In 1984 before the nomination was locked up by Vice President Walter Mondale, Gary Hart had won 16 state primaries and caucuses and had even held a lead in Pledged Delegates at one point. Walter Mondale, however, had a locked-in pool of support up his sleeve: Super Delegates. (WaPo article by Ruth Marcus.)
As Ari Berman wrote in the Nation:
According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries." That's what happened in 1984, when Senator Gary Hart launched an insurgent challenge to front-runner Walter Mondale. Hart won sixteen state primaries and caucuses to Mondale's ten, and barely lost the popular vote. Yet Mondale locked up virtually all the party's 700 or so superdelegates even before the primary began. Hart likely would have lost anyway, but the superdelegates sealed his defeat. "I got almost none of them, because [Mondale] was considered inevitable," Hart told me.
I think we all can agree, that represents the politics of the past...
In this diary I would like to provide a framework for understanding the nomination process in all its component parts, Pledged Delegates, Super Delegates, caucuses, primaries, the situation with Florida and Michigan, the credentials committee and the nomination process at the convention. In doing so I will address some of the major discussions and debates that have arisen in this very close contest being waged between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008.
I would also like to advance what might prove to be a consensus way forward that Democrats in the netroots can agree upon and refer back to in our debates as we move forward with the primary season.
::
Explanation of terms
A Pledged Delegate is a delegate won by a candidate through a state caucus or primary, ie. through the participation of voters casting a vote or making a choice at a caucus. Pledged Delegates, then, are representative delegates; they represent a choice made by voters in their state.
States determine the rules for their caucuses and primaries following guidelines set down by the DNC. Democrats, for example, have had a rule in favor of proportional delegate distribution since 1988. This means that any candidate winning 15% of the vote or caucus will get some share of the total Pledged Delegates in a state.
Pledged Delegates, then, are citizens who will attend the convention in Denver pledged to one candidate or another based on the choice of voters in their state. There are two ways this happens.
In a State Primary, most delegates are awarded within Congressional Districts on the basis of the percentage of the vote. This means that within each state there are in effect individual primary elections within each Congressional District and delegates are awarded by percentage of the vote. In addition, based on the the overall state percentages a smaller number of "at-large" Pledged Delegates are given to each candidate state wide based on percentage of the vote won.
When the Secretary of State certifies the results of a state primary, which, for example, will take till March 4th here in California, the campaigns then choose from a pool to select Pledged Delegates to represent them at the convention in Denver from both the pool of delegates won in Congressional Districts and from the pool of "At-Large" delegates from the state. (Per DHinMI there may be state conventions here as well.)
In a State Caucus the rules are slightly different. Local Pledged Delegates from the local caucuses are chosen to attend a State Convention at a later date, from which the exact count, proportions and identities of the official State Pledged Delegates sent to the national convention is determined. This state convention of local Pledged Delegates can, in some circumstances, change the proportion of Pledged Delegates sent to the national convention from the state. Local pledged delegates can, in some states, be persuaded to switch sides. That is how states with local pledged caucus delegates sometimes end up sending a different proportion of State Pledged Delegates to the national convention. Usually this involves candidates who have withdrawn from the race.
Super Delegates are delegates who sit with their state delegations at the national convention. They are NOT, however, Pledged Delegates. Super Delegates are free to choose to support whichever candidate they prefer, but that must be a public choice. The Super Delegates form roughly 20% of the total available delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress and the Governors and Lt. Governors, for example, are super delegates. We can debate the why and how of how the Super Delegate system came into being but the crucial thing to realize is threefold:
a) Super Delegates have always been a part of the 2008 nomination process, their votes have an equal weight to that of any Pledged Delegate at the Convention
b) Super Delegates are not pledged, can change their minds and they explicitly do not represent the voters or the choices citizens made during the primary season nomination process. Super Delegates are unrepresentative delegates who must cast a public vote.
c) the vote of Super Delegates does not lock till the convention itself.
At the Democratic National Convention in Denver there will be "First Ballot" in which all the Pledged Delegates and Super Delegates cast their votes. That is the crucial moment. If one candidate has the necessary delegates to win the nomination on that ballot, they will be the nominee of the party. If, however, no candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination, there is a second ballot. At that point, the Pledged Delegates and Super Delegates can be persuaded to change sides.
::
Michigan and Florida
Michigan and Florida broke a compact with the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries in advance of February 5th, 2008. The Michigan and Florida parties knew full well the potential consequence of this action: being stripped of all their delegates (Pledged and Super) to the national convention. We can debate whether or not that consequence was proper or draconian or whether the dispute should have been resolved in a different manner. However, here's the reality: by the rules agreed to ahead of time, before any caucus was held or primary ballot cast, all the candidates and the Michigan and Florida parties knew that, given the broken compact, the Michigan and Florida primaries would yield "Zero Pledged Delegates." The candidates would not campaign.
