A couple of updates on my piece on delegates from last week (warning, lots of wonkery ahead): First off, the New York Times has short piece on superdelegates that covers a lot of the same ground but neglects to note that Edwards has some and incorrectly states that pledged delegates are required to vote for the candidate they are pledged to (there may be state rules, but that doesn't affect the outcome at the DNC if a delegate breaks them as far as I can tell). Still, I'm glad to see that the media is starting to figure out that this is going to be a big deal.
If you weren't convinced the delegate race is going to remain tight the New York Times had a much better piece about the details of delegate allocation by Adam Nagourney. Some states assign delegates by congressional district as well as state-wide and, since the delegates are assigned proportionally, that means that a close vote only results in a delegate advantage for the person who gets more votes if the congressional district has an odd number of delegates (in which case the candidate with a plurality gets one extra delegate). Just in case the system wasn't weird enough. This is yet another reason the delegate count will be fairly even coming out of February 5th no matter what the acutal popular vote is. Incidentally, the tight delegate race is yet another reason Kennedy's endorsement of Obama matters more than it might otherwise. Superdelegates are going to play a role in the eventual decision almost certainly and, as political insiders, they will certainly be influenced by Kennedy's opinion.
And in case the Florida/Michigan delegate mess wasn't confusing enough, Ben Smith tries to explain exactly who decides if they're seated:
The possibility would come if the candidate who won Florida, say Hillary, also held a plurality, but not a majority of delegates. The decision on seating Florida would have to be made by the credentials committee, which is composed 25 people appointed by Howard Dean, and 161 who are chosen according to a formula that reflects -- but isn't identical to -- the outcome of the primaries and caucuses in each state.
So there's a scenario under which Clinton doesn't quite have enough delegates, but her allies gain control of the credentials committee, seat Florida, and push her over the top. Secondarily, it's possible that a minority, pro-Clinton report out of the credentials committee could be taken to the floor (though if Clinton doesn't have enough votes there for the nomination, it's hard to see how she'd have enough to seat Florida).
The key detail, though, is whether a pro-Florida/Michigan (anti-Clinton) minority report can be taken to the floor as well. If so, FL and MI will only be seated if Clinton already has enough votes to win the nomination (a delegate who isn't pro-Clinton wouldn't vote to seat a pro-Clinton delegation).
Still, this is troubling because of the perception of illegitimacy. A victory that seems to come from a procedural trick (or actually does) will cause a lot of consternation and rightly so. It also could be a neat way to launder support from superdelegates that might otherwise be perceived as illegitimate (by allowing her victory, on paper, to rely on pledged delegates only).
--Sam Boyd
