I'm sure that if Obama maintains his "pledged" delegate lead into the convention the argument his supporters will make is that the role of the super-delegates must be to ratify the decision of "the people." It is already being suggested that “party leadership,” including super-delegates, may need to step in to keep the party from self-inflicted injury. But what this perspective omits is that the reason Obama is still ahead in the committed delegate count even after losses in Ohio and Texas is largely a function of the Democrats' misguided adoption of the principle of proportional representation in their nomination system.
Just for the sake of argument, if we, instead, looked at only those states that award their delegates on the basis of a popular vote primary (ignoring caucus states for the moment) and employ a winner-take-all rule, such as the number of electoral college delegates that represent those states in a general election, Clinton has won over three times as many electors as Obama! This is the case even though Obama actually has more votes. (It’s not clear whether he’d maintain that aggregate vote lead if caucuses were transformed into popular vote primaries, however.) By my count, and excluding MI and FL, that's 71 electors for Obama and 224 for Clinton!1
Of course, it isn’t really fair to exclude the caucus states just because caucuses confer advantage to activists, university students, etc (and is therefore, er... less democratic). If we add the caucus states to the primary states (treating 2-step states like TX as primaries for the sake of simplicity) the electoral dimensions of the contest level out a lot. By this rule, again excluding MI and FL, Obama has so far earned 198 electors to Hillary's 224. (All of Hillary's wins have been in popular vote primaries). Assuming she wins PA and Obama wins WY, MS, and NC her analog electoral vote count will be 245 to Obama’s 222.2 This is still close, but she, rather than Obama, would be in the lead.3
However, as many in the media like to point out it’s now virtually impossible for Hillary to catch Obama in pledged delegates, no matter how many states she wins, because she can't win by a large enough margin to overcome her proportional deficit. But does that mean it’s really valid to argue that Obama's lead reflects a more democratic tally than would be the case in a winner-take-all election, such as a national primary, let alone the electoral college analog I’m suggesting? Are caucuses broadly representative in the same way as primary elections? And if not where would Obama be without them? Would he still be ahead in the popular vote count?
We have no way of knowing, of course. But it seems to me that a demand that super-delegates ratify the pledged delegate count, on the basis that this would be more democratically representative than Hillary’s case, is thin at best.
And what about MI and FL? Clearly those will have to be accommodated somehow. Assuming the party leaders won’t simply ratify the earlier “beauty contest” wins of Hillary that means either “do-over” primaries or caucuses. Obama will argue for caucuses, since his campaign organization is good at winning among activists and students, and because they’re more economical than primaries and easier to implement within a short time frame. Hillary will argue for primaries, both because she stands a better chance of winning such contests and (she’ll say with some conviction) they’re more democratic.
After all, the ultimate test will be whether the nominee can win the general election... and that, for better or worse, is based on a winner-take-all electoral vote tally by state that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of idealistic Democrat activists. But given that reality, should super-delegates really lie supine before the alter of the so-called "pledged delegate count?" Should their support for Obama be a foregone conclusion if Hillary has won the states that are required to give her a general election victory? Just how idealistic is the Democrat Party? Are they too idealistic for their own good?
[1] Note: I tallied this twice, but since mistakes are easy you can check my counting against the popular vote page on Real Clear Politics, and there’s a list of electoral college votes by state here.)
[2] Note: I’m not counting six smaller states with upcoming primaries or caucuses, because I have no way to project the outcomes. Anyone who knows the polls in IN, WV, OR, KY, MT, and SD are invited to update my projected electoral analog.
[3] Note: If Clinton had failed to win TX the analog electoral vote count would have favored Obama by a lopsided 232 to 190. If Hillary had not delivered TX she wouldn't have had much of an argument for convincing her super-delegates to hang with her, or that there ought to be some accommodation of MI and FL. But she did win TX. As her husband suggested last week, TX was critical.