The Democratic presidential primary is expected to continue into the summer and possibly all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August without a clear-cut winner. Is it bad for the Democratic Party to fight it out for so long? Should superdelegates decide the election? What about Michigan and Florida? In this installment of “viewPOINT,” a feature examining issues of the day through the perspectives of UVM faculty, we ask members of the political science department to weigh in.

The issue
With less than 10 states left in the primary process and about 140 delegates separating Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it’s almost mathematically impossible for either candidate to clinch the nomination. Garrison Nelson, professor of political science, points out that the last time a convention had multiple ballots for president was 1952 when Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson pulled off a third ballot victory. A multi-ballot contest for vice president also occurred in 1956 when Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee won over Senator John F. Kennedy in a second ballot victory. But brokered conventions were an acceptable path to the nomination back then. No so today, as voters aren’t used to the idea of select individuals (superdelegates) making the decision for them.

How did they get here?
Nelson says the reason the superdelegate feature was added in 1984 was to overcome the "amateur" nominations of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. Superdelegates represented one-seventh of the delegates in 1984 and were the force behind the nomination of former vice president Walter Mondale. The number of superdelegates was raised to one-sixth of the total in 1988 and is now one-fifth of the total (796 of 4049). As of mid-March, Clinton had about 237 and Obama 207, leaving the 352 uncommitted superdelegates to “wait for the last primaries in June and a relatively clear winner for whom to vote.”

Nelson adds that since the largest number of superdelegates in 1984 came from the U.S. House, Mondale was obliged to name Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (a Tip O'Neill protégé) as vice president. The ticket would lose 49 states.

Searching for an acceptable solution
One school of thought in regard to the role of superdelegates is that they should vote the same way the people of their district voted. Others say they should vote for the candidate they believe has the best chance to win the general election.

John Burke, professor of political science and expert on presidential transitions, says that the initial problem with the superdelegate system was that too few Democratic office holders were chosen as delegates. In 1976, for example, only 14 percent of the delegates at the convention that nominated Jimmy Carter were members of Congress. “Is this a recipe for legislative success and support?” asks Burke. “I don't think so.”

Anthony Gierzynski, associate professor of political science, points out that Americans play a much larger role in the nomination process than in most countries and reminds that party leaders basically chose nominees with little input from voters prior to the McGovern-Fraser reforms of 1968. “It is good to have party leaders play a role. Having party members choose nominees guarantees a choice in the general election, and the party has an interest in putting forward their best, most appealing candidate for the general election. It should also be kept in mind that the U.S. is unique in giving voters a dominant role in selecting party nominees; most other parties, including those in the UK for example, slate their candidates without any primaries.”

Effects of a drawn-out battle
There are two schools of thought regarding whether a long, drawn-out battle hurts the Democratic Party. Most pundits agree that if it becomes increasingly nasty, it will hurt the party when the general election arrives. Others say the longer the Democratic race continues to dominate the media, the more it pushes Republican nominee John McCain into the background, making him appear less important.

“A prolonged battle hurts the Democrats because the Clintons would rather 'win ugly' than lose to Obama,” says Nelson. “She will be nominated, and black voters will sit this one out much as they did in 1988 after Dukakis did not offer the vice presidency to Jesse Jackson. Hillary is the glue that Republicans need to overcome ultra-conservative opposition to John McCain.”

Gierzynski agrees that a lengthy race hurts the Dems and thinks the best way to determine a winner is to stick by the delegate count. “I think the candidate with the most delegates earned via the primaries and caucuses should be the nominee,” he says. “If it goes to the convention it has the potential to hurt the Democrats, but it depends on how it is handled.”

Burke has no doubt that a prolonged battle favors McCain. “Absolutely,” he says. “The conventional wisdom — and it is right — is that the sooner you sew up your party's nomination, the better it is to focus the effort on the opposition,” he says. “An Obama-Clinton prolonged battle works to McCain's advantage.”

What to do with Florida and Michigan
When Florida and Michigan tried to move their primaries up the primary calendar, the DNC, led by former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, essentially said "don’t do it or we won’t count your delegates." True to his word, both those states are now trying to figure out ways to re-do their elections so their delegates are seated at the convention.

“They didn't follow the rules,” says Gierzynski. “And there is a strong rationale behind those rules, which is to prevent front-loading, so their delegates should not be counted — period.”

Burke says that the candidates agreed not to compete in states that violated the Democratic Party’s rules by trying to move up their primaries. “Michigan is especially problematic for Clinton in that Obama wasn't even on the ballot and neither campaigned in Florida, except for fundraisers. So, should the two states count? From the perspective of Democratic theory, I don't think so.”

Nelson says Michigan, which he points out is a blue state with a Democratic governor, will probably have a re-vote. Florida on the other hand, a mostly red state with a Republican governor, probably won’t. “The states put themselves in this predicament and should pay for it,” he says. “But Hillary and Obama could score some points if they used some of their millions on underwriting a Florida redo rather than spend it blasting one another.”

Nelson’s advice to avoid future such debacles: “If every American wishes to vote in the primaries, they should pressure the two major parties to hold one national primary or four major regional primaries.”

Predictions
Nelson says that Obama’s recent speech on race means that his “race-transcendent stance has run out of gas” and that his relationship with his former controversial former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, will be a daily negative drumbeat. He notes that the Clintons have sunk fellow Democrats in the past and are classic "me-firsters" unconcerned about collateral party damage. “Their hope is that after she squeaks out a narrow win, the blacks and young people who have fueled the Obama candidacy will rally around her after the August nomination. However, many blacks sat out the Dukakis election in 1988, and first-time voters tend to become disillusioned more easily. John McCain is the one Republican with crossover appeal, and it will be a divided electorate propelling McCain into the White House and continuing Democrats in control of Congress.”