The Primaries Are Undemocratic: But They Don't Have to Be

Although the primary season seems wrapped, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the inevitable victors, it still seems relevant to discuss a disturbing issue. After all, at least one party will be in the same situation four years from now.

The concerning issue is one of rules, constructed by the parties for a particular outcome. And as the primaries continue it has become apparent that the rules produce an undemocratic result.

Let's start with the Democratic Primary.
If you were to type into google 'democratic primary' the webpage would display a graphic (see above) with the current number of delegates for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders . The image shows a column for each and that column is made up of two colors: dark blue and light blue. Clinton has 1,058 delegates and Sanders has 431 (This will change). Yet the light blue section of the column is fairly even, while the dark blue is significantly different. The light blue is pledged delegates, delegates elected directly by voters in the state primaries. They are earned by how well a candidate does in a particular state. They must vote for the candidate that won them.

The dark blue delegates are normally referred to as superdelegates, but more correctly are termed unpledged delegates. These are all the Democratic Representatives, Senators, and Governors (260 in total) plus distinguished party leaders (DPL) and Democratic National Convention (DNC) members (457 in total). To many the DPL are unknown, except for Bill Clinton, and the DNC members are mostly unelected Democratic insiders, chosen by the party itself. Some articles will call these DNC members elected, but it is vague about who is electing them. It seems they are elected by other Democratic officials, not by the public.

The Democratic party introduced superdelegates into its primary system around 1968, possibly to prevent unelectable or undesirable candidates from securing the nomination. These unpledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they like in the primary. They don't have to declare for a candidate until the very end. For instance, even though Massachusetts had its primary, the 25 superdelegates don't have to declare who they support. If they do declare, they are free to change their mind at any point until the democratic convention. 

At the start of the 2008 primary about 150 superdelegates supported Clinton, while 50 supported Obama. Yet in November of 2015 Clinton already had 359 unpledged delegates to Sanders' 8. It might not seem to matter, since they could switch, as about 40 did in June of 2008, but it does. The overwhelming weight of the superdelegates is like a hammer to bludgeon the primary voter into surrender. The voter will ask themselves, why vote if Sanders can't overcome the massive unpledged delegate inequality.

For that matter, how do the superdelegates influence the primary? In 2016 there are 4,051 pledged delegates and 717 unpledged delegates to be won. Therefore, superdelegates make up fifteen percent of the total delegate count. That's an outrageous amount. Imagine if the Democratic party used all 717 unpledged delegates to deny one candidate the victory. There would be a massive revolt, because it would be terribly unfair. Yet, if they wouldn't do that, why have fifteen percent wrapped up in superdelegates? What would be the right amount? What if superdelegates were only five percent, but they all voted together to deny a candidate the nomination, would that be fair? Of course not. Would three percent make it any better? No. There doesn't seem to be any number at which using the superdelegates to deny a candidate a victory seems reasonable.

It's their party, they can do what they want.  Well, if they can to do whatever they want with their party, then people won't be a part of it. There is a distinct irony in naming the party Democratic, but designing rules to allow 717 people to counterweight fifteen percent of their voters.

Enough about the Democrats. Though their faux democratic primary is awful, the Republicans is.... confusing.

But it's not as undemocratic surprisingly.

The Republican primary is distinguished by its different rules from state to state. The most serious is that a number of states use either Winner-take-all to apportion delegates. After Super Tuesday, more than fifty percent of the remaining Republican primary states are winner-take-all, including prizes like Florida (99), Illinois (69), Ohio (63), and California (172). Those four states hold sixteen percent of the delegates for the Republican primary. In a simpler year, with only two candidates, this would not be an issue, but with four persons to split the vote, and only one to take all the delegates, it seems a crucial error of design.

The Republicans have another confusing rule. While the Democrats have a uniform fifteen percent threshold to secure delegates (which seems undemocratic), each state in the Republican primary is allowed to set its own limit, which ranges from three percent to twenty percent. It makes one question whether the parties are true to the vision of a democratic process.

After reading the above, its possible you are thinking, “Who cares, that's how its been, that's how it always will be.” Unfortunately there is nothing to be done to help cynics, but maybe there are reasonable arguments for the superdelegates and winner-take-all states.

Those in support of superdelegates could argue, that the Democratic party is free to act however it wants. They would say that the DNC could pick a candidate without taking a single vote. They could, but it seems disingenuous and bad policy to let citizens vote, and then negate their choice. No one is saying that the DNC has to allow it, but considering their mission statement, it would seem they should reform their primary rules.

For the winner-take-all issue one could say, “That's how the general election is run.” But the goal of primaries is different than electing a new president. A primary is about examining a party's base and rediscovering what they want. It allows the party to work through a number of candidates, and arrive at the one the voters support. If it was about the elite members of the party picking one right away there wouldn't need to be staggered state voting.

Having winner-take-all states or elite superdelegates, no matter the time of the primary, hurts the party by limits voters to making strategic choices that do not reflect their true preference.

A final note. If you are a Republican, there is not much you can do about the rules. But as a Democrat, there is. If you support Clinton or Sanders you can call your Representative, Senator, or Governor (assuming they are a Democrat), and ask them to either vote for who you support, or to hold off on declaring their support until the primary is nearly over.

Comments