Myths And Facts About The Delegates

Myth: The Democratic primary process is supposed to be democratic.

Fact: With its mix of caucuses and primaries, proportional allocation and at-large bonus delegates, its racial and gender quotas, and its layer of superdelegates, the process is anything but democratic.

And that's the point of it, actually.

In cameral terms, the superdelegates are the Senate; the other delegates are the House. The supers exist to preserve the power of the party itself by taming the passions of the pledged delegates

Since the McGovern-Frasier reforms, the Democratic Party has cautiously backed away from the principle of deference to the majority and toward the countervailing principle of protecting the rights of the minority (who were, in many cases, ethnic minorities).

The nomination process is designed to ensure that the majority does not prevail without a fight in the event that the minority of the party objects. The downside risk is obvious: in the event that there is no consensus, there is no objective way to determine who the nominee should be.

Myth: The DNC never intended to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.

Fact: The intent and spirit of the DNC's rules are clear: states that violated the party's calendar rules would be punished; that punishment entails a dimunution of their ability to influence the party's nominee.

If Michigan and Florida's delegations are seated as is, the party will lose whatever legitimacy it is has to set and enforce rules.

Myth: Superdelegates ought to reflect the preferences of the primary and caucus voters.

Fact: Usually, they do. This cycle, if one candidate has an appreciable delegate lead and a popular vote lead, the superdelegates will probably fall in line.

But it's hard to argue that they have a moral obligation to serve as an amplifier. Indeed, if superdelegates aren't supposed to take their own preferences into account, decisions, then what's their purpose? (The party could find other ways to make sure that important elected officials and activists have convention floor seats.)

Granted, as Obama adviser David Wilhelm told reporters this morning, it would be hard to concieve of a scenario wherein the superdelegates completely disregard the expressed will of the pledged delegates.

Myth: Pledged delegates should be immune from pressure by the candidates.

It depends.

They're pledged delegates, not promised delegates, for the same reason why the rules themselves are so convoluted: the party rules are designed to ensure that the nominee is arrived at by consensus among factions. Lobbying them is unseemly, but it is allowed. (The unnamed Clinton adviser who told the Politico that "the rules will be going out the window.” was not doing his or her campaign a favor. The Clinton campaign denies that they intend to lobby Obama's pledged delegates.

Myth:

The person who accrues the most number of earned delegates deserves the nomination.

Not necessarily. Again -- superdelegates have a say because the rules are designed to give them a say. Not an echo -- a say. And in a scenario where one candidate recieves the majority of

Comments

Isn't it more accurate to say superdelegates exist to make sure the final delegate tally isn't close? That is, to ensure the appearance of a reasonably unified party even in the circumstance that there's nearly a tie from pledged delegate votes.

Posted by Zach | February 19, 2008 4:28 PM

What will be very interesting if we go to the convention is not necessarily the FL/MI delgates, its the backroom deals (give me your vote and I'll make you Asst. Undersecretary of whatever) and vote buying that both campaigns are going to be heavily engaged in.

Posted by Adam | February 19, 2008 4:35 PM

Myth: David Axelrod compared 2008 to 1968 on Face the Nation.

Posted by neilrlca | February 19, 2008 4:45 PM

majority of. . .what??

Posted by DP | February 19, 2008 4:48 PM

I have heard a lot of pundits recently (most explicitly Shieldsd on MTP and the Lehrer show) equate (i) HRC's argument that Florida and Michigan should be seated and (ii) Obama's argument that the superdelegates should not disregard the conclusion of the majority of earned delegates, characterizing both as trying to change the rules of the game. I don't get this at all. There was an actual rule, signed onto by the campaigns, that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they moved up their contests.

There is, by contrast, no rule that the superdelegates must disregard the earned delegate count. As far as I am aware, the Obama camp has not argued that if they were to do so, they would violate any procedural or substantive requirement. Rather, Obama has argued that it would be wrong and harmful to the party, a political argument. How on earth is such a political argument of the same nature as Clinton's ignorning her pledge and attempting to change the rules mid-game?

