af40's Blog

Mitt Romney's drop out of the presidential race this week left John McCain as the only realistic hopeful for the Republican nomination. While John McCain has been harshly criticized by staunch conservatives for his moderate views on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and the environment, as well as his frequent sponsorship of bipartisan bills in the Senate, he will no doubt begin to cement his base and the support of even those who initially might have waited for a cold day in Hell before voting for him. Republicans traditionally tend to unite, even after strong divisions during primaries. That’s exactly what McCain did in 2000 when a young George W. Bush trounced him in South Carolina, and that is exactly what other Republicans like Romney will do for McCain now.

But the Democrats have often seen greater intra-party division during primaries, and this year that division is likely only to grow. In both 1968 and 1972, years when the VietNam War was on American’s minds, nominees did not surface until several rounds of voting at the national conventions. Even then, the ultimate nominees, Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972, were seen as controversial long shot dark horses (side note: it was Nixon’s unfounded paranoia about the Democrats in 1972 that led to the whole Watergate mess to begin with). Because of so much rancor and the desire- justified in view of past divisions- that the process become more efficient, the Democrats finally decided by 1984 to change their nomination system in two significant ways.

First, rather than giving all delegates to a state’s winner, each candidate would be guaranteed at least one delegate if he or she obtained at least 15% of the primary vote. Many states eventually adopted a proportional representation system to fit in with this. Secondly, superdelegates- political big shots basically- could vote in favor of any nominee. While these delegates would not have to commit to one nominee, it was thought that they could break any potential deadlock during a convention, thus avoiding the highly unpalatable “smoke-filled rooms” scenario of past conventions, a scenario where side-deals and even underhanded tactics behind closed doors once elected nominees.

Unfortunately, the system enacted in 1984 might actually create the very problems it was intended to remedy.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama finished in a virtual dead heat this past Tuesday, owing to the fact that each gained delegates even in states where they lost to the other. Had the system been more like that of the Republicans, where winner-take-all systems are more prevalent, it’s highly likely Hillary Clinton would be significantly closer to clinching the nomination. (And, conversely, Mitt Romney might still be in the race had he won a share of the winner-take-all Republican state delegates).

Instead, both Obama and Clinton gained a significant number of delegates, bringing Obama within 100 delegates of Clinton (and, in fact, narrowing her lead). If the process continues- and there is little chance either candidate will score a knockout blow anytime soon- it’s quite possible that the nomination might have to be decided at the convention, which is little more than two months before the national election.

A significant problem faced by Democrats is that a number of key states like Florida and Michigan, which already had their primaries, had their delegates scrapped as punishment by the Democratic Party for moving their primaries up too early. This is another critical loss for Hillary Clinton, because she did very well in both states (although in fairness, Obama did not campaign in either state, which means he might have done better had these states counted and had he campaigned there). If the final tally after all 50 states have had their primaries or caucuses shows a virtual dead heat, Florida (yes Florida!) will once again become that pesky state that ruined things.

If all this were to actually happen, those superdelegates would become major players, something that they have not been in the 24 years since the system was created. Unfortunately, superdelegates are not required to vote any one way, and they can change their votes even if they initially commit to one candidate (both Obama and Clinton have commitments from these delegates, but these aren’t set in stone). The problem is that if the two candidates do end up tied at the convention, and delegates jump ship, the losing candidate will cry foul. The whole process would reek of the old smoke-filled room scenario.

Historically, Democrats have tended to fare badly when they are divided at the convention. 1968 and 1972 are prime examples of this. And even in 1984, Democrats faced the challenge of whether to nominate former Carter VP Walter Mondale or Colorado Senator Gary Hart, both of whom had nearly as many delegates but who differed in the superdelegate tally. It was Mondale’s superdelegate superiority that eventually clinched his nomination.

Mondale went on to lose by the largest Electoral College vote margin in history:525 (for Reagan) to 13 (Mondale’s home state of Minnesota gave him 12, plus 1 delegate from D.C.). Hopefully this time around, the Democrats won’t end up basing the nomination on superdelegates.