A Delegate Loophole?

Updated: 11:42 a.m. ET Mar 15, 2008

From the magazine issue dated Mar 24, 2008

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Citing wiggle room in an obscure, 26-year-old Democratic Party rule, Hillary Clinton's campaign is leaving the door open to the idea of attempting to persuade Barack Obama's pledged delegates to switch their votes at the last minute and back the New York senator—despite fears among some party officials that it could throw this summer's Denver convention into chaos.

The question of whether pledged delegates must stick to the candidate they were elected to vote for has prompted party chatter for weeks. Clinton herself drew notice last week during a NEWSWEEK interview when she said her delegate numbers aren't "bleak at all," even though by most counts she trails Obama by more than 100. "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to," she added. Although her campaign quickly denied it was waging any effort to "flip" Obama's pledged delegates, Clinton's remarks weren't academic. After the 1980 battle between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, her chief strategist Harold Ickes noted, the party changed a rule that required pledged delegates to stick with their candidates no matter what. The current rule, adopted in 1982, states that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." A "good conscience" reason for a delegate to switch, Ickes told NEWSWEEK, would be if one candidate—such as, say, Clinton—was deemed more "electable." If delegates believe she has a better chance in November than Obama, Ickes said, "you bet" that would be a reason to change their vote. (He added, however, that the campaign is "focused" on winning over uncommitted superdelegates "at this point.")

Ickes's comments prompted a fierce comeback from Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "Despite repeated denials," he said, "the Clinton campaign finally admitted that they will go to any length to win." One party official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive matters, said the strategy behind Clinton's invocation of the 1982 rule was clear: "They're trying to open up a window for some of the Obama people to change their minds."

I don't really understand how delegates are apportioned. It's very confusing. I have a little better sense of how electoral votes are determined and that there are 538 of them with 270 needed to win the presidency. It may be worth contemplating this hypothetical: If we were counting electoral votes in the 27 states (and D.C) that Obama has won and the 16 states that Clinton has won as of today (when 8 states representing 73 electoral votes are still up for grabs), Clinton would be leading 263 to 202. If you subtract Florida and Michigan from her column, she is still up 219 to 202; and if you evenly split the 44 votes from those two states between the two candidates, she remains ahead 241 to 224 ... By the way, I might not want the nomination if I was either of them unless some agreement is made to fully enfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan before accepting it. Personally, I believe it would be fair to count Florida according to the vote that already occurred there. I also think it???s reasonable to expect that state to stay Republican in any case in the fall. In Michigan, however,the most recent polls have Clinton and Obama evenly dividing a new primary vote in that state, a place that has voted Democratic by consistently dwindling margins in the last 4 presidential elections and where polls currently give McCain a slight lead over either Clinton or Obama. I believe it is likely that the Democrats will lose the general election if they fail to hold Michigan's 17 electoral votes. If that happens, there will be one reason for it: a backlash against disenfranchisement that McCain will successfully exploit as a symbol of unfairness and division with the assistance of Michigan favorite son Mitt Romney as his running mate.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mageduley @ 03/27/2008 12:55:28 AM

But what about MI and FL voters being HEARD. What about Hillary screaming about revotes in those states. According to her, the voters don't matter. Not just super, but ANY delegate can vote for whoever they want. The voters really don't have any say in the matter.

So why is she screaming about disenfranchised voters? She herself is trying to make sure those voters are not heard.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Josselyn @ 03/25/2008 12:43:45 PM

HRC's campaign HAS already started trying to poach those delegates, despite their promises that they weren't/aren't! They did it prior to the recent Iowa county caucuses as outlined right here at Newsweek: http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/14/the-battle-for-iowa-continues.aspx
Now they're going after them in Texas prior to this weekend's caucuses there: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=935 To add insult to injury, it's been via robocalls in both states.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bumchicken @ 03/25/2008 12:25:09 PM

I don't really understand how delegates are apportioned. It's very confusing. I have a little better sense of how electoral votes are determined and that there are 538 of them with 270 needed to win the presidency. It may be worth contemplating this hypothetical: If we were counting electoral votes in the 27 states (and D.C) that Obama has won and the 16 states that Clinton has won as of today (when 8 states representing 73 electoral votes are still up for grabs), Clinton would be leading 263 to 202. If you subtract Florida and Michigan from her column, she is still up 219 to 202; and if you evenly split the 44 votes from those two states between the two candidates, she remains ahead 241 to 224 ... By the way, I might not want the nomination if I was either of them unless some agreement is made to fully enfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan before accepting it. Personally, I believe it would be fair to count Florida according to the vote that already occurred there. I also think it???s reasonable to expect that state to stay Republican in any case in the fall. In Michigan, however,the most recent polls have Clinton and Obama evenly dividing a new primary vote in that state, a place that has voted Democratic by consistently dwindling margins in the last 4 presidential elections and where polls currently give McCain a slight lead over either Clinton or Obama. I believe it is likely that the Democrats will lose the general election if they fail to hold Michigan's 17 electoral votes. If that happens, there will be one reason for it: a backlash against disenfranchisement that McCain will successfully exploit as a symbol of unfairness and division with the assistance of Michigan favorite son Mitt Romney as his running mate.