THE ROBOT RULE -- By Susan Estrich (about so-called "pledged" delegates)

[Apollo11]

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

[flor de jasmim]

1. So, in other words, we should hear no complaints from Clinton if there is a mass exodus...?? (n/t)

[leftofcool]

2. Or from Obama if Kerry, Kennedy and others change their minds?

[krkaufman]

11. That's what I've been thinking. She's certainly supported the concept of any/all of her delegates .

... abandoning her.

Estrich's delegates argument would seem more relevant, and certainly less transparent, if she weren't a Clinton supporter. Or has she been writing op-eds decrying the "delegate robotization" for years, since 1980? Or is it only when it's to her advantage?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Shame

Absent an ax murder or similar, delegates should vote for whom they are pledged. Shame on Estrich for urging delegates to violate The People's trust - Clintonian politics at its most basic.

[susankh4]

4. Thanks!

K&R

[Jakes Progress]

5. Has anyone asked Ted

how he feels about Hillary continuing? Is what was good for the gander also good for the goose?

The disappointing thing about all this to me is the inconsistency of those who defend the rules and procedures when it benefits them but want to toss them out when it doesn't. Carried this far, inconsistency becomes hypocrisy.

[polmaven]

6. K&R

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Richardson's state did not overwhelmingly support Clinton

It was quite close:


Clinton 73,105

Obama 71,396


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NM

[MNDemNY]

10. Your being too "technical"

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Is it reasonable to call a victory margin of 1% "overwhelming"

[MNDemNY]

13. Is it "reasonable " to say that super delegates votes should reflect the will of ones constituents,

and then come out and do the opposite?:shrug: :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Are they argueing that each super delegate should vote how their constitients voted, or

are they arguing that all super delegates vote how the majority of Democratic voters in the US voted?

[bemildred]

8. Estrich is a Carville clone. nt

[yodermon]

9. Alright, fine. Try to influence the Pledged Dels. Go for it. See how it plays out. Have at it.

:eyes:

[burythehatchet]

14. Wow. Rasmussen and Ostrich in one post. I just threw up a little.

[tinrobot]

15. But Obama is not the axe murderer...

Clinton is the one trying to pull a Tonya Harding...

[Chicken George]

16. Tonya Harding?

Forget Tanya. She should pull a Bruce Lee and put her heel up his ass!

K&R

[tinrobot]

17. How about Ghandi?

n/t

[bellasgrams]

20. Good one Chicken Geor.

[Doctor_J]

18. This should probably read "Fox News's Susan Estrich..."

to provide the full context.