This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.

It’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same[i].

Regardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party  - to be justifying such a situation.

[i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.

Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials.

Superdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home.

Rather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.

The influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama.[i]

There is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members.

Allowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices.

[i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008

The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party.[i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient.

There is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”.

[i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy.[i]

The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted[ii].

[i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008, http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/ohios-superdelegates-hold-endorsements-hostage

[ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.

Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme.

For anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.

It’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same[i].

Regardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party  - to be justifying such a situation.

[i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.

Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials.

Superdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home.

Rather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.

The influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama.[i]

There is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members.

Allowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices.

[i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008

The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party.[i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient.

There is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”.

[i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy.[i]

The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted[ii].

[i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008, http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/ohios-superdelegates-hold-endorsements-hostage

[ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.

Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme.

For anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.

The superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority.

Imagine a scenario in which a candidate had won the popular vote only to face a major scandal on the eve of the convention. The role of those electors with a free hand would suddenly look very useful to party members. 

In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign.

Equally the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that party grandees considered that the voters had made ‘the wrong choice’.

The reason that the Mondale case was contentious was that he wanted – and had wanted for some time – the party apparatus to have an even greater say but this was the best he could get. It also gives the lie to the party ‘experts’ capacity to ensure winning candidates are selected.

Most delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign.

It would be unfair to all concerned if they had to compete for their place at the convention with senators and congressmen, as is the case with the Republicans where the elected representatives often get to be delegates due to being a recognisable name.[i] Likewise ensuring that former party leaders and other elders are in attendance shows both continuity and unity.

It seems unlikely that the average activist from Arkansas would be likely to be sent if the alternative was W.J. Clinton

[i] Klonsky, Joanna, ‘Backgrounder The Role of Delegates in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process’, Council on Foreign Relations, 10 June 2008, http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/role-delegates-us-presidential-nominating-process/p15414#p3

There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so.

Working on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002,[i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite.

Indeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair.

[i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002, http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/BC021002.HTM

It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea.

In essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis.[i]

[i] Thurow, Glen E., "The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image," in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987

The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working.

Their intervention in 1984 to nudge Mondale over the winning line produced a candidate who lost in 49 states. If ever there were a situation when the party elders subtle understanding of the electorate might have been useful then it was at that election.

Instead they supported the party insider with a mechanism he had helped design and for exactly the purpose he had wanted it in place.