Sunday, April 13, 2008
Garry Shay (CA) – Still with Clinton…. for now
WE’VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Garry Shay, DNC Member from California, is one of a number of superdelegates who are sticking with their endorsements of Sen. Clinton, but dropping hints that things might change in the future. Here’s what he first told us:
I am committed to Clinton, at this point.
But then he sent us a long description of what process he used to make his decision (he sends this to anybody who asks), and its worth including in its entirety:
For the first time since they were conceived, the votes of so-called “super-delegates” may actually matter with regard to the nomination of the Democratic Party candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States. This is a decision that we are all weighing carefully.
In fact, I wrote an article about this matter which raised the question as to how I should go about making my decision, much of which is set forth below. It was originally published on the list serve of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party (I have made minor edits here so it will make sense in this context):
As a matter of explanation and illumination, super-delegates are either Governors of States or Territories, members of Congress or members of the DNC. They are un-pledged delegates to the National Convention in Denver. They are either elected by their districts, states, state parties, or other constituencies such as the Democratic State Treasurer’s Association, or the Democratic Municipal Officials Association, or similar organizations. 75 DNC members were nominated by Governor Dean in 2004, and elected by the other DNC members.
The question I pose is not who super-delegates should vote for, but rather how they should come to their decision.
The question is not whether or not they should exist, because the fact is, they do. As my torts professor once said, in his thick German accent, if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a Volkswagen, but she doesn’t. What ever you think of the system itself, it is the reality we work in at this time.
And the question is not whether or not the Super-Delegates should come to a decision, because sitting it out is essentially a vote against any candidate, since we are part of the majority needed to nominate. Not voting does not lower the number needed to nominate and also deprives our constituency (whatever that may be) of their representation under the current rules. I don’t think any of us would really advocate for that.
This whole matter raises issues about the very nature of representative democracy. Is one elected to represent their constituency, or to vote their conscience, or some other formula? How does that apply to the present situation?
As pertains to myself, and 18 other elected DNC members, we were elected by the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party four (4) years ago. Our terms run from the day after one convention, to the day after the next. We are among the first elected delegates to a National Convention. Only Senators elected in 2002 were elected earlier. The CDP Executive Board will be electing some of the first delegates to the 2012 National Convention this June. That election has no effect on the current convention decision.
What are we elected to do? Who were we elected to represent?
Other formulations may apply to other super-delegates, but here are the various formulations I have come up with, at least as pertains to the 19 CDP DNC members elected in 2004:
1. I was elected because my electorate trusted my judgement and I should vote my conscience.
2. I was elected to represent those who elected me 4 years ago, who are not the same people who are on the CDP Executive Board at the present time. I should poll the former Executive Board of the CDP, after the last primary and before the convention.
3. I was elected to represent the CDP Executive Board, as an institutional body. I should poll the current Executive Board of the CDP, after the last primary and before the convention.
4. I was elected by the CDP Executive Board to represent the same people they represent, the Democrats of the State of California, and thus should vote however the majority of Democrats voted on February 5, 2008.
5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.
6. I should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies the Platform of the CDP.
7. I should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies the Platform of the National Convention.
8. I should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, unless for some bizarre reason, I can honestly say that such a candidate is an anathema to the Democratic Party principles as I understand them.
9. I was elected to synthesize all of the above into a decision, which you recognize is an impossible task, but trusted I would do the right thing for the right reason.
10. Vote the way you personally want me to and if I don’t you will hold me personally responsible. (This is not really a choice, but I recognize it is perhaps a reality for some).
These are the two I think are the strongest factors my constituents would believe I should use in making a decision:
1. I was elected because my electorate trusted my judgement and I should vote my conscience.
* * *
5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.First, let me say I think they are both excellent candidates. However, as a result of the California Debate, I came to the conclusion that Sen. Clinton was the stronger candidate. That debate and the California Primary were crucial factors in my eventual decision. I simply felt she was just a little better, and the results of the California Primary only solidified that conclusion.
Do note however, that if Sen. Obama enters the Convention with a lead in pledged delegates, that I will re-think my position. This would be based upon the idea that:
8. I should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, unless for some bizarre reason, I can honestly say that such a candidate is an anathema to the Democratic Party principles as I understand them.
