For the record, Oregon has twelve superdelegates:

Senator Ron Wyden, Governor Ted Kulongoski, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, Rep. David Wu, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Darlene Hooley, DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith, DPO Vice-Chair Frank Dixon, Oregon DNC Committeewoman Jenny Greenleaf, Oregon DNC Committeeman Wayne Kinney, and Oregon DNC Member At-Large Gail Rasmussen.

Kulongoski and Hooley have endorsed Hillary Clinton and Blumenauer has endorsed Obama. The rest are uncommitted. At least, in public.

Al,

Sorry to be troublesome, but "the will of the majority" provides insufficient guidance.

The will of the majority of registered Democrats, the will of the majority of those who chose to vote in the Oregon primary, or the will of the majority of their whole constituency? Their majority will as expressed at the time of the primary or at the time of the convention? You say the representative's view counts for nothing other than the single vote he or she may cast at the ballot box. Are you arguing, then, that our representatives are nothing more than a vessel for the re-expression of the majority view of their constituents?

(trying to fix an open boldface and my own clumsy editing)

Al,

Sorry to be troublesome, but "the will of the majority" provides insufficient guidance.

• The will of the majority of registered Democrats, the will of the majority of those who chose to vote in the Oregon primary, or the will of the majority of their whole constituency?
• Their majority will as expressed at the time of the primary or at the time of the convention?
• You say the representative's view counts for nothing other than the single vote he or she may cast at the ballot box. Are you arguing, then, that our representatives are nothing more than a vessel for the re-expression of the majority view of their constituents?

I think unless the super delegates are truly undecided, they should tell us who they support. Super delegates have met the candidates, they've heard them speak at party meetings, they've received a steady flow of information about the campaign that the general public has not. Heck, I hear they are getting calls from the likes of Bill Clinton and John Kerry right now. If they know who they are supporting, they should tell us. They should share their insight with regular voters for that will help all of us make a decision. If they are like so many of us and truly undecided, we should know that too -- it also sends a message. Sitting on the sidelines to follow isn't something I expect from my political leaders

If there were a commitment all across the country to do likewise, the Oregon superdelegates should vote in proportion to the delegate allocation in Oregon by the primary, except slightly adjusted if a shift of a superdelegate would more accurately make the proportions of delegates reflect the primary votes.

In the absence of a national agreement, all of the Oregon superdelegates should vote for the winner of the overall national elected/caucused delegate count, to help insure that the superdelegates do not override that result, except if there is evidence that one of the campaigns has gained that lead in some illegitimate manner.

Yes, the superdelegates should vote for a person they think the lesser candidate in order not to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses.

The entire issue here is what it will do to the party if the primary/caucus results are overturned by the ex-officio delegates. Which is massively divide the party and depress the D vote by our own doing. There is no difference between the candidates that justifies the damage that overturning the primary/caucus results would do.

That this is media generated doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, because the media will go into overdrive on it if the ex-officios overturn the primary/caucus vote. Those who say let the ex-officios do what they want because this is media hype need to face the reality of those media.

The issue is not absolute democracy per se. The arguments about primaries vs. caucuses have some merit, but then again there are differences about who can vote in different primaries, and about the 15% threshhold. The established rules should be followed. That includes the freedom of the ex-officio delegates -- which they should exercise to preserve the results of the primary/caucus vote because to do otherwise will split the party and depress our vote.

Then the rules should be changed, to require in future elections that ex-officio delegates vote on presidential nominations in proportion to the delegate outcome in their state per primary or caucus, with safeguards for challenges based on primary or caucus irregularities. In the case of a more than two-way race in which no candidate has a majority of primary/caucus delegates, the ex-officios should be freed after the first round.

There are good reasons to have ex-officio delegates for purposes of other party business. Possibly their numbers as a % of the whole should be reduced. But there is no good reason why the ex-officios should be able to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses.

"There's a substantial possibility that Hillary Clinton will finish the primaries with more popular vote and more elected delegates."

I would place the possibility more in the theoretical and plausible realm, rather than a "substantial" one. She's behind on both at the moment, and will fall "substantially" further behind on Tuesday. Hillary's running out of states, and she's losing her grip on the must-haves.

People! Please make sure to close your tags.

I agree with Bill R. - the SD's should stand down. Period. Although, my hunch is that TJ is correct and this will end up being a theoretical issue.

Posted by: paul g. | Feb 11, 2008 7:28:41 AM

Sorry to be troublesome, but "the will of the majority" provides insufficient guidance.

The will of the majority of registered Democrats, the will of the majority of those who chose to vote in the Oregon primary, or the will of the majority of their whole constituency?

The majority of those who vote, of course. Hence the name "Democratic" Party.

Their majority will as expressed at the time of the primary or at the time of the convention?

At the time of the primary vote.

You say the representative's view counts for nothing other than the single vote he or she may cast at the ballot box. Are you arguing, then, that our representatives are nothing more than a vessel for the re-expression of the majority view of their constituents?

Red herring. Our representatives are our representatives for a reason. But, representing us (and themselves) in the capacity to which they were elected is utterly unrelated to whether their vote at the convention ought to carry more weight than ours. None of them were elected to outvote us at the convention.

