A Quick Guide to the Democratic Party Rule Book
“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
In 2008 we are witnessing the most interesting and exciting presidential nomination process in U.S. history. I wrote this article to help people better understand the Democratic Party rules and the impact these rules have on determining who the Democrats will nominate for President in 2008. I have injected a few opinions into this article to point out that confusing rules can lead to voter unhappiness.
The Basic Rules:
The Democratic and Republican parties each have their own rules for selecting their presidential nominee. They change the rules every four years. The parties can set any rules they want as long as the rules are not unconstitutional.
The presidential nominee is officially elected by delegates to the party’s convention in the summer of the election year. In 2008 the Democratic Party Convention is in Denver, August 25-28. The Republican Convention is in St. Paul, September 1-4.
In 2008, the Democratic Party rules provide a total of 4,049 delegates. Delegates go to the convention to choose the nominee. 796 are “super-delegates” and the remaining delegates (”pledged delegates”) are selected by voters via primaries and caucuses. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates (50% of the total plus one) to win the nomination.
Super-Delegates:
Super-delegates are “big shots” in the party. These include Party members who are elected officials (Governors, Senators, Congress people, and often others like mayors, etc.), and miscellaneous big shots (big donors, party strategists, activists, etc.) as chosen by the state party. Each state gets a proportional number of super-delegates (California gets a lot more than Idaho). Also the Democratic National Committee includes a few other super-delegates, like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and some others.
Because the race between Clinton and Obama is so close, it is possible that the super-delegates will make the ultimate decision. This is because neither Clinton nor Obama may have enough pledged delegates to reach 2,025.
In the old days (before 1972), most (and often, all) of the delegates to the Democratic convention were “super delegates” and selected the nominee. Primaries and caucuses were just “beauty contests” and practice campaigns, they didn’t really have power. The party big-shots could do whatever they wanted at the convention (”smoke-filled room”).
1968 was pretty chaotic. Many Democrats wanted the party’s nominee to be Eugene McCarthy, not Hubert Humphrey. The big shots decided on Humphrey. Some Democrats were unhappy, so the party decided to open up the process for 1972 and let the voters decide via primaries and caucuses.
In 1972 the voters chose George McGovern and he lost the general election (against Richard Nixon) by a landslide. The Democratic Party big shots didn’t like that result, so they again changed the rules to give the voters most of the delegates, but to keep a percentage of “big shot” super delegates in place to maybe “fix” things if necessary.
In 1984, super-delegates helped de-rail Gary Hart to give the nomination to Mondale. Generally the rules haven’t been too controversial, since usually the big shots and voters are in sync (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry were popular with voters and big shots). It’s been a while since anyone paid attention to these rule details, because it usually doesn’t impact the outcome.
It looks like whatever happens this year, some Democrats will be unhappy and the party will need to review the rules again.
Florida and Michigan:
The rules for both the Republicans and Democrats do not allow states to have a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday, without explicit permission.
The Florida and Michigan state legislatures violated Democratic and Republican party rules by moving up their primary dates (to dates before Super Tuesday) without permission. The national Democratic party punished Florida and Michigan by taking away all of the delegates from these states (thus making their primaries essentially null and void). The Republican party faced the same dilemma, but solved it better, by taking away only half of the delegates.
Traditionally, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (and Nevada was added this year) go first in the primary and caucus schedule. Then there is “Super Tuesday” a few weeks later, which includes several states (this year, the most ever, about 22 states). Many states resent the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire should decide the nominees for both parties. Although technically Iowa and New Hampshire have relatively few delegates, historically, a candidate that wins both of these states is often seen as the “inevitable” nominee and voters in subsequent primaries and caucuses tended to confirm the inevitability.
In 2007 many states legislatures voted to move up their primary or caucus dates for the 2008 party elections. States did this because in past elections the nominee seemed inevitable so early in the process that most states felt left out. For example, Illinois legitimately moved up its primary date by several weeks (to Super Tuesday), because in the past, Illinois has had little impact on the process.
Michigan and Florida assumed that it would be OK to move up their primaries. They were wrong! I have not heard a good explanation to this question: “Why did the national parties allow this to happen?” In my opinion, once the national parties heard that the states violated the rules, they should have forced the states to choose a new acceptable date. However, the Democratic and Republican parties do not have any legal authority to tell state legislatures what to do.
The Democratic Party should have solved this a long time ago. Now it’s too late and whatever they do will probably cause unhappiness.
More About Party Rules:
Many rules have evolved over time and exist because of “tradition”.
The schedule for state primaries and caucuses is not based on logic. Iowa and New Hampshire are so important because they are always first by tradition. Many primaries and caucuses are crammed into a short time period, then there are big gaps in the schedule.
Also, States set up their own rules (as long they meet national party standards), rules on top of rules. For example, each state decides if their state is “winner-take-all” or proportional based on congressional (or other) districts. The latter is more typical, especially for Democrats. But the proportional awarding of delegates uses complicated math and different states use different math. That’s why it sometimes takes weeks to figure out exactly how many delegates a candidate actually won in some states. It also explains why one news organization may show a different delegate count than another. (Another reason for differences in delegate counts is that some “super delegates” indicate in advance which candidate they intend to support, and news organization may have slightly different lists of the latest super-delegate intentions).
States decide if they want a primary or a caucus. Caucuses (public meetings with public voting) are much more complicated than primaries (”normal” voting). Caucuses have somewhat complex rules and each voter must spend an hour or two at their designated meeting place at a specific time. If you have to work then (or whatever), you cannot vote (of course, there are more rules to cover exceptions). Many fewer people participate in caucuses than vote in primaries.
