I'd rather be a wonk than a geek, but thanks.

That was a great article. Thanks for posting it.

The reason for the creation of the superdelegates was just to make it easy for the insiders to go to the convention without actually having to win a public election. The party has gradually expanded the superdelegate list over the years. The point that they conveniently neglect to explain is that in a competitive primary race, some party insiders used to lose out by betting on the wrong horse. The rules that create the superdelegate class simply serve to protect and preserve the privileged status of the insiders. I know that Bob Rankin and Rachel Binah and Gary Shay are OK people, but I don't think that they should have the same power over the selection of the nominee as the entire combined population of San Pedro.

I'm curious how often states are excluded from the convention.

Great article. It should be required reading for anyone posting on this or any other left-leaning blog. (Let the other side remain as ignorant of this as they are in everything else.)

One thing that nags, which I don't think Auspitz addressed adequately, is the notion that Sen. Clinton's victories in 7 of the 8 blue and big industrial states indicates an inordinate risk for Democrats if Sen. Obama wins the nomination.

They're extremely likely to go for the eventual nominee in either case. Therefore other metrics should be of more interest to the PLEOs-- overall popular vote, pledged delegate numbers, total number of states. And even, IMHO, the opportunity to build a larger coalition using Obama's coattail effect in red states, not to mention their own judgements about effective leadership.

Polls indicating how many voters defect or fail to show if their candidate loses can be of use, but only if the heat is removed and only light remains. Those polls are too overloaded with emotion right now to effectively predict a result 7 months from now.

Once again, great article, well written and enlightening. Also, Auspitz does a nice job explaining the importance of resolving the Florida and Michigan issues.

Very enlightening on the rules. Unfortunately, when discussing how superdelegates should vote Auspitz makes some terrible arguments. Take this:

For political leaders versed in majoritarian thinking, a candidate who has failed to win the popular majority in a state’s primary has a heavy burden of proof to show that he or she could carry it in the general election. Take the Big Eight industrial states with their 176 electoral votes crucial to a 2008 Democratic presidential victory: California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey (I exclude Texas and North Carolina as irretrievably “red� states against McCain, as well as Georgia which went Democratic once for Bill Clinton).

The first statement is just crazy. Auspitz is saying that, having lost the California and New York primaries, Obama carries a "heavy burden of proof" to show that he could carry it in the general election? He thinks there's a serious chance that Obama would lose California and New York in the general, because they voted for Clinton in the primary? That's crazy talk.

And excluding Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina because they're irretrievably "red," without excluding irretrievably "blue" states such as New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey (which is at least as irretrievable as North Carolina), just looks completely ad hoc.

Good discussion of the rules, but I had the impression Auspitz had his thumb on the scales for Hillary a bit. In particular he seems oblivious to the notion of working to make red states bluer, and implicitly buys into the "swing state" logic that has lost election after election while doing nothing to build the party's future prospects. He also echoes the Clinton side's talking point about how primaries are more legitimate than caucuses.

Which makes a certain sense - I think the current rules were set up to benefit someone like Hillary. Obama has had to swim against the tide.

The hazard in this system is the discrepancy that might arise between what the voters consider the good of the party, and what the Party Elite consider such. Obama's rise is in no small part due to dissatisfaction with the DLC's ability to stand up to Bush. Voters think that the Democrats in Washington should be actively rolling back the Conservative Agenda, while Washington Democrats fearfully assume that Republican ideals still rule.

That is how we are in this impasse.

I'm always amused by these people like the poster above who somehow weirdly think that not only does the DLC somehow have some tremendous sway in Washington, that it is actually controlling things. Do you people have a time machine and are posting from 1992 or something? If so, can I borrow it? I'd like to go back and warn Abe Lincoln, as well as dump my technology stocks earlier. Thanks, much.

Wow! That was even more boring than I had expected. But very informative. Having majored in physics, I understand that sometimes you must be bored to tears in order to learn something. The boredom is in the details, but in this case, the details are really important. Thanks for the link.

Pat-
Don't be amused. Terry McCauliffe, an ally of Clinton, had control of the Democratic party until very recently Only after 2004 did we finally break away from the Clinton legacy of DLC dominance. Even so, they're still a powerful faction within the party, and the tone they've set has been difficult to override.

As a realist, I understand that organizations like the Democratic Party are bound to have a certain inertia, but the frustrating part of this current delegate system is just how much it rewards those who want to preserve the status quo.

The Ironic thing about these current rules is that they were conceieved as a way to break deadlocks. Instead, they've figured into one. They've let a candidate who long ago fell irretreivably behind in both the popular vote and delegate counts hang around to beat at the party's leading candidate.

I feel like I learned a little bit from Auspitz' article, but I wish he'd gone deeper on the facts, and skipped most of his opinionizing.

And sometimes his opinions affect his facts: The PLEOs on this view are not a sinister presence, but transparently designated officials whose individual careers have made them accountable locally to intra-party electorates

Most of the superdelegates are DNC members, rather than elected officials. Exactly how are they "transparently designated officials whose individual careers have made them accountable locally to intra-party electorates"?

