So it turns out that delegates are free to change their minds right up until the Convention

[Apollo11]

That would mean that the Clinton campaign is correct to claim that their candidate cannot be forced to quit before the Convention. Who knew? :eyes:

The following commentary is published on www.rasmussenreports.com

THE ROBOT RULE

By Susan Estrich

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

We called it "the robot rule." I still have an old and slightly rusty pin showing a robot with a red slash through it. "Delegates are not robots" was our rallying cry in seeking to defeat what was then Rule 11(h) of the Delegate Selection Rules, or Rule f(3)(c) of the Convention Rules, which bound delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate to whom they were pledged according to the results of their state's primary or caucus.

The year was 1980. The fight was between incumbent Jimmy Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy. (...) The Kennedy campaign, which was my team, challenged the provision at the Rules Committee, and the vote on the Rule became the campaign's reason for continuing until August even though Carter had a solid majority of pledged delegates.

I can't remember how many position papers, speeches, memos and letters I wrote about Rule 11(h), but it was a lot. While some states had their own laws binding delegates to vote in accord with the results of their state's contest, the validity of such laws was open to question (...)

My favorite hypothetical was the one about an "ax murderer": What if, sometime between the primary and the convention, it became known that the candidate who had won the primary was in fact an ax murderer? Would the delegates still be bound to support the ax murderer? (...)

Last weekend, with his endorsement of Barack Obama, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson argued that superdelegates should not deny the will of the people. But he's denying the will of the people of his home state of New Mexico, as Ted Kennedy is the will of the people of Massachusetts, even though Richardson will be a New Mexico delegate at the convention and Kennedy will be a Massachusetts delegate. In both cases, the elected official will be voting for Obama, while their states overwhelmingly supported Clinton.

They have every right to do so. Superdelegates are not robots. Neither, for that matter, are delegates anymore. It may not be democratic, but it is certainly consistent with the rules of the Democratic Party, and with the purpose of those rules.

You can read the whole commentary here:
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/the_robot_rule

[leftofcool]

1. It has been the rule since 1972

and what Hillary has been saying all along.

[Apollo11]

2. According to the article, since 1982

Either way, it looks like delegates can change their minds and exercise their judgement.

[leftofcool]

4. I think it was kicked around after the 1972 elections

on the super delegate thing then some rules were re-written then changed again

[shaniqua6392]

3. Thanks for posting this!!

Everyone forgets what the SD's are really there for and Clinton is right to stay in the race until the end. Anything can happen between now and the convention. Why should she drop out and disappoint half of the Democratic Party that voted for her?

[bowens43]

11. she should drop out

because she can't win the GE and she is intentionally destroying our chances of winning in 2008 so that she can get another shot at it in 2012.
The woman, if she had even a shred of integrity would have dropped out long ago.

[polichick]

5. Someone on msnbc last night pointed out that the campaigns choose the truest of believers...

...to be delegates ~ and that's certainly the case for the ones I know.

[mmonk]

20. As a delegate, I confirm this. This, of course, is in regard to

pledged delegates.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. There isn't much that would force me out of the voting booth

however a stunt like that being proposed here would do it.

"Last weekend, with his endorsement of Barack Obama, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson argued that superdelegates should not deny the will of the people. But he's denying the will of the people of his home state of New Mexico, as Ted Kennedy is the will of the people of Massachusetts, even though Richardson will be a New Mexico delegate at the convention and Kennedy will be a Massachusetts delegate."

Susan is a clever liar. Richardson is arguing that the superdelegates should consider the end results of the primaries and caucuses - if there is a clear winner from that process (and barring some inexplicable outcome that would be Obama) the superdelegates should not overturn that result. Arguing that this means that the superdelegates should vote the same was as their respective state primary or caucus voted is a lie, a clever lie, but a lie.

[Apollo11]

17. I disagree with your description of Susan Estrich as a liar.

One can argue that all superdelegates should vote for the candidate who has the most "pledged" delegates nationwide (the Bill Richardson defense).

One can also argue that superdelegates should vote the same as their respective state primary or caucus (the position of Senator Boxer, among others).

Both positions are valid. Neither position is a lie.

In any case, it turns out that superdelegates can vote for who they like best. Either way, they will be able to find some way to justify their choice.

[Vinca]

7. I think it was KO who said last night that this notion of overturning

pledged delegates is effectively disenfranchising everyone who has cast a vote for Obama so far. He mentioned the Clinton accusation that Obama is trying to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida voters, but her proposal would disenfranchise millions more.

[totodeinhere]

19. I am so shocked at the Clinton's camp's hypocrisy.

:sarcasm:

[Hugabear]

8. Maybe we can convince John Edwards to get back into the race

Who knows, maybe with enough persuasion, he could get enough delegates and SD to change their minds and vote for him!

Hell, if Hillary can use that as her strategy, why not someone who's 100% more likable?

[bowens43]

9. Who knew? Well, just about everyone.

[Hugabear]

10. Technically, this is true with the presidential election also

In the presidential election, remember that you vote for your state's electors, you're not casting a direct vote for president. Each state decides how to choose their electors, and so far they've all used a general election to decide. But there's nothing actually binding a state's electors to the popular vote, and I'm sure there have been a very few cases where an elector has "flipped" their vote.

[MaineDem]

12. But candidates for National Delegate must sign a statement of support for their candidate

At least here in Maine. I think it's the same in all states.

If I were elected to be a National Delegate by the state delegates for a certian campaign I'd never be able to show my face to them if I voted another way in Denver.

[Clovis Sangrail]

13. "overwhelmingly"?

New Mexico was 49% Clinton / 48% Obama
A win yes, but hardly an overwhelming win.

Something else that's conveniently ignored...
supers voting for a candidate other then who their state voted for isn't a one way street.
Hillary also has supers from states that voted for the other candidate.

[thevoiceofreason]

14. That piece is a bit . . . slanted?

Hillary did not overwhelmingly win New Mexico - it was a basic toss-up that she won by a thousand or so.


And to say the validity of the state laws binding delegates to vote a particular way is open to question is no different from saying the law saying I cannot myrder someone is of questionable validity -- there has never been a successful challenge to such a law (of which I am aware).

[dkf]

15. The question is, if something happened to Obama, why would delegates choose Hillary.

I for one, would say Gore and I bet most Obama people would be with me.

[indimuse]

16. K&R!

O's supporter won't care...they will ignore this and continue to spread the Hillary is finishes lie around.

[george_maniakes]

18. i'd like if the superdelegates remaining all got together and choose a side so the numbers...

would be clear....that way whoever was going to lose for sure could be pressured to drop out, because they would lose on the first ballot anyways.

[Apollo11]

21. Kick

:kick: