2008 Woodie Awards
Delegation navigation
The process of choosing the presidential nominee differs between Democrats and Republicans, from state to state; terminology further adds to public confusion
by Rachel Heiderscheidt
Issue date: 2/14/08
Section: National and World News
During an election year, the public is inundated with terms many are unfamiliar with. To add to the confusion, the Democratic Party's primary process differs from that of Republicans because they not only use delegates, but superdelegates as well.
According to Fred Slocum, associate professor of political science, superdelegates were implemented in 1982 as a safeguard. This decision came, in part, as a result of the divisive election in 1968, when Lyndon B. Johnson shocked the nation by announcing he was withdrawing from the race, leaving it wide open for Democrats.
"The Democrats were bitterly divided over the Vietnam war," Slocum said.
He explained that during this election, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy - both opposed to the Vietnam war - were highly favored by registered Democrats, but Hubert Humphrey - for continuation of the war - won the Democratic nomination without having entered a single Democratic primary.
"The feeling was that the will of the voters had been cheated," Slocum said.
That year Republican nominee Richard Nixon won the election by a narrow margin, in part because of the disorganization and disillusion on behalf of the Democrats.
Violent protests ensued as a result of both the war, Robert Kennedy's assassination and the nomination of Humphrey.
To prevent future chaos, the Democratic Party instated a complex system of delegates and superdelegates.
Slocum said the difference between the two is mainly that delegates are pledged to support one particular candidate, while superdelegates are not, meaning they are free to change their mind at any point. Another main difference is superdelegates are party officials or distinguished members of the party. For example, Congressman Tim Walz and former Vice President Walter Mondale are superdelegates in Minnesota.
Slocum said there are a total 4,090 delegates to partake in the Democratic National Convention, 796 of which are superdelegates.
When eligible voters attend caucuses and vote for a candidate, the candidate is granted a number of delegates proportional to the number of votes they receive. These delegates then represent them at the national party convention in August. The candidate to receive the majority of the total 4,090 votes - which translates into 2,025 votes - clinches the nomination.
In Minnesota, there are a possible 88 delegates for Democrats, 16 of which are superdelegates. For Republicans, there are a possible 41 delegates and no superdelegates.
According to mnpublius.com, of the 88 delegates possible, Obama has 54, Clinton has 27 and there are seven uncommitted.
So why bother with superdelegates?
"If you put it all in the hands of voters, there is concern voters will put someone forward who will please the base party, but lose the general election," Slocum said.
Considering the average voter doesn't even attend caucuses, this rationality makes sense.
"The essential purpose of superdelegates is to maintain some control of the nominating process by establishment party elites," said Ron Becker, Northeastern State University political science professor as quoted on MinnesotaMonitor.com. "It is purely undemocratic, but the reasoning makes sense because primary elections and caucuses are dominated by party activists, as the typical voter does not turn out to vote."
Becker and Slocum also said that if Democrats nominate someone too far to the left, or Republicans nominate someone too far to the right, their candidate would lose in the general election. For Democrats, superdelegates act as a moderator by balancing delegate votes.
Slocum said Republicans, however, prefer a "winner-take-all" approach for their conventions, mainly because they haven't had a reason to change the process as the Democrats did in 1968.
Ironically, the very process implemented to safeguard against chaos 30 years ago could cause just that in this election.
"Their presence could swing this race and could cause a potential problem for Democrats if superdelegates tip election to Hillary even though Obama has more delegates," Slocum said. "Obama supporters could become disillusioned."
According to a Feb. 10 article in The New York Times, if neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama emerges with the 2,025 delegates necessary to secure the nomination, the superdelegates will, in essence, serve as tiebreakers.
For this reason, superdelegates have become the object of intensifying attention from both candidates.
According to the Associated Press, while Clinton has 242 superdelegates and Obama has 163, Obama is slightly ahead in delegate numbers with 1,275 while Clinton has 1,220.
Clinton and Obama disagree on the role of superdelegates, however, according to the same article in The New York Times. Clinton said they are "by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment" and back whomever they believe is most capable of beating the Republican nominee. Obama, however, has said they should reflect the decision of party delegates.
This argument is reflected among superdelegates themselves. Among them, there are those who have said they should vote for whomever is most likely to win a general election, and those who have said their role is to vote with the delegates.
As quoted by The New York Times, John Kerry said, "My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates - insiders, establishment politicians - to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates."
According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle lawyer David McDonald, who has been a Washington at every convention since 1984, disagrees.
"I don't think anybody should ignore how their state went. On the other hand, if the intent was to have superdelegates support whoever their state supported, or whoever was in the lead, then we could have written a very simple rule to do that," he said.