I'm a Marylander and former Virginian who's spent most of his life in the DC area. I pay attention to state politics. I just looked through the roughly two dozen names of DNC superdelegates from MD, VA, and DC, and I knew one of those names. One. How accountable are they to intra-party electorates? Not at all.

And his insulting pledged delegates as "delegates who are bound to vote robotically" disregards the fact that they represent actual primary voters who didn't vote robotically, and deserve to have their votes reflected in the delegate count.

A couple of things Auspitz touched on, but should have discussed in more depth:

1) Why are superdelegates 20% of the total? Is that too many, too few, or just right, and why? I'd argue that it's way too many: it allows for the overruling of a 60-40 majority of the pledged delegates. That's something Auspitz should have an opinion on, but doesn't share it if he does.

2) Auspitz mentions that the "rules of both parties provide a 50 percent penalty for early scheduling of primaries. But the Democratic rules differ from the GOP by giving interim discretion to the national committee’s Committee on Rules and Bylaws both to waive and increase the figure."

So the 100% penalties for FL and MI were from a committee decision, rather than the party rules. When and why did this happen? Who was involved? This would be genuinely helpful information in sorting out the FL/MI situation.

Instead, what we get is "the Committee chose to seat without penalty full delegations from three smaller states with early primaries—Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina—but exacted a Draconian 100 percent penalty upon Florida and Michigan, which even with their full delegations are among the five most “under-represented� states on the one person, one vote standard that Democrats profess to hold dear.

Neither the fact that a number of small states were permitted, by design, to go early, nor Auspitz' personal axe-grinding about under-represented states, have anything to do with the issue of the appropriate penalty for FL and MI jumping the gun.

These and other weaknesses turn what could have been a very informative piece into a mediocre piece of junk with occasional interesting nuggets of information.

"I'd argue that it's way too many: it allows for the overruling of a 60-40 majority of the pledged delegates."

Imagine a scenario where two strong candidates end the primary in a virtual tie. Perhaps one has more delegates, but barely, yet lost the popular vote and ended the primaries on a losing string. Now, the "supers" are forced to choose. Would you rather it was a smaller group of people deciding? Wouldn't that seem less representative, more elitist? Do you really think the "supers" would undo a 60/40 decision? Or, even a closer vote where the decision is clear? Their job is to win the election and keep the party strong. Acknowledging popular will as Auspitz eloquently described is the main way they do that.

"I just looked through the roughly two dozen names of DNC superdelegates from MD, VA, and DC, and I knew one of those names. One. How accountable are they to intra-party electorates?"

They're not celebrities. They're staff members for elected officials, union organizers, interested lawyers using their skills to help the cause, and other folk who have devoted lots of time to party building even in non-election years. I met a bunch in 2004 while canvassing for Kerry. The local parties have their rules and elect their representatives. They are accountable to that community and they're always looking for more people to volunteer, get involved. We need them during this process. The knowledge that comes from their continuous involvement is useful during times like these.

Neither the fact that a number of small states were permitted, by design, to go early. . .

They in fact did break the same party rule. Party rules allowed them to go earlier, but not as early as they actually went. They asked for and received wavers to move to the dates chosen -- which basically nullified the impact of Florida and Michigan and their need to be punished to the extent that they were.

Imagine a scenario where two strong candidates end the primary in a virtual tie. Perhaps one has more delegates, but barely, yet lost the popular vote and ended the primaries on a losing string. Now, the "supers" are forced to choose. Would you rather it was a smaller group of people deciding? Wouldn't that seem less representative, more elitist?

No, because the 'smaller group' would be our elected representatives, rather than some unknowns selected by other unknowns, without any input from ordinary voters.

Do you really think the "supers" would undo a 60/40 decision? Or, even a closer vote where the decision is clear?

I don't know, and that's the problem. Its corollary is that the more supers you have, the bigger a lead they can undo with less of a superdelegate supermajority.

In the current setup, a 200-delegate lead is a huge deal. 63% of the superdelegates, which is far from unanimity, can wipe that out if they so choose.

Why preserve a system with that much potential for abuse? Any of the good that can be done with a larger group of supers, can be done with a smaller group of supers. But more supers can cause trouble that fewer supers can't. Therefore, fewer supers than we have now is better. QED.

They're not celebrities. They're staff members for elected officials, union organizers, interested lawyers using their skills to help the cause, and other folk who have devoted lots of time to party building even in non-election years.

I don't expect them to be celebrities. But when a political junkie like me doesn't recognize more than one of two dozen names, from states whose politics he pays attention to, then who knows who they are and what they represent?

I'm sure they're well-intentioned, but one of our biggest problems is a well-intentioned but sclerotic party establishment whose mindset is still in the 1980s in its devotion to bipartisanship, and is only now escaping 2003 in its fear of opposing Bush.

The people are way ahead of their leaders. And really, if you're a small-d democrat, part of the deal is to trust the judgment of the people, and not give these nice people we've never heard of the ability to overrule a fairly clear decision.

