(Updated: 4/11/16)
According to the “official” delegate count and “The Media”, Secretary Clinton currently enjoys a nearly insurmountable lead of 729 Delegates… a figure the pundits all agree would be nearly impossible for Senator Sanders to overcome (and in my opinion, specifically intended to discourage turnout/support for Sanders). But what if that number were the result of an unfair delegate system?
A few weeks ago, Senator Sanders suggested that the so-called “Super Delegates” of each state be apportioned according to what percentage of the vote each candidate won by… accurately reflecting the will of the voters they (supposedly) represent instead of voting for their personal favorite/BFF. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.
A couple of weeks ago, NBC’s “Meet the Press” totally mischaracterized what Senator Sanders was requesting, creating an entirely new Super Delegate system doubling the number of unpledged (aka: “Super”) delegates (from 106 to 212), then claimed “even under Sanders’ own system, he’d still be way behind.” Except, that’s not his system.
Knowing that Sanders was only requesting a “fair distribution” of the Super Delegates, it made absolutely no sense to me how #MtP could alter the total number of delegates in such a way in which neither candidate lost any ground.
So I decided to do the math myself, plugging the number of Delegates/Super-Delegates and win percentages into a spreadsheet to see what the outcome would be if Delegates were distributed fairly by win ratio and not by personal preference. And what I found was stunning… not just the resulting numbers, but the level of unfairness it takes to give Secretary Clinton her enormous lead.
As a refresher, “Super Delegates” are current & former elected Democratic officials and members of the DNC. “Elected officials” includes members of Congress, governors and former Presidents/VP’s. But members of the DNC can be anyone with power & influence (corporate leaders.) So it is no surprise these groups would be predisposed to favor Clinton. They were an invention following the chaotic DNC Convention of 1968. You’ll note that the GOP does not (yet) use “Super Delegates”. So there is no justifiable argument to allow these representatives of the voters in their state to vote differently than the voters of their state.
To be clear, what Senator Sanders is requesting is for the Super Delegates in each state to be distributed PROPORTIONALLY according to each candidate’s win percentage. So if the state votes 50/50 for Bernie vs Hillary, the SD’s should be split 50/50 as well. That seems fair, right? I have no clue what method #MtP used or thought Senator Sanders was proposing.
Presently, “Super Delegates” can vote any way they like regardless of how the voters of their state voted. I examined the vote totals (source) and how the Super Delegates were distributed, and what I found made me sick:
States Bernie won…
-
New Hampshire, Hillary takes all 6 (of 8) super delegates. (Sanders won 61% of vote)
-
Colorado, Hillary takes all 8 of the 12 super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 59% of vote)
- Minnesota, Hillary takes 13 of 15 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 61.6% of vote)
- Oklahoma, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 51.9% of vote)
- Vermont, Hillary takes 3 of 9 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 86.1% of vote)
-
Kansas, Hillary takes the only (1 of 4) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 67.7% of vote)
-
Nebraska, Hillary takes all 3 (of 5) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 57.1% of vote)
- Maine, Hillary takes 3 of 4 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 64.3% of vote)
- Dems Abroad, Hillary takes 2 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 68.9% of vote)
-
Michigan, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 49.8% of vote, Clinton 48.3%)
- Idaho, Hillary takes 1 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 78% of vote)
- Utah, Hillary takes 2 of 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 79.3% of vote)
- Alaska, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 81.6% of vote)
- Hawaii, Hillary takes 6 of 8 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 69.8% of vote)
-
Washington, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 72.7% of vote)
- Wisconsin, Hillary takes 6 of the 7 (with 3 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 56% of vote)
-
Wyoming, Hillary takes all 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 55.7% of vote)
By no standard I can imagine does ANY of that seem fair. How does the LOSER of a race come away with most… or in many cases ALL Super Delegates belonging to a particular state?
Number of states Bernie WON where he didn’t receive a single Super Delegate: SEVEN
States… win or lose… where Sanders has yet to be awarded a single Super Delegate: NINETEEN
- Iowa
- New Hampshire
- South Carolina
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- Georgia
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Virginia
- Louisiana
- Kansas
- Nebraska
- Michigan
- Northern Marianas Is.
- Illinois
- Missouri
- Washington
- Wyoming
States… win or lose… where Clinton was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NONE
If Super Delegates were apportioned by same percentage each candidate won:
Hillary: 205 Sanders: 185
————————----------——-
Difference: 20
(Note: “Pledged” delegates ALSO are not distributed proportionately by state. Difference in “PLEDGED” delegates if distributed proportionately: 237 [vs 290].)
Clinton’s Super Delegate lead would be cut to just TWENTY if they were awarded proportionally/fairly as Sanders suggests they should be. That’s a HUGE reduction from the FOUR-HUNDRED & THIRTY-NINE SD lead she currently enjoys as of this writing.
Notice, I did NOT award the winner of each state every Super Delegate as some might try to claim Sanders is asking, as if he’s trying to “game The System” to reap some sort of unfair advantage. No, I split the SD’s “proportionally” based on the percentage by which each candidate won like he suggests. If anyone is benefiting from an unfair system here, it’s Secretary Clinton.
Now, reapportioning the Super Delegates alone doesn’t give Bernie the lead. We still await the apportioning of the three remaining unpledged delegates from Wisconsin, but he currently trails by only slightly more than 250 delegates (with just over Two-Thousand delegates remaining). Subtracting those hundreds of undemocratically “gifted” Super Delegates awarded to Clinton definitely reveals her lead is FAR less insurmountable and her victory far less inevitable (not to mention: more reflective of the electorate.)
Senator Sanders has now won 17 states as compared to Clinton’s 20. He has won 7 of the last 8 contests. If Super Delegates are distributed according to win ratios, Sanders only needs to win the remaining states by an average of 57.03% in order to win the Democratic nomination (Trump, by contrast, needs over 60% to win his Party’s nomination). That’s about as close to a TIE as you’re gonna get.
I hate when people attack “The Media” for doing what media does: parroting whatever creates the biggest headline. But in this case, they indeed have a role to play. They breathlessly report the delegate numbers provided them by the DNC without question or further investigation which has a very tangible impact on the turnout & support for each candidate. We all winced when Fox “news” took it upon themselves last year to decide who would appear on stage with the front-runner candidates and who would be relegated to the so-called “kids table” debates. Reporting an unfair delegate lead without introspection is no less damning to the “trailing” candidates.
The Iowa caucuses were only 70 days ago. There are 64 more days remaining until the last caucus in June. We are barely past Halftime. When adjusted, Senator Sanders is behind by only slightly more than 250 (combined) delegates. There are 2,008 additional delegates left to be won. 12.8% is hardly an insurmountable lead, and makes Clinton’s “inevitable” victory seem a little more “evitable”.
Super Delegates are a "thumb on the scale" that allowed Clinton claim a 400+ "Delegate" lead before even a single vote was cast. The intent is obvious: to suppress support/turnout for her opponents by discouragement. They should not be allowed to announce whom they are supporting early.
(Special note: This delegate unfairness was discussed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday morning. The video can be seen here.)
(About the author: I have been writing the weekly Op/Ed “Mugsy’s RapSheet” for over a decade. And while I am a longtime Bernie fan & supporter, I have also pledged that should Hillary win the nomination, I WILL vote for her because the alternative is just too unfathomable to allow.)
