Convention rules suddenly might matter

The Democrats have been tinkering with their convention rules since the early 1970s. First there was the McGovern-Fraser commission which took power in the convention away from the party leaders and established affirmative action quotas for states' delegations. The result was the disastrous McGovern candidacy in 1972. So they added in the superdelegates - elected Democrats who would have automatic votes at the convention without going through the primary process. These superdelegates haven't been important up to now at the convention except for helping Walter Mondale win in 1984. But now with the prospect of a close battle between Clinton and Obama, attention is now being paid to those unpledged superdelegates. Clinton has the lead in pledges from superdelegates but there is a large pool out there of elected officials who have held off on endorsements and who have their fingers in the wind to see whom they should pledge to.

But the role of lawmakers and other party professionals in presidential nominating conventions has shifted over time. The nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who had not won a single Democratic primary, in 1968 set off a backlash among party activists. The primary and caucus system they set up, including rule changes as to who could attend the Democratic Party's national convention, marginalized the party professionals, including members of Congress.

Party leaders say it contributed to a landslide loss for Democratic nominee George McGovern in 1972. "One of the major unintended consequences of reform was that members of Congress and other elected officials of the party weren't going to convention anymore," says Rep. David Price (D) of North Carolina, who helped draft party reforms creating a system of unpledged degates, now known as superdelegates, in the 1970s.

"Some of us thought that the convention had become a total reflection of candidate [voter] preferences and it would be healthy to have a group of delegates who could become brokers if the occasion should arise," he adds.

At the time, no one anticipated that the unpledged delegates would plunge into the pledging process. "But I do think the addition of the so-called superdelegates is a change that has had a desired effect: bringing the elected officials back to the convention," Representative Price says.

On Capitol Hill, the chase after superdelegate support has been unrelenting since summer. So far, 81 members of Congress have endorsed Senator Clinton, 49 have endorsed Senator Obama, and 15 have endorsed former Sen. John Edwards (D) of North Carolina.

The other problem facing the Democrats as a result of their tinkering with the rules is their rule mandating that all the states award their delegates on a proportional basis. The Republicans allow states to award the delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Thus, it will be faster for the Republican front-runner to rack up big totals after narrow victories by taking all the delegates from states such as New York and New Jersey.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama will have a harder time delivering that knock-out blow. Even with victories in many of the states, Clinton might still lack a majority of the delegates. Obama could come close enough to get almost as many delegates as she does. Or vice versa.

This is not the first time that the Democratic Party harmed itself through their convention rules. In the antebellum years, the Democrats had a rule that a candidate had to get 2/3 of the convention votes in order to win the nomination. This supermajority was so difficult to attain that they ended up with compromise candidates who were mediocrities like Pierce and Buchanan. And this year, we may see those convention and delegate allocation rules having the potential to harm the party as a whole. The Democratic Party doesn't benefit by having a drawn-out, acrimonious fight between the Clinton and Obama forces while the Republicans wrap up their fight and John McCain can start work on healing wounds with conservatives who can't stand him.

And drawing out the Democratic fight is, as David Broder writes today, not good for Hillary Clinton. The longer Democratic voters have a chance to ponder another Clinton presidency and to see her and her husband close up the more likely that they're going to decide that they just don't want to have all that mess back again. And Obama will be there with all his fresh, fluffy, and idealistic rhetoric and promises of that splendid future his candidacy is based on.