Delegates, superdelegates, and brokered conventions … oh my

January 25, 2008

The likelihood that the race for the Democratic presidential nomination will not be wrapped up before the convention seems, at least to me, remote. It could happen, and it’d be kind of fun to watch if it did happen, but a brokered convention probably isn’t in the cards.

That said, given the competitive nature of the three-way contest, campaigns, reporters, and observers are brushing up on some easily-forgotten details. What’s a “superdelegate” again? How many regular ol’ delegates will a candidate need? How, exactly, could a third-place finisher play the role of king- (or queen-) maker?

The American Prospect’s Sam Boyd did a terrific job this week, writing a primer on some of the details we’ll want to keep in mind. Given that the convention delegate process is a confusing, complicated mess, kudos to Sam for taking this on in the first place.

First, what’s a brokered convention? It’s when no candidate enters the Democratic National Convention with a majority of delegates. In a two-person race, the chances of this happening are extremely small. In a three-person contest, it’s still unlikely, but it’s not completely out of the question.

How many delegates are there? Candidates will compete for 4,049 delegates from 48 states (Michigan and Florida are in the dog house), the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and “Democrats abroad.” 80% of the delegates are selected through primaries and caucuses, 20% come from unelected “superdelegates.” The first candidate to get to 2,025 is the nominee.

And what’s the difference between delegates and superdelegates? That’s where it gets tricky.

When voters like us participate in a primary or caucus, we’re selecting delegates to the national convention, who presumably will back their candidate of choice. They are not, however, obligated to do so.

So far, Hillary Clinton has amassed 36 pledged delegates (0.8 percent of the total), Barack Obama has 38 (0.9 percent), and John Edwards has 18 (0.4 percent). A pledged delegate is theoretically bound to vote for the candidate he or she is pledged to and each campaign has input in who is chosen as its delegates. (Voters also get to vote on who some of the delegates are.) However, while the DNC rules state that “delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them,” there is no actual requirement that they vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

Superdelegates are the party establishment’s way of making sure the rest of us don’t pick a bad nominee. This came up after 1980, after the party’s leaders saw rank-and-file Dems pick George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, and decided it was time to make the process a little less democratic (and Democratic).

So who are these mysterious caped candidate pickers? DNC members, all Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, and certain former party leaders. Essentially they represent both Washington insiders and the leadership of the state parties. […]

Clinton has amassed the pledges of 170 (out of 796) superdelegates while Obama has 77, Edwards has 28, and Kucinich has one. The number of pledged superdelegates varies depending on what source you consult, but the tallies given here are based on the running total compiled by the Democratic Convention Watch blog which uses only press releases or other public statements to assemble its list. CNN, CBS, and the AP list larger numbers of delegates as having endorsed, but rely on unclear methodology and do not list the names of each superdelegate who supports each candidate.

While the possibility that superdelegates would thwart the will of the electorate is brought up every four years, there is reason to think they might play a decisive role in this one. For instance, if Clinton and Obama each get 45 percent of the delegates from South Carolina and the Feb. 5 states, they would end up with about 820 delegates each. To reach a majority of the delegates (the amount required to win) using only pledged delegates, one of them would need to win about 85 percent of the remaining delegates. Of course, if one candidate emerges from Feb. 5 with a big lead the ultimate winner will be fairly clear. But since that very well may not happen we could be in for a fight for every last delegate that ends up being decided by superdelegates.

Now we know. Stay tuned.

So are the superdelegates a throw back to the time prior to Andrew Jackson when the President was selected by state governments, not popular vote?

You are tired of debates. This fatigue is rampant. At this point, I don’t care who wins the nomination. They are all good candidates. I just want the bickering and he-said/she-said press to go away.

  • It all depends on Edwards. And he would not be stupid enough to lead Democrats into a brokered convention. He’s not selfish enough to bring down the party for his own gain. (And that’s a good thing btw)

  • Essentially, our system is similar to a Parliamentary system where the party leader is selected by a small group of people – only difference: in Britain it’s elected representatives, and here it’s an un-elected party establishment cabal.

    Surely I’m not the only one on this blog who thinks the primary system needs overhaul.

  • I don’t think there should necessarily be any regulation to the primary system. I mean, if the party screws up and alienates the electorate, maybe we could finally get past this two party system.

  • So are the superdelegates a throw back to the time prior to Andrew Jackson when the President was selected by state governments, not popular vote?

    My understanding of the superdelegate silliness is that once upon a time the party machines selected who the candidates would be for their party. The individual party members (e.g. voters) had very little choice over who the nominee would be. The primary system was something that the Progressive Movement at the turn of the 20th century pushed for to take some power back from the party machine bosses. Superdelegates are less a throwback to Jackson and more a throwback to “Boss Tweed”.

    The superdelegate system was basically a backlash by the party elite against the rank-and-file membership after the Democratic party losses in the 70s. It was a “blame the voter” excuse for the party bosses to get some control back. They’ve proceeded to show that they aren’t any better at picking candidates than the rank-and-file at this point (1 win in 20+ years – great job “party elites”), and it’s a horribly undemocratic system so it should just be scrapped. The Republicans do just fine without a superdelegate system (though if Huckabee were to somehow end up with the nomination, I think you’d see the elites in the GOP start thinking about something like the superdelegate system to get some control back from their rank-and-file).

  • You can’t have a brokered convention unless you have more that two people in the race.

    Right now, Edwards has done OK but he spent 4 years of his life in Iowa to come in second. He was a distant third in NH.

    Unless Edwards comes in a close third in SC then he is toast.

