How the superdelegates ACTUALLY vote at the convention

[MineralMan]

There may be some DUers who have never watched a political convention for real. Some people seem to think that the superdelegates wait until all the pledged delegates have voted and then decide what to do. That isn't how it works. The voting, instead, goes this way:

The chair of the convention, when the vote is called, calls on each state's delegation, in alphabetical order. What happens then, is that the chair person of that state's delegation, or someone else appointed to announce the vote, says something like this (using New York as an example):

"Mr. Chairman - The Empire State, the Great State of New York, casts 180 votes for Hillary Clinton and 111 votes for Bernie Sanders."

The superdelegates votes are announced as each state votes at the convention. It's all part of the same process.

Now, any state can, and often does, yield to the next state, alphabetically, and announces its vote at the end of the voting. This is done on purpose, because many states would like to be the state that puts the winner over the top in the voting. But, that's really the only variation.

Superdelegates are delegates. They simply aren't pledged to any candidate. However, their votes are tallied with their state's delegation. They vote with their delegation and at the time that delegation announces its voting on the floor of the convention. They do not vote separately, and will be standing there with their delegation. Since most of them are elected officeholders in their state, they have a definite position of prominence in their delegation. Often, one of them, a House representative or Senator, is the chair of the delegation, and makes the announcement of the votes.

By the time this takes place, everyone already knows who the winner will be. The vote counts on the first ballot will not change before the vote is taken, nor during the voting. It all happens at one time. At some point in the voting, one of the candidates will have reached the number of votes required to have a majority. At that point, a cheer will go up, and the voting will continue until all delegations have reported.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. You are an educator.

You take a process that we all argue over but know nothing about, and make it clear.

An excellent post.

[MineralMan]

4. I've watched every Democratic convention, and several Republican

ones, starting in 1956, when I was just 11 years old. They used to be very exciting. Since 1968, though, they've gotten less exciting, since we pretty much all know the results beforehand. Still, they're very interesting to watch, and my TV will be turned to the Democratic Convention coverage non-stop, as always.

I've never been to a national convention, but I have been to a number of district and state conventions over the years. It's a very interesting thing to be part of, and I recommend getting involved in local Democratic Party organizations and becoming a delegate to a convention - any convention. There's nothing like that for feeling like you are a part of the process.

[Jitter65]

8. Not all of us. I've been watching primary elections since 1960. Anyone really interested

in politics and who takes civic duty seriously already knows this. Thanks Mineral Man for sharing important information with us. Never crossed my mind that most voters wouldn't already know this.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm never surprised at what people don't already know.

Most people don't really follow this stuff as closely as some of us do. Even on DU. We also have many younger people who may never have seen a convention in action.

I can still remember being 11 years old and sitting there in front of the TV, watching both conventions that year. My parents were amazed that I found it interesting. That was the beginning of a lifetime of interest in politics. I can remember Walter Cronkite explaining what was happening in terms even I could understand.

I've watched them all, sometimes jubilant, and sometimes in tears, as in 1968, when the Democratic Convention exploded into violence and upheaval. Everyone one of them had interesting moments and boring routine. But, they are the core of our political system when it comes to the presidency.

I can still hear Cronkite's voice, explaining the process. It's changed somewhat over the years, but political conventions are full of tradition, and still follow mostly the same process that the 1956 ones did.

Huge fun for me. I'm weird.

[brooklynite]

2. This is going to lead some Sanders supporters to say...

...that he doesn't have to drop out until every last delegate vote is tallied at the Convention...

[msanthrope]

3. Indeed...perhaps they want a tally on the big screen. nt

[MineralMan]

6. Hmm...a guy would have to be a glutton for punishment to

do that, knowing that the outcome would be a loss. There's not much drama at national conventions these days, although the Republican one might have some.

Our Democratic Party convention, though, will just be a big nominating party.

[MoonRiver]

22. Could be a glutton for punishment or egomaniac.

Not sure which would apply here.

[azurnoir]

5. yes- so far

[MineralMan]

7. Well, the rules won't be changing, so yes.

We'll all know the results in advance within a few votes.

[azurnoir]

9. I think this time is different and if a rule change is needed to insure Hillary the nomination

IMO the DNC will oblige

[MineralMan]

10. There will be no rule change needed.

The winner will be clearly known the day after the last primary is held. The candidate with the majority of pledged delegates will be the winner. That candidate will be Hillary Clinton. There's not going to be a rules battle at this year's Democratic Convention. There may be at the Republican Convention, though. We have two candidates. One will have the majority of pledged delegates. Game over.

[azurnoir]

11. we'll know in June

[LiberalFighter]

18. MineralMan is right.

There will be NO rule change.

If there is a rule change it will be after this convention and before the next convention.

[Codeine]

12. What rule change?

What's the scenario to which you're alluding?

[azurnoir]

13. contested convention

[MineralMan]

15. There's going to be no need for a contested convention,

and one will not occur. One candidate will have a majority of pledged delegates. That candidate will become the nominee on the first ballot. Simple. Watch and you'll see it happen.

[azurnoir]

16. Interesting you seem so assured

[MineralMan]

17. Why is that interesting?

I can follow the numbers as well as anyone else. It's not interesting at all.

On Wednesday morning, I'll wake up to the news about Tuesday's primaries, log in to DU and watch the discussions. I expect no surprises, actually. I didn't expect any this past week, either.

The outcome has become obvious. It's still interesting to observe, but there's not going to be some surprise ending, I'm sure.

So, it's interesting that you think my assurance is interesting. But not very interesting, really.

[LiberalFighter]

19. There is nothing that indicates there will be a contested convention.

After Tuesday, Clinton will have over 90% of the delegates needed while Sanders has only 59%.

Clinton currently has 81% of the delegates now and Sanders has 52%. Sanders needs to get 1,244 of the remaining 1,596 delegates. Or 78% of the remaining delegates.

Clinton will likely have over 300 delegates more than is needed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Wikipedia says 513 superdelegates support Clinton, 38 Sanders, and 195 are unannounced

so far. Do you really expect that many delegates who have given public support for Clinton to say "yes, she may be leading the primary and caucus process, but I've decided to change my mind, to overturn that process and impose Sanders on the party"?

If Sanders were pulling even or ahead in pledged delegates, I could see some might change, to say "I'm going to support the popular vote after all". But when he looks likely to fall further behind in pledged delegates in the remaining contests, it would seem truly perverse for them to switch to Sanders.

[Tarc]

21. There are many silly and fanciful scenarios floating around the DU forums at the moment

Some Sanders supporters think he's going to carry California at 70-75% and Oregon at 85%(!), thus tilting the delegate lead his way, or at least making it close enough so that vaunted "YUUUGE MOMENTUM" will sway the superdelegates to his side.