... and the whole televised show of the democratic convention was a squabbling debate.
That year McGovern lost BADLY. But the problem wasn't McGovern... it was the complete bedlam of the convention... what is supposed to be a national introduction to the party nominee and platform was a 5-way battle royal, with no clear party leadership and no clear direction... It ruined the Democratic party for years.
So they brought in some power to act as mediators in the case of a primary season that didn't produce a clear winner. But they were envisioning a multiple candidate situation. When the highest vote-getting candidate received only 30% of the vote and there's 4 candidates splitting delegates, it makes sense to have someone act as a decider, unless you want to hold a runoff primary.
But the superdelegates were not intended to mitigate a situation like this. There are two [candidates] left... one of them will clearly win over the other among the electorate. That being the case, the superdelegates will be usurping an authority that had never been intended for them if they choose to overrule the will of the people.
The unaffiliated party leaders should encourage the superdelegates to each pledge - here and now - that they will follow either the national popular vote or the pledged delegate vote. The Democratic party should also raise money to fund a do-over primary in Florida and Michigan.
The issue of the superdelegate vote CANNOT be seen as a backroom deal. That will kill the Democratic Party's chances in the fall... and regardless of the rhetoric that kind of back-room deal was simply not what the superdelegates were empowered for.
--Tundrayeti
(To reply, click here.)
(2/26)