How to Stop a Brokered Convention
Howard Dean is facing a huge number of problems.
Nearly all of these problems can be summed up in two words:
Super Delegates
We now know that there probably aren't enough States left to push either
nominee over the top. So the wholly un-Democratic Super Delegates look
likely to be the kingmakers of the Democratic Party.
The huge number of ways this is bad for the Party cannot be quickly summed
up. But here's a quick look at the worst of it.
The two months between the final primary and the convention
would be a wild-west free for all of vote trading, job trading, perk trading,
and all manner of unseemly conduct. Each of these minor corruptions would be
closely followed by the media and used by the Republican machine. Both Democratic candidates would be painted
as modern-day Boss Tweeds. And the candidate who did the dirtiest deals would likely become the nominee.
Worse yet, the Super Delegates could quite easily crown the candidate who had
just lost the popular vote. Were this to happen, I believe the massive and
positive fervor the Democratic Party currently enjoys would be immediately
replaced with despondency and cynicism.
The minor corruptions, the dejected supporters, and the nominee only being
known two months before the election would likely conspire to deliver another 4
years of Republican rule.
So what is the solution? What can the party do to make sure this
nightmare doesn't happen? Simple...
Disenfranchise the Super Delegates.
What you say? How could the
party change the rules so late in the game? How could this be fair?
Why would the Super Delegates ever agree to have their votes taken away?
I propose allowing the Super Delegates themselves to
vote for their own disenfranchisement. Sounds crazy, but
consider for a moment who these Super Delegates are.
About half of these Super Delegates are active politicians. I can't believe any Democratic politician wants a convention battle. A convention battle would strongly diminish the top of the ticket, and with it, every Democratic politician's chances of re-election. Even those not up for re-election want a Democratic president.
My guess is that the portion of Super Delegates who are
active politicians would overwhelmingly agree to disenfranchise
themselves. As for the 400 odd party functionaries with Super Delegate
status, Dean may need to twist some arms, legs, and maybe necks. But I
think he could get the simple majority he'd need to make it happen.
The
"disenfranchisement measure” could be something as simple as a binding pledge
that would force the Super Delegates to vote for the nominee who had achieved the
largest number of popularly elected delegates. In this way, the nominee
would be known no later than the date of the final primary.
Unfortunately, this solution brings forward another issue, in that the final
primary could easily decide the nominee.
Right now, a territory that cannot even vote in the Presidential
elections is that final primary. Puerto Rico has 55 (effectively) winner-take-all
delegates. Making it the
single largest source of net delegates in the entire US.
This could by solved were the party to (re)schedule the rumored Michigan and Florida do-overs (closed caucuses) for the two weeks following Puerto Rico's vote. In this way, the currently disenfranchised, hugely important swing states of Florida and Michigan would be the final deciders.
The vote would still be close, the losing side would still grumble, but the winner will have won fair and square by popular vote. The nominee would be decided no later than 4 months prior to the election. This should give both sides ample time to come together and support the nominee.
And interesting idea, but it's not gonna happen. Too many strong passions, too much desire for political influence, too literal mutual trust. If you believe strongly in your candidate, and you think that your candidate will lose the pledged count but win the total count, why would you agree to this?
I believe in the KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid). If it really does go down to the last primary, Dean could set a deadline well before the convention for the superdelegates to pledge. The candidates could get in a few weeks to fight for votes, and that's it. This is something that the delegates could agree to without giving up their influence. The candidates would also be pressured to commit to abiding by the pre-vote, with the loser conceding--in order to pressure all the superdelegates to pledge early and avoid any mindchanging after the pre-vote. Delegates for candidates that have withdrawn from the race would also get in on the pre-vote.
If it's difficult to get everyone to participate, you could get the early pledgers to agree to vote at as a block for the winner of the pre-vote, effectively neutralizing the votes of anyone who refuses participate.
This solution reduces the horse trading but doesn't clearly disadvantage either candidate, so it's a lot easier to sign on to.
February 8, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like both suggestions, but then I would, because I am an Obama supporter and (right now at least) they both look like they would favor Obama supporters. Clinton currently leads in MI and FL delegates and in superdelegates. Her people, therefore, have no interest whatever in replacing the results of the MI and FL primaries with some do-over caucuses and eliminating the superdelegates from the mix (although if more supers start breaking for Obama that last point could change). I am with Genghis that, practical a solution though this may be, it is not politically possible.