Should the Democratic Party be a democratic party? I believe it should - it must. You don't.

They are accountable to that community - the local party. Exactly.

Not to denigrate local parties, but they're the trailing edge of change in the party. New people are brought in, not by their excitement about local issues, but by their involvement in national issues. And twenty years later, some of them hang around and eventually wind up running the local party organizations.

If you believe the Democratic Party should be a forward-looking party, these are people who will routinely choose yesterday's safe candidate. Before this year, the supers' sole moment in the spotlight was to save the 1984 nomination for Walter Mondale.

Have you noticed that Auspitz (an admitted McCain donor) doesn't really have a problem with technicalities that awarded the GOP nomination to McCain, but somehow finds something shady in how Democratic party rules have put Obama in the delegate count?

AUTHORS'S REPLY and CORRECTION (with thanks to James Roosevelt, Jr.):

1) For B (who asks about exclusion of state delegations from conventions), the most recent, celebrated case is the refusal to seat Wisconsin in 1980, which resulted in a landmark lawsuit (usually cited under its brief name as Democratic Party v. LaFollette) that went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then to the US Supreme Court. Here is the link which describes the entire background:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/107/case.html

Earlier in 1972 the Democrats refused to seat the Illinois delegation (led by Richard Daley) and California for violating the McGovern-Fraser guidelines.

The case bearing the closest resemblance to the current situation of the Democrats comes from the GOP Convention of 1952, which was hotly contested between Eisenhower and Taft and involved disputed southern delegations. Taft did the "fair" thing thinking he had delegates to spare, only to see his margin fall away under the momentum of the seating of delegations favoring Ike.

James Roosevelt called me today to say that he was circulating the Washington Monthly article to the DNC staff, to confirm that Karl Rove did in fact intervene in the 2000 rules deliveration, and to make a significant amplification to my article that is worth adding as a correction and update:

He notes that the relevant rule relating to "precedence" of state party rules vis a vis state law does in fact give the state parties the power to put in place alternative processes in the event of a conflict between state law and national party rules. (I had written that only the GOP has this provision.)

The Democratic rules provide a two-step process: first, the state parties can show that they have taken "provable positive steps" to get their state legislatures to conform. This was the thrust of the hearings before the Rules and Bylaws Committee. But failing that, they can put "alternative processes" in place outside the legislative process. He reports that yesterday (Saturday) the Exeuctive Committee of the Michigan State Democratic Party definitively declined to take this option.

This leaves the issue, as my piece suggested, in the hands of his committee. "We are going to solve this," he said, repeating what he has earlier said on the public record.

2) On the search for a "legitimate" quantitative standard: I note that an article I did on the parties in 1982 (Public Interest, Spring 1982, "A 'republican' view of bo both parties",pp 94-117) anticipates the kind of problem the Democrats now face: As a party of diverse factions the Democrats are more in need of consultative procedures than the Republicans, but "the plebiscitary rush of the party and the press in the past half century" (p. 104)runs counter to the kind of thinking that is required.

I concluded that if they cannot sustain a consultative process "demands will grow for direct democratic devices (a national primary?)..."

J. L. Auspitz

Thanks very much for the article; interesting and informative. It's also piqued my interest in the history and evolution of our primary processes.

Most of my limited knowledge comes from biographies. In virtually every president's biography, the primary has always been a key story arc, unfortunately with tantalizing but generally limited glimpses of the underlying dynamics.

Suggestions for further reading? Thanks again.

For has07 who asked for reading suggestions: there is a fairly recent Cambridge U press monograph by Alan Ware on the US direct primary that might interest you. Google the author's name and 'direct primary.'

If you like reading biography, you may prefer the more discursive historical style of Bowker Publishers' 1973 4-volume "History of US Political Parties" under the general editorship of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. It covers the parties from the Founding up to 1972.

Elaine Kamarck of Harvard's JFK School has put on line a bit of her doctoral dissertation on the "super-delegates". She records that the original proposal to peg them at 30% was reduced to 14% by the Hunt Commission in 1984, but not that the use by seven states of the option to have winner-take-all unpledged Congressional district delegates raised the unpledged total to its historic level of around 40%. The 20% unpledged figure this year is thus very low for the Democrats by post-1936 historical standards. (They had a 2/3 rule for nomination up to 1936.)

The GOP has a different history on the rules, and it is fair to surmise from my endnote that their overall design has fallen off the constitutional map. This year there will be an attempt to revive a phased, back-loaded primary schedule that was scotched by the Bush campaign in 2000. But whether the party will also be returned to the electoral college standard remains to be seen.

J. L. Auspitz

PS I have corrected and updated three or four paragraphs of my article to comport with the material that James Roosevelt has kindly brought to my attention, and hope it will on line soon. The overall conclusion remains: that the Committee on Rules and Bylaws is the only remaining body that can propose a way out of the Democrats' self-made FL-MI problem, but the amended version now makes clear that the state parties (as well as the national party and the campaigns) have failed to act. jla