On a separate note, I have a colleague who says that the media coverage she has seen supports the notion that the Republicans would prefer to run against Obama (most liberal, inexperienced). The vast majority of analysis I've read/heard say the opposite (Clinton energizes Rs, has high negatives, not as strong with independents), particularly of late and in light of the head-to-head numbers of Obama and Clinton against McCain. If anyone could point me to good sources on this, particularly liberal or moderate sources (she doesn't trust the right wingers who say they prefer Hillary), I'd appreciate it.

Posted by Chunche | February 19, 2008 4:54 PM

"Myth: Superdelegates ought to reflect the preferences of the primary and caucus voters."

This kind of crap is really beginning to bother me. Why is this a "myth" rather than a difference of opinion? Mark Shields said the other night on PBS that Obama's pushing this idea is equivalent to actually _altering the rules of the nominating process_! Christ!

The superdelegates are independent and free to vote however they please, for whatever rationale they please. If they _wanted_ to they could all vote for the tallest candidate.

There isn't an independent "truth" about how the superdelegates should vote; that's what it means for them to be independent!

When you call this a "myth" you seem to be implying that there are objective guidelines, written down somewhere, telling us how superdelegates "ought" to vote, but there just aren't!

What you mean to say, Mr. Ambinder, is that IN YOUR OPINION, reflecting the preferences of primary and caucus voters is a poor rationale for superdelegates to base their vote on.

But if the superdelegates are truly independent, isn't it perfectly fair for people to argue this point? Hardly a myth....

Posted by jme | February 19, 2008 5:05 PM

For a guy who's made so many errors of fact and analysis lately, you sound awfully pedantic and sure of yourself in this post.

Myth: David Axelrod is a black Virginia politician.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 5:26 PM

jme, great minds ...

Posted by Chunche | February 19, 2008 5:35 PM

Anyone want to take any bets on how long Marc "First draft is good enough for me!" Ambinder lets his mangled post go uncorrected? Looks like we're at 20 minutes and counting.

I'd point out the error in comments, but ... dot dot dot.

Just sayin', Marc, might want to read 'em every once in a while ...

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 5:41 PM

Myth: If the superdelegates overrule the outcome of the pledged delegate contest without an extremely good reason (e.g., a grave illness, indictment, etc.), then whether or not they may have violated any legal or moral rules, in practice that result would tear the Party apart and put the nominee in an extremely weak position going into the general election.

Oh wait, that isn't a myth at all.

Posted by DTM | February 19, 2008 5:45 PM

Fact: With its mix of caucuses and primaries, proportional allocation and at-large bonus delegates, its racial and gender quotas, and its layer of superdelegates, the process is anything but democratic.

Wait, wait, wait. Proportional allocation is not democratic? I'm confused by this. The strength of proportional allocation is that it prevents wasted votes and means that minorities within states have some power over the process. Thus it is more democratic than winner-take-all.

Posted by Meng Bomin | February 19, 2008 5:52 PM

Meng Bomin,

Marc is one of those pundits who seems to define "democratic" as "similar to the elections with which I am most familiar".

Posted by DTM | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM

Is my browser cache broken or something? Because over an hour has passed since this post was made, and it looks to me like it still trails off into nothingness. Moreso than the usual Ambinder post, anyway.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM

Chunche:

I have heard a lot of pundits recently (most explicitly Shieldsd on MTP and the Lehrer show) equate (i) HRC's argument that Florida and Michigan should be seated and (ii) Obama's argument that the superdelegates should not disregard the conclusion of the majority of earned delegates, characterizing both as trying to change the rules of the game. I don't get this at all. There was an actual rule, signed onto by the campaigns, that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they moved up their contests.

There is, by contrast, no rule that the superdelegates must disregard the earned delegate count. As far as I am aware, the Obama camp has not argued that if they were to do so, they would violate any procedural or substantive requirement. Rather, Obama has argued that it would be wrong and harmful to the party, a political argument. How on earth is such a political argument of the same nature as Clinton's ignorning her pledge and attempting to change the rules mid-game?

Clinton's and Obama's maneuvers are actually pretty close to the same sort of self-interested rule changing, if you ask me. Close enough anyways that the pundits' equivalence seems justified.

