Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Democrats' Procedural Problem: Josh Gets it Half-Right
Josn Marshall writes today: "Looking back over how this race has shaken out, I have serious questions whether the proportional system is the best way to go, at least if the other party is going the winner-take-all route. If you grant that there's an advantage in coming to a decision early, the proportional system really does make it terribly hard for either candidate in a close race to put it away."
Actually that's only half of the structural problem. It's the combination of proportional delegate selection plus the large number of superdelegates -- 20% of the total. That makes it theoretically possible for the superdelegates to veto the nomination of the elected-delegate leader, unless that candidate has a 62.5% supermajority of the elected delegates.
As we have seen, in a close two-person race, it is very difficult to win 5/8 of the elected delegates under the proportional representation system. In a three- or four-person contest, it would be nigh impossible. (Imagine if Edwards had continued with a Huckabee-style low-budget guerrilla campaign. He'd have gotten his 15-20% of the voters and delegates, and might even have emerged the fifth-ballot compromise nominee, after a lot of bitter Obama-Clinton convention fratricide.)
One thing is clear for next time: either the proportional rules need to be relaxed for states that vote late in the nominating process, or the numerical influence of the superdelegates needs to be scaled back dramatically.
Comments (5)
By god, you're right. I thought this was a perfect storm, but the point you make about Edwards is even more terrifying, and I haven't heard it pointed out.
If Edwards had wanted to persevere, and had been able to stay above 15% (which he probably could have, in many states) we could be in a real nightmare scenario where it would be downright impossible for us to have a nominee before Aug 28th.
The rules definitely need some tinkering next time around. I'd endorse both of your suggestions in the last paragraph.
March 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, if we had winner take all there would be 181 pledged delegates difference instead of 162 that there is now, not much difference. It is the superdelegates that keep this thing alive.
March 24, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, even though Obama's delegate lead would be slightly larger under a winner-take-all system (and who are you awarding Texas's delegates to?), Clinton would still have a much more plausible shot at catching him.
March 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like proportional voting. I think winner-take-all sucks. I wish we'd do it in national elections. It better represents the populace.
We don't need no stinkin' superdelegates, however. THAT is undemocratic.
March 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are fairness arguments for proportional representation. Without it, getting 49.9% in a primary might get a candidate nothing, and getting 35% (as McCain did several times) might get a candidate everything.
There are no fairness arguments for superdelegates as far as I know. As old idea man Ronald Reagan might say, superdelegates are not the solution, they are the problem.
1. There are zero guidelines for "fair" voting on the part of superdelegates: go with the district, the state, the total pledged delegate count?
2. The "good of the party" means 795 things to the 795 superdelegates: good for one personally, good for a future job, good for a guess at electability.
3. Superdelegates are quite often talked about as the "adults" in the party, there to make sure the uninformed people don't make the wrong choice. That's demeaning to the 300,000,000 who aren't superdelegates and seriously wrong-headed with regard to the people's judgment. Mondale?
4. Superdelegates can declare their preferences before there is a single primary or even a heated campaign and debate. Clinton had over 100 committed superdelegates before 2008. How could they have any idea who the best candidate or the people's choice would be?
5. The majority of today's superdelegates are responsible to no one. They aren't elected representatives, senators, or governors. They are party members (sometimes referred to as party hacks). They are not the only ones who work for the party. Indeed they are a small percentage of those who do work.
Let's get rid of all superdelegates. If it weren't for superdelegates, everyone would have seen, for example, that Clinton was always behind and so might have shortened this process. This has nothing to do with Clinton, but rather with how the establishment and favors owed or favors expected have too much influence.
March 24, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment