Importance of the Popular Vote on Legitimacy
I posted this commentary on Greg Sargent's thread about Hendrik Hertzberg's analysis of the popular vote but felt that it merited it's own thread...
There has been much debate about the popular vote over the past couple of months. The vote only affects the outcome of the primary insofar as it moves superdelegates to vote for one candidate over the other. There are two obvious ways in which the popular vote might rationally influence superdelegates:
1) It reflects electability
2) It offers legitimacy
The popular vote totals of both candidates are so close that 1) is a wash. The Democratic electorate is almost evenly split. Other factors, like demographic appeal, campaign organization, fundraising, etc. should be considered much more significantly in gaging electability.
The second reason is the rub. Legitimacy is a construct, meaning that it has to do with perceptions. No candidate deserves to win an election in any absolute sense outside people's perceptions of just deserts. Americans, in particular, tend to believe that legitimacy is conferred by the one-person, one-vote principle. Never mind that our electoral systems only approximate the principle and that in a very close race, it is practically speaking impossible, even with a coherent voting system, to honor the principle completely. If a case can be made that the loser of a race has won the popular vote by even one vote, the loser's supporters will feel that their candidate was robbed of a rightful victory. There can, however, be a conflict because many Americans also believe that electoral rules confer legitimacy. When those standards of legitimacy conflict, chaos is bound to ensue.
The Democratic Party doesn't want chaos, and it's important that the nominee be perceived to be widely legitimate, or millions of voters will be angry and alienated. That's why Clinton is arguing so strenuously that she has won the popular vote. It's a claim to legitimacy. She is simultaneously trying to count MI & FL in order to undercut Obama's claim to legitimacy via the rules for apportioning pledged delegates.
If she had a clear popular mandate, there might be something to her claim, but then the superdelegates and the party would be forced to navigate conflicting standards of legitimacy: the rules (pledged delegates) and the popular vote. Fortunately for the party, Clinton's claim to the popular vote is so strained that it cannot lead to a widespread perception of legitimacy, leaving Obama with a clear win in terms of pledged delegates and a more widely accepted win in terms of the popular vote. Indeed, Obama's claim to legitimacy is so strong that were Clinton to somehow succeed in persuading enough superdelegates to give her the nomination, there would likely be massive outrage and alienation of Obama supporters, who would perceive Obama to have been robbed of a rightful nomination.
One might contend that the superdelegates are part of the process. Therefore, their votes confer legitimacy on whomever is selected. That's true to an extent, but for better or for worse, superdelegates are not perceived to offer the same level of legitimacy as pledged delegates. While technically within the rules, they are at the same time perceived to act as external forces, and I doubt that such arguments would comfort those who would feel alienated by superdelegate-determined nomination of Clinton.
For these reasons, I cannot see a large majority of superdelegates risking the ire of Obama supporters. Clinton's quest to demonstrate legitimacy is therefore hopeless. Worse, it is dangerous for the party. Clinton cannot win the nomination but the better job she does convincing her supporters of her own legitimacy, the more alienated they will feel when she doesn't get the nomination. This will not only hurt Obama's chances but also the chances of all Democratic candidates in Congress and state and local governments if alienated Clinton supporters refuse to go to the polls.
There has been much debate about the popular vote over the past couple of months. The vote only affects the outcome of the primary insofar as it moves superdelegates to vote for one candidate over the other. There are two obvious ways in which the popular vote might rationally influence superdelegates:
1) It reflects electability
2) It offers legitimacy
The popular vote totals of both candidates are so close that 1) is a wash. The Democratic electorate is almost evenly split. Other factors, like demographic appeal, campaign organization, fundraising, etc. should be considered much more significantly in gaging electability.
The second reason is the rub. Legitimacy is a construct, meaning that it has to do with perceptions. No candidate deserves to win an election in any absolute sense outside people's perceptions of just deserts. Americans, in particular, tend to believe that legitimacy is conferred by the one-person, one-vote principle. Never mind that our electoral systems only approximate the principle and that in a very close race, it is practically speaking impossible, even with a coherent voting system, to honor the principle completely. If a case can be made that the loser of a race has won the popular vote by even one vote, the loser's supporters will feel that their candidate was robbed of a rightful victory. There can, however, be a conflict because many Americans also believe that electoral rules confer legitimacy. When those standards of legitimacy conflict, chaos is bound to ensue.
The Democratic Party doesn't want chaos, and it's important that the nominee be perceived to be widely legitimate, or millions of voters will be angry and alienated. That's why Clinton is arguing so strenuously that she has won the popular vote. It's a claim to legitimacy. She is simultaneously trying to count MI & FL in order to undercut Obama's claim to legitimacy via the rules for apportioning pledged delegates.
If she had a clear popular mandate, there might be something to her claim, but then the superdelegates and the party would be forced to navigate conflicting standards of legitimacy: the rules (pledged delegates) and the popular vote. Fortunately for the party, Clinton's claim to the popular vote is so strained that it cannot lead to a widespread perception of legitimacy, leaving Obama with a clear win in terms of pledged delegates and a more widely accepted win in terms of the popular vote. Indeed, Obama's claim to legitimacy is so strong that were Clinton to somehow succeed in persuading enough superdelegates to give her the nomination, there would likely be massive outrage and alienation of Obama supporters, who would perceive Obama to have been robbed of a rightful nomination.
One might contend that the superdelegates are part of the process. Therefore, their votes confer legitimacy on whomever is selected. That's true to an extent, but for better or for worse, superdelegates are not perceived to offer the same level of legitimacy as pledged delegates. While technically within the rules, they are at the same time perceived to act as external forces, and I doubt that such arguments would comfort those who would feel alienated by superdelegate-determined nomination of Clinton.
For these reasons, I cannot see a large majority of superdelegates risking the ire of Obama supporters. Clinton's quest to demonstrate legitimacy is therefore hopeless. Worse, it is dangerous for the party. Clinton cannot win the nomination but the better job she does convincing her supporters of her own legitimacy, the more alienated they will feel when she doesn't get the nomination. This will not only hurt Obama's chances but also the chances of all Democratic candidates in Congress and state and local governments if alienated Clinton supporters refuse to go to the polls.