While a definite front-runner remains unsure for the Democrats, one thing is sure: If a clear nominee has not been established by June 3 when primary voting concludes for Democrats, the August convention could get ugly.
Rachel Heiderscheidt is the Reporter news editor
According to Fred Slocum, associate professor of political science, superdelegates were implemented in 1982 as a safeguard. This decision came, in part, as a result of the divisive election in 1968, when Lyndon B. Johnson shocked the nation by announcing he was withdrawing from the race, leaving it wide open for Democrats.
"The Democrats were bitterly divided over the Vietnam war," Slocum said.
He explained that during this election, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy - both opposed to the Vietnam war - were highly favored by registered Democrats, but Hubert Humphrey - for continuation of the war - won the Democratic nomination without having entered a single Democratic primary.
"The feeling was that the will of the voters had been cheated," Slocum said.
That year Republican nominee Richard Nixon won the election by a narrow margin, in part because of the disorganization and disillusion on behalf of the Democrats.
Violent protests ensued as a result of both the war, Robert Kennedy's assassination and the nomination of Humphrey.
To prevent future chaos, the Democratic Party instated a complex system of delegates and superdelegates.
Slocum said the difference between the two is mainly that delegates are pledged to support one particular candidate, while superdelegates are not, meaning they are free to change their mind at any point. Another main difference is superdelegates are party officials or distinguished members of the party. For example, Congressman Tim Walz and former Vice President Walter Mondale are superdelegates in Minnesota.
Slocum said there are a total 4,090 delegates to partake in the Democratic National Convention, 796 of which are superdelegates.
When eligible voters attend caucuses and vote for a candidate, the candidate is granted a number of delegates proportional to the number of votes they receive. These delegates then represent them at the national party convention in August. The candidate to receive the majority of the total 4,090 votes - which translates into 2,025 votes - clinches the nomination.
In Minnesota, there are a possible 88 delegates for Democrats, 16 of which are superdelegates. For Republicans, there are a possible 41 delegates and no superdelegates.
According to mnpublius.com, of the 88 delegates possible, Obama has 54, Clinton has 27 and there are seven uncommitted.
So why bother with superdelegates?
"If you put it all in the hands of voters, there is concern voters will put someone forward who will please the base party, but lose the general election," Slocum said.
Considering the average voter doesn't even attend caucuses, this rationality makes sense.
"The essential purpose of superdelegates is to maintain some control of the nominating process by establishment party elites," said Ron Becker, Northeastern State University political science professor as quoted on MinnesotaMonitor.com. "It is purely undemocratic, but the reasoning makes sense because primary elections and caucuses are dominated by party activists, as the typical voter does not turn out to vote."
Becker and Slocum also said that if Democrats nominate someone too far to the left, or Republicans nominate someone too far to the right, their candidate would lose in the general election. For Democrats, superdelegates act as a moderator by balancing delegate votes.
Slocum said Republicans, however, prefer a "winner-take-all" approach for their conventions, mainly because they haven't had a reason to change the process as the Democrats did in 1968.
Ironically, the very process implemented to safeguard against chaos 30 years ago could cause just that in this election.
"Their presence could swing this race and could cause a potential problem for Democrats if superdelegates tip election to Hillary even though Obama has more delegates," Slocum said. "Obama supporters could become disillusioned."
According to a Feb. 10 article in The New York Times, if neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama emerges with the 2,025 delegates necessary to secure the nomination, the superdelegates will, in essence, serve as tiebreakers.
For this reason, superdelegates have become the object of intensifying attention from both candidates.
According to the Associated Press, while Clinton has 242 superdelegates and Obama has 163, Obama is slightly ahead in delegate numbers with 1,275 while Clinton has 1,220.
Clinton and Obama disagree on the role of superdelegates, however, according to the same article in The New York Times. Clinton said they are "by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment" and back whomever they believe is most capable of beating the Republican nominee. Obama, however, has said they should reflect the decision of party delegates.
This argument is reflected among superdelegates themselves. Among them, there are those who have said they should vote for whomever is most likely to win a general election, and those who have said their role is to vote with the delegates.
As quoted by The New York Times, John Kerry said, "My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates - insiders, establishment politicians - to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates."
According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle lawyer David McDonald, who has been a Washington at every convention since 1984, disagrees.
"I don't think anybody should ignore how their state went. On the other hand, if the intent was to have superdelegates support whoever their state supported, or whoever was in the lead, then we could have written a very simple rule to do that," he said.
While a definite front-runner remains unsure for the Democrats, one thing is sure: If a clear nominee has not been established by June 3 when primary voting concludes for Democrats, the August convention could get ugly.
Rachel Heiderscheidt is the Reporter news editor
Be the first to comment on this story