I believe the number of pledged delegates a candidate has should be a factor in my decision making. That doesn’t mean I automatically change candidates if Sen. Obama has more pledged delegates in Denver, but it does mean I will study the situation more carefully. The greater the lead, the more intense the study.
But, even if that does occur, I also have to take into consideration the fact that California voted for Sen. Clinton, which I believe should be a very strong consideration. Among the ten grounds for deciding I listed in my article, was this one:
4. I was elected by the CDP Executive Board to represent the same people they represent, the Democrats of the State of California, and thus should vote however the majority of Democrats voted on February 5, 2008.
This is a real mess. These last two considerations, which in my mind are very strong considerations, are likely to be in conflict.
Which leads me to this one:
9. I was elected to synthesize all of the above into a decision, which you recognize is an impossible task, but trusted I would do the right thing for the right reason.
So, I ask you to trust. And, I think you should trust someone like me who is at least considering all of these factors, as opposed to someone who has his or her mind completely made up and has never even contemplated these matters.
Frankly, I hope it doesn’t come down to super delegates deciding this.
Again, thank you for writing!
Now, let’s make sure we are united after the convention, so we can win in November and “Take Back America!”
Democratically Yours,
Garry S. Shay
Member, Democratic National Committee (CA) and
Lead Chair Rules Committee, California Democratic Party
Titles for identification purposes only
Shay also answered a couple of other questions for us:
1. How and why did you become a member of the DNC?
I was elected as a member of the DNC in 1992, taking my seat the day AFTER the 1992 Democratic National Convention, as do all DNC members elect. The election was by the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party, comprised of representatives elected by registered Democrats in caucus in each of the 80 assembly districts and representatives of the 58 County Parties, whose members are elected by all registered Democrats voting in the Primary election. I became a member because I wanted to serve my party on the National Level.
2. I see that you were also a “superdelegate” in 2004, but this primary season has obviously been different. Has the attention been a positive or a negative for you?
It has been disruptive, due to the number of persistent phone calls I get from the media. I would, however, comment that it is never a “negative” to properly educate people on how the system works.
The original version of Shay’s post can be found here.
Posted by Matt at 4:00 PM 
Way to go Garry Shay ~~
Loved the part of the statement that says….. “FOR NOW” ;o)
Which means, for those of us who support Senator Obama – there is still plenty of hope.
Libby ~~ :o)
————-
Red States, Blue States, and Purple States too –> Obama ’08
————-
***HRC accepted & signed rules of DNC. What happened HRC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg
As much heat as the DNC has taken for the rules and the creation of Super Delegates, if each Super is as measured as Mr. Shay and takes the steps outlined by in this post, I cannot complain (too much) about the system.
Regardless of how he votes at the convention, Mr. Shay has gained my respect for the acknowledgment of his responsibilities, for the statement of his considerations, and for opening his thought process to the public. I hope Mr. Shay has the chance to read this comment and find my respect, and that other Super Delegates may read his comments and follow his lead.
Garry Shay and other SDs:
SDs were created to vote their conscience, against an insurgent candidate who might take a lead in pledged delegates.
Their prime duty is to vote for the most Electable Candidate in the Fall.
Sen Obama is NOT Electable in the General Election 2008, because:
1. Using the General Election Methodology (GEM, winner-takes-all) Sen Clinton has, as of today, 1427 delegates to Obama’s 1260 (this includes ALL States already voted, as per Rasmussen Reports). She has won most of the MUST WIN States for a Democrat: MA NH MI CA NY NJ TN FL OH etc.
Sen Obama has won mostly small Red State Caucuses, which will NOT vote for ANY Democrat anytime. Know the past history if you can.
2. If you use the Electoral College Delegate calculation using GEM, she has now 263 delegates, and her sure win in PA will give her the winning 270 delegates to clinch the Presidency. Such calculation gives Sen Obama hardly 220 delegates.
3. Sen McCain is a war hero, vastly experienced in public policy and has enormous years of public service. Only Sen Clinton can stand before him during debates on issues.
The least experienced Sen Obama has serious credibility, character, judgment problems. His rich elitist attitudes will NOT go well with the most of the electorate.
SDs: If he is the Nominee, the Democrats will lose the White House, and possibly the Senate, in my view.
Please think long and hard and defeat the insurgent candidate., and Nominate the most Electable Sen Clinton.
