Separate but equal disenfranchisement

Hillary Clinton's most recent swipe at pledged delegates -- her appeal to North Dakota caucus delegates to switch sides and vote for her -- has raised my blood pressure more than a can of V8 could.

You see, I understand that pledged delegates are not, according to DNC rules, legally or procedurally bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. And I also understand that because of the way slates of delegates are filed, it's highly unlikely that pledged delegates from primary states are actually going to change their votes (unless, of course, they are pledged to a candidate who's dropped out of the race or suspended his campaign).

But what has me going is the way she's targeting caucus states. And that's because caucus states are different. I know. I live in one.

Here in Washington, a caucus takes place first at the precinct level. Each legislative district (LD) is divided into precincts, which are very small subsections of the LD. The people in your precinct are very literally your neighbors. I recognized most of the 34 people from my precinct at my caucus, either because they live in the same apartment complex I do, or because I pass them on the street when I'm biking to work in the morning, or because we are frequently riding the same bus.

At the precinct level, each person in attendance states his or her candidate preference on the sign-in sheet. Then the votes on the sign-in sheet are tallied, and based on the way the numbers break down, we do the math to determine how many of the delegates assigned to our precinct will be delegates for each candidate who got votes. There's a negotiation period, during which lone supporters of candidates other than the ones who have enough votes to get delegates can decide to either keep their preference or switch to a candidate who has delegates.

After all of that is done, people from each of the lists of candidate supporters are elected as delegates to go on to the LD-level caucus.

Let me be emphatic:

Precinct-level delegates are elected by their neighbors to represent a vote for the candidate who earned that delegate position.

Now, Hillary Clinton has been making a big to-do about the fact that she wants to make sure Florida and Michigan's delegates are seated at the convention so that the voters in that state aren't disenfranchised.

She has also been making a big to-do about not dropping out of the race because she wants the remaining 10 states to have a chance to vote, so that none of their voters are disenfranchised either.

But apparently, Hillary Clinton thinks that if a caucus delegate changes his or her vote, despite having been elected by friends and neighbors to carry forward their vote in the caucus process, that's just "the breaks."

I have to tell you, though, it very clearly spells "disenfranchisement" to me.

•  I'm new, but I'll post a tip jar....

  In the hopes that folks will find something of value in what I've written here. :)

  Thanks for reading!

  by Saska on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM PDT

•  Link?

  I hadn't heard anything about the ND story, so a link would be nice.

  We-written, by the way.

  by willb48 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM PDT

  •  here is your linkie

    Link

    by louisev on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM PDT

    •  Thanks n/t

      by willb48 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM PDT

  •  Thank you, willb48. :) n/t

    by Saska on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM PDT

•  It's just words

  Poaching pledged delegates as a sport, or even the mention that "they're just like superdelegates" is pretty pathetic.  It's a sad state of things, when you hinge your candidacy on swaying those who are your competitor's strongest activists.  Besides, it just doesn't pass the smell test -- it's just too Liebermanish for most people to stomach.

  Realistically, there will be few if any pledged delegates that shift either way; and reguritating party rules will not sway superdelegates.  So, why?  Obviously, for the benefit of the media.  If the media turns Clinton into a Huckabee, it's all over.

  Regarding the caucus states, I think that Clinton has made a tremendous strategic error:

  1. In denigrating the importance of caucus states, she has pushed supderdelegates and caucus-goers of caucus states to swing the other way.  There have been many such statements to this effect.

  2. In promoting the popular vote (her only chance of a percieved victory, however slim), she dismisses caucus states and small states, since caucus states usually do not report actual numbers of caucus-goers, and small states are poorly represented by popular vote.  Once again, this alienates caucus-state superdelegates, and makes it nigh impossible for any pledged delegate to "jump boat" -- at least in her favor.

  3. There are MANY small-state and caucus-state superdelegates.

  by Canadian4Obama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:45:37 PM PDT

  •  Words changed my mind

    It is my belief that the reason pledged delegates are not bound to vote for their candidate is precisely because there are delegates from early-primary states that are pledged to candidates no longer in the race. We saw some of this in Iowa when Obama picked up delegates previously pledged to Edwards.

    Regarding your point #1, that is exactly what drove me to caucus for Obama in Washington. Before I began reading statements from Mrs. Clinton regarding caucus states and states where she didn't win, I was truly neutral in the Democratic primary race -- to the point where I felt my vote might be more important in the Republican primary. However, I changed my mind.

    I also appreciate your point about the popular vote, although the fact of the matter is that the electoral college also rewards larger states and larger populations.

    by Saska on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM PDT

    •  Pledge Poaching

      I believe that the original intent of the non-binding rules were instituted when Ted Kenedy lost to Jimmy Carter in the primaries, and Carter subsequently lost to Bush (Sr.).

      I believe that Carter won the early primaries, and Kennedy won the late ones, but Carter edged out Kennedy in delegate count; prevailing wisdom of the "party elders" was that, had Kennedy won the primaries, he would have won against Bush.

      But, shoulda, coulda and woulda are all pretty irrelevant.  I think that "party elite" overturning the will of the people equates to party suicide; and for a pledged caucus delegate to overturn the will of their neighbourhood is just plain betrayal of trust.

      Whatever the rules are, however they are perceived as being "fair" or "crappy" -- once they are laid out, everyone has to play by them.

      I do understand that if an extraordinary circumstance leads one candidate to become completely unelectable (for example, they are caught with a Nazi money hidden in the Caymans -- and their unfavorables rise to 80%), the party needs to have a mechanism to select another candidate.

      I believe that a better mechanism for superdelegates is a Veto power, requiring a 2/3 or 7/10 majority to overturn the selection of the pledged delegates.  This would allow the party to overturn the will of the people, but would require the party to act in unison -- hopefully, implying that there's a damned good reason to.

      by Canadian4Obama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM PDT