February 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, problems with MI and FL were in the back of my head as I wrote my own modest proposal. Damn this mess. If Dean were try to settle the convention ahead of time, he would of course have to settle the whole MI, FL thing for certain. I sincerely hope that one of three things happens, in order of preference:
1) Obama wins enough delegates to clinch it even if FL & MI count
2) Obama doesn't clinch it, but Clinton graciously accepts the DNC ruling on FL & MI in the interesting of the party
3) Clinton wins enough delegates without FL & MI
MI is in many ways is a much bigger problem than FL. Obama did respectably enough there that the delegates probably won't determine the election, especially if only half are counted. I could even see him gracefully accepting the FL votes and losing the nomination. He'd have done better there if he'd campaigned but not that much better.
But he wasn't even on the ballot in MI. So Clinton thinks that she deserves all the states delegates because Obama followed the rules? There's no way he can accept the MI "results" as an expression of voter preference. And I don't see how they can let FL count without also letting MI count.
Revote anyone?
February 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, a re-vote is fine with me, and I expect with most other Obama supporters. I also expect that it is not o.k. at all with most Clinton supporters. I only hope that an agreeable solution can be found, because the worst possible outcome would be for 1/2 the party (including a lot of democrats in swing states) to leave the convention legitimately feeling that they had been robbed.
February 8, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC’s political director has said from his discussion with Party insiders, there is absolutely zero chance that the existing Michigan and Florida votes will be allowed. Both campaigns know this, and the Michigan and Florida delegations fully realize this. Which is the reason both states are seriously investigating do-overs.
Michigan has 128 delegates, Florida 185. My guess is that Obama would win Michigan by 10% to 15% and lose Florida by a similar margin. The net result from the above scenario would be a net gain to Clinton of a meager 6 to 10 delegates.
I think the pair of do-overs would be worth the time, expense, and effort. Michigan and Florida are big swing states. We don’t need their voters to feel disenfranchised. We also need all the attention in those states that we can get.
Still, this would all be for naught if the Super Delegates are permitted to choose the nominee. I believe the best solution is to completely disenfranchise them. But perhaps Gengis’ solution of forcing delegates to make an early, final decision would be viable as well.
Were the delegates forced to make an early decision I’d put the deadline no later than the day of the final primary. But in the best case, the deadline would be as soon as possible. The party should give the Super Delegates as little time as possible to negotiate jobs, perks, or other minor corruptions.
If a deadline were chosen, next week wouldn’t be soon enough for me.
February 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should all relax? After all we have today's WA and NE caucuses and LA primary; next week's DC, VA, and MD Potomac primary; and then there are still OH, TX, and PA, as well as few other smaller states to go.
I suspect we will have clarity after the OH, TX, and PA primaries.
I think all this talk of a brokered convention is premature. Additionally, I think those vaunted super delegates will do what is in the best interest of democratic prospects in Nov.
Changing the rules in the middle of the process is a really bad idea. The rules were developed by elected democratic state officials from across the country, the DNC.
Howard Dean has stated that the fate of FL and MI delegates will be determined by the convention credentials committee.
None-the-less, I think the best approach to nominating a candidate, of any party, is a national primary election, held on the same day in all states, just as is the general election.
February 9, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't we all relax? After all we have today's WA and NE caucuses and LA primary; next week's DC, VA, and MD Potomac primary; and then there are still OH, TX, and PA, as well as few other smaller states to go.
I suspect we will have clarity after the OH, TX, and PA primaries.
I think all this talk of a brokered convention is premature. Additionally, I think those vaunted super delegates will do what is in the best interest of democratic prospects in Nov.
Changing the rules in the middle of the process is a really bad idea. The rules were developed by elected democratic state officials from across the country, the DNC.
Howard Dean has stated that the fate of FL and MI delegates will be determined by the convention credentials committee.
None-the-less, I think the best approach to nominating a candidate, of any party, is a national primary election, held on the same day in all states, just as is the general election.
February 9, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink