Saturday, February 16, 2008
It's appropriate that our two major political parties are depicted as different animals. Forty days and forty nights out from the Iowa caucuses, the elephant and the donkey seem very different indeed. The Republicans have been split on attitudinal lines, between varying strains of conservatism and moderation.
And their delegate selection rules, based on their notion of fairness, have produced a clear and unambiguous outcome.
The Democrats, in contrast, have been split on demographic lines, between blacks and Latinos, old and young, upscale and downscale. The delegate selection rules, based on their notion of fairness, are heading the party not to a clear outcome but to a conflict in which the losing side is likely to feel profoundly aggrieved.
Winner-take-all is the Republican idea of fairness. The party seeks unity and uniformity, and doesn't encourage dissent. You know the rules in advance, and if you come out ahead you get the big prize. Thus, few Republicans thought it unfair when John McCain got all 58 delegates from Missouri on Super Tuesday after beating Mike Huckabee there 33 percent to 32 percent.
McCain has gotten only a minority of ALL primary votes and has fared poorly in caucuses, but he has clinched the party's nomination, however long radio talk show hosts carp and Mike Huckabee campaigns.
For the Democrats, the carping may just be starting. The Democrats' idea of fairness is proportional representation.
This makes sense for a party that typically has been made up of disparate minorities. The current rules came out of the 1988 contest, in which Jesse Jackson felt his voters were underrepresented. The problem is that the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been so close that neither has built a significant lead -- or is likely to do so in the contests still to come.
The result is that the nomination could be determined by the 792 or so super-delegates -- public and party officials -- who were given convention votes in the early 1980s as a potential check on overenthusiastic and naive primary voters and caucus-goers.
The combination of scrupulous proportionality of elected delegates and the generous profusion of super-delegates sets the party on a collision course. Clinton currently trails Obama slightly in elected delegates and may do so even if she wins the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4. But she currently leads among super-delegates, and so it's possible that group could give her the nomination even while lagging in primaries and caucuses.
If that's not problematical enough, Clinton has called for reinstatement of the Michigan and Florida delegates stripped from those states by the Democratic National Committee for holding their primaries too early. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot; Clinton left hers on and defeated "uncommitted." She carried Florida by about the margin she held in national polls then -- a margin that has vanished since.
You can hear the cries now, echoing the Florida controversy of 2000. "Count every vote" will be Clinton's cry -- the argument Al Gore's forces made. "Don't change the rules after the game is played" will be Obama's cry -- the argument of the Republican lawyers. The Florida fiasco polarized the nation because the arguments that each side made were in line with its basic ideas of fairness.
Obama fans will see this as an attempt to steal the nomination from the people's choice. Clinton fans will argue that denying representation to the nation's fourth and eighth largest states, both closely divided in the last two elections, would be political suicide. The Democrats' determination to design a system all their constituencies would consider fair threatens to produce a confrontation whose result, whatever it is, will be bitterly regarded by large and important party constituencies as profoundly unfair.
Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S. News and World Report and Co-Author of the "Almanac of American Politics.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
See Other Political Commentaries
See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.