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
Post a Comment