Posted on 02/27/2008 8:17:57 AM PST by jdm
The Democrats have discovered just how badly they have constructed their college of delegates in this cycle. They have used the superdelegate structure since the mid-1980s, but no one foresaw how that could appear when two candidates split the vote almost equally. Now one the architects of the Democratic delegate structure defends the concept in today's Washington Post by saying what no one else will -- the Establishment is smarter than the electorate:
In presidential election years, Americans see the face of a political party most clearly in the personality, views and character of its presidential candidates. But a national political party is about more than just the president. Its senators and House members pass the nation's laws and budgets. Its governors lead the states. All must work together for progress in America.
I chaired the 1982 Democratic Party Commission on Presidential Nominations that created certain automatic delegates to the Democratic convention -- the "superdelegates." It was a good idea then, and it is still a good idea. The superdelegates will be crucial to Democrats winning the presidency in November and governing successfully for the next four years.
In creating superdelegates, the Democratic Party recognized the expertise that its top holders of public office have gained by running for office themselves. They are experts at winning. They know the issues. They are in a unique position to evaluate presidential candidates. They have a well-honed instinct for how candidates will be received in their own states and districts. In short, they can help the Democratic Party pick a winner.
But the superdelegates' value extends beyond the convention. If they play a role in picking the nominee, they will be more likely to campaign actively for the nominee in the general election.
Does everyone understand that? Hunt tries to explain it in small words, so that Democratic primary voters can understand it. The Establishment understands winning better than the voters. Voters gave the Democrats George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Thankfully, the Establishment produced Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis.
Hunt has a tough job here. He's essentially defending the indefensible. If a party wants to offer primaries and state caucuses to produce nominees, then they should structure the race so that the results determine the winner. By reserving 20% of the delegate vote for the Establishment, they have almost guaranteed that any primary with two credible and popular candidates will wind up in an open convention. That means that the Democrats will either have to limit themselves to one attractive candidate per cycle by having big donors and party leaders chase other candidates away, or will need to play kingmaker at the conventions.
The Republicans do not have this problem. Only 5% of their delegates represent the GOP Establishment, which presents few problems for a determinative primary race. They also force pledged delegates to vote for their pledged candidates on the first ballot, which the Democrats apparently do not. Although some complain about the winner-take-all states on the Republican side, the overall result reflects the popular vote -- which the Democratic superdelegates can reject at whim, and Hunt argues that they should have that leeway.
It's ironic that the Democratic Party seems to have the bigger problem with democratic results.
So what it boils down to for the 2008 election is the party that screws up the most will probably lose the election. It’s a tight race to the bottom, folks. Which party will out-stupid the other party. Place your bets.
It's ironic that the Democratic Party seems to have the bigger problem with democratic results.
I dunno, I find it ironic that so many here on FR seem to have a problem with the democratic results of the Republican primaries.
The GOP is the runaway favorite.
Right now, I suspect they're far more concerned about different consequences: regardless of whether or not he can win, what happens if they don't go for Obama at the convention?
The answer is pretty ugly for them. If the superdelegates end up handing the nomination to Hillary!, they'll lose much of their black base, and pretty much all of the religiously energetic crowd that has sprung up around Obama. It would guarantee a GOP win in November.
That is not to say that Obama can win -- he can't. Not for any of the racial or religious reasons; but because McCain can make a serious case for Obama being a naive and inexperienced punk who is completely unready for the task of leading the free world. If anything bad happens in the world between now and November, Obama's toast.
An Obama loss in the general election probably dooms the party for the foreseeable future, as his misty-eyed disciples will be alienated; and Hillary will have destroyed the activist base.
In the general election, I actually believe Hillary! is probably the Dems' best chance -- which is also kinda what Hunt is hinting at here. So the Democrats have to find a way to derail Obama before the convention, so that it seems only natural that Hillary should be the nominee.
Shaping up to be an interesting spring, summer, and fall....
The dems next step is to abolish elections - the "elites" should make the important decisions. One man, no vote.
The Establishment? The author is obviously against the Fat Cats who are ruining this country. /sarc Cue Thunderclap Newman. :’D
"Its senators and House members?" How about the People's House members, or the States' Senators?
How about we repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senators back to the States instead of the national parties?
-PJ
Is anyone surprised? The principles of socialism demand the elite govern the masses. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
It's the content, not the process, that is the problem here. This blogger is just trying to score rhetorical points.
The principles of socialism demand the elite govern the masses.
Hate to break it to you, but the American republic was designed for with broad elite control to counter demagogy.
In other words, the Democrat leadership is saying "You colored folks are good enough to cast a ballot, but not to be on one."
If the “superdelegates” are supposed to support the nominee that won their state then Ted Kennedy would have to quit endorsing Obama for President. Massachussetts was won by Hillary.
Hate to break it to you, no it wasn’t. That is why the Congress wasn’t selected, nor the president selected.
A Republic isn’t the elite controlling the masses nor the uninformed masses controlling the government. It is a balance. It isn’t socialism. The system was designed for the minimal government necessary to have both a cohesive structure but limited intrusion.
As for the superdelegates, that is socialism at work from the party of socialists (Sherrod Brown, Obama, Bernie Sanders, Congressional Progressive Caucus).
In the political party of the supposed blue collar workers they threw away the popular selection and gave weight to those in power. The parallel of a private political party to the government is not an comparison that holds up. There is no other segment of balance such as found in government.
PS: I know you are going to point out that Bernie is an Independent, but that is window dressing. He founded the CPC and was backed by Howard Dean in his Senate run. He votes with the Dems 98% of the time.
I think it last happened in 1852, when the Whig candidate, Winfield Scott, out-stupided the Democrat, Franklin Pierce. I never thought I’d see the Republicans try to repeat that stunt.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92556
:’)
The democrat party elite have always believed themselves better, smarter and wiser than the people. That’s probably why they believe they should be able to override any election result.
Political parties aren’t the government. They are groups of private individuals with some common interests seeking to elect people sympathetic to their causes.
That most Americans regard the primary season as “elections” rather than “selections” is unfortunate naivete, exploited by the parties.
When the Republicans and Democrats had both bought fully into the charade that they are somehow part of the govenment, holding “elections” using taxpayer money, they were faced with the problem of “open primaries” and the INDIGNATION of people required to declare their party affiliation to participate.
It makes perfect sense that a party, a private group, should make whatever rules they wish to choose their candidates. Any rules at all. Declare your affiliation. Take an oath. Pay a fee. Whatever.
If you don’t like the way they play, take it up with them, or leave them and dont give them your vote. (The Emperor really has NO CLOTHES!)
But don’t complain about the system your party created for you.
First of all, my party didn’t create those rules. Second, those rules are designed to keep control in the hands of party hacks who have ‘obligations’ to certain selected candidates, and, third, as a citizen, I have every right to complain about those rules! While party primaries are not ‘government,’ they do tell us quite a bit about the way that party’s candidate would govern. And, looking at the democrat party primary structure, I am, again, convinced that it should be a warning to all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.