2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Congressional Black Caucus objects to