I fail to understand why some don't see an inherent disconnect between a political party which enshrines democracy in it's very name and the potential for super delegates to effectively negate the will of the majority as each individual state determines said majority ought to be recorded and represented at the convention.

If some states choose to go with a caucus in which only a small minority of the registered members end up having a say... that's up to that state, not the national party. If the national party wants a different system then it needs to make rules to that effect so that each individual state retains sovereingty over how it conducts it's own elections.

I agree with those who argue that the existence of the subcategory superdelegates is undemocratic.

I agree with those who argue that our superdelegates are not lockstep drones.

I agree with the argument that the whole superdelegate thing ought to be made a part of history,

but;

if we need to revamp the national party's delegate selection process it ain't gonna happen in the middle of a very close and hotly contested primary,

and,

Our grief or relief will come from the Usual Suspect states, like California, Texas, Florida, New York, and so on. Oregon will still be a sideshow, even in a brokered convention.

I'm curious to hear from the people crying potential foul here, about their feelings on proportional vote systems in general. Because the Democratic Party's nominating process - a mix of voters and party officeholders is nearly identical to the way Parliamentary democracies chose their leaders.

In Parliamentary systems, voters don't chose their Prime Minister any more than they directly write laws. Instead, they vote for people they trust to make a good choice for them, and leave it at that. If anything, this process our party is going through is far more direct than they use.

So, haters of unpledged automatic delegates, in your opinion are the nations of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan "undemocratic"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Janice Manuel is almost certainly wrong that Obama will arrive having "a clear majority with pledged delegates," though he might have a clear majority among pledged delegates. That's the problem.

Either candidate would have to win well over 80% of remaining pledged delegates to get to the convention with a majority involving no ex-officio delegates. The rules that divide each state's delegation make that vanishingly unlikely.

The problematic situation is going to arise. The only question is whether just to trust that the superdelegates will do the right and democratic thing, or whether to create pressure on them to do so.

Paul Gronke, the "representative" issue is a red herring for another reason than Kevin's, though I don't disagree with him. Elected pledged delegate are not not representatives in the sense that an elected representative is. They are elected to be conveyor belts, at least for the first few number of ballots -- at the point when the rules release them, at that point they become representatives in your sense.

Our party should not have a body of ex-officio delegates able to overrule the results of the primary and caucus process.

This system was set up under pressure from the people who formed Democrats for Nixon (Al From et al.) in order, in extreme cases, to be able to blow up the party for an election cycle or two if necessary to prevent someone "too liberal" from getting nominated.

We are now facing unintended possibilities of blowing up the party under quite different circumstances, unless the ex-officios do the right and democratic thing.

Supporting this on your grounds means we should change our name to the Paternalistic Party (don't forget the -ic!).

Let's not confuse a majority and a plurality. Even if there's no one who has 2,025 delegates, there's a fairly reasonable chance one candidate will have a clear plurality of total delegates. In other words, in the current hypothesis if Clinton is behind even WITH her superdelegates (which she will be on Tuesday), it's hard to imagine more than a few Hooleyesque diehards would remain rigidly supportive of Clinton.

If there's a plurality where one candidate has more pledged delegates, but the other candidate has the overall lead based on more supers--THEN you have a problem. But as long as one candidate is clearly ahead on all delegates, I think things will be OK.

Steve,

In the 1980s I was an active supporter in this country of the African National Congress of South Africa, which today probably would make me a candidate for special spying.

When the ANC entered constitutional negotiations, they sought and won a PR system based on pure "party lists." The party in its inner politics arranges a priority for its candidates and depending on the proportion of the votes it wins, the candidates down to number X go to parliament. There is no geographic representation at all. I think this is undemocratic and bad for South Africa and regret that the ANC has taken that course. That's the extreme of what you're talking about.

Our system is nothing like a parliamentary system, however. Parties run on programmatic and ideological platforms that mean a great deal more than they do in the U.S. Our system requests much more in the way of trust from me than a parliamentary system would.

The elections/caucus features of the DP presidential nominating system are indeed more like the PR / parliamentary system, in that if I vote in Oregon's primary, I know that my vote will go to a delegate committed to my candidate, but I don't know who the delegate is. But I know the "platform" -- will vote for X -- and that the rules require following it, at least for a few votes.

In fact, the ex-officio delegates in the DP nominating process are more like the British House of Lords, except that the convention isn't bi-cameral. So it's as if the Lords sat in the same house as the Commons.

These delegates are not hereditary, of course. But their status as delegates is still "ascribed" to an extent, to use a sociological or political science term. They are delegates because of who they are in holding an office other than that of delegate, or having done so in the past. They are not chosen specifically to be delegates.

The ability of those ascribed delegates to overturn the results of the imperfect popular delegate selection process that the DP has chosen to use is undemocratic.

My views on other electoral systems don't change that.

The facts or my views of other undemocratic features of the the DP process also don't change that. Two undemocratics dont make a democratic, they make an even less democratic.

The real issue is that if the ex-officio delegates don't choose to compensate for the undemocratic manner of their selection, by following the primary/caucus delegate results ("the rules" as most people participating understand them) it will blow up the party for this cycle and probably several more and cost us the election in a year we could win.

