As it stands, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are very close in the number of delegates they have secured to support them in their campaigns to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton has 1,108 delegates on her side, and after yesterday’s victories, Barack Obama has 1,049.
Of course, those totals include superdelegates, Democratic Party insiders who have decided to commit themselves to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. These superdelegates aren’t chosen to vote for Clinton or Obama by Democratic voters. They just get to vote for whichever Democratic presidential candidate they want to, with the voting power of hundreds or thousands of ordinary voters, just because they’re powerful within the Democratic Party. Their votes are elitist and unrepresentative, and blatantly undemocratic.
Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton can claim to be above the use of these undemocratic superdelegates. However, there is a difference between Clinton and Obama in their campaigns’ reliance on superdelegates for support.
Let’s stick to the facts on this, so as to avoid the appearance of subjective insults against one candidate or another. I’ll express the difference between Obama and Clinton in terms of the actual delegate numbers, in the form of a simple statistic I’ll call the Democratic Delegate Quotient. The Democratic Delegate Quotient is nothing more than the percentage of delegates a candidate has that have been selected democratically – by the Democratic Party rank and file voting in primaries or caucuses such as the one going on today in Maine.
Let’s start with Barack Obama: Barack Obama has a total of 1,049 delegates so far. Out of those 1,049 delegates, 918 have been chosen in elections by Democratic voters. 131 are undemocratic superdelegates.
So, Obama’s Democratic Delegate Quotient is: 87.5 percent
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a total of 1,108 delegates. Of those, 885 have been chosen in elections by Democratic voters. The other 223 are undemocratic superdelegates.
So, Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Delegate Quotient is: 79.9 percent
It’s not a huge difference, but the difference between Clinton’s and Obama’s Democratic Delegate Quotient certainly is big enough to change the outcome of the Democratic presidential nomination. In total delegates, Hillary Clinton is slightly ahead of Barack Obama. In terms of democratically-elected delegates, however, Barack Obama is slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton.
Keep in mind that the Democratic Delegate Quotient for both candidates is likely to rise as we get closer to the end of the primaries and caucuses. Also, superdelegates have the right to change their minds, right up until the time that they vote in the presidential convention. Would all of the superdelegates who say now that they’ll vote for Clinton do the same at the party convention if Barack Obama had the majority of delegates from the democratic Democratic elections?
We’ll have a clearer picture of these dynamics with every additional. Today it’s Maine. On Tuesday, elections will be held in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia. I’ll update the Democratic Delegate Quotient after each set of polls. Stay tuned. It’s going to be a nail-biter.
the totals you’re using for DDQ’s appear to be the ones from CNN. it’s worth noting that those are not in any way official, and that other sources report other numbers. more importantly, “Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton can claim to be above the use of these undemocratic superdelegates.” — they don’t “use” superdelegates. the superdelegates are going to vote anyway, and they make their own choices.
also, you say that they are undemocratic like it’s both an absolute and a bad thing — but the fact of the matter is that the party is a collection of people who choose to band together. the superdelegates represent the inertia and identity of the party. the PLEOs have power in the party, yes — but the fact that the primaries exist at all to give the individuals any voice is, in a sense, more democratic than how, say, laws are passed. the PLEOs are largely E — elected. in congress, we elect critters and they get all the votes. in the party primaries, the elected critters get some votes, and the people get some.
and if the people decide the PLEOs aren’t leading the party well, they have ways of expressing this dissatisfaction — among them, leaving starting a new party.
of course, in a de facto two party system, this is not very effective and requires a lot of work and patience to possibly pay off. but that’s a problem with plurality vote, winner-take-all, two party politics that goes way deeper than how one party picks its candidates. the parties can’t afford to do it any other way until a lot more of the system changes.
“The Democratic Delegate Quotient is nothing more than the percentage of delegates a candidate has that have been selected democratically – by the Democratic Party rank and file voting in primaries or caucuses such as the one going on today in Maine.”
It’s not fair to say the Democratic rank and file has chosen the winning candidates. Don’t forget that independents and even Republicans can also vote in these primaries.
In case you missed it, your candidate Obama has now reversed himself on saying that superdelegates should be bound to vote for whoever carried their state. Perhaps Senator Kennedy had a chat with him and pointed out who he would be required to vote for under such a rule change.
Vynce, to say that the Democratic Party is just a bunch of people who band together is to ignore the tremendous inequality of power among that “bunch of people. The people at the top have most of the power, and it get concentrated among them in a sick cycle – The President as the head of the party can reward those who helped in the election as superdelegates, for example. The superdelegates are also those who dominate the process in the home districts to determine which people will run as candidates – it’s quite normal for primaries not to even take place when it comes to the House and Senate, and then those people who were selected by party insiders themselves get to serve as superdelegates, and dirty cycle of power goes on again, and the influence of the voters gets dramatically diminished.
The party leadership can’t afford to do it any other way. A small number of people are perpetuating their individual power at the expense of the power of the people they claim to represent.
I agree. The current structure of our political system is skewed to favor the elite ruling class. What about the Caucus system? Where the loudest, the biggest, the baddest and the most powerful get to intimidate everyone else in the room. How democratic is that? Both super delegates and the caucus system are relics of the past no longer needed in a modern and diverse America, The minority has become the majority and I think the peoples vote alone should be the determining factor in the primaries and the general election. And while we’re at it, let’s get campaign money reform taken care of too. Even the field there also, so “big” money isn’t the determining factor on how much visibility, coverage and air time a candidate gets. I want viable 3rd party candidates to get a fair chance too. So, because of the distinct nature of this presidential campaign, maybe, just maybe, we will really address and change the process of future elections…And that will be good for all of us. Rock on!
oh, don’t get me wrong — i agree that the system is broken. I just think that the superdelegates are more symptom than disease. I said that the party couldn’t afford to do it any other way, and I stand by that. Sudden, major changes in party leadership or structure tend to be bad for the party involved. We need a system in which a third party candidate isn’t a second-class candidate. until we have that, trying to fix things like the superdelegate system just won’t work.