Delegates, Super Delegates, and Proportional Rep.

I am trying to bring together an explanation of a few topic here: Delegates, Super Delegates, Proportional Representation, and some problems with the primary strategies so far.

Delegates:
The delegate count can be developed through impartial standards, but they take time discern. Depending on the primary or caucus, delegates can be awarded by receiving delegates, proportional to the votes counted, in congressional districts. In addition, some delegates are awarded by "winning the state." It may take time to count the delegates, hence the prediction, because people vote by precinct and county so it takes time to count the delegates. Texas is the odd state as it incorporates a primary and caucus and super delegates.

For the Democrats, the districts delegates are awarded in proportion to the vote in the congressional district. In order to have really win a district, you need to gain greater than 66% of the vote in a district. If you fail to gain the 2/3 vote, then the delegates get split evenly with the winner receiving a slight edge. This makes a huge difference when there are say 20 delegates. A 67% to 32% vote can result in 14 - 6 split; a 55% - 45% split may result in a 11 - 9 split; in Missouri, where the vote was so close, they split an equal amount of delegates.

For example, even though Obama lost in New York and Massachusetts Clinton did not finish above the 66% necessary to gain the maximum number of votes in a lot of districts in NYC, meaning that Clinton could not gain an advantage in those states. However, in states like Georgia and Illinois, Obama beat Clinton with a higher percentage of the vote, crossing the 66% threshold in multiple districts. This means that in states where Obama won and where there were a lot of delegates at state, Obama won his in a greater percentage and received more delegates while he prevented Clinton from gaining the same advantage.

As of tonight, even before the two caucuses and one primary, most sources and the campaigns agree that Obama has a slight advantage. However, this is only projected as they are still counting provisional ballots in California and the final tally won't be known for two weeks. As for the caucuses in Washington and Nebraska and the primary in Louisiana, it is projected that Obama will win 36 delegates while Clinton will win 17 delegates, increasing his advantage. Yet, a proportion victory by Clinton in Ohio would mean that they may be tied again. I have no idea about the Super Delegate vote. But, because Obama is winning more states and may have the edge in pledged delegates but not Super Delegates (as of this moment), DNC Chief Dean is concerned, as he should be. There is no precedent for this: if the candidates are even or close in delegates, how do you judge so you do not rip apart the party: population, states won, super delegate support, prospects for victory in the general election? What if a candidate has two of the four qualities? Three of four?

Super Delegates:
Super Delegates are "elite" members of the party. They include current Democratic members of Congress (House & Senate), Democratic Governors, Former Presidents and VPS (Carter, Clinton, Gore, Mondale), and other important Democratic figures (Howard Dean, maybe Terry McCaulife). Some members of Congress, e.g. Barbara Boxter, stated they would vote how the people in their state vote. Others will vote their "conscience," e.g. Senator Martinez from New Jersey, who supports Hillary Clinton and is not concerned about how his state voted. (I know New Jersey went to Clinton but he stated he would support her regardless.) Remember, some Super Delegates do not have a constituency to represent so they must vote their conscience.

The best way to describe the difference between the Delegates and the Super Delegates is the difference between the House and the Senate. The delegates awarded in the states are the House; the Super Delegates the Senate. These people are the "wise elders" that "debate the issues." Their support can be crucial for a candidate. In 1984 the super delegates favored Mondale over Hart, and Mondale won the nomination. Yet, in 2004, Dean received the support but lost to Kerry. It seems that sometimes they try to set the agenda, as many supported Clinton well before the primaries started. Some support her no matter what; others supported her because they thought she would be the nominee and wanted to get in at the ground floor for their benefit. Yet, if a candidate "pledges" their support, it is not final until the convention. They can switch at any time, which is important for Super Delegates that "pledged" for Edwards. In theory, they are there to try and ensure the candidate of choice wins. Yet, I think that they are only to exist in theory and they are not to be divisive or decisive, which they may or may not be the case in this election. It is too early to say as the most have not committed. (They comprise 1/5 of the total number of delegates.)

It is also important to know that Super Delegates do not like to be wrong, as VP Gore was in 2004 when he supported Dean. Their credibility is at stake and they must choose the winner.

Proportional Representation
The Democrats rely on a proportional standard because it provides a sense of fairness in the election process. In all of my reading on Democratic theory, proportional representation seems preferred to "first past the post" or "winner take all" because it protects minorities and includes more voices that finish above a 15% threshold. A proportional system works much better for deciding the choice of the people since it ensures that a candidate can stay in the race if they do not finish well in some states. Not all candidates can finish first, especially in the beginning. Also, research suggests that in proportional systems, citizens feel better about their government, even opposing parties. But you need a political culture to nurture this type of system and angst against the proportional system may result from our reliance on a winner take all system.