This is unlikely because the margin probably will be big enough one way or another to make ratification straightforward. But it could get close enough that deal-making and paternalism could lead a section of the ex-officios to wreck the party. They need to understand before they go what the stakes are, that if they overturn the (relatively) popular results, they will be shooting themselves and all the rest of us in the foot.

Chris, I take it then, that your position is that representative democracy is, perforce, less "democratic" than direct democracy? Because I find your objection that "[Major Democratic Party Office Holders] are not chosen specifically to be delegates" to be, perhaps, one of the weakest arguments I've heard in a while.

While nobody, probably including either of us, can fully enumerate all the various powers of major political offices, do you honestly believe that average voters are unaware that they're giving the people they're voting for far more say in the makeup of our government and party than, say, the average guy off the street?

The Governor, for instance, literally has power of life and death in whether a convicted murderer is executed, but you're saying that's nothing compared to a less than 1 out of 1000 vote on who is to be our nominee?

You certainly have the right to hold the position that the more direct our system is - government by ballot initiative - the more "democratic" it is. But if that isn't your position, don't claim that this extremely minor function is some overwhelming abuse of power.

Nice post, Kari. The superdelegate issue is fascinating, and you tease out the important pieces, I think. It's worth mentioning that this isn't really the election. I've heard a lot of people speak of the "will of the people," and so on, but the party has the right to choose its nominee. The constitutional rights we have as citizens is to vote for a candidate, not to vote for who the nominee will be.

I've always been registered Dem, and I'm a mostly-loyal voter, but this highlights the reason I have something other than pure delight over our two-party system.

(I also think the SD's are likely to swing Obama's way, for two reasons: 1) his chance of winning is greater, and it's better to be a supporter of the President rather than the nominee--ask those who backed Kerry, and 2) Obama's coattails are broader and will buoy the chances of those super delegates to get re-elected and/of find themselves among a roomier majority. In politics, loyalty goes only so far...)

No, Steven, the Governor shouldn't have any greater say than anyone else in the selection of the next president. You know, the whole "All men are created equal" thing that the country was founded on, not "All Democrats are equal, but some Democrats are more equal than others."

The superdelegate system was devised in the '80s specifically as an anti-democratic mechanism in candidate selection. Their personal interests for candidates should matter no more than the pledged delegates.

That's skewing the results towards the urban, the wealthy, and the entrenched political bureaucracy. It disenfranchises the poor, the rural, and those outside the beltway. It reinforces the vote in large states with lots of representatives and disenfranchises voters in smaller states

Actually, SC, you've got that exactly backwards.

Governors are not apportioned by population. Ohio gets one. Montana gets one. Advantage: small states.

Senators are not apportioned by population. California gets two. Montana gets two. Advantage: small states.

State party chairs are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.

State party vice-chairs are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.

DNC Committemen are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.

DNC Committewomenmen are not apportioned by population. Each state gets one. Advantage: small states.

Members of Congress are apportioned exactly by population. No advantage.

The only advantage that goes to big states or urban areas is related to where the Democrats are. Only Democratic congresscritters get to participate in our nomination process. So, yeah, there's a bunch from Los Angeles - and none from Omaha.

But the flip side is that there are a bunch of "make up" superdelegates for those states that don't have enough automatic superdelegates to fill out the 15% requirement. So, in Nebraska, for example - other statewide elected officials, mayors, legislative leaders fill the slots.

You're just plain wrong.

Sigh I'm not sure I should dignify one of BlueOregon's most inane purity trolls with a response, but it's clear from him quoting George Orwell back at my query about parliamentary democracies, that darrelplant does not consider England, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan to be actually democratic.

first Kari, with Howard Dean, it's "Power from the people". remember his rallying cry from 2003: "You have the power!"

which leads to a point forgotten in all the hubbub over superdelegates (who won't even be in place for another 3 months): before we worry about them, we need to deal with the actual delegates. i'm not going to worry about SD's when winning enough "normal" delegates is still a major issue. before i worry about Obama's nomination being stolen, i need to help get him closer to that nomination that Hillary gets. instead of wasting energy over SD's, most of whom are not going to try and steal anything, and most of whom will try to act in a democratic manner (cf, WA Rep Adam Smith, Obama's WA chair who pledged long ago to support whoever won the state's caucus), my intention is to use that energy to make this whole argument moot. or at least mootish.

and then, of course, there's the whole issue of who those delegates will actually be: hard-core supporters or party faithful who would gladly accept either candidate and just want to go to Denver. start dwelling on that one if you want to have some fun.

In my own mind, I think focusing on whether a superdelegate's vote should reflect the vote of that superdelegate's state, Congressional district, county, precinct, etc. is a case of losing sight of the forest for the trees. The only legitimate outcome is that the superdelegates should not overturn the outcome of the 50-state contest for pledged delegates.

The only scenario that looks like a total trainwreck to me is if Senator Obama is leading in pledged delegates when the results from 48 states are totaled, but Senator Clinton is leading if the delegations from Michigan and Florida are added to the count. I still think there's a relatively low chance of that happening, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Steve

Steve, we're talking past one another, and you are confusing national electoral systems with party nomination systems for reasons I don't understand.

