![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This article analyzes the votes of party leaders and elected officials, or superdelegates, at the 1984 Democratic convention. Analysis of state-level data reveals that unpledged superdelegates voted overwhelmingly for Walter Mondale, even in those 26 states in which Gary Hart or Jesse Jackson won the primary or caucus. This Mondale advantage among unpledged superdelegates was substantial enough in many of these states to tip the balance of the state's delegation away from Hart or Jackson. The candidate preferences of these unpledged superdelegates were also in direct constrast to those of pledged superdelegates; the latter were more likely to reflect the preferences of voters in their state's primary or caucus. Analysis of hypothetical delegate vote totals at the convention reveals that Mondale would have had a much tighter race for the nomination without the votes of unpledged superdelegates; he might have been denied a first-ballot victory. The effects of unpledged superdelegates on the 1984 Democratic nomination process therefore raise important questions about the desirability of this most recent reform within the party.
REFERENCES
| CEASER, J. W. (1982) Reforming the Reforms. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Google Scholar | |
| COOK, R. (1983) “Party rules change: “superdelegates” may pick next Democratic nominee,” in Lengle, J. I., Shafer, B. E. (eds.) Presidential Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press Google Scholar | |
| CROTTY, W., JACKSON, J. S. (1985) Presidential Primaries and Nominations. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press Google Scholar | |
| DAVIS, L. J. (1982) “Reforming the reforms.” New Republic (February 17): 8–13 Google Scholar | |
| DiCLERICO, R. E., USLANER, E. M. (1984) Few Are Chosen: Problems in Presidential Selection. New York: McGraw-Hill Google Scholar | |
| KAMARCK, E. C. (1985) “Fight over delegate rules for '88.” The Nation (March 2): I, 241–243 Google Scholar | |
| KIRKPATRICK, J. J. (1980) The Presidential Nominating Process. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute Google Scholar | |
| Official Proceedings of the 1984 Democratic National Convention (1984) Washington, DC: Democratic National Committee Google Scholar | |
| ORREN, G. R. (1985) “The nomination process: vicissitudes of candidate selection,” in Nelson, M. (ed.) The Elections of 1984. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press Google Scholar | |
| POLSBY, N. W. (1983) Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Google Scholar | |
| PRICE, D. E. (1984) Bringing Back the Parties. Washington, DC: Congressional Q. Press Google Scholar | |
| Report of the Commission on Presidential Nomination. (1982) March 26 Washington, DC: Democratic National Committee 1984 Google Scholar | |
| SCOTT, R., HREBNAR, R. (1984) Parties in Crisis: Party Politics in America. New York: Wiley Google Scholar | |
| SOUTHWELL, P. L. (forthcoming) “The politics of disgruntlement: nonvoting and defection among supporters of nomination losers, 1968–1984.” Pol. Behavior Google Scholar | |
| TRUMAN, D. (1984) “Party reform and constitutional change.” Pol. Sci. Q. 99: 637–656 Google Scholar |
