Will the Superdelegates Thwart the Will of the People?

10.02.2008

A lot of people have been getting exercised over this possibility lately, but I just don't see it happening. The superdelegates are by and large politicians. As such, they have finely-calibrated ears for what will and won't infuriate voters. And there's only one thing they could do to very obviously incur the wrath of voters over the next six months: Anoint a presidential nominee who hadn't won a majority of pledged delegates.

Now, I'm sure there are a handful of ward-heeler types out there who relish the prospect of deciding the party's fate amongst themselves. But, for the most part, I think that mindset died off about a generation ago. And, in fact, if you listen to the superdelegates themselves, it's pretty clear that they don't relish the prospect. Take these fairly typical quotes from today's Adam Nagourney/Carl Hulse piece in the Times:

“Once the primary season is over, I am hoping we will have a nominee,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland. “If those of us who are uncommitted can help bring that about, then I think we should try to do that.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who is neutral, said she would not stay on the sidelines for long once the voting was over. “I will not go through the summer, I can tell you that, without endorsing a candidate,” she said. “I am not a big believer in smoke-filled rooms.”

Having said that, I think it would be generally better if, as Tad Devine recommends today, the superdelegates stood down till the voters had their say. That would make the nominating process less messy and bitter. But, in the end, I don't see someone getting the nomination without a lead in pledged delegates (I think enough superdelegates would reverse their choices to prevent it from happening.) At least as long as the final count is not so close it could plausibly be called a tie (say, under five delegates, with the other candidate winning the popular vote). And if it is that close, then it wouldn't be a question of superdelegates thwarting the will of the people. It'll be a question of finding some workable tie-breaker, which is a completely different proposition, and which you'd expect the superdelegates to play a role in.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2008 6:59 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

huntlib said:

I hope you're right. On the other hand, Hillary is a politician, and she hasn't exactly developed a pair "finely-calibrated ears for what will and won't infuriate voters."

February 10, 2008 8:19 PM

jm_rice said:

Oh, stop being a dweeb, Scheiber. The "will of the people," as you so pompously put it, is not until November. RIght now, it's the will of the PARTY!

Superdelegates are no more than bonus delegates, in effect rewarding states who have elected party members to office. The GOP have them too. They've been around in one form or another for a long time. They're aimed at thwarting suicidal, Kool Aid-drinking wackos like you from hijacking the nominating process. Which is a PARTY matter, not a "people's" matter. A state who actually elects party members SHOULD get more delegates, you clown! Why should the party give a shit who wins South Carolina, which never votes a Dem POTUS? (Thus Bill Clinton's comment, which you dimwits jumped all over.) Why should South Carolina's delegates be proportional to a state, like California, which elects tons of Democrats? Is that such a tough concept for you to fathom?

Actually, I think what you and your fellow Obama fangirls don't like about Superdelegates is that they don't give your boy the edge Otherwise, your panties wouldn't be in such a wad about "thwarting the will of the people."

February 10, 2008 9:41 PM

fougasseu said:

Are Donna Shalala and James Johnson Superdelegates? Does anyone know?

February 10, 2008 10:01 PM

epicciuto said:

I'm just watching This Week on DVR, and I'm hearing Martin O'Malley say that the point of superdelegates is to make sure that the best candidate goes forward. Obviously implying that he would vote for whom he wanted, voters be damned.

February 10, 2008 10:13 PM

liebig said:

jm_rice: Isn't the party made up of people?

It's an interesting issue, legally. When the Texas Democratic Party tried to exclude blacks from its primaries, the Supreme Court held that they couldn't. Party primaries, the court said, were an integral part of the state's electoral system, and were therefore "state action" subject to constitutional restraints.

One has to wonder whether the Democratic party nomination system could pass constitutional muster, especially that "one person, one vote" part.

February 10, 2008 11:37 PM

sephirothic77 said:

the supers are going to look at the numbers: the number of delegates, total votes cast for the candidates, the number of states won, how they fair against mccain in the general, etc. and they will go with the best option for the party to stay together and win in november... these folks are seasoned politicos... and remember that half are still uncommitted...

February 11, 2008 10:18 AM

tarfon said:

Why do you (and others) insist on formulating this as the SDs "thwart[ing] the will of the people"? The party rules allocate a certain number of delegates to be elected by state primaries, caucuses, etc., and another certain number of delegates to party officials, notables, etc. Both categories of delegates have convention votes, by party rules. Suppose that, come August, Obama has a 100-vote lead among the first category and Clinton has a 150-vote lead among the second category. Then, according to the rules, which have been in place since before the campaign started, Clinton would be nominated. Why is that unfair? Why do you assume, _contrary_ to the party rules, that the SDs should not vote, or should feel obligated to vote according to someone else's choice? The party rules don't just give them an admission ticket to the event; those rules make them _voting_delegates._

This is a very different issue from the Michigan-Florida question, where Clinton would plainly be in the wrong if she tried to get those delegates seated. There, she would be trying to overturn party rules. But if she has an advantage among the SDs, she would be absolutely justified in pressing that advantage, since that advantage would be pursuant to the party rules.

February 11, 2008 2:07 PM

psantillana said:

If you think they should just vote the way their state votes, then what's the point of having them? Isn't the reason that we now have superdelegates precisely in order to thwart the will of the people? In case the people decide to nominate George McGovern?

Me, I think we should get rid of them for the same reasons you argue, but you should be arguing to get rid of them too, don't you think?

And no, I don't say this as an Obama supporter, I say this as an anti-establishmentarian. Although the fact that I am both is not a coincidence.

February 11, 2008 6:07 PM

The Stump said:

Dylan Loewe, whose very smart blog I just discovered via Ben Smith , makes a great point about superdelegates

February 11, 2008 8:34 PM