What Miles wrote last I completely agree with as a response to you.

Beyond that, if we were really going to have representative democracy in nominating our nominee, we should be voting for specific delegates to represent us.

In this sense those ex-officio delegates who are DNC members elected in local or state party processes are representative in the way you say, of those who vote, i.e. the most active in the party. And being a presidential convention delegate would in that grouping be a well-understood part of their job. Perhaps it's even a large one, since I don't know what else they do. But at all events they are meant to represent the local or state party in party decisions.

The same just isn't true of members of congress, senators, governors, ex-thingies etc.

And the party has also decided that it is better for it if people at large get to vote on the nominee, in either primaries or caucuses. Which I think is right. And it portrays those processes as democratic in a relatively direct sense. And it works to convey the impression that the nominee will be chosen by those electoral/caucus processes. It is making certain kinds of promises to the public that may not be legally binding but have moral character, such that if the ex-officio delegates overturn what would be the majority if only elected delegates were counted, it will be widely perceived as breaking faith. Including by me. I will see it as an abuse of power, and a violation of the generally understood rules of the game, what the historian E. P. Thompson called "the moral economy" of the system.

This differs from the situation in say 1960, when Kennedy got the nomination in part because of success in the primaries, but most delegations were not selected by primary. The DP didn't pretend to select its nominees by an electoral or quasi-electoral process.

Personally I don't have a fixed view in all circumstances about representative vs. direct democracy. In this case I mean "less democratic" in the sense of reducing the role of the people at large, the demos.

But the point about it really isn't about more or less democratic directly, but the implications for legitimacy.

The current system in the current election season with current delegate counts puts the DP at real risk of nominating a candidate whose practical, perceived legitimacy is weak, in ways that can deeply harm the party and give the reactionaries control of the presidency once more. I see that as a problem with the system.

You have said you think the feared outcome unlikely. I agree. But I think it is possible and I wish you'd be clearer about what should be done to make it even less likely.

Also, would you state clearly what you think in the case of Clinton having 51% of the elected/caucus delegates, if the ex-officio delegates were nonetheless to give Obama the nomination, out of some combination of their prior commitments, the political deal-making that we know goes on, and honest choices about who individual ex-officio delegates think will have the best chances of beating McCain? Would this be a legitimate result in your view? Would it perceived more widely as legitimate, even if you think it would be?

Would the party be able to avoid huge divisiveness, loss of morale, demobilization, non-voting, protest voting, votes for McCain, loss of independents? If it could avoid those disasters, how? How could an Obama (or a Clinton if we reverse the scenario) overcome the asterisk next to their "nominee" title?

Do you really think that most Democratic, D-leaning independent, and independent minded R voters accept the ex-officio delegates as having a legitimate form of power, as you do?

Actually I meant Miles at

Posted by: Miles | Feb 11, 2008 10:31:59 AM

but I do agree with his just before my last too.

You can't change the rules after the game has begun. As unfair as the superdelegate advantage appears, we've known about it all along. My sense is that people upset about it now wouldn't complain if they thought the superdelegates overwhelmingly favored their candidate. Maybe Supers shouldn't get votes in 2012, but it's too late to change the rules this time around and still call the nomination of the eventually nominee valid.

Which brings up the bigger issue apparently no one is watching: the attempt to retroactively change this year's rules to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. Only one candidate was on the ballot in Michigan, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence this candidate is now the one most concerned about "disenfranchising" Michigan voters (cue the puppy dog eyes and violins). If Michigan and Florida delegates get to vote in Denver, then you've truly got an invalid nomination and an illegitimate nominee. We mustn't let this happen.

As for Oregon's uncommitted superdelegates, please stay uncommitted until after the primary and make the candidates make public commitments about what they are going to do that will help Oregon as well as America.

Miles: Steve M., the problem with your "representative democracy" analogy is that you're talking about governing, which is different than party politics.

So you're saying governing is less important than party politics? Miles, you may have missed the fact that the only reason why party politics is important is because it can affect who governs.

Steve, You're arguing from a small "r" republican point of view as opposed to a small "d" democratic point of view.

In one case, (D) the rabble gets all pissed off at Socrates for his persistence in pointing out the flaws in their system and they all agree to make him drink the hemlock.

In the other case, (R) Plato's Wise Guys show up and over ride the Rabble bcause they know better.

Not taking a position here, but yours is closer to that of the Neo-conservative movement than it is to democracy.

*Sigh* I'm not sure I should dignify one of BlueOregon's most inane purity trolls with a response, but it's clear from him quoting George Orwell back at my query about parliamentary democracies, that darrelplant does not consider England, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan to be actually democratic.

Steve always breaks into puerile name-calling whenever he has no real argument. "Inane purity trolls", "socialist", claims that people should go back to Democratic Underground (even people who've never heard of DU), etc. I'd submit that someone like Steve who's intent on driving others out of the party is the real purist.

I wasn't even addressing the comment about other democratic systems, I thought Chris did a good job of that himself. Only an idiot would be unable to realize that there are levels of democratic representation. Was the United States a democracy before the Voting Rights Act? Was the United States a democracy before women's suffrage? How about before the Fifteenth Amendment?

