After yesterday no one knows better than I how powerful a party delegate is when it comes to the final selection of a candidate. There are a series of caucuses that lead up to the Democratic Party's presidential convention in August, but at each caucus the delegate can change his/her vote. Obviously there is trust placed in the delegate at the grassroots level that can be misplaced, but those are the current rules.Super delegates were intended to help stop 'impulsive' candidate selection by party activists when the system was created, the same way the electoral college was founded. Super delegates were party and elected officials intended to have the greater public's same leanings (as they were generally elected by the voters), hence, merely be a protection against some crazy wild-haired, non-popular, candidate's selection.
So one must ask, if the majority of the public vote has not yet been accomplished, why the heck are these super delegates already declaring themselves? They were not supposed to be influencing or pre-empting the popular vote, but there only to assure that when the majority of the votes were counted there would be a clear winner.
I would ask, as would any low-level caucus-chosen delegate, that these 'Super Delegates' sit on their hands for a while. Let the popular vote be counted and then award those extra delegate votes to the clear winner. This is the only fair and equitable method within this system to select a candidate - by a clear majority of popular votes represented and enhanced by the super delegates - without pre-empting the people's choice.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 63
I do agree that they should sit on what in my opinion are antics.
What will they think of next to manipulate the vote, I ask myself...
Gees.
That, unfortunately, is the real world and you can't expect the players to change within the system. The system must change. Personally, I don't buy that the present system actually succeeds in toning down party activists. It sounds more like a power grab by the insiders.
Here's an idea. How about doing away with these superinsiders and construct a system based solely on the popular vote. Oh, I know what you're likely to say. It's too unique and the country isn't used to such a thing.
Yeah, you'd probably be right...
That's the real world,
Short, sweet and on the money. The longer this goes on, the more convinced I become that the dems will screw it up.
The entire process was set up in the conviction that the average person could not know the candidates well enough to cast a knowledgeable vote for one, just as the electoral college was instituted. The average person could vote for an elector whom he knew and trusted to cast a vote for the most appropriate candidate.
That is an anachronism as today, we've had the candidates living in our living rooms on TV for sometimes months and couldn't have the foggiest idea of who the electors of delegates actually are! People view, and rightly so, these systems as being a disenfranchisement of the voters. This is one of the reasons for the tepid turn out we get at election time.
As far as this year is concerned, what super delegates have revealed who they will vote for? I've not heard about this in Idaho. I cannot believe that a group of delegates pledged to say Hillary, would go to the state caucus and vote for Kucinich the first pop out of the box. Tain't agonna happen!
The super delegates are there simply to leave the selection a little more in the hands of the party itself, just like the smoke filled rooms of past generations. Get it to hell out of the hands of the stupid electorate who don't know what they should want! That's reality! All the stirring words of judgment, duty and wisdom notwithstanding.
Good article!
There is no chance of having a deadlocked convention because each candidate has the same exact number of votes. When that occurs there is another ballot and before that ballot a lot of horse trading goes on to try and up your preferred delegate count by conversion or trading of favors. Also, John Edwards has 26 delegates he would steer toward one candidate or the other. You've got to get a plurality of votes! And delegates are only pledged for the first ballot. After that, they're on their own.
We need to remember that the selection of candidates by either party is the choice of that party as to how. The party is an independent organization not funded or owned by the public. Telling them how to select is like telling the Elks lodge how to choose their grand pubah. There is no place for non partisan voters in the primary process!
Not saying I like it but that's the way it is.
Perhaps we could join the progressive countries of the 21st century on this one.
I am all for popular vote.
Blessings
It has become a huge business, a capitalist enterprise, where millions are spent, keeping thousands of people working, making buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs, selling advertising, etc...then there are the back room deals, lobbyists, etc...all jocking for power and a piece of the pie.
The idea that America is a democracy is a one of the greatest myths of all time.
While I'm for a popular vote, one election, one vote, the guy or gall who gets the most wins, I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime...
But, I think we may be working under an incorrect assumption. Where did you come up with the idea that the delegate/"super delegate" system was set up "to help stop 'impulsive' candidate selection by party activists when the system was created, the same way the electoral college was founded?" My impression has always been that this was a workable, major step away from the old system where "party bosses" had control over the delegate selection process (and then who the delegates would support). Somehow, the party "big wigs" were going to end up as delegates to the convention, anyway, so this was a way of taking much of their control away.
