For all the breathlessness of cable news anchors, the evening of January 5th was the first step in the allocation of Iowa’s delegates headed for Denver. We all remember that night (if you don’t, look here) — Obama won with about 37.5% of the score, Edwards with 29.7% and Clinton with 29.4%. An observer might be forgiven for thinking that the allocation of Iowa’s 45 pledged delegates would fall accordingly, along the lines of 18-13-12.
Nooooo.
Those caucus-night results have little to do with who Iowa is sending to Denver. Those numbers are the percentage of county delegates that were pledged to each candidate at the local caucuses across the state. Mind you, “pledged” is used ironically…there is nothing to bind a delegate to vote for whom they promise. Indeed, the choosing of the delegates in each local caucus is a subject of maneuvering in many local caucuses, and winning a place in the county convention is often a carrot to entice people to switch from one candidate to another.
That’s right. The system rewards people who demonstrate a lack of loyalty to a candidate…by giving them lots of say over the fortunes of a candidate. So these people go to a county convention, which elects delegates to a state convention. Can you see where this is going?
On January 5th, almost 30% of precinct-level caucus delegates were awarded to John Edwards. The assumption was that Iowa’s delegation would contain most of John Edwards’s voice in Denver. In a case of a brokered convention, or in the case of close platform and charter votes, the people of Iowa wanted a significant number of those people to be Edwards voters. I’ll repeat that: the people of Iowa wanted Edwards to have a strong voice in their delegation.
John Edwards suspended his campaign after the Iowa caucuses, and before the Iowa county conventions. Now, the term “suspended” is important because it means that Edwards is still in control of those delegates.
Apparently, though, those anonymous Iowa delegates don’t go out for such niceties. No. These individuals decided to ignore the (semi-)democratic process of precinct caucuses and ignore the results completely. Although these people reached the final stage of the Iowa process by expressly promising to back Edwards, at the last second they threw in with another candidate. These nobodies decided to muffle Edwards’ voice in Denver.
From day one, the rules were that superdelegates had an outsize voice. People were generally upset as they discovered this, though the emotion waxed and waned as the mass of superdelegates picked sides. However, nowhere have I read that “anonymous folks in Des Moines get to throw almost ten delegates toward a candidate against the will of Iowa voters.”
People are grinding their teeth about Florida and Michigan. The proposed half-vote “solution” in Florida offers Clinton 19 more delegates. This maneuvering gains a candidate almost half that, but do we hear anything about it? Superdelegates are scrutinized, but this little stunt counts equal to the entire collection of superdelegates from Hawaii!
It’s a stain on Iowa, and an insult to its voters. The Iowa caucus may be quainter than a Norman Rockwell painting on the set of Prairie Home Companion, but it’s a disgusting parody of democracy. The delegates behind this farce should be ashamed to have lied to their fellow citizens, and I’d like to see the Obama and Clinton campaigns disown any delegates gained by such maneuvering.
So as such I have seen at least several pResidential selection processes. This does appear to be the first one adding the term “superdelegate”.
<
p>I am left to assume it is a new New World Order mandate or some part of the secret government interests like torture, habeas corpus, wiretapping and microchipping the world and increasing government intrusion into you private life.
Superdelegates have been around for decades…the race was never close enough to matter until now. Your conspiracy theory doesn’t check out on this one. Sorry.
<
p>(Unless I’m part of the conspiracy, say a Level 16-B agent of the Illuminati detailed to lead Internet investigators who have reached threat level Orange in North America Region VII astray. If such agent were to identify the true plans of the Bilderberg Group in this Phase Epsilon of the Global Initiative, the Trilateral Commission would be furious and would probably order an Operation 031.0)
myself that assigned delegates are free to ignore their assignments. personally, i wouldn’t be caught dead doing that. i promised my neighbors to be a clinton delegate, and so i will. if for some reason i no longer wish to support clinton when our legislative district caucus rolls around, it is up to the backup delegate to take my place (and up to me on my honor to inform her and the district dems that i’m not showing).
<
p>caucuses are not democratic. they are democraticalish.
What? People chose to support a candidate still in the race rather than one who dropped out months ago? Oh the iniquity! The sacred WILL OF THE PEOPLE has been violated! Will the Republic survive?
This is interesting. Apparently a law passed in WA in 2004 saying that WA would use an “open primary system that allows the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, even if they are from the same party.” The system hasn’t been used yet because the law has been under judicial review all this time.
<
p>The law was contested all the way up to the SCOTUS, which just ruled 7-2 in its favor.
which I look forward to reading. On the face of it, though, it is clearly a repudiation of the notion that the parties have any kind of constitutionally-recognized status. In a way, this kind of echoes the declarations of those such as Gore Vidal, that we do not have two parties, we have one party (the capitalist party) with two wings–Democratic and Republican. It certainly does undercut the authority claimed by party leadership, and may lead to more states undertaking this kind of thing….I’m guessing most Americans are not real fond of partisanship, whichever party they may belong to.
is that some hideous bozo will make it to the general election via this new system, there will be major voters’ remorse, and the law will be repealed. WA has a history of passing ill-conceived voter referenda that eventually get trashed because they are later found to be unconstitutional, or they have unexpected negative consequences that the voters didn’t anticipate.
<
p>as for the capitalist party, that is what this new scheme will enhance. pundits in WA anticipate that the parties will now have to spend a lot more $$$ on adverts, etc just to be sure that voters know who they actually back.
I’d like to see state Democratic parties in states that select delegates by caucus start reforming their rules such that pledged delegates actually are pledged to vote for their candidate on the equivalent of the “first ballot”. If a precinct delegate gets to the county caucus to find that their candidate doesn’t meet threshold in their county, then they could choose another. Or, if their candidate actually dropped out.
<
p>I also think if a candidate suspends their campaign and officially endorses another candidate, pledged delegates should be allowed to switch to the endorsed candidate without penalty.