The movement in the United States has been from restrictions on voting toward the idea of "one man one vote" for more then 230 years. It's too bad some people want to close their minds to history.

The McGovern-Fraser reforms came out of a DNC Rules Committee report at the 1968 convention that included these words:

All feasible efforts [must be] made to assure that delegates are selected through . . . procedures open to public participation within the calendar year of the national convention.

That was because of fights at the 1964 and 1968 conventions over which delegations would be seated (viz LT's reference to Fannie Lou Hamer). Only 14% of the '68 delegates were women. Only 5% were black. That's the imbalance that the delegate selection reforms were meant to address. White male purity in Steve's terminology.

Now, the sample of Oregon's superdelegates is too small to be statistically representative, and Oregon's minority population is smaller than many other states', but from Kari's list, I see 8 men, 4 women, and only David Wu of the men representing a non-white ethnic minority. Obviously, the Democratic party has come along way in the makeup of its elected and party officials over the past four decades, but if you look at just the elected officers (not party posts) who are superdelegates, the ratio of men to woman is 6:1. And that's more than half of the superdelegates. If the national ratio is anything approaching that, you ladies are somewhat underrepresented.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some purity troll.

Jamais Vu: Which brings up the bigger issue apparently no one is watching: the attempt to retroactively change this year's rules to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated.

It only appears that no one is watching it. I can tell you quite authoritatively that the unpledged delegates to the DNC are watching it very closely.

In fact, if you want an argument about exactly why we have unpledged delegates, this year provides the perfect example. If Florida and Michigan put Hillary over the top, it'd take more restraint than I think she has not to try to muscle seating them through the DNC credentials committee. Or if that failed - by filing a lawsuit in Florida with a friendly judge.

Without unpledged delegates, this tactic could easily be successful. And voters in the general would be forced to choose between "The Cheat" and "100 Years Of War".

With unpledged delegates, however, that math changes. Much like the way the Progressive Democrats of America at the national level stepped in to keep Steve Novick from getting away with a patently rigged endorsement through his paid staffer, the national DNC delegates would stop this kind of scheme in its tracks. Not because they love Obama, but because they love the Democratic Party.

Meredith Wood Smith, Chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon, said clearly and repeatedly that she will never to anything to damage the Democratic party. See how hard she works at her volunteer position, I have no reason not to believe her. Or any other of our DNC committee people, for that matter.

I think you should have a little faith in them.

from Kari's list, I see 8 men, 4 women, and only David Wu of the men representing a non-white ethnic minority

The entire delegation is gender balanced, and has representation goals. It means, among other things, that if you're a minority female and want to go as a pledged delegate, you have a lot more slots open to you than men do. Any Democrat who puts in a lot of time and effort is almost a shoo in.

Lupita, my wife, fits the bill perfectly. She wants to go to Hawaii instead.

Elizabeth, the reasons we don't have "direct" democracy in this country have roots in political philosophy and political practice that are millenia old. Put simply: direct democracies have proven to a less stable system of government.

It may offend your populist sensibilities, but some reliance on some rule by elites has been shown to a) develop naturally in almost any large organization (Michels "Iron Law of Oligarchy") b) be an absolutely necessary component of large, mass based democratic systems. There are no direct democracies for you to move to. Every democratic system has a heavy does of indirect representation.

the last guy who tried to argue that we could rely on a system of direct democracy to govern a diverse nation of 250+ million people was Ross Perot, who claimed we could solve our nation's problems by just holding big electronic town hall meetings.

You've probably been to a few small town hall meetings in Portland--do you really think this is a functional way to govern?

<hr/>

To Robert Gourley: there are advantages of a first past the post system, but on a measure of "democratic-ness", a PR system is undeniably superior.

Our system is the worst voting system available for translating public preferences into party / candidate choices.

I don't know what you mean by "democracy," but representing the expressed preferences of the voting public in the elected representatives is fundamental in every definition I am familiar with.

Steve, This whole post topic is based on a lack of faith people have in superdelegates. I for one prefer representative democracy over direct democracy (hence my distaste for initiatives) and don't have any problem with our Oregon superdelegates. Those I know are reasonable & reserved people of good judgment, and you make a good case for how supers can step in to keep the process fair.

That said, while I was glad to see Blumenauer jump in for Obama because it balanced the pro-Clinton endorsement from the governor, I do hope that our remaining undeclared supers can hold out against what must be incredible pressure and stay uncommitted as long as possible in order to keep the candidates focused just a little on issues that matter most to Oregonians. Superdelegates in our case can make Oregon matter more than our late-date primary would otherwise suggest.

2. As for this not being an election, the party gave up sole control over its process when it demanded money from all taxpayers to pay for its process. As a result, the primary belongs to everyone. [Taxpayer investment in party primaries is also why I support open primaries, because it's not just about the party anymore. The major parties also deserve open primaries after their repeated attempts to crush minor parties.]

Sterling point, Miles. I couldn't possibly agree more. Indeed it's essentially the same point I've been making for several years now. But it is good to see someone else making the same point.

new BlueO readers, welcome! Just wanted to alert you to the malicious falsity of Steve M's claims on PDA and Steve Novick. The former did no "stepping in" of any kind to stop anything, and apparently Mr. M is relying on accounts refuted by PDA, that came from Novick's opponent in an attempt to create a scandal even AFTER having their concerns addressed.

