BLAKE: The Dems' House of Lords

By Peter Blake, Special to the Rocky

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Some reformers, mostly Democrats, hate the Electoral College system and think the president should be the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

But before they tackle that tricky constitutional issue, they might want to warm up by applying the same principle - one person, one vote - to their own party's nominating procedures.

In other words, they should be apportioning all their convention delegates according to the popular vote in the various state caucuses or primaries.

But in fact only 80 percent of the 4,049 delegates to the Democratic National Convention here next August will be chosen that way. The remaining 20 percent, about 800, will be so-called superdelegates. Their ranks are composed of each state's top elected officials and party leaders.

The percentage holds in the Colorado delegation: 14 superdelegates out of 70.

Barack Obama won the Democratic caucus straw vote here by better than 2 to 1 over Hillary Clinton in a record turnout of 120,000. Nationwide, the popular vote is much closer - so close that the issue may be decided by the superdelegate vote at the convention.

According to those who keep track, Clinton already has a 2 to 1 lead over Obama among superdelegates to date.

Superdelegates were cooked up by the party establishment after the George McGovern disaster in 1972 to keep a rein on insurgent candidacies, which is what Obama is running. Having a panel of elite delegates is the establishment's backstop, a sort of House of Lords. "One person, one vote? Forget about it," said Donna Brazile in The Washington Post recently. "Some votes are worth more than others. You have to know the rules." Brazile managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000 and is a superdelegate herself this year from the District of Columbia.

Clinton and her husband, also a superdelegate this year, have been busily calling in chits from that elite pack in order to build their lead.

We've already had experience with the difference that superdelegates make. Exhibit A is March 1992, when Colorado held its first presidential preference primary. The Democratic popular vote was won by former California Gov. Jerry Brown, with 29 percent. Bill Clinton got 27 percent and Paul Tsongas 23 percent.

But at the summer convention Clinton won 26 delegate votes from Colorado, Brown a mere 19 and Tsongas 13. That's because most of the state's superdelegates stayed uncommitted until they figured out which way the national wind was blowing, then went with the front-runner. They weren't exactly profiles in courage, but they stayed on the good side of the nominee and future president, even if it meant overturning the popular vote.

Regular delegates are pledged to support their candidate at the convention. Superdelegates are not, and even if they've expressed a preference they can change their minds. Currently four Colorado superdelegates are supporting Clinton: Rep. Diana DeGette and three of the state's DNC members. Obama has Rep. Ed Perlmutter and three other DNC members.

Six superdelegates are uncommitted: Gov. Bill Ritter, former Gov. Roy Romer, Sen. Ken Salazar, Reps. John Salazar and Mark Udall, and party Chairwoman Pat Waak.

If all 70 Democratic delegates were apportioned by the vote, Obama would lead Clinton about 46-24. But now he's guaranteed no more than 37 of 56. If Clinton can pick up the uncommitteds and change a few superdelegate minds, she could end up with 33.

Until recently the Republicans had no elite delegates and were more democratic than the Democrats. Senators and governors had to run for delegate slots out of the caucuses just like anyone else. But that principle was compromised in 2004, when the rules were changed to allow the party chairman and two national committee people from each state to be superdelegates. Still, that's only three of 46 delegates.

Wadhams dislikes the change. "I'd love to join an effort to repeal that rule," he said.

The nominations in both parties remain in doubt even after Super Tuesday and there's speculation that the candidates might end up being picked in a modified version of the old-fashioned way: By superdelegates meeting in smoke-free back rooms and drinking vitamin water.

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.

• February 7, 2008

  12:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  malis writes:

  Mr. Blake is a little uninformed. At the national level, Republicans have the same percentage of superdelegates as the Democrats--around 20%. (he also seems unaware of the debate around the Electoral College--the populist wings of both parties are advocating for a direct vote. I think they're mainly uninformed, but that lack applies to both parties).

  For this cycle, however, Rs seem to have dodged a bullet. McCain has saved them from the worst of their excesses and will be the nominee with no further fight. Despite the best efforts of the noisy wing of the party, they'll actually have a chance! (if they don't blow it by staying home in a snit)

  The Ds are a different story. My prediction is that the rest of the primaries/caucuses won't matter that much. Because of the Ds proportional representation, both HRC and BHO are going to go into the convention roughly equal in voted-for delegates. Convention will come down to old fashioned politikin' among the Party insiders with superdelegate status.

  Conventional Wisdom is that the Clinton machine will have the edge--Blake says she already has a 2-1 edge there. I'm not so sure of that. I equate the Supers with college athletic recruits before 'Letter of Intent Day' (which happened to be yesterday). Counting superdelegates in the delegate total is little different from counting polls for states that haven't voted yet...it's a statement of intent but meaningless until they reach the point where a real consequence results from changing their mind.

  (the issue is complicated by the fact that there are many circumstances where even 'voted-for' delegates can their minds--but such voted-for delegates are still a much more accurate indicator of support than superdelegates).

  If HRC doesn't get the nomination, her political influence is about gone (she'll remain a moderately influential Senator for another decade, if she wants it)...superdelegates will face no consequence for changing their support to Obama if they feel he will win. Obama, however might be a major D player for another 30 years...vote against him and, even if he loses, somebody like Pat Waak might find their ambitions cut a little short.

  Superdelegates will have an interesting set of factors to consider before deciding who to go with.