The Origins of Super Delegates, or
How the Democratic Elite Enacted a Crooked System to Keep Their Kind on Top

1968

The seeds of the current Democratic system of nomination were planted in the ashes of fires and riots of the 1968 convention and election. Entering the cycle, the Democrats were split into four camps. The old guard favorite and residing president, LBJ, was facing falling popularity and poor health, and in March of ‘68 he withdrew from the race. His VP, Hubert H. Humphrey, Jr. of Minnesota, then entered the race representing the old-guard machine and boss wing of the Democratic party.

The other two candidates were Eugene McCarthy, running on an anti-war, pro-youth platform, and Robert Kennedy, who represented the pro-Civil Rights platform. The fourth faction were the old school Democrats, aka Dixiecrats.

In 1968, only 13 states held a primary, and HHH decided to focus on the states where the machine still decided the candidate, letting proxies run for him in the primary states. So the primary contest came down to McCarthy and Kennedy, but then Kennedy was shot in CA after winning the primary.

It became obvious as ‘68 went on that the primaries were a farce and that the people’s voice meant nothing. The young folks, feeling disenfranchised and angry at the war in Vietnam, descended upon the Chicago convention and riots broke out. But the old guard won, soundly nominating HHH as the Democratic nominee for president.

So a fractured party limped towards November, and until LBJ pulled an October surprise by halting bombing in ‘Nam, HHH was polled at 10% below Nixon. Still that wasn’t enough for the Democrat Humphries, who while getting only .7% less of the popular vote than Nixon, lost the electoral vote by a score of 301 to 191.

1972

The 1968 convention debacle had a residual effect on the Democratic party besides a loss to Nixon: at the 1972 convention, a committee was put together to make recommendations on how to broaden the participation and increase diversity in the nomination process. Senator George McGovern was put in charge of the committee and recommended that the selection process for delegates be put into the open. This led to a majority of states switching to the primary system.

McGovern also became the first nominee under the new system after Edward Muskie, the establishment favorite, became a target of Nixon’s “Dirty Tricks” campaign and was reported crying. Wallace (leader of the Dixiecrat branch of the Democrats) was also had a strong candidacy until he was shot by Aruthur Bremer and became paralyzed.

McGovern’s campaign against Nixon was marred by disaffection from the Democratic elite as well as two media incidents, both involving his running mate Thomas Eagleton. The disaffection from the Democratic bosses was so strong that some even threw their support behind Nixon.

The most famous event was the uncovering of skeletons in Eagleton’s closet, specifically electro-shock ones. At first McGovern joked about it saying that Eagleton would undergo a psyc-exam if the other candidates did too and said he was 1000% behind Eagleton. Then he asked Eagleton to resign.

The first event was when an unnamed Democratic senator was reported by Bob Novak as saying that McGovern was the party of “Amnesty, Abortion and Acid,” and saying that the Roman Catholics would revolt if they knew what McGovern was really about. Humorously enough, in 2007 Novak revealed that Eagleton was the Senator that said it.

McGovern lost in a landslide, with only MA and DC voting for McGovern. This monumental loss was seen as an indictment of the new primary system that also disempowered the elite, and by the 1980 election the DNC had instituted superdelegate reforms. From that point forward, active Democratic politicians and other individuals selected by the DNC would constitute over one fifth of the total vote in the Presidential nomination process.

Technorati Tags: superdelegates, democratic primary, nomination process, history of superdelegate system

See also: Superdelegates, The Super-Delegates Begin To Balk, More on the Democrat’s SuperDilemma, Shake-ups and Super-delegates, Clinton campaign considering ‘potentially incendiary steps’, The ‘Superdelegates’: Always Intended to be Independent, and Clinton ‘Interested in Acquiring Delegates, Period’.

With there being increasing evidence that Ron Paul is shifting from his Republican Presidential campaign to his reelection campaign for the House of Representatives — essentially dropping out of the Presidential race — the question becomes what to do with all the energy, effort, and money behind Mr. Paul’s spirited run. While I did not agree with a lot of his platform, he showed he was a viable, sincere candidate and, unlike other ‘outsider’ or independent candidates (Nader in 2004 or 2000, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Dennis Kucinich), he proved that he could combine grassroots support, galvanize several cross-sections of the population, and have significant fund raising capability. Though it appears he has ruled out running as a third party candidate for the 2008 Presidential election, his campaign shows that there is a tremendous opportunity to establish another national political party in America (and if anything has been made clear by the internal treatment of Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel by the Republican and Democratic party, it’s that the parties want nothing to do with them or public discussions on dissent and policy disagreements).

The question then becomes what could be the basis of a new third party in our current political system?

• Politically, individuals with high political capital would form the basis for the parties ‘national’ identity. These would include marginalized but formerly popular party politicians like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Pat Buchanan, former Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, and former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee, and prominent independent politicians such as Ralph Nader, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Jesse Ventura. Though they may not share much on social or economic agendas, they do share a commonality towards reform on the issue that has dominated the political landscape for the past 7 years and yet has seen the least actualized transformation: foreign policy. Both parties, with only minor differences, want to continue sending billions of dollars a year to Middle Eastern dictators, financially and militarily aiding Israel, prolonging military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, abating a non-diplomatic, hawkish stance towards Iran, and pursuing the War on Terror through the any-means-necessary dictum, including torture, civilian monitoring and spying, and the refutation of signed international treaties on justice and prisoner of war treatment. Within this lays a tremendous gap on policy pursued and policy desired; most Americans have rejected the Bush administrations foreign policy agenda, which will only be tweaked, not overhauled, if Hillary Clinton or John McCain were to be elected.

• Though there may be disagreements on how the American government spends money domestically, there can be tremendous agreement that some elements of government spending must be changed or curtailed. Like foreign policy, the realistic difference between Democratic and Republican party is minimal: both are guilty of passing the current federal budget (created by our ‘fiscal conservative’ President, George Bush), which has pushed the government deficit to record highs. Indeed, both parties are guilty of abating a reckless federal fiscal policy. This leaves room for a new party with a radically different vision of ‘government’ — one that spends less money overall and shifts money from war-making, war-facilitating, and corporate welfare to investment in American citizens through health care, education, and other domestic programs.

• Monetarily, Ron Paul managed to raise over 30 million dollars over in several quarters. If a new party was to combine the Green, Libertarian, and Reform party, it would have excellent fund raising capability as well as a solid party membership base (remember, Nader won almost 3 percent of the vote in 2000 and in many states won between 5 to 10 percent of the vote). With the money Ron Paul has a raised, viable candidates who present a realistic alternative to Republicans and Democrats could have incredible winning potential for local and Congressional races. Reinvestment of presidential campaign funds by Ron Paul into a new party would be wise as it seems that the Republicans are poised to unseat him in his primary, and such momentum and financial ability should not be squandered on furthering the Republican party’s agenda.

Now the real question is, when do we get started?

Technorati Tags: Ron Paul, House of Representatives, independent candidates, grassroots support, national political party, new third party, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader, foreign policy, Democratic, Republican party