All the candidates and the DNC also knew that once the Pledged Delegate selection process had come to its conclusion that a) we would likely have a presumptive nominee and b) that the Credentials Committee of the convention, made up of Pledged Delegates in proportion to the Pledged Delegate vote, and hence, favorable to the nominee, would have the power to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver as full participants. Ie. What Michigan and Florida were giving up by choosing to hold their primaries in a manner that violated the DNC rules was the ability to have their Pledged and Super Delegates count in the initial process of selecting a nominee because the candidates would not campaign in their states. Everyone also knew that there was a legal, known process whereby the delegations could and would in all likelihood eventually be seated and participate in the convention like every other state.
Here is the critical thing to understand about Michigan and Florida. The candidates signed a pledge, while there was still time for Michigan and Florida to change their minds. The candidates agreed not to campaign in those states if they went forward with their plan to hold early primaries. If, indeed, those primaries were held in advance of February 5th, the candidates signed a pledge that stated they would not count towards the Pledged Delegate totals, as is fitting since there would have been no campaigning. The Pledge, then, was a negotiating tool used by the DNC and the candidates ahead of time to try to get Michigan and Florida to change course. They did not. And because they did not, the candidates did not campaign in their states. (We can debate the fine points of this, but as a matter of fact there was no GOTV, no debates, no door-knocking, no voter interaction.) The primaries did not yield Pledged Delegates because there was no campaigning. For those primaries to, after the fact, yield Pledged Delegates would have the effect of creating an unequal playing field favoring one candidate over another. This after the fact rule change would also create an unequal treatment of the will of the voters in all of the other states and territories who played by the rules and where the candidates did campaign. ie. If all the other states registered a preference for a candidate after he or she campaigned there, that should not be outweighed by the preference of voters in a state where that candidate, observing a pledge, simply did not campaign.
What that has meant in pragmatic terms is that the "consequence"...the loss of Pledged and Super Delegates...was locked in Michigan and Florida for now; their primaries will not yield Pledged Delegates, even if, in all likelihood following a decision by the Credentials Committee, their delegations will be seated at the convention and join the rest of the nation casting a vote in the First Ballot. That was the clear and agreed upon consequence of these two states breaking the rules. The Pledge has to mean something, especially in a closely fought contest, or it will throw the entire process into disarray.
Because so many people have mentioned it but few have posted it, here is the text of the Pledge.
Understand that this pledge was agreed to by all the candidates and was meant to persuade MI and FL while there was still time for them to change course:
Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 28, 2007
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the
Heartland, East, South and West.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.
THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in
accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign
resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
::
The Principle of Fairness versus the Politics of the Past
As Democrats we can all agree that the effort by Walter Mondale to lock up the nomination by overcoming the choices of the Pledged Delegates who supported Gary Hart in the early going with his behind-the-scenes use of the Super Delegates based on "perceived inevitability" is an example of the politics of the past. Locking in those Super Delegates may have been a strictly "legal" use of Super Delegates, but in 2008, especially with the transparency in government and citizen participation embodied by the internet and grassroots/netroots democracy, such an annointing of a presidential nominee before the voters fully have their say is anathema to our core values as Democrats in 2008. 1984 represented, on balance, an unfair and inappropriate use of Super Delegates even if, as Ari Berman notes, it did not likely change the resulting nominee.
Yes, Super Delegates are a part of the 2008 nomination, but in 2008 they should not determine the nominee against the wishes of the representative Pledged Delegates chosen by the electorate. We should all be able to agree on this.
The principle of fairness also dictates that we should choose our nominee by the terms and rules agreed to before any ballot was cast or caucus held. It is an expression of the core values of our political party that we should choose our nominee based on the candidate who wins the majority of the Pledged Delegates by the rules set up and approved by the states ahead of time. That candidate will have succeeded at winning the votes of the delegates who are truly representative of the will of the voters in 2008: the Pledged Delegates.
::
The Proper Role of Super Delegates
While Super Delegates are a part of the 2008 primary season by the pre-agreed-upon rules, they should not and cannot be allowed to play more than a secondary and helpful role in expressing and confirming the will of the voters. That is the fair and appropriate role of Super Delegates. The Super Delegates should follow the overall will of the Pledged Delegates who represent the will of the voters. That is their proper role and is best for the Democratic Party. The primary system, in fact, does create situations where the Super Delegates can appropriately play that role.
