onegoodmove

Fish's argument rests on a mongrel conflation between direct or "pure" (Madison's term) democracy, and representative democracy. It is "pure" democracy, the people directly voicing preferences on all matters of public business, that founding fathers such as Madison and Hamilton inveighed against in the Federalist Papers, as Fish half-acknowledges. The problem is Fish misassimilates representative democracy--the people directly electing representatives with separate but proportional powers to decide on most issues of national, public business--with something resembling aristocracy. He argues on that flimsy basis that because the people do not directly decide on laws and appointments (direct democracy) but elect representatives to do so, they should not be regarded as entitled to directly elect their own representatives, either. Hence Fish's utterly bizarre assimilation of monarchy with representative democracy, as though they were fundamentally the same and (by implication) differed only in degree:

In saying such things, Madison and Hamilton continue a long tradition in which fear of the demos (often called “the mob”) informed a preference either for monarchy or for representative government, that is, government by a class of professional politicians who were presumed to be cooler and wiser heads, less swayed than the people by the passions of the moment.

That is a howler. It conflates the idea that elected officials often have powers of appointment in specified cases (such as judicial appointment), with the idea that Americans do not "really" elect their representatives. E.g.:

The presidential veto is undemocratic.

No, it's not. One elected official is exercising a legitimate and constitutionally specified oversight power over another body of elected officials. Because the function of, and powers apportioned to, the one and the other are different, it is simply a mistake to compare them in sheer numerical terms, as though each representative counted for 1 vote. Distinguishing between the function and powers of respective representatives yields similar considerations for the powers of appointment. Fish conflates the fact that it is within an elected official's consitutionally specified powers to appoint other representatives with independent powers, with the idea that this is undemocratic because the latter were not directly elected. Hence the following non-sequitur:

it can’t be said that their very existence is an affront to the workings of democracy, for large parts of this democracy work in just the way the superdelegates were intended to.

Superdelegates do not have legally mandated powers of appointment with regard to presidential candidates. When we elect a president, we are typically very aware of the fact that they have the power to make judicial appointments. But superdelegates were not elected for the purpose of deciding presidential elections, rather than the voters. I do not claim American democracy is perfect (I've argued we should get rid of the electoral college, for instances). But this is just a bad argument.

So are you saying the only purpose of having superdelegates is for them to rubber stamp what the elected delegates say?

The question is why superdelegates?

There are two issues that I see.

1. Should the party have superdelegates or not. That issue is moot at the moment, and is, I believe, the more complicated one. It may be a bad idea or not? I am curious to know more about why the decision was made to do it this way, and how it has worked out in the past when/if superdelegates voted against the outcome of the primaries. I suspect the superdelegates are a bad idea overall and the party should consider getting rid of them, or at least clarifying their roles in the party.

   1. The system established by the party at the moment is to have superdelegates, and frankly they can make their decisions on whatever criteria they choose. We should not try and change rules midstream. This applies to everything. To change rules midstream I think is unethical. This applies to all the rules, you can want to change them, but that is to do long after the election. The only ethical issue I see is that the superdelegates should be looking out for the democratic parties best interests, not any personal benefits or gains of any kind. (ie who has promised them a post in the Whitehouse, other offers etc.)

If the party continues with the superdelegates, perhaps we have to make sure their are some degree of ethical rules to prevent superdelegates from being bought in some way.

"...the superdelegates should follow the will of the majorities in their districts and their states, because to do otherwise would be undemocratic."

The concept of superdelegates is undemocratic to begin with Norm, so how is this statement "nonsense"?

BTW I heard that Bill Clinton is a Superdelegate...does anyone know if this is true?

I was going to rebut this but "k" did it so well. It's a rather silly editorial. Yes, the super delegates can do what they want. It's obvious those are the rules but that does not make it democratic (maybe Democratic since it's their rules but not democratic).

I don not believe many democrats knew about super delegates before this primary season and had they known they probably wouldn't have cared. Now that we have a tight contest and they understand the extraordinary power these delegates have, I think most people understand it would be very bad to overturn the decision of the voters. It's not just undemocratic but harmful to the Democratic party.

Super Delegates are intended to vote anyway they want. Just like the voters did when they went to the polls/caucus. What's at debate is what question should they be focusing on.