The current system would seem to be set up to ensure that ordinary people like you or me can become delegates to the national convention. (I was just such a delegate in '92.)
Also - and I didn't recall this when I began preparing this comment - the DNC rules do make a distinction between "pledged" and "unpledged" party leaders/elected officials, and seem to give individual states some leeway in how to deal with them. Thus, if you look at the lists of super delegates who have announced support and those who haven't, it seems that some states seem to have a higher proportion of "unpledged" supers.
By the way, I even tried to research the Republicans' system this morning. While each state Democratic party website and the DNC have easily-findable (and readable) delegate selection plans (and affirmative action plans for the process), and the rules were also easily-accessible - I was unable to find any such materials on either the RNC website or the Arizona Republicans website. (I'm sure they MUST have something, and maybe someone can fill us in.)
I'm for the popular vote, and I think we have the technology to pull it off. I am very afraid, however, that the Diebold machines are very susceptable (sp?) to errors.
I don't like the superdelegate idea either, nor the electoral process.
Who is opposed to this change? I would have thought to never see an AA or a female as serious contenders in my lifetime. So, let's ride this wave of change as hard as we can. I think we're fed up, as a people, enough to accomplish almost anything.
Wilka
Perhaps the time has come to rid ourselves of these obsolete practices of "delegates" and "electoral college". There was a dire need for such protection long ago. But today with the advances in communication and the comparative ease of holding elections we should be electing our officials by a direct vote -- one person one vote. Majority of the popular votes decide the winner.
After all when we go around the world preaching Democracy shouldn't we be practicing what we preach?
1.) I don't really have an issue with superdelegates on the whole. I suppose they were instituted for good reason.
2.) My concern is that in a close race like this, the edge will be given by superdelegates. This will negate the 'regular' delegates. They talked about this on This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday, in fact. Clinton leads Obama in delegates (although my a slim number) because of the number of Superdelegates she has. This does not reflect the popular vote - because Obama has won more states.
3.) I am not comfortable with the idea of the popular vote becoming meaningless and leaving it up to the superdelegates.
4.) On This Week, they discussed the possibilities of what to do with superdelegates' votes. Should they all go to the winner of popular votes? Should they split them in a tight race? How should they go about splitting them when the country might be clearly divided?
5.) I'm thinking that they should look at the total number of votes that each candidate gets. If Clinton gets 3% more popular votes, I think maybe she should get 3% more superdelegates. At least that way, they are not voting based on who catered to their needs... And they are listening to the general population's request for leadership - after all, they are meant to reflect the majority of the people they represent.
What I'd like to know is now that Romney has suspended his candidacy and because he didn't drop out, but only suspended, he still holds onto his delegates. What then becomes of the delegates of the states that he won, since it says in that explanation that "State party rules or state laws may require delegates
to be bound to support a particular candidate until the candidate releases his or her
delegates?"
Unless he releases his delegates they are bound, as far as I understand this, so does that mean that the states that voted for him won't count?
1) If the delegate count were winner take all, like the Republican party, Hillary Clinton would be in a lead similar to McCain.
2) Taking all the large states, as Hillary has, is important for the electoral college count.
3) Winning more states that will not be counted as blue states in the general election is not a practical cause for bragging rights.
4) Superdelegates should know, or be told how the math works out for number one (above).
Thanks for this article. It has engendered a lot of comment as have similar threads in the past few days. Television and the weekend newspapers were full of opinion and conversation about superdelegates and related topics.
The thing that resonates from my reading is this: People are nervous that the democratic race will end up being decided by a handful of people who are already part of the system. This prospect irritates us and rightly so.
Dave McGill did not mention his article on this topic so I will. The comment thread there is also excellent.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977253723
Here's my article about the GOP Washington state controversy, and asking for a compare-and-contrast between the two parties: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977255779
But, I think that some of this sudden concern is because it currently appears that Sen. Clinton has had a lead in the "super delegates" (who are Democrats that have stood for elections and - generally - succeeded), and Obama supporters are raising this issue to try to "unstick" some of them.
"Super delegates" in the Democratic party are defined as DNC members (elected by state parties), Democratic President/Vice President/Congresspeople/Governors, and former Congressional leaders and Pres/VP's.
Oh, by the way, another nugget I found in my research this morning is that Democrats have what I'll call a Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman rule - the only realistic way that a Democratic official would be de-certified (by March 1) as a "super delegate" is if they endorse a Republican candidate.
The rank and file as it were who took time to vote should have their votes counted despite the arbitrary decision of party "leaders" to disenfranchise them.
But, that was from 2004, and they often change significantly from election cycle to election cycle. (You must have really needed to dig for THAT! ;-)) And, I didn't see any discussion about the automatic, unpledged delegates.
Honey
It doesn't have anything to do with being fair per se, it has to do with the Party wants...
It all seems to stink, but look around at the world and see how democratic coalition type govt's and such fall apart everyday; votes of no confidence, snap elections, etc. etc.
Politics folks.... isn't it grand. Take care.
Your comment is so true... many have been looking forward a contested convention. I remember the black and white television images from conventions in the fifties and sixties... thrilling!
But, as you say, now that we are facing such a situation I feel nervous.
If a superdelegate declares, she is not in a position to be bribed early in the going. At that point, the emphasis in researching the weak points of the delegate is going on for the uncommitted delegates by the deep-pocket candidates. Money would be better spent bribing the uncommitted than trying to unstick a declared.
So, if a superdelegate does not want to be bothered by conversion spam, or she knows she wants to resist bribery temptation, she could declare. She says she represents those in her state who voted for her chosen candidate, and maybe her grassroots will appreciate that, which might, in the long run, be more valuable to her.
Not declaring bothers me because it is not transparent. It allows a superdelagate to be manipulative.
I see close to a zero chance that corruption will be dealt with at all in this election cycle. I am upset about that because corruption causes actual poisonings and all sorts of harmful effects among our people and in the economy.
We became a country of empire and torture because our people have been buying plastic doo-dads Europe knew better than to allow on their shores. Our people don't make well-informed choices about what to buy or not, which is a kind of voting.
Our huge bureaucracies can't "protect" us from this stuff. The agencies believe or have to accept what corporate-shill "scientists" say about their products. Whistleblowers just get canned.
Here's one to chew on. I looked up what corporations have donated to the major candidates. I think I found this on the NOW site. Not only do the major candidates get reported on as "news" (free coverage from the point of view of excluded candidates), but they also receive large cash donations in addition to the free coverage.
To me then, the major media are spoiling their pets, and the phenomenon of why tough issues can't get discussed is obvious. At least in the Reagan Library debate, they let candidates ask questions of each other. Ron Paul's question for John McCain about the economy was telling.
It's entirely unlikely anyone else will ask such a sophisticated question of any of the other candidates, so long as Ron Paul can be excluded from the discussion.
The only thing that consoles me is that remedies for economic depression, such as local currencies, scrip-creation, food-crop-growing in cities, graywater recycling, composting, making alcohol and biodiesel for fuel, etc., are going on largely under the radar.
These preparations are the rational preparation for climate challenges as well. New Orleans was not prepared for sewer failure. The West isn't either, and we have storms AND earthquakes.
When we have huge liquified natural gas depots that can't be used because the dollar isn't worth enough to buy the stuff, granola people will surely come up with something to do with the huge concrete behemoths the funny money bought before it crashed.
If "we" have huge liquefied natural gas depots, why can't we use them? Right now I'm not sure of a reasonable use for them as the gas I buy every month with our dollars is piped from the source to my furnace and water heater and does not require liquefication.
And the vehicles that have been developed to use natural gas do not use liquefied gas as there are problems in a vehicle in the process of conversion back to gaseous state. That is one of the problems they must deal with to use LPG (liquefied petroleum gas). But we are buying natural gas on a daily basis in this country.
Mary S., you sack us, shame us and lift us up at the same time. Thanks for the reminder that good people all over the country (and the world) are still doing green and other good things for the rest of us under the radar.
One of our super delegates in Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, is remaining neutral on her vote, despite the fact that Obama absolutely BURIED Clinton (67% to 32%). Her constituents, in other words, overwhelmingly favor Senator Obama, yet she may still be toying with the idea of a Clinton vote. Go figure. (I like and voted for Sen. Klobuchar, btw.)
All votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others.
Keep those lights on.:)
But the people do choose a president.