Where you err, I think, is the notion that Clinton is really arguing for a bona fide rule change. In fact, the convention seating rules are a fluid process, and the decision about whether to seat Florida and Michigan is in the hands of the rules committee and the floor delegates. The decision can change at any time, regardless of what the campaigns agreed to many months ago. If the delegations are seated, there will be no violation of any rules. The rules have been fluid and subject to processes which are themselves governed by rules.

So Clinton's argument is in essence a political argument, too. She is saying that it would be very bad politics for the Democrats to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan at the end of the day. In this, she is hardly alone. Obama himself once said that he believes Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated ... after the nominee is decided. (Unfortunately, nobody asked him at the time whether he would have the same view if seating the delegations would change the outcome of the nomination process.) The plain truth is Democratic leaders wanted to punish Florida and Michigan, but it was always regarded as something of an empty threat. Everyone thought that the nominee would offer some olive branch to the delegations, probably seating them after all, because Florida and Michigan are such crucial swing states and nobody really wants to upset the voters therein.

In a nutshell, both Obama and Clinton are making political arguments that the other is trying to change the rules. And IMO, both are correct about what the other is doing.

Posted by anonymous | February 19, 2008 8:54 PM

Chunche:

I have heard a lot of pundits recently (most explicitly Shieldsd on MTP and the Lehrer show) equate (i) HRC's argument that Florida and Michigan should be seated and (ii) Obama's argument that the superdelegates should not disregard the conclusion of the majority of earned delegates, characterizing both as trying to change the rules of the game. I don't get this at all. There was an actual rule, signed onto by the campaigns, that Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they moved up their contests.

There is, by contrast, no rule that the superdelegates must disregard the earned delegate count. As far as I am aware, the Obama camp has not argued that if they were to do so, they would violate any procedural or substantive requirement. Rather, Obama has argued that it would be wrong and harmful to the party, a political argument. How on earth is such a political argument of the same nature as Clinton's ignorning her pledge and attempting to change the rules mid-game?

Clinton's and Obama's maneuvers are actually pretty close to the same sort of self-interested rule changing, if you ask me. Close enough anyways that the pundits' equivalence seems justified.

Where you err, I think, is the notion that Clinton is really arguing for a bona fide rule change. In fact, the convention seating rules are a fluid process, and the decision about whether to seat Florida and Michigan is in the hands of the rules committee and the floor delegates. The decision can change at any time, regardless of what the campaigns agreed to many months ago. If the delegations are seated, there will be no violation of any rules. The rules have been fluid and subject to processes which are themselves governed by rules.

So Clinton's argument is in essence a political argument, too. She is saying that it would be very bad politics for the Democrats to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan at the end of the day. In this, she is hardly alone. Obama himself once said that he believes Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated ... after the nominee is decided. (Unfortunately, nobody asked him at the time whether he would have the same view if seating the delegations would change the outcome of the nomination process.) The plain truth is Democratic leaders wanted to punish Florida and Michigan, but it was always regarded as something of an empty threat. Everyone thought that the nominee would offer some olive branch to the delegations, probably seating them after all, because Florida and Michigan are such crucial swing states and nobody really wants to upset the voters therein.

In a nutshell, both Obama and Clinton are making political arguments that the other is trying to change the rules. And IMO, both are correct about what the other is doing.

Posted by anonymous | February 19, 2008 8:54 PM

Well, Ambinder might not ever read the comments, but I guess we can safely assume he never looks at his own posts either.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 20, 2008 1:26 AM

Where you err, I think, is the notion that Clinton is really arguing for a bona fide rule change. In fact, the convention seating rules are a fluid process, and the decision about whether to seat Florida and Michigan is in the hands of the rules committee and the floor delegates.

Obviously, if you're asking a rules committee to behave differently, then you're trying to change the rules in mid-game.

Also--it is completely ridiculous for normative statements to be labeled "myths". The first two statements with "supposed to be" and "intended" are reasonable. The last three, with "ought", "should", and "deserves" are nonsense--it's entirely possible that the democratic primary was intended to be one way but should be another.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 20, 2008 8:44 AM

Anonymous, your argument might make sense if Clinton had not explicitly pledged that Florida and Michigan would not be seated (though in my opinon would still fail for the reasons expressed by Consumatopia). However, Clinton did make such a pledge.

Posted by Chunche | February 20, 2008 9:14 AM