Delegates Explainer

A useful rundown of how Democratic delegates are allocated, superdelegates, etc., etc. from Sam Boyd. Plus bonus brokered convention speculation:

Brokered conventions (where no candidate arrives with a majority of the delegates) are predicted every four years, and every four years they don't actually happen. However, it does seem likely this year that we'll, at the very least, see a closer result than any since 1980 or even 1968. We might not even know who will win until the convention gets underway. Edwards could act as a kingmaker by throwing his delegates to Clinton or Obama and putting him or her over the top (his delegates would not be required to follow his instructions, but they will likely be personally loyal to him). Or, unelected superdelegates could throw the nomination to a candidate who comes in second in pledged delegates. Even if the result is known at the start of the convention, it might not be determined until June or July.

Ta-da!

Comments

I've heard Edwards, repeatedly, say he's not interested in a VP slot, but this is exactly why it's pointless for him to leave the race. We won't have a good idea who will win until after Feb. 5th. and at that time Edwards will be in a good position to seal the deal for someone in exchange for a VP nod. Edwards obviously likes Obama, but he and Clinton would make a very formidable team in my view and I would much rather Edwards as Clintons VP then a Bayh or someone she seems more likely to pick on her own.

Posted by tom.a | January 24, 2008 6:03 PM

What happeneded with Michigan? Wasn't it kind of cheezy for Hillary to "win" Michigan when the state was blackballed for going early in a pathetic attempt to drum up some tourism to help the state economy? Did Hillary get an flack for that or am I misunderstanding the issues here?

(So refreshing to see - after the golden Clintontopia of the 90s - that states are reduced to scrambling for early primaries to get the tourist dollar.)

Posted by Peter K. | January 24, 2008 6:28 PM

Superdelegates are a weird concept.

Posted by Led | January 24, 2008 6:50 PM

How ugly will it get if Obama is leading in elected delegates and then Hillary gets the nimination due to Superdelegates? 1968 levels?

Posted by Eric K | January 24, 2008 7:44 PM

There is never a brokered convention and will not be under the current rules.

The Republicans guarantee no brokered conventions by having winner-take-all rules. They don't split delegates from a state or district. That results in an eventual majority for someone. Even a tiny popular vote lead makes for a giant delegate lead.

The Democrats have an even less democratic system. D's allocate about one fifth of the delegate seats to unpledged party leader and elected official delegates (unpledged PLEOs a.k.a. superdelegates). These are largely Washington Villager insider potentates. In any race where there is a threat of brokering the convention, they will outnumber the third place candidate's delegates with almost mathematical certainty. That allows the D.C. insiders to make the decision on the first ballot and ensures a consensus insider (mostly Hillary this year) will be the nominee unless another candidate forces an outright majority of pledged delegates.

Posted by Brian | January 24, 2008 8:22 PM

Unless Edwards surprises the hell out of everyone in SC, he won't get enough delegates to prevent one of the leaders from getting a majority. Things would have to be balanced on a knife-edge for that to happen. Hell, it's pretty unlikely even if Edwards wins SC outright.

How ugly will it get if Obama is leading in elected delegates and then Hillary gets the nomination due to Superdelegates? 1968 levels?

It would get pretty ugly. Not 1968-ugly, because everybody thinks protests in the streets are passé, but still pretty damned ugly.

If that happened, I'd say, "screw this 'more, better Democrats' nonsense," and think third party. Hell, I'm thinking that already, after the Dems' sad performance this past year.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 24, 2008 9:59 PM

Throwing delegates around

How, exactly, would Edwards do that throwing? In the bad old days, back when the national conventions actually decided things, a delegate from Illinois would do what the Chicago machine told him to do, because after the convention he had to go back to Illinois to live. Why would an Edwards delegate to the 2008 convention, whom Edwards may very well not have had any input in choosing, necessarily be willing to be thrown to any candidate? Why would he necessarily even vote for Edwards? What would/could Edwards do if he/she didn't vote as pledged?

