Edwards the Kingmaker, Superdelegates, and the DNC

[Fash]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edw ... 01-29.html

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has his sights set on playing kingmaker at the Denver convention in August, one of his most senior campaign officials hinted Monday.

While dismissing suggestions that this implied Edwards had accepted he was out of contention for the nomination, Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince said the candidate would probably get enough delegates to play a decisive role in tipping the Democratic nomination under party rules.

Party insiders could also give Edwards the nomination at a brokered convention if they judged him more electable in a match-up against GOP front-runner Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). “At a brokered convention, all bets are off,” said Prince.

Prince told reporters in a conference call that in “a worst-case scenario” Edwards would control 20 to 25 percent of the Democratic delegates heading into the convention. He predicted that Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would each have 35 to 40 percent of the delegates, well short of half the 4,049 needed to win the nomination.

The race could leave Obama and Clinton with nearly the same number of delegates because complex rules would divide delegates evenly among candidates who win more than 30 percent in the congressional districts that make up each state.

Spokesmen for the Obama and Clinton campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

Many political observers believe that if Edwards had the power to pick the Democratic nominee and could not grab the nomination for himself, he would throw his support to Obama. During a memorable exchange at a Democratic debate in New Hampshire this month, Edwards sided with Obama as a fellow candidate of change and drew a sharp contrast with Clinton, whom he has labeled a candidate of the status quo.

Prince argued that since nearly 800 of the delegates are so-called superdelegates and thus not bound by the results of any state primary or caucus, a candidate would have to get 60 percent of all the delegates in play to be assured of the nomination.

Prince said that Obama or Clinton would have to win nearly 80 percent of the vote in many congressional districts around the country in order to win the nomination outright — a difficult achievement considering how competitive the race has been so far.

Edwards’s campaign manager, David Bonior, said on a conference call with reporters, “We have a great shot to pick up a lot of delegates.”

But he refused to say on the conference call how Edwards would wield his delegates: “We’re not going to talk about how we’re going to use our delegates.”

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown University who specializes in presidential primary politics, said Edwards could help decide the nomination.

“If Obama and Clinton come out even after Super Tuesday and Edwards had 50 delegates, Edwards could make a difference if [superdelegates] are split,” said Wayne. “Edwards is not going to drop out if he can have an impact.”

At the Democratic convention this August, delegates will be allowed to vote freely even if they are already pledged to a candidate, Wayne explained. But he expected that Edwards’s delegates would do his bidding.

Wayne said that Edwards’s delegates have been “hand-picked” because of their loyalty.

“That loyalty would probably extend to the convention, though Democrats have a rule that would not impose loyalty,” he explained.

Wayne, however, predicted that either Clinton or Obama would probably wrap up the nomination before the convention, but conceded “anything is possible.”

The scenario of a brokered convention could unfold in the GOP race, though analysts consider it less likely because most of the Republican primary states allocate all delegates to the winner. Unlike at the Democratic convention, Republican candidates would control the delegates pledged to them and could give support directly to a rival.

...

The more they talk about it, the more obvious it is how little power 'the people' actually wield.

[Ashur]

Yeah, no shit. That's depressing.

In a primary, I vote for someone. That vote actually gets applied to a "delegate" who can vote anyway they fucking want to and may even be someone's minion in convoluted backroom deals.

Then in the actual election, Electorial College shennanigans.

And here I thought Caucuses were fucked up.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

As an outsider, the US system seems one of the least democratic - in the sense of one man, one vote - of the so-called democratic systems. I realize that there's a lot of stuff to take into account with such a huuuuuuge number of people from such varied areas, but really! Add to that the two-party system and it's so convoluted and ridiculous that I don't fault americans for being disenfranchised with the political process.

[Boogahz]

Well, it isn't really a Democracy, right?

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

Well, it isn't really a Democracy, right?

Even if it's a republic it's ostensibly democratic practices, right?

[Fash]

Well, Edwards is dropping out of the race... but it seems he isn't going to endorse anyone just yet. Why not? You'd think by now he'd know who he supports... I guess he/they want to see how Super Tuesday goes without an endorsement...

Guiliani's gone, Thompson's gone... Ron Paul is still hanging in there and picking up delegates!

[Canelek]

That's too bad about Edwards. He may have been the best all around candidate imo.

[Wulfran]

As an outsider, the US system seems one of the least democratic - in the sense of one man, one vote - of the so-called democratic systems. I realize that there's a lot of stuff to take into account with such a huuuuuuge number of people from such varied areas, but really! Add to that the two-party system and it's so convoluted and ridiculous that I don't fault americans for being disenfranchised with the political process.

I've posted some of my thoughts on the US system on other threads. It really does make me shake my head, but I can't say its really any less democratic than the parliamentary democracy we have up here. The party leaders are chosen by the parties, in what are in many cases back room deals (to work out the reward for the Kingmakers like it appears Edwards wants to be) similar to what we at VV mostly accuse the Republicans of doing, at a convention similar to the US ones where you hope the delegates sent by your riding/area/district back the person you want them too, not the one that buys them the most drinks/best hooker or offers them the most personal favours. This whole "primary" process seems wasteful when you come up to the reality that the convention is still where the leader/candidate is chosen, so the elections themselves are (or at least can be in many circumstances) largely irrelevant.

The two party thing seems a little limited to me, haven grown up with a system that there's at least 3 national parties and additional ones on the margins, but in reality even with our multi-party system in Canada, its going to be one of the 2 biggies: the Liberals or the Conservatives (Canadians have never been stupid enough to elect the socialists who are our 3rd largest party, although the Greens have been building and may eventually get to #3). In Canada, the 3rd, 4th parties are generally more protest votes rather than realistic choices to form a gov't.

One thing I absolutely love about the US system is the whole idea of putting distinct issues to the public via the propositions on their ballots. Up here we check a name and go home, again hoping our representative we will do the right thing, with our sole recourse being that we can replace them in 4 years if they don't. From what I understand you guys could do some fine-tuning on the whole spoiled ballots thing, due to improper responses on them, but I would love to be able to directly impacthave input on some issues like that.