Do I vote in a way that will benefit the party? - My answer to this is that voting against how the popular vote & elected delegate vote break will cause problem for the party many years into the future. Even if the losing candidate makes a strong plea for unity.

Do I vote in a way that will win Democrats this election? - This question touches on the the previous question, because it will be very hard to win if the party is shattered going into the primary.

Do I vote in a way that benefits me? - This question always seems to be always in the top ranking of their though process, and rightly so. Super Delegates are hyper political animals after all. The closer to the people these Delegates are, the more likely this is the dominate mind set. If you're a congressperson and you had a land slide primary, then you're support is often tied up with that.

Do I vote for who I feel is the most qualified? - Vote for who you think will be the best, regardless of the fall out. Everyone will fall back on this argument as the public face of their decision making, even though really, they put the previous questions higher.

Do I vote for who (whom?) I like? - I like the candidate, and I don't know why. I seriously doubt that this is the mode of operation for any of the Super Delegates. They are all working angles to figure out their pick.

Of course there are an infinite number of questions to ask, but I believe these are the key questions.

Q:

The question is why superdelegates?

A:

To give more control of the nominating process to party leaders.

So, like I posted, the useful questions are; What should they do with that power? What should be their reasoning?

The question is why superdelegates?

One ostensible reason is this. To win the nomination of either party, you need a set number of delegates. The Republicans do not need super-delegates because most of their states are winner-take-all delegate prizes. Democrats split delegates by proportion. This makes it both harder to knock out the competition and to achieve the number of delegates required to be crowned winner. Superdelegates are (one) way to end the contest by pushing a clear winner over the required number.

Let me following k in separating two issues. First, should the party have superdelegates? Nothing I said in my original comment answered that question. So long as the alternative isn't the Republican one, I'm open to other options, but I think the quickest route is to just abolish the electoral college, and move to a straight up or down popular vote, thereby eliminating the need to win states because there would then be no "electoral votes." Second, is Fish right to compare, as he does in a number of examples, the power superdelegates have to nominate with the powers of appointment accorded to elected representatives, such as Congress and the President. No, that analogy is confused, because the dynamics governing the interactions of representatives of different branches are not themselves democratic, even if their positions as representatives with specified powers were the result of a democratic process. It thus simply does not follow that the powers of appointment guaranteed to elected representatives by the constitution is anything like the role superdelegates play in a nominating contest.

I heard that Bill Clinton is a Superdelegate...does anyone know if this is true?

Yes, he's a superdelegate. (Clinton and Obama would be as well if they were not candidates). To clarify, here is Fish's definition of "superdelegate," which just about the only thing he gets right in this article.

The superdelegates ...include members of the Democratic National Committee, all Democratic congresspersons and senators, all Democratic governors, all former Democratic presidents, former vice presidents, former speakers of the House, former minority leaders and former chairs of the DNC, plus a number of “add-on” delegates selected by party leaders.

I agree with Fish that the superdelegates should vote how they want. The system seems to have been intended for them to act with some kind of collective wisdom, but that's kind of absurd. They disagree just like everyone else.

On the other hand, it is very bizarre for Fish to say that the choice of "political" criteria is morally irrelevant. Having read a lot of Fish (I actually love a lot of his columns), I know he'll never miss an opportunity to slam "morality" and "principle".
He says, "In this case, political judgment can go in any number of directions." But then he concludes that voting for the candidate that will help you home state is just as moral (or just as morally irrelevant!) as voting for the candidate who would make the best president or present the party with the best chance in November. There is quite clearly a moral responsibility that goes with having such an important say in who gets nominated. The fact that there's no easy answer to the question does not mean that there is no right answer or especially that it's not a moral question.

I think this year proves that the superdelegates were a bad idea. If they were intended to stop insurgent candidates, they didn't work this year because not enough went with the frontrunner. If they were intended to act collectively to back the wise choice, they're taking too long to do it. They're preventing either of these candidates from being able to definitively wrap up the nomination before the convention. If you wanted to give Pelosi and Reid 200 delegates each and let them cast their ballots in April, it would be better than this superdelegate system.

Per Mr Fish:

First, who are the superdelegates? The answer to that question is found in Section 9 of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention. (Note the word “rules.”)

Along this same line of logic, the delegates from Michigan and Florida should not be counted.

August 2007

THEREFORE, I Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

According to DNC rules, Michigan and Florida voted early and thus their delegates should not be seated.

Super Delegates only exist in very recent history, and ONLY because the Democratic Party at one point in time nominated an anti-War candidate who went on to lose the general election by wide margin.

Party Bosses were furious they didn't get their hand-picked candidate the nomination, and they blamed the "underdog's" presence n the ticket for the loss.

SO, to balance against the will of th epople electing someone who might not represent the Status Quo, Super Delegates were born!

The problem with the idea is that this year, more people than ever - in some places, 4 times as many voters - are participating in the nomination. The argument that "party fanatics" took over the nomination is false one very level.

Uh, but back to when and how SuperDelegates came about: Keith Olbermann and David Shuster look at the history of the super-delegate and how it impacts this race.

So are you saying the only purpose of having superdelegates is for them to rubber stamp what the elected delegates say?

The question is why superdelegates?

The super delegates were created to stop progressive candidates from taking the nomination. They were born from the derailing of McGovern's candidacy. Establishment dems disapproved of his pledge to end the war in Vietnam. Mcgovern was an electable candidate until the party had a floor fight and his campaign had to pick a vp in short order and had no time to campaign.

Essentially, the super delegates job is to elect republicans.

I don't care to see them to do that job.

A couple of points that might bear remembering in this conversation:

• the Obama camp's assertion that superdelegates should follow the popular vote is a talking point/tactic to achieve the nomination not support for democracy;
• the Clinton camp's assertion that caucuses aren't democratic is a ploy to achieve the nomination, not support of democracy;
• parties are under no obligation to choose their delegates democratically;
• political parties benefit from the impression (true or otherwise) that they are democratic.

We're stuck with a dual party system that has limited choices, and for this election we all have to swallow one choice or the other if we want to participate meaningfully in the process. Of course that doesn't preclude working to lay the groundwork for a better system in the future, but for this instant in time, it isn't an option.

Personally speaking, the more problems the parties have, the better. As long as we don't end up with the worst case (McCain) I'll be somewhat satisfied. It seems we've already dodged most of the worst bullets, though I regret Ewards is out. I think the turmoil the Democrats are having this year combined with the spoiler years 1992 and 2000 are slowly turning people off to our current system. Once the strangle hold of the two parties is broken, then perhaps other more agreeable paths will open up.

"We're stuck with a dual party system that has limited choices"

Every system has to have a mechanism to winnow the field. This year there were quite a few viable choices for president, and most people in America got a chance to vote for one of them, in addition to getting to vote in November. So I'd say this is a strange year to be complaining about the limited choices that our system offers us.

I hear a lot of complaints about the strangehold of the two parties, without much of a case about why a multiparty system sould be better. Apparently some people automatically assume that a three party system would magicallty be to the left and less corrupt (the names of Nader and Edwards come up often in these complaints) of the one we have now. It's just as likely to be to the right and less responsible. "Spoiler" situations are more likely with more than 2 viable parties.

@dende blogger

You didn't even try to engage the idea. It is very easy just to give up and use facile criticisms anything that just seems too difficult or not congenial enough to the status quo. Are you so wedded to what we have right now? If so, why?

There are plenty of approaches that would relax the hold of two parties. First, IRV. Second, removal of the winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college system.

Also, who said being more "right" is wrong for democracy? From my perspective, moving right certainly isn't desirable, and I would do my best to make sure that didn't happen. But I'm just the kind of ass that wants to embrace the full implications of our democratic principles. If the U.S. public is chomping at the bit to move right, I think that should be encouraged, as long as it follows the measured pace ensured by the Constitution. The purpose of this whole democratic exercise is to determine the consensus of the majority and try to follow it.

Why wouldn't a multi-party system be better? Do you not agree that one party offers less diversity than two? And unless you think two parties is somehow magical, then why stop there?

Here's a concrete quantitative reason why a a two party system effectively crushes dissent. With only two parties, in any given congressional body, the party with the most seats is also in the majority. Unless there is a tie, this guarantees that one party is in the majority, handing a lot of power to a single party without requiring compromise. This is also possible in multi party systems, as there can be one major party and many minor ones. But it is less likely.

And to simply hide behind the spoiler canard is to characterize dissents such as mine as strawmen. Of course a multiparty system can't flourish in a system tweaked to centralize power into as few parties as possible. The argument is to make multiple parties viable and capable of expressing the public will, regardless of what that public will may be.