Carry on, and welcome!

Wow, lin. Somebody should remind Clinton about the adage to stop digging when you find yourself in a hole. But I'm glad she understands support for her opponent is all based on racial pride. Sheesh...

The entire delegation is gender balanced. It means, among other things, that if you're a minority female and want to go as a pledged delegate, you have a lot more slots open to you than men do.

Actually, that's not really the case with the superdelegates, which is, I think, the topic of discussion. You know, the ones who aren't pledged and have the potential to affect the outcome of a tight race.

While the DNC superdelegates are relatively well-balanced from a cursory examination, the three hundred elected officials (former presidents and vice president, governors, senators, and representatives) are a pretty lopsided bunch, both on both ethnicity and sex. Not that you'd expect anything different from people elected to federal positions, but only 20% of them are women. Which means that even with the rest of the superdelegation being split evenly (which it is) more than 60% of the superdelegates are superdudes. And mostly white superdudes.

Now, you can rant on about how the pledged delegates balance those guys out, but the fact of the matter is, if it comes down to a brokered convention and the superdelegates get to cut deals to pick the nominee, the unpledged guys have a 20% advantage over the unpledged women. There's bound to be some difference from the population statistics in an approximating system like a representative party structure, but 20%? In this day and age? It's not as if it just happened that way by accident. That's exactly the kind of Old Guard control over the system that the superdelegate rules were designed to protect.

OK, so in addition to believing most of Western Europe and Japan to be non-democratic, darrelplant is now saying he hates Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer for being white.

Because they must be all secretly members of the KKK or something; they've got this white dude mojo going on.

So obviously they're going to vote for the white dude in this year's nomination process.

Some info on the process...

Someone who reads this should be able to tell us if under the current rules one must be a pct. person to vote on delegates at district delegate selection conventions. If so, anyone concerned about this has just about a month to file for pct. person and get elected on the ballot (when I ran for delegate, only pct. people elected on the ballot could vote). Get involved in the campaign of your choice, find out where the delegate selection convention will take place in your district (county Democratic Party officers should know that information), and GO !

You do not have to be a PCP in order to vote on delegates at either the Congressional District conventions or the state convention. You DO, however, have to file to be a voting member of those conventions. Filing will begin March 1 and end May 22. Locations have not been set yet, but they should be within the month (one per Congressional district). If I remember correctly, the CD conventions around the state will be held Saturday, June 7. The form will be available on the DPO's web site at www.oregondemocrats.org. Full details regarding the convention process can also be found on the site - just click on the button in the left sidebar that is for the convention. DNC Committeeman Wayne Kinney gave an excellent presentation on the process at the SCC meeting yesterday, and will be going around the state doing the same for the counties.

There are rules in place to ensure that the delegations have representation from various communities. The delegation is gender balanced so there are an equal number of men and women. There are minimum numbers for Asians, Hispanics/Latinos, African Americans, and GLBT. The numbers are so that the delegation better reflects our state. They are also giving priority consideration to those from other communities such youth, women, people with disabilities, etc., which I believe is a change from the '04 process.

Wayne Kinney is definitely a good person to contact if you have questions, but I recommend at least reading through the short papers on the DPO's web site first. Those papers answer a lot of the more common questions about the process. Wayne and I sometimes disagree on some of the minor details of the process, but he's worked really hard on this plan and is definitely the most knowledgeable person on this topic.

So, Kari, are you OK when Steve calls someone a racist here at BO, too?

I'm really not sure what Steve's problem is. I'm a white male myself. But I'm aware enough of my world to know that what affects or interest me may not always be the most important issue to the people who make up the other half of the population (women) or people of color. I like to think of myself as someone who is able to extend concern to others -- as I'm sure Reps. DeFazio and Blumenauer do -- but unlike Steve, I know I'm not perfect. Excuse me for pointing out that the superdelegates have half again as many men as women. I guess that touched a nerve with someone.

I'm sure DeFazio and Blumenauer would be more than happy to have someone like Steve on their side.

For posterity

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=938

With unpledged delegates, however, that math changes. Much like the way the Progressive Democrats of America at the national level stepped in to keep Steve Novick from getting away with a patently rigged endorsement through his paid staffer, the national DNC delegates would stop this kind of scheme in its tracks. Not because they love Obama, but because they love the Democratic Party.

Steve, I hope you are as right about the latter as you are about the former. But I still don't see the need for Super Delegates.

Hayes Ingraham said above:

There's an interesting story going around where MSNBC's David Shuster is being ripped into for saying Chelsea Clinton was being pimped out. The reason he said the former first daughter was being pimped out, was because she was personally calling superdelegates. I find that a lot more troublesome than someone describing her actions as being pimped out. The fact that these superdelegates are being courted in ways that the average Democratic party member is not, just feels wrong.

I think an awful lot of average Democratic party members in Iowa and New Hampshire were courted in very similar ways. If superdelegates are going to exist at all, this is going to happen. And I have no issue with elected officials and party leaders being given a role at the convention. But I do think that they should be bound to their state's expressed preference(s) in the same manner and for the same number of ballots as ordinary delegates.