Let me explain.
At some point, in all likelihood, one candidate or another will have won more states and more Pledged Delegates from the 48 States and various territories participating in this process by the agreed upon rules. As a general principle, that candidate should have a clear path to the nomination of the party.
However, at that exact moment, the Pledged Delegate tally may yet be close enough in numbers due to the pending results of state conventions in the caucus states still unresolved, or awaiting the certifications of Secretaries of State delayed, so that while the nation and the party as a whole knows that one candidate has proven themselves the winner of the Pledged Delegates, as a party we would not, however, at that exact moment, be able to say we have a nominee by the reported numbers alone.
That is a scenario where the Super Delegates could appropriately play their role and follow the will of the Pledged Delegates and rally around our nominee. The timing of that choice is when the Super Delegates will be called upon to use their judgment in following the intentions of the voters and the good of the party.
In my view, that is the only fair and appropriate use of Super Delegates prior to the convention. If there is truly no clear winner of Pledged Delegates, the Super Delegates should follow the principles of respect for the will of the voters and make an appropriate choice in casting their ballot at the convention on an equal footing and alongside the pledged delegates chosen to play that role.
::
Finally, for another take dovetailing with this view in some respects, try former Mondale staffer and delegate counter Tad Devine in today's NYT:
Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation.
After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.
This essay from Ari Emanuel is a good read too.
::
Side Issues
If a State Party chooses to conduct a caucus, that is a legitimate choice. One can disagree with caucuses in principle, but that does not mean you have the right to demean the results of the caucuses in 2008. All the candidates knew there would be caucuses ahead of time. It was their job to compete in them.
If a State Party chooses to conduct an open primary, that is a legitimate choice. One can disagree with open primaries on principle, but that does not give you the right to demean the results of an open primaries in 2008. All the candidates knew there would be open primaries ahead of time. It was their job to compete in them.
If a State Party chooses to conduct a closed primary, that is a legitimate choice. One can disagree with closed primaries on principle, but that does not mean you have the right to demean the results of a closed primaries in 2008. All the candidates knew there would be closed primaries ahead of time. It was their job to compete in them.
If a State Party chose to conduct itself in such a manner that it disqualified itself from generating Pledged and Super Delegates (whatever you think of the severity of that penalty), the proper question to ask is not simply what is fair to that state, but what is fair to the states that DID choose to conduct themselves in a manner that qualified their Pledged and Super Delegates. If we go around the agreed to rules and established procedures this time what does that say about next time? Why should any state obey any rule regarding the nomination process? What do we have rules for?
Should we choose our nominee based on whether a state is big or small? I think not, and delegate apportionment is weighted for states big and small, early and late, favorable and unfavorable to Democrats.
Should we choose our nominee based solely on victories in what are considered Blue States? There are Democrats in every state, they all have a right to have their voice heard.
Should we penalize states that let voters who are not registered Democrats participate? That makes no sense. There are some states which have open registration. There are some states, like California, where allowing voters to request a Democratic ballot is seen as a legitimate way to grow our party. What works for New York State does not necessarily work for New Hampshire. We should respect the choices of states so long as they follow the rules set down by the party.
Finally, do some voters count more than others? Do states with high numbers of white or African American or Latino voters count more or less? I think not.
::
A simple principle
At the end of the day, this is a contest for Pledged Delegates by a set of agreed upon rules.
We should keep that in mind and have the utmost respect for the voters themselves. The rules are important even if we disagree with them or the outcome they yield. Rules provide predictability and confidence in the process going forward especially in a closely fought contest.
If the situation arises, we should understand that there is an appropriate role for the Super Delegates to play in 2008. They are a part of the agreed upon process. If they live up to that role they may well win praise for their judgment and leadership, if they fail at that role they and the party will deserve our opprobrium. In that unlikely scenario, our party will likely face a nomination and general election similar to 1984.
None of us want that.
That is a part of the politics of the past we can all agree should be left behind.
::
{ed note: a number of readers have argued that my account of the Hart/Mondale/Jackson 1984 Primary left an improper implication that Gary Hart was on the cusp of winning at the end of the primary season only to have it taken away. I looked at the piece and could see how that false impression was created. The readers are correct and I've changed the language to convey more clearly what did happen. Hart had success in the early going but trailed Mondale in Super Delegates from day one and trailed in the delegate count at the end. Former Vice President Mondale had locked in many of the Super Delegates before the primary season began and, per Ruth Marcus and Devine, phoned the last few he needed the morning after losing the June CA to primary to Hart to put him over the top.}
::
{And, yes, the best thing any of us can actually do to bring clarity to this process is to take action for our future: HERE and HERE.)