Abstract
Post-1968 changes in the Democratic party's nomination process resulted, by some accounts, in the selection of delegates who knew little about politics, cared little about winning, and were removed from the party following. One remedy for this situation was the reintroduction of party professionals into the process in the form of “superdelegates.” Did this cure work? By examining the accuracy of superdelegates' perceptions of the party following's positions on issues compared with those of ordinary delegates, this paper addresses part of this question.
Using data about the views of delegates to the 1988 national party conventions and the 1988 American National Election Study, I show that the fears about postreform delegates being more out of touch with the party following than “professionals” (i.e., superdelegates) are largely overstated.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Clausen, Aage R. (1977). The accuracy of leader perceptions of constituency views.Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 361–384.
Clausen, Aage R., Holmberg, Soren, and Dehaven-Smith, Lance L. (1983). Contextual factors in the accuracy of leader perceptions of constituent's views.Journal of Politics 45: 449–472.
Cnudde, Charles F., and McCrone, Donald J. (1966). The linkage between constituency attitudes and congressional voting behavior: A causal model.American Political Science Review 60: 66–72.
Cook, Rhodes (1981). New Democratic rules panel: A careful approach to change.Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, December 26, pp. 2563–2567.
Cook, Rhodes (1982). “Superdelegates” may pick next Democratic nominee.Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 23, pp. 127–129.
Erikson, Robert S., Luttbeg, Norman R. and Holloway, William V. (1975). Knowing one's district: How legislators predict referendum voting.American Journal of Political Science 19: 231–246.
Geer, John G. (1989).Nominating Presidents. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Geer, John G. (1992). Party competition and campaigns. Unpublished manuscript.
Granberg, Donald, and Holmberg, Soren (1988).The Political System Matters: Social Psychology and Voting Behavior in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hauss, Charles S. and Maisel, L. Sandy (1986). Extremist delegates: Myth and reality. In Ronald B. Rapoport, Alan I. Abramowitz, and John McGlennon (eds.),The Life of the Parties, Activists in Presidential Politics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Hedlund, Ronald D., and Friesema, H. Paul (1972). Representatives' perceptions of constituency opinion.Journal of Politics 34: 730–752.
Herrera, Richard. (1991). The conceptualization of ideological labels by masses and elites? Delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Herrera, Richard (1992). The understanding of ideological labels by political elites: A research note.Western Political Quarterly 45: 1021–1035.
Holmberg, Soren (1989). Political Representation in Sweden.Scandinavian Political Studies 12: 1–36.
Kessel, John H. (1992).Presidential Campaign Politics, 4th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Key, V. O. (1961).Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane (1975). Representation in the American national conventions: The case of 1972.British Journal of Political Science 5: 265–322.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane (1976).The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and the Twentieth Century Fund.
Luskin, Robert C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication.American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899.
McClosky, Herbert (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics.American Political Science Review 58: 361–382.
McClosky, Herbert, Hoffman, Paul J., and O'Hara, Rosemary (1960). Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers.American Political Science Review 54: 406–427.
McCrone, Donald J., and Kuklinski, James H. (1979). The delegate theory of representation.American Journal of Political Science 23: 278–300.
Miller, Warren E. (1988).Without Consent. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Miller, Warren E. and Jennings, M. Kent (1986).Parties in Transition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress.American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.
Polsby, Nelson W., and Wildavsky, Aaron (1991).Presidential Elections, 8th ed. New York: The Free Press.
Prothro, James W. and Grigg, C. W. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement.Journal of Politics 22: 276–294.
Ranney, Austin (1975).Curing the Mischiefs of Faction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Report of the Commission on Presidential Nomination (1982). Washington, D.C.: Democratic National Committee.
Roback, Thomas H. (1980). Motivation for activism among Republican national convention delegates: Continuity and change in 1972–76.Journal of Politics 42: 181–201.
Soule, John W., and Clarke, James W. (1971). Issue conflict and consensus: A comparative study of Democratic and Republican delegates to the 1968 national conventions.Journal of Politics 33: 72–91.
Stone, Walter J. and Abramowitz, Alan I. (1983). Winning might not be everything, but it's more than we thought: Presidential party activists in 1980.American Political Science Review 77: 945–956.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herrera, R. Are “superdelegates” super?. Polit Behav 16, 79–92 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541643
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541643
Keywords
- Democratic Party
- National Election
- Election Study
- Political Psychology
- National Party