Everyone: Please keep the discussion to the topic at hand, and address the issues - rather than calling each other names. No one, repeat no one, cares if one commenter or another is a jerk, or stupid, or racist, or whatever. Argue the issues, not the personalities.

If you'd like to call each other names, please do it somewhere else.

Steve, you're the one being the purity troll now. Darrel hates someone? You're pulling that out your highly ideological centrist fundament.

This kind of attack is what I meant before when I said you were extremist. I don't care if it makes you or Lestat laugh. This kind of BS is extreme.

You aren't always. You run hot & cold. But this is just out of line and you ought to back off and apologize for completely uncalled for BS.

LT your advice about contacting people is good & I will follow it.

However, the reason it comes up now is that it is the first time that what could really go wrong with the system may come up to bite us. Steve M makes a reasonable point about another potential problem it could save us from re Florida and Michigan.

The immediate issue is not whether to change the system, but how to act in the best way to keep a somewhat unlikely but not impossible disaster from happening. Your advice is much to that point, so thanks again.

It would be much better then to be able to consider possible reforms with cool heads in the absence of something really bad, than as part of picking up pieces for the next 8 years.

Somebody had better tell Jenny and Wayne about this.

No one, repeat no one, cares if one commenter or another is a jerk, or stupid, or racist, or whatever

That's rich, Kari. Rather than say it's wrong for Steve to be calling people racists on your site, you just say nobody cares if someone is a racist or not.

I've accepted this with a certain amount of good humor until this point. I don't mind if I get called a socialist (where was Steve's high regard for European governments when he was calling someone a "European-style socialist" a month ago?) because as a former member of the Democratic Socialists of America, that's pretty much true.

But I'm not going to take charges of racism lying down. And I'm not going to allow you -- even on your own venue -- to tacitly permit someone to call me a racist.

I haven't been the one calling people names in this discussion. Well, I did say that Steve was "the real purist" at one point.

Chris Lowe Darrel hates someone? You're pulling that out your highly ideological centrist fundament.

Upthread he: 1) Used a quote from Animal Farm, Orwell's parody of Stalinism, to describe Democratic Party leaders, and 2) Started talking about some of our electeds' being "white superdudes", clearly intimating their gender and color rendered them less worthy than other colors/genders, that they were people not to be trusted.

So what do you call that?

Now I'm not naive. MLK's dream is still not reality, so it's certainly within bounds to talk about unacknowledged racism in the general public. (In fact, voters' racist preferences are clearly why Democratic office party holders skew the way they do.) But to blindly start attacking progressives like Bill Bradbury, Earl, etc., solely because of the color of their skin, is itself racist. There is really a no more accurate way to summarize it.

Again, I know these people, the "superdelegates", personally. I see them working their asses off for progressive causes every single day - many of them, the party leaders, on a purely voluntary basis. I count most of them as my friends. So to see them repeatedly smeared by purity trolls, most of whom don't lift a finger to help the causes they pretend to believe in, is something I'm simply not going to let stand unanswered.

So here's a word of advice: if you don't like fights, don't start them.

"White superdudes" is a more or less factual description of the individuals in question. I don't see darrelplant either engaging in racism or accusing the white superdudes of racism. He is simply stating a fact: as a group, the superdelegates run white and male compared to the Democratic rank and file, and even Democratic delegates elected by CD. Thus, they are somewhat less representative of the base than they could be. How is that not a plain old fact?

I didn't see any attack or any intimation that they were somehow unworthy of trust. WADR, Steve Maurer, I think you are engaging in some projection here.

Upthread he: 1) Used a quote from Animal Farm, Orwell's parody of Stalinism, to describe Democratic Party leaders, and 2) Started talking about some of our electeds' being "white superdudes", clearly intimating their gender and color rendered them less worthy than other colors/genders, that they were people not to be trusted.

I guess sthe part of my comment where I said that the priorities of a group of mostly white males might not always be in line with the priorities of, say, women, even when they are trying their best to be good representatives is lost to history. I'm not sure how I intimated that made them "less worthy". But then I'm just a socialist, racist, purity troll.

Ditto what Stephanie said.

Steve, you're not helping your friends by making extreme name-calling charges that are clearly false to any remotely fair-minded reader.

And you devalue your "purity troll" detector credibility when you go into "I have a hammer so everything looks like a nail" mode. It starts to look like anyone who isn't sufficiently "pure" a pragmatist -- standard being, apparently, agrees with you -- is going to get called it.

You don't have to be a party activist to have a right to an opinion or for that opinion to have merit.

Personally I'm on the lookout now for purity elves. I think a purity elf might be a nice addition to my garden.

And who said I didn't like a fight? Anyone who followed the discussions on the income tax posts in December should know better than that.

No, what I wonder is whether Kari wants Blue Oregon to get a reputation as someplace where any crank who wants to libel someone they disagree with as a racist is condoned. I don't think he does. It would rather devalue the brand. That's why I'm sure he's going to come out with a statement that flatly condemns baseless name-calling attacks, something that goes a little bit beyond the "nobody cares if one commenter or another is a jerk, or stupid, or racist, or whatever" which leaves the impression that the commenter is one of those things but that it needn't be discussed. I'm sure that was just an oversight on his part; it was only 10AM when he wrote it.

