Electability Is Name of the Game

The Democratic delegate system has come under intense scrutiny. The close and quirky contest has revealed several problems for the Democrats that they may have to solve to avoid a brokered convention come August in Denver.

First, the Democratic party has to deal with two renegade states that attempted to buck the primary system: Florida and Michigan. The party penalized the states by nullifying the primaries and declining to seat their delegates. The Republicans, on the other hand, removed half of the delegates maintaining the competitive nature of those primaries. Clinton scored "victories" in both of the contests, which have been questioned.

The wins appeared valid to others, especially Clinton. In Michigan, Obama's campaign decided to delete his name from the ballot in the state in preference to focusing on South Carolina. This was a campaign strategy -- not a requirement. At the time, Clinton had great support among superdelegates and unions in the state. Voter turnout was small.

In Florida, all of the candidates pledged not to campaign there in adherence to the approved early state primaries schedule. Again, the strategy favored Obama. He did not have to waste resources in a state where Clinton held huge leads in the polls. Voters in the sunshine state turned out strong for Clinton, and she won handily on huge voter turnout. She, in fact, received several hundred thousand more votes in the state than the winner of the Republican primary, McCain.

But a new investigative piece by Wayne Barrett throws new light on these two states. Barrett argues that Republicans were critical in leading the charge to move up both of these primaries, and in Florida tied the bill to ensuring a paper trail to electronic voting. Worse, the Democratic party did not have to create such a harsh punishment for the two states. It makes one question why Howard Dean's 50-state strategy shrunk to 48 states.

The Clinton campaign has been pushing for these wins to count. The Obama campaign has been coy about their status and has not made any effort to support a re-vote or any other simple solution. It's a stalemate at this point where the delegates stay in limbo.

The Democratic delegate system is complex having both pledged delegates and superdelegates. Pledged delegates are mostly decided by either caucuses or primaries, basically representing the voters. Superdelegates are elected officials or party officials with strong ties to the party. A superdelegate vote counts for the same amount as a pledged delegate.

The system sounds decidedly undemocratic. Yet in this very close race between Clinton and Obama, neither side seems likely to arrive at a majority without winning a large number of the superdelegates, approximately 796. Clinton holds a slight margin of superdelegates, while Obama holds a wider margin among pledged delegates. She requires more superdelegates than Obama to win the nomination.

If the contest continues an essential tie, the superdelegates will be forced to decide on a candidate. It would be a first since the system was created in 1980 by the Democratic party and many hope it happens before the convention in August.

Those superdelegates will have to decide on the electability argument, and I think many may find Clinton has a better chance to defeat McCain in the general election based on an analysis of electability in swing states and their effect upon the electoral college.

>To order reprints of this article, click here: Reprints