In a "winner take all system," a candidate who wins a plurality of the vote (maybe 35%) wins all of the delegates. The problem with this is that more people voted against the person than voted for the person. It is certainly hard to call this type of election democratic.

The Current Election
There seem to be many problems in this election. I know that this is an understatement, but here is what I am thinking:
(1) Before the primaries started, Clinton was the presumed nominee, the presumed president, and, consequently, she received a lot of initial support from Super Delegates, even before the candidates went through one primary. She did not have this support in 2004.

A few political pundits and advisers did not think that Obama would be ready in 2008 and he should wait for 2012. This would be problematic for him because if Hillary were to win in 2008, Obama may not have a chance until 2016 and, even if the stars were to align, it seems unlikely a political party would dominate for 16 years. As of know, four years may be too much with Iraq, the War on Terror, Social Security, Health Care, the Economy, etc.

(2) When Obama announced he was running, Clinton did not approve and gave him the proverbial cold shoulder on the floor of the Senate. Obama is relying on the fact that Clinton has a "high floor" but "low ceiling"-- she has a lot of support, but there is a limit to that support as there are polls that show she has a high disapproval rating. Of course these are polls, but they do indicate a problem for her. Obama is taking advantage of this low ceiling for her political support and with his style, he may be able to capitalize.
[And please note: to state that Clinton has a "low ceiling" is in no relation to "glass ceiling" and has nothing to do with her gender. This is a political term though there are many people who don't know this and read gender into this. If a candidate decides to run, they must determine how much support they may be able to achieve. If you have a "low ceiling" you find find a time-- Greek word of Kairos-- to know when to run. Clinton is running now because there is such low support for Republicans.]

3) The proportional representation is not "the problem." "The problem" is that there are two candidates still in the race and both candidates are fundraising well. Remember, "Super Tuesday was to be decisive for one candidate. However, it ended as a tie, causing both camps to reach out further to donors. This is not normally to be expected since usually one candidate starts to fall behind at this point in the campaign and leaves the campaign.

On top of this, the Clinton camp made a strategic error by allocating a lot of its money on the general election and not the primary, working under the assumption that she would be the nominee. According to the Obama camp, he needed to win Iowa to remain in the race-- it was this or nothing. He did and propelled himself into the national debate. He showed that he could be a viable candidate and that he had support (the $32 million in January, as well as the wins in delegate wins in Nevada, New Hampshire, as well as wins in South Carolina & Super Tuesday.)

Excessive fundraising now may be a problem for the Democrats for the rest of the year. Though supporters can donate again in the general election, how many people will have the money to do this in a recession?

A winner takes all system gives you a nominee sooner. It also gives you buyer's remorse sooner. This is what may happen to McCain. It depends on the alternative.

4) Another Clinton Strategic Error: Further, in an impartial commentary from someone who teaches classes on political communication and campaigns, the Clinton team made another strategic error by its South Carolina strategy (use of race and the reliance on Bill to reach out to the Black vote). As one Clinton campaign surrogate stated, Obama would not win another state because he would be the "black candidate" and only receive supports of blacks, making whites and Latinos choose Clinton. This has not happened, and Obama is closing on multiple demographic groups except the 50 and older group.

Further, the South Carolina strategy divided the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic Establishment, allowing some Super Delegates the opportunity to change candidates. Some, like Ted Kennedy, objected to the tactics and decided to support Obama and not remain neutral, even though the Clintons asked him too. This "endorsement" was crucial, not for the Latino vote though it may help; it was crucial because it made Obama to be a viable and desirable alternative. Hence, the focus of "change" is change from the Clinton tactics (the South Carolina speech).

There is a history of interjecting race in the South Carolina primary. In 2000, the Rove strategy was to make calls asking voters in they knew that McCain had a black, illegitimate baby. McCain lost South Carolina and was out of the race soon after.

5) Obama has yet to make the major mistake. You could call Michelle Obama's comments a mistake; however, she never stated she would not support Clinton. Further, this is not necessarily an explicit attack on Clinton and it did not come from Barack. In fact, not to use this point too often, the Clintons failed to support other candidates in the past so her comments reflect something that the Clintons did themselves. [Also, negative campaigning is not a mistake and differentiating oneself from another candidate, which he does often, is not a negative comment.]

The Clinton camp tried to pressure Obama to make the mistake-- hence the five debates, one debate a week. They feel that, if pressured, he will make a mistake. This is one reason why he only agreed to two. Besides, if he needed to campaign, and if she does have fundraising problems, why give her free air time.

6) Early Voting: One major problem in the primaries, Republican and Democratic, have been early voting. In Florida, some early voting went to Rudy. In California, some early voting went to Clinton though the momentum swing to Obama. I still think Clinton would have one but there were 2,000,000 votes cast early. Some of these votes would have moved to Obama if people voted on election day. This is why the polls were closer than the votes.

Again, this is post is not to favor one or another. It is a review of some of the major issues.