Some states have “open” primaries and some states have “closed” primaries. An open primary means that you go to vote and you may choose to vote in the Republican, Democratic, or possibly other party primary. You may select any one you want, but not more than one. The next time your state has a primary, you may choose to vote in a different party primary. Closed primaries means that you may vote only in the party to which you are “registered”.
The whole process should be more logical and less complicated. The closer the race, the more important it is to have rules that are standardized and easy to understand.
Convention Rules:
Before 1972, the conventions actually selected the nominees. Since 1972, the conventions have mainly been media events, free air-time for the parties to advertise. The primaries and caucuses resulted in one clear nominee for each party, so by the time of the convention, everyone knew who would obviously win the nomination and the voting was a formality (”the great state of Illinois casts all of its 170 votes for Al Gore”, etc.).
It is possible (although not probable) that the Democratic nominee will be selected at the convention - not just a formality, but a reality. People call this a “brokered” convention, with the idea that deals are made to guarantee that one candidate will get enough votes (2,025).
The Democratic convention will have a vote of the 4,049 delegates. Each delegate can vote for any candidate. “Pledged” delegates are likely to stay with “their” candidate. For example, some delegates from Illinois are pledged to Clinton and others to Obama, but they have the right to change their mind (but it is rare). Super delegates may state in advance that they will vote for one candidate, but they are much more likely to change their mind (than pledged delegates), and many do not state their intentions until they actually vote.
If no candidate gets the majority (2,025 votes in 2008) in the first vote (”ballot”), then everything is up for grabs. New nominees can emerge (e.g., Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi) and the convention does a new “ballot” of all the delegates, again and again until one candidate gets the magic 2,025. This was very common in the old days when all delegates were “super-delegates”. Abraham Lincoln was selected as the party nominee on the 3rd ballot at the Republican Party Convention in Chicago in 1860.
Texas Rules:
Texas may have a major impact in 2008 in determining the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Texas has especially complex rules, and makes a great case study in confusion.
Here is my attempt to understand and explain the Texas rules:
The National Democratic Party determined that Texas will send 228 delegates to the convention. The Texas Democratic Party State Convention decided how to choose the delegates. Texas voters select 168 “pledged” delegates on March 4th, and the other 60 are “super” delegates already selected by the Texas Democratic Party.
Texas voters select the 168 pledged delegates via a hybrid primary and caucus election on March 4th. Both the primary election and the caucus meetings count. In order to vote in the caucus meetings at 7pm, you must also vote first in the primary election (polls are open all day until 7pm). Yes, vote early and often - that’s the rule.
Of the 168 pledged delegates, 126 are selected based on proportional voting in the 31 state senatorial districts. The remaining 42 pledged delegates are based on Texas voting as a whole. This is based on researching several news sources and reviewing the official Texas Democratic Party document. However, according to CNN, the 228 Texas delegates are allocated as follows: 126 by the primary results, 67 by the caucus results, and 12 are “super-delegates”.
The 31 state senatorial districts get a weighted number of delegates based on voting in previous elections. Districts that have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in previous elections get proportionally more delegates than districts that voted more Republican in the past.
Complex rules like these can lead to results in which one candidate wins the popular vote of the state, but another candidate wins more delegates.
Texas should append their state motto to: “Don’t mess with Texas, we make our own mess”.
Conclusion:
2008 is a great time to be a “political junkie”. This really is exciting and knowing more about the rules deepens the experience. It is a bit troubling to think that decisions made by the Florida legislature or the Texas Democratic Party State Convention may indirectly determine who will be the next “leader of the free world”. Generally, the history of the U.S. (and even the world) continues to move in the direction of more grassroots democracy and less control by the “big shots”. Democracy is always a work in progress.
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Comment by Corinne Edwards
Posted on February 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Finally, someone tells us what it is all about!
I jusT “Stumbled” this article. It will help people.
Thanks!
Comment by peg barry
Posted on February 26, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Brilliant article and I’m forwarding this to all my political junkie friends because none of them know this and so I thank you for this complete clarification. Perhaps you should send it to the DNC and Tim Russert. I don’t think they even know. And I’m looking forward to more intelligent posts. Congratulations on your site!!!
Comment by maria
Posted on February 26, 2008 at 7:16 pm
This is the first time the rules made sense to me! Thanks for the good post!
Comment by Michael M.
Posted on March 28, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I can’t see how it makes any difference at all. Obama has not a single clue what is actually wrong with the economy.
Both parties have been systematically destroying the commons for years.
Many in both parties still blame Nader for being a spoiler when in actuality it was our ungovernable supreme court and the unrestrained corporations.
All members of congress have failed in oversight, but not nearly as badly as the populace failed to oversee congress.
Members of congress have failed to uphold the oath they took as have many veterans.
It’s broke and we need to work together to fix it.
I know this because I’ve been around the block a few times. I am a veteran of the Vietnam Era and I remember - back when Hillary was a door gunner based a few clicks south of Da Nang.
And still there are the faithful blaming hippies for everything.
This whole thing is utter nonsense.
I have lost respect for: Police, Professionals, Think Tanks, Doctors, Lawyers, the wealthy, the faithful, Politicians, and the government.
The stuff we have shoved under the rug for so many years has become much bigger that that little rug - even the severly brain injured can see that. I know - I have worked with the homeless.