No, what I wonder is whether Kari wants Blue Oregon to get a reputation as someplace where any crank who wants to libel someone they disagree with as a racist is condoned.

Kari already addressed that upthread. You took exception to the manner in which he did so. That's your right, but it's dishonest to imply that he hasn't addressed it. What would be honest would be to say/imply that he didn't do so in a manner which you approve of.

What would be honest would be to say/imply that he didn't do so in a manner which you approve of.

I thought I did that when I quoted him (in two separate comments) and said he didn't say it was wrong to call people racists without any basis. Which he hasn't.

Is that honest enough for you?

That's rich, Kari. Rather than say it's wrong for Steve to be calling people racists on your site, you just say nobody cares if someone is a racist or not.

OK, let me be clear: It's not OK for anyone to be calling anyone else a racist. (Unless they are a racist, but I haven't seen that behavior anywhere here on this thread.)

No, what I wonder is whether Kari wants Blue Oregon to get a reputation as someplace where any crank who wants to libel someone they disagree with as a racist is condoned. I don't think he does.

Exactly. Let's keep disagreement on the issues, and not on the name-calling. (Acknowledging that sometimes I succumb to the temptation to call people names, too. Which is morally weak of me.)

I appreciate the clarity, Kari.

Stephanie V: How is that not a plain old fact?

Maybe I should turn that around. How is stating, right after Obama scored a major victory in South Carolina, that Jesse Jackson also won the state 20 years ago, not just mentioning a "plain old fact"?

If you wish to be willfully blind to clearly intimated racial subtext in people's commentary, please feel free. But to me, inappropriately bringing up our highly progressive representatives' race and gender when talking about their ability to make decisions pretty damn clearly steps over the line. Especially in this election where our party has finally decided to break a 220 year old stranglehold of racial and gender bias that has kept superior people from holding office.

Darrel is nearly certainly not racist, any more than he honestly believes the Democratic party is Stalinist. It's just clear from a years worth of his commentary that he does not like most of the Democratic party, and amuses himself by making inflammatory attacks against the good guys with wild accusations that are nearly always directly contradicted by the facts.

So while I appreciate his swift backpedaling, apparently now saying our white male congressional representatives just can't help themselves, he's clearly forgotten the gender of the Speaker of the House they already indirectly elected (because they're "more equal" Democrats than us).

Joe "Short Ride" Lieberman was a superdelegate at the last national convention. I guess that's the kind of person Steve's sticking up for.

Darrel,

Lieberman was on the ticket in 2000. Perhaps you forgot. He has been disqualified in 2008.

To Robert Gourley:

there are advantages of a first past the post system, but on a measure of "democratic-ness", a PR system is undeniably superior.

I'll pretend to understand the above jargon, and say I see no superiority of any kind between a properly applied proportional representation system versus an equal representation system - problems do arise due to improper application. Just like when you use a hammer to do a saw's job.

--

Sorry if this seems like jargon, but this is my business. "First past the post" is what is used in a small number of Anglo democracies (USA, UK, Australia, Canada). The plurality winner in a congressional district wins 100% of the (1) seats (hence "first past the post").

I don't know what you mean by an "equal representation system." Ours is a geographically based representation system: we draw lines around approximately 600,000 people and then say "you all get 1 representative, no matter how homogeneous or diverse your beliefs."

It is easy to show that the plurality system mathematically overrepresent majorities and underrepresents minorities.

It is not a matter of "proper application"--plurality systems are designed to do this. They are designed to produce large majorities, and they do so by underrepresenting minority interests.

It is on those grounds that PR systems are deemed superior (which was your first question).

=== I don't know what you mean by "democracy," but representing the expressed preferences of the voting public in the elected representatives is fundamental in every definition I am familiar with.

Democracy "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - not really all that complicated.

<hr/>

Within the category "democracy," we can surely rank order some as "more" democratic and some less so.

I never argued that a plurality fell out of the category "democratic" but they ranked lower, because PR systems more faithfully reflect the votes of the public in the makeup of the legislature than do plurality systems.

-- Since we're on the subject, plurality systems do these things better: they are majoritarian (produce majorities), they produce strong governing coalitions, they are more stable, they are less responsive to rapidly changing public sentiments.

Many prefer our system for these reasons, but I really mean it when I say I know of no one, philosopher or empirical social scientists, who aregues in favor of our system on "democratic" grounds.

paul, I think that pretty much sums up my point. I pointed out that the superdelegate system -- which is only a quarter century old and has never served to address the problem it was imposed to correct -- isn't representative of the general population and that that because of a preponderance of elected officials in its ranks it has half again as many men in it as women. From that, I was accused of attacking progressives. But the national superdelegation isn't composed of progressives alone. It includes any number of people like Lieberman -- all of the Democrats who voted for telecom immunity, for instance -- so to me that claim is pretty laughable.

<h2>And Lieberman was only stripped of his status as a superdelegate quite recently, since he came out for John McCain. Even though he ran against the Democratic Senatorial candidate in the 2006 elections. Call me a purist, but people who run against Democrats in general elections shouldn't even be considered for superdelegate status.</h2>