The national conventions are a fossil relic of an earlier era. They would only work if we still had local party machines, machines which, in alliance together, were the ongoing national party. For better or worse, we don't still have such machines, and therefore we don't really have ongoing national parties. What we have are temporary ad hoc candidate-centered campaigns, plus the more recently plussed-up national and state party permanent campaigns. But these permanent campaigns are unlike the old machines in this very important respect -- they must remain neutral until one of the candidate campaigns wins and captures the brand, and the support of the party campaigns, for that year. The national conventions since we started the new open process of choosing delegates mainly in primaries is simply not what the conventions were under the bad old system, the representatives of the local machines meeting to reach agreement on who the party would run that year. The delegates aren't the party anymore, they now are just a group of folks who were picked, probably for no particular reason germane to choosing our next president, to represent some candidate from halfway across the country that they probably never met, don't owe any permanent loyalty to, and certainly have no reason to take direction from that candidate, or any sort of broker, if that candidate drops out, or even fails to win on the first ballot.

If we don't want to go back to parties as coalitions of local and state machines, we need to move on to a way of choosing party candidates that reflests what we now want our parties to be. We went to primaries because we no longer respect conventions and the corrupt bargains made in smoke-filled back rooms. And until this year, the new system has always given us results before we got to the conventions and the smoke-filled back rooms. If it's not going to do that consistently anymore, we need to replace the conventions with nationwide second primaries to be held if the first run-through, like this year, doesn't result in a winner. Maybe we'll get lucky again this year, and either not have a contested convention, or manage to muddle through a contested convention that manages to produce a candidate the nation respects, despite its lack of respect for the smoke-filled backrooms where a contested convention would have to be brokered. But hoping for luck is not a plan.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 24, 2008 10:37 PM

I suppose our present nominating system is like the college football BCS. Better than the corrupt predecessor but not as good as an objective system guaranteed to yield a consensus winner every time.

Posted by Led | January 24, 2008 11:28 PM

" Why would an Edwards delegate to the 2008 convention, whom Edwards may very well not have had any input in choosing, necessarily be willing to be thrown to any candidate?"

Far from having no input, most of Edwards' delegates are personally chosen by him after the primary. The rules used to be that the delegates were elected, and forced to vote for a specific candidate on the first ballot. After that, they were generally the tools of the state party machine. Now, a candidate is free to name their own delegates, but there are not restrictions on who they vote for. If a candidate thinks their delegate will be disloyal, they are free to replace them.

Edwards is free to instruct his delegates to vote for someone other than himself, even on the first ballot. The delegates are free to ignore him.

I believe there are still some delegates distributed by the old rules, but they are lesser in number even than the superdelegates.

So:
Many delegates personally loyal to the candidate, pledged, but not bound to vote the candidate(district and at-large delegates).

A few delegates chosen by the state, but pledged and bound to vote for the candidate on the first ballot (pledged PLEOs). These are free after the first ballot.

Some Superdelegates, who may make pledges about whom they support, but who are free to change their mind anytime.

Posted by Njorl | January 25, 2008 10:40 AM

The Republicans guarantee no brokered conventions by having winner-take-all rules. They don't split delegates from a state or district. That results in an eventual majority for someone. Even a tiny popular vote lead makes for a giant delegate lead.

This is illogical. If Rudy wins the WTA primaries in NY, NJ and CT, which is a significant possibility if he is seen as remotely viable, it greatly increases the chances of a brokered convention.

The purpose of the WTA primaries is not to eliminate brokered conventions. It is to silence dissent. Republicans assume that they won't have seriously contended primaries, but that they might have troublemakers who could garner enough delegates to have a voice at the convention (Pat Buchanen). They don't want that. The WTA primaries were seen as a way to appear more monolithic. They might just bite the R's in the ass this time around.

Posted by Njorl | January 25, 2008 10:49 AM