    There is virtually 0% chance of a brokered convention without Edwards doing FAR FAR better than expected in SC

  • I don’t quite get all the rancor against superdelegates given that they have never (up to now) had any influence on the nomination, and even this year aren’t that likely to have any. Besides, even though I’ll being voting Obama, to me the choice is pretty much a coin flip; all the top contenders have pluses and minuses, but any of them will be more than acceptable.

  • The solution to the antiquated, undemocratic system we currently have selecting our final candidate: A primary with Instant runoffs…

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we could vote for who we really want first, instead of our second choice first? Results might be surprising when we all aren’t hedging our bets. But then, the majority of the populace could care less, are unaware of the most important issues and vote on personality…or a non government one issue that has been blown up to divert their attention from real issues. phew

  • Superdelegates appear after 1980.

    Next two nominees – Mondale and Dukakis.

    I feel better already! (Not.)

  • There are also differences in the various states as to whether the delegates are “bound” to a candidate and for how many ballots. The latter is not usually an issue, but it could become one if there is a brokered convention.

  • Thanks, Nonynony. You’d think an election would be about counting votes, not thinking about tiers of those approved to stand in for voters.

  • (Michigan and Florida are in the dog house),
    From Tapped

    BREAKING: CLINTON SUPPORTS SEATING OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DELEGATES AT CONVENTION.

    Wow. This just, well, shows a complete disregard for the agreed-upon rules of the primary process. The campaign’s statement:

    I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.
    I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

    I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

    I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.

  • Why are the superdelegates already casting their votes and can they change them if some unforeseen thing happens, like Edwards nailing super Tuesday ?

  • If you think the Democrat Party convention rules are just a little bit undemocratic,you should see the sheriffs race in Mecklenburg county (Charlotte) NC. The original sheriff accepted a federal position. Then Democratic party rules took over. A sneaky Lawyer reads the rules and for the most part,followed them as any good Democrat (Republican) would do. Problem is the party selected candidate is not paying attention. He and his constituents think they have a done deal. Vote comes and Damn! The black lawyer won. Now for the most part The politics are are white here and there is a definte devide. Republicans are in the minority in the county commision and the sheriff elect is a democrat. All that has to happen now is that the county commision confirm the vote. Now a charecter assasantion begins by the local news paper and all the powers that be in the county.Whether he is qualifid for the job or not,he won the election. If I were the Republican lead commissiner,I would be demanding a vote to seat this electee,but no. In this incident the Repulican party is in collusion with the Democart party.Seems like race still has somthing to do with it regardless of party affliation. White boy said that.

  • I checked. Despite the tenor of the foregoing comments, Steve’s post said that 80% of the delegates are chosen by primary elections and caucuses and 20% are “superdelegates,” mostly Democratic elected officials, like Governors and Congresspeople. This is the return of filth and corruption in politics? Not. The test should not be a system’s record of “picking winners,” but how well it works to bring forward candidates who best represent the Democratic Party voters – and all of the “loser” nominees named since 1980 were also the winners of Democratic Party primaries.

    And another thing: John Edwards should definitely hang in as a candidate as long as he can make it to the next event. He represents a solid constituency in the Democratic Party, and he owes it to them to use the influence they have given him with their votes to maximum advantage. If he pulls out before the convention, he can recommend that his delegates support another candidate, but they are not bound to. His distinctive priorities will be lost as his delegates scatter to one of the two remaining candidates. If he stays with his pledged delegates into the Convention, he can turn whatever degree of influence they represent into real gains – in the platform or in the selection of National Committee members, or even in the selection of Vice President.

  • Schwag, the problem with that theory (and I suspect it was really a little snarky fun, but I’ll go there anyway) is that the Superdelegates were a total non-factor in the Mondale and Dukakis nominations. It will be very rare that the 20% tail wags the 80% dog. It really was an honorarium thing for all of the Dem elected officials and folks who do the work of the party infrastructure, and in effect they have generally followed the momentum and once a clear leader exists to put that person in control quickly to bring an end to the process. But if they were in any way substantively decisive this time, it would be a first.

  • Scott W wrote above:
    Why are the superdelegates already casting their votes and can they change them if some unforeseen thing happens, like Edwards nailing super Tuesday ?

    The answer is that superdelegates have not casted their votes. Some of them have said who they support, but it is a totally non-binding statement. They can change their mind as often as they want until the convention.

  • OK I am really confused! Could you explain or lead me to where I can learn:
    What exactly is a Delegate? How are they “Chosen”? How is it determined how many are attached to each state? WHY ARE SOME STATES NOW WITHOUT DELEGATES?
    Thanks!

  • SuperDelegates are CRIMINAL.

    The entire concept is ridiculous and contrarian to democracy.

    If the DNC allows a reversal based on SuperDelegate votes — they had better prepare to be upended.

  • There is much confusion on WHO can be chosen as a state delegate and HOW someone gets to enter into that process. How can I run for – or whatever the process involves – to become a delegate in my state?

  • The best Presidency in the history of the United States of America for the working man and woman was during the Clinton years. Nobody disputes that! The biggest states which are neccessary to win the Presidential election are California and New York, which Hillary Clinton beat the pants off of Barack Obama. Nobody disputes that! Obama is for change. Nobody disputes that! Obama may be better or worse than Bush. Nobody disputes that. Obama may not beat McCain in California and New York! Nobody disputes that. Hillary Clinton has a history of making America better and winning in California and New York! Why in the name of God would anyone take a chance on Obama with the future of the greatest nation on earth at stake!!!!!!

  • The General Public know what delegates and superdelegats do BUT no one seems to know how they are picked and by whom PLEASE make this public/

    • Comments are closed.