paying your dues

"Super Delegates" by Randall Enos

Blame Facebook for this post. Got into an online conversation with a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter who had a jaundiced opinion of the Democratic Party’s “super delegates.” The few basics I offered about how our political parties work came as news to him, as he thought they would to most people. I thought they would to almost nobody. In case he’s right and I’m not, I’m filling out here what I told my fellow Facebooker.

Our political parties aren’t officially part of the government. They’re mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, its architect James Madison was deeply suspicious of them. And George Washington warned against them in his 1796 Farewell Address. Madison’s and Washington’s warnings fell largely on deaf ears and political parties took hold within a few years of the Constitution’s ratification, an entrenched feature of our political culture ever since.

Our political parties are essentially private organizations, bringing together people with a shared vision of the common good they work to advance through the political process. Anybody can start a political party; we currently have about 200. Like Kiwanis, Rotary and other such organizations, they make their own operating rules.

Why would a national political party think super delegates are a good thing?

Let’s start with who the super delegates are, calling them by their proper name. “Super delegate” is a media invention. Officially, they’re “unpledged party leaders and elected officials.” According to the Pew Research Center, there are 713 of them this year. The nearly 600 who’ve declared for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders can change their minds any time until they actually cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The largest group of unpledged delegates consists of members of the Democratic National Committee. Others include sitting members of Congress, governors, current and former presidents and vice-presidents of the United States, former leaders of both houses of Congress, and all former chairpersons of the Democratic National Committee.

So, contrary to widespread belief in some quarters, the unpledged delegates aren’t political hacks or people who wandered in off the street. They’re people who, for the most part, have a substantial record of demonstrated service to the Democratic Party and a stake in its fortunes.

Assuming that nobody wants to revert to the bad old days of smoke-filled, brokered nominating conventions, there are two ways to avoid that. One way, favored this year by the Republicans, is to allocate pledged delegates largely on a winner-take-all basis. That worked like a charm, sparing the Republicans a convention slug fest but saddling the party with Donald Trump, who one of his supporters told a television reporter—twice!—is a “lunatic.” The interviewee nonetheless eagerly looked forward to voting for him in November.

Maybe because they don’t want candidates cherry picking the large delegate-rich states and giving the rest only passing notice, the Democrats allocate pledged delegates proportionally, with each candidate awarded delegates on the basis of his or her percentage of the primary or caucus vote in each state. That procedure has related upsides and downsides. Because it’s harder, as we’re seeing now, for candidates to amass a majority of pledged delegates, it forces them to run national campaigns, scrounging for delegates wherever they can find them, in large states and small, territories and the District of Columbia. That’s a good thing, ensuring that the candidates learn the country from border to border and the reverse. But the fact that proportional allocation of pledged delegates makes it hard for candidates to rack up a majority of them also raises the odds of a brokered convention, a throwback to the bad old days of the smoke-filled rooms.

The Democrats’ device for both preserving the advantages of national nominating campaigns and minimizing the odds of a chaotic, logrolling convention is to put 15% of the total number of convention votes in the hands of people with established records of commitment to the party’s welfare, from the highest office down.

So Sanders supporters who complain at high volume that this device is “corrupt,” “unfair” and “rigged” are absolutely right in believing that it creates major headwinds for outsider, insurgent candidates like Sanders. But that’s not a flaw in the scheme; it’s a feature. It positions a group of people who’ve heavily invested in the party’s welfare over an extended period to resist the sort of “hostile takeover” that the Republicans realized too late was underway on their side.

Ironically, Bernie Sanders has been inveighing against the party’s unpledged delegates even though, as a sitting U. S. Senator and newly minted Democrat, he’s one of them, a distinction Hillary Clinton can’t claim.

Image: "Super Delegates" by Randall Enos via Daryl Cagle’s Store using contributions to from people like you.

Leon Galis

I'm an Athens, GA, native and have been living in Athens since 1999 after retiring from the faculty of Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, PA. Since 2008 I've written approximately 80 columns for the Athens Banner Herald and a handful for Flagpole Magazine in Athens.  

  1. Tom Ferguson

    I’m also a Bernie supporter who felt the appointed delegates were unfair, a feature designed to prevent or make it difficult for non-establishment types. After talking with Nan Orrock about this issue I had to back off a bit but the fact remains that those establishment figures, governors, senators etc; tend to be products of the corporate-over-influenced system which campaign finance reform, public financing of elections could eleviate (how do you spell that), with predictable results for our democracy.

    1. People are confusing two different (though related) things. One the one hand, “unfair” has been used as a blanket label for all the features of our society that Sanders and his supporters object to. But then they extend the label to the Democratic Party’s nominating procedures that they think perpetuate the objectionable feature of society. That seems like a natural and reasonable move. But that’s not obvious. To see that, let’s talk about the Republicans. Just for purposes of illustration, take tax policy. The Republicans favor generous tax cuts for the very wealthiest because they think that promotes economic growth from which everybody benefits. You might think it’s stupid (I certainly do) for them to suppose that they can be a nationally competitive party with that at the heart of their policy package. You might also think it’s morally reprehensible. But that’s different from saying that their nominating process is unfair, corrupt and so on because it’s designed to favor candidates who embrace that policy. At the level of the nominating process, as a private organization they’re entitled to adopt whatever procedures they think, however delusionally, will enable them to nominate their strongest candidate. The only thing that would be unfair and corrupt at the nominating level is massively violating the rules they put in place and required all their candidates to abide by. Same story on the Democratic side. There’s nothing unfair about super delegates as long as everybody knew what the rules were going in. Sanders, who’s been an independent throughout his political career, declined to run as an independent, which he certainly could have done. Instead, he opted to take advantage of the Democratic Party’s infrastructure because he thought that would improve his chances. The fact that the Party’s procedures don’t favor insurgent candidates doesn’t make them unfair as long as everybody knows what the procedures are and nobody rewrites them midstream.

Comments are closed.