As we struggle on to find a sense of resolution in the Democratic field (and reminder, the press likes the stories it knows - arguing, and quick resolutions), there's a lot of talk about the Delegates to the Democratic National Convention. I'm a little surprised that we have to keep explaining to people the process for picking candidates, but it's also true that we're where we are now because the process, such as it is, is over-complicated and seems to have been created for just the result it's delivering.
At this point - and it could shift quickly fairly soon, though it probably won't - Clinton and Obama are largely tied in numbers of delegates. Clinton had been ahead, even after Super Tuesday (the size of the states she won played a big role in this), and it was only after the Potomac Primaries that Obama moved ahead. Part of the isue - which I'm not going to get into here, though I do have an opinion on it, is the proportional allocation of delegates... Ezra demonstrates the realities here.
Well, sort of - one of the big problematic stories of this primary season is that there isn't an agreed upon number of delegates to cite. Each news organization seems to be counting things somewhat differently, and in truth, a number of "committed" delegates aren't yet: in many caucus states, for instance, the actual delegates to the Convention haven't been selected, but will be chosen at state conventions sometime this Spring. Then too, the "Superdelegates" - current and former elected officials and some other high profile party members - are really only as committed as they say they are; there's nothing binding them to a candidate now or later.
And all of that is before you get into the mess of Florida and Michigan, the rush to early primaries and the part where this whole system... is kinda lame.
The short version is that, in jockeying for positions as the earliest primaries, Party leaders had to try and assert some control over the process, which, in reality, is controlled by the states. State parties and state legislatures can, basically, hold a primary whenever they like. Historically, as we've been told ad infinitum, Iowa and New Hampshire go first... though that "history" is a very recent one (as is the whole primary process - well into the twentieth century, the decision on who to nominate for President was made in a room by political leaders. something Democrats were instrumental in changing). This year, the Party moved to make official a plan to make some other, different, states a part of the "early shakeout" - these included South Carolina, as well as Nevada, which have larger minority populations and would, in theory, emphasize different issues.
That was fine, except many states , probably fairly, felt that they were unrepresented in those contests, especially the large states, which were told to wait until February at the earliest (that's how we got the February 5th monster primary across the country). Michigan and Florida, however, defied all the rues and moved into January. This led to a lot of sabre-rattling on both sides (and eventually prompted Iowa and New Hampshire to move to the very beginning of January) , and eventually Howard Dean issued an ultimatum: either move the primary, or your delegates - chosen in the primaries - will not be seated.
Florida and Michigan refused to blink, and held the primaries anyway and set up, what has become, a big ol' mess: once those primaries were held (to the benefit, mostly, of Hillary Clinton, who was the only big name candidate to stay on Michigan's ballot, and who benefited from strong Hispanic support in Florida), the pressure to seat the delegates became enormous, and it's been a simmering issue that's threatened to boil over - and still may, - come the Convention in August. The thinking is this - if, as we suspect, the delegate count remains close, Hillary Clinton has every reason to insist that Michigan and Florida be counted, and counted as they voted. The Obama people will protest - somewhat fairly - that they abided by rules, especially in Michigan, not to compete, and the results shouldn't count (though they, too, think a delegation should be seated... in theory). As I said, a mess.
Before we get to what I think on this in particular, let's just make a larger point - this has been an interesting, but not great, process this year. Though the calendar made sense in theory, in reality it continued the problematic aspects of giving Iowa and New Hampshire too much say over the selection process, while the additional contests seemed arbitrary (South Carolina's voters are not, especially, great harbingers for the nation as a whole, and Nevada's caucus process was convoluted and confusing). There's also the question of so many strange selection games - the caucus processes have identified all sorts of selection biases and voter issues: requiring people to show up, at one time on one day to vote turns out to be massively inconvenient for... working class folks mostly; while, in Maine and other states, participation levels soared to such unexpected heights that actual caucusing proved impossible, and it was mostly show up, stand in long line, and vote for whom you planned to, anyway. Why not just hold a primary?
In the end, I think, there has to be a compromise; the DNC essentially tried to stare down Florida and Michigan and lost, and yes, the ramifications are enormous, since seating a delegation, any delegation, will confirm that states can defy the national parties and their calendar plans and still get their way. But the reality is... they can. And until we inject some sanity into this process - by nationalizing it in a more direct way - we're stuck with states doing, largely, as they please. I don't know if Florida and Michigan should seat delegates based on flawed primaries... but I do know what I learned in fourth grad kickball: YOU DON'T GET DO-OVERS. The suggestion to "re-vote" is also absurd. There is no good answer here, and frankly, the Party should twist, and if it comes down to being the difference between a Clinton or an Obama... then it underlines how unsettled the process is as a whole.
Because finally, none of this matters when the "superdelegates" can essentially force either outcome on a whim. Oh, there's a lot of brave talk about the delegates not wanting to defy the public... but that's why the "superdelegate" concept was put in place: because party leaders don't trust the public to begin with. And maybe (just to be controversial) they shouldn't... when lately, we seem to be picking The Messiah, not a Presidential candidate. Regardless, at the end of this process, we will have a party nominee. And it falls, really, to the Democratic National Committee to provide us a process that's open, fair... and explicable. And so far, I'd say... they're not inspiring a lot of confidence. But then, a cape and a chair rarely do. Just ask the lion.
Comments