“***HRC accepted & signed rules of DNC. What happened HRC?”
Any Party Rule that disenfranchises several million voters needs to be rejected outright, because it is inferior to the vastly superior political doctrine of “Count ALL Votes”.
The issue is NOT with Sen Clinton who abides by all the Party Rules.
But, it is with
Democratic Party Vs Peoples of MI and FL.
Any Party that insults two important State Voters ceases to be a National Party.
It does not deserve to win in ANY Election, period!
Yamaka:
I am still undecided on who I support, but I can see more and more desperate distortions of the truth from Clinton supporters. I don’t know if it’s calculated or that it’s true that she has the uneducated vote sewn up.
General election methodology is a myth when it comes to the assignation of delegates based on the results of Democratic primaries and caucuses. It is just irrelevant. The Democratic Party has come up with a system designed to find their presidential candidate. Any other methodology has nothing to do with the system. I personally feel that winner take all does less to reflect the will of the voters.
Electoral College calculations based on primary results are irrelevant as well. This assumes that just because one candidate did not win the primary or caucus in a state that they cannot win that state in a GE. Again, simply not true, and history bears this out.
I’m not sure how you can harp on the rules, then wrangle those said rule to fit the preferred outcome of one candidate. And you do it not in one, but two posts!
And lastly…the disenfranchisement of the MI and FL voters is a much more complicated issue that you make it out to be. By moving their primaries up, the the Democratic parties (with help of R’s in FL) tried to make their states relevant in the primary system–not only to the detriment of the rules, but also in effect trying to “disenfranchise” the voters in other states later in the primary season who did not break the rules. Also, many voters in MI and FL did not vote or voted in the Republican primares because they were told that their vote would not count. This is borne out by the fact that these were the only states where Republican turn-out was greater than Democratic turn-out. So you want to disenfranchise those who didn’t vote or voted Republican because they were truthfully told that their Democratic votes would not count?
You have a lot to think about Yamaka.
Take your time.
Thank you, la photographer, for your reply.
I want to remind you the following fact, whether it makes sense to YOU or not:
1. Primary will be exercise in vain if it does not logically provide an Electable candidate in the GE.
2. GE methodology is the only RELEVANT methodology (as is used by Republicans: this methodology has allowed an early Nomination-Elect of McCain; clearly, this is an advantage for the Republicans)
3. How could you nominate a candidate from the Democratic Party, who has NOT won most of the MUST WIN States for any Democrat? It is terribly an absurd procedure.
In my opinion, first and foremost a Nominee of the Democrat MUST win most of the historically established BLUE STATES. AFTER BAGGING IN these Blue States, the candidate can look for the RED or Swing States. This is what Sen Clinton has done. Therefore, she MUST be the Nominee of the Democrats.
Sen Obama has won mostly small RED States, which will NOT vote for any Democrat in the FALL. Therefore, he is NOT Electable in the GE.
His “Top-Dog” status now is the result of a lousy and artificial methodology that the Democratic Party has cooked up. This tells me that they have not learned anything from the 2000 Election Massacre: Popular votes do NOT elect a President. It is the delegates of the Electoral College who elect the President.
Most Democrats don’t understand this basic truth, to their detriment.
4. In MI and FL, the voters obeyed the State Law and went to polls. Their votes MUST be counted, and the delegates MUST be seated, if you believe in Democracy.
The “Date Rule” was a bad Rule and was very poorly implemented by the Party. For their ineptness, nearly 3 million voters should NOT be punished, that’s my point.
“Over-educated” crowd cannot understand the superior principle in political philosophy, “Count ALL Votes”. They understand only the very poor baseless illogical Rules!
By disenfranchising the voters (those who did not go to the polls voluntarily forfeit their rights!) and following a poor irrelevant electoral methodology, the Democratic Party is marching foolishly to the Victory Parade of President John McCain in Jan 2009!
Democrats, wake up and clean the mess we have before it is too late.
Yamaka, you’re entitled to yout own opinions but not your own facts and your logic is flawed.You should reread Mr. Shay’s rationale with an open mind.
Garry Shay (listed as “Gary” on some websites) is a member of the DNC Rules and By-Laws Committee that will be hearing about Florida and Michigan this weekend. He is listed as among the 13 Clinton supporters on the Committee. I’m glad to have come across this detailed exposition of his thinking.