What's Fair?

Why We're Asking Superdelegates to Vote with the Majority of Elected Delegates

How did we get here?

The Democratic National Committee introduced superdelegates at the 1984 convention, hoping to give party officials a greater role in the nomination process. Prior to that, nominees were selected by state primaries and caucuses. But after Jimmy Carter won the nomination without the backing of the party establishment in 1976, and then proceeded to lose to Ronald Reagan in 1980, party leaders wanted more control of the nomination process. So they reformed the rules, arguing that superdelegates would use their votes to select the candidate best suited to win in a general election.

What is the problem?

In an ideal world, superdelegates would carefully and independently consider the merits of each candidate. But we all know that’s not how it works. Superdelegates are put under great pressure to pledge their vote—by candidates, donors, lobbyists and other party officials. Superdelegates, politicians themselves, will be forced to make a politically convenient decision instead of a thoughtful one.

This is not fair: not to the party, not to the superdelegates, and not to us as voters. We’ve seen an extraordinary interest and engagement this year, the kind that could rejuvenate the Democratic Party for years to come. If we let an election this close get decided by political insiders, it will leave millions of voters feeling disenfranchised. What’s more, we’ll be jeopardizing the passion, enthusiasm, and unity we’ve built—all of which are essential to the party succeeding in this year’s crucial general election.

Across the political spectrum, commentators agree that this is a problem. But few have put it as succinctly as Tad Devine, chief political consultant for Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, and an expert on superdelegates. In the February 10, 2008 New York Times, Devine wrote, "The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come."

A fair solution: Voting with the elected delegates

Superdelegates are an established part of the 2008 Democratic nomination process; completely revamping the rules about how we apportion votes is, in practical terms, unachievable. That doesn’t mean we can’t make this a fairer process. We can call for superdelegates to address this problem themselves, and cast their votes in a way that reflects the will of the voters. The best way to do that is for superdelegates to vote for the candidate who has won the most elected (pledged) delegates.

Why is this fair?

Elected delegates have one purpose: To represent the choice of the national Democratic Party. Some superdelegates hold elected office, but many aren’t elected by anyone. Those that are in public office were elected to represent their constituents in government, not choose the presidential nominee for them. The only fair representation of what voters want are the delegates they elected.

But shouldn’t elected officials represent their state or district?

It sounds reasonable to have elected officials line up with the people who put them in office, but it’s not. Nobody campaigns by explaining that they’ll help choose the presidential nominee; that isn’t their job. Superdelegates who hold elected office do not go to the convention to represent their constituents; they go because of their status in the Democratic Party.

It’s also inherently unfair to those Democratic voters who don’t have Democratic representation in Congress or in the Governor’s mansion. If someone lives in a Republican district, they shouldn’t be penalized for that in the nomination process. Nor should the vote of someone with multiple Democratic representatives count more.

The job of a superdelegate is to represent the interests, and preferences, of the national Democratic Party. And the only way to gauge that is to ask the voters.

Why count delegates instead of votes?

Both of America’s political parties use a delegate system to ensure that small states with few voters can be heard in a national election. Otherwise, candidates would only campaign in big states and cities, disenfranchising rural and small town America. This year, the Democratic Party took a big step and introduced proportional representation. Unlike a winner-take-all system—which is how most American elections are structured—this gives votes to candidates who appeal to a significant number, but not majority, of voters. And that means more people’s voices are heard.

What about the next election?

It’s important to have elected Democrats at every level of government represented and participating in the party’s conventions. But unless they are elected specifically to determine the nomination, there is no reason to grant voting rights on the question of the party's nominee. The DNC should rectify this situation following the 2008 convention.

What about Michigan and Florida?

It is urgently important that voters in Michigan and Florida have their voices heard at the Democratic National Convention. It is unacceptable that these voters should be denied representation at our party's convention because of the maneuverings of state and party officials. Particularly in Florida, where a Republican-controlled legislature and governor chose to move the primary date far forward.

We call on Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to work with both of these states to find a way for voters and candidates to participate a new and fair election. Both of the remaining candidates should appear on the ballot and have an opportunity to make their case to voters.

These are crucial states for Democrats to win in a general election. They are also states with large minority populations which have too often been disenfranchised in the election process. Finding a solution to this crisis should be the highest priority of the DNC.