What Are Super Delegates For?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The post-1968 reforms of the presidential selection system were designed to break the control of party bosses over who became the nominee of their party. By instituting binding primaries, the decision was put into the hands of elected delegates pledged to the candidates they represented in caucuses and primaries. Following the nomination of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976, the Democratic Party reformed the earlier reforms by creating unelected super delegates to their nominating conventions—party leaders, such as members of congress and holders of state offices—who are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. The idea was to prevent the selection of a nominee without ties to and support of party officials. At present, super delegates control nearly a fifth of the total delegate-pool at the Democratic nominating convention. Given the close race between Senators Clinton and Obama and the possibility of super delegates holding the key to the nomination, it is hardly surprising that the rationale of super delegates is being questioned and their roles and obligations are scrutinized.
Senator Clinton and her supporters insist that super delegates are part of the established process and supposed to make their independent decisions. Obama supporters, who believe that their candidate will have the support of more delegates elected in caucuses and primaries, want super delegates to support the winning candidate in their respective states. The super delegates were created as something like a check in the hands of the party establishment. It wouldn’t have made sense at all to establish this category of delegates with the stipulation that they vote for the candidate winning in their home states.

One can argue that the addition of non-elected super delegates was a partial return to the pre-1968 system. But the rules of the game should not be contested or changed in the midst of a heated primary competition. The Clinton side is right on this. Super delegates were created with the expectation that they would bring their own judgment to the selection of the Democratic Party’s selection process.

That said, Democrats who compete for their party’s nomination can and do try hard to win the support of super delegates. Whether we like it or not, lobbying super delegates is part of system. That this lobbying involves contributions to the congressional campaigns of super delegates by political actions committees supportive of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is bad enough. That some African-American super delegates who support Hillary Clinton receive threats is outright shocking.
The other day, I listened to Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Clinton supporter, as he spoke on National Public Radio’s All Things Considered about this problem. This is what Rep. Cleaver said according to the NPR web site:

“…some CBC members who support Hillary Clinton have received threats—not from fellow members but when they return home.

They have been told that they would face opposition in their next election if they do not support Obama, and Cleaver says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of ‘robo-calls.’ In Lewis' case, the calls said ‘very, very derogatory things about him.’ Cleaver, too, has experienced some troubles. ‘I had a person in my district send out a newsletter, for which I know he didn't pay, distributed primarily in the African-American community, in which he suggested that I had been paid by Sen. Clinton to support her. I don't know if there's anyone who [is African American] who hasn't taken some grief for supporting Sen. Clinton.’"

The post-1968 reforms were well intended but they resulted in a host of unintended consequences—the issues surrounding super delegates among them. Following this election year, the major parties—and particularly the Democrats—need to revisit and, I believe, correct the undemocratic and unworkable features of their respective presidential selection processes. Caucuses, for example,should be abolished from the selection process--although they have been praised as deliberative democracy at its best. In theory that is true, but the practice is far removed from the ideal as Gail Collins described in one of her recent columns.

Comments

[Jaidyn]

I think, it is amazing!
http://www.filecatch.com/trends/de/14-09-2010.html

[ed hardy]

I am apreciating it very much.I have never read such a lovely article

and I am coming back tomorrow to continue reading.

[Видеонаблюдение]

They can help some times but in our country they are helpless

[recovery home]

well said, all the same people from the same confrontation from voting these candidate .

[Brigitte]

Getting back to the fundamental flaws of the presidential selection process, especially during the primary season, it may well be that the few caucus voters think that they have a particularly important stake in voting for one candidate rather than another. After all, politics is about the distribution of scarce resources.

[umnik]

All the same the people will vote for the biggest handout.

[Lili]

Simplement l'angoisse comme il est intéressant quoi que ces sujets était perçue s'il y avait tout sens devant derrière ? ? Sûrement, le problème compétent, mais je pense on ne sait pourquoi qu'en dispersant les suppositions personnelles nous ne contribuerons pas du tout...

[Prudence]

Good evening. The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling. Help me! I can not find sites on the: addiction drug rehab treatment. I found only this - cocaine treatment. Don choose people who are weak or who have an alcohol problem. Principal investigators - gloria krahn, ph. THX :o, Prudence from Austria.

[Brigitte]

Cheryl, yes, yes, yes.
In today's New York Times, Gail Collins describes the craziness of caucuses in Texas the other night. For her column, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06collins.html?hp
This is not a way to select presidential nominees.

[Cheryl]

I think that this should be covered more by the media.
It sounds like an rediculous process to me.
I think most people, like myself, have no idea that the Caucus's are so shoddy.
The same with the issues in Florida and Michigan. Most people in the Country had no idea what was happening in these states.
I bet that most of the citizens in these states had no idea what was going on as they went out to excercise thier right to cast their vote.
It appears that most of the citizens in the Caucus States also had no idea how the caucus worked and so it favored the very youngest voters who love to attend rallies.
In the United States of America,
EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNTED.
EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNTED IN PRIVACY.
I sounds to me like the Caucus process is designed for people who like confrontation,
who are young and have time to hang out in uncomfortable conditions and have a pep rally.
I think if the News Media covered these issues American citizens would reject the Caucus Process and the Punishing of Citizens who had no say about the date of their primaries.

The Caucus process should be eliminated.
The RNC AND THE DNC should be the ones punished for trying to deny voters their right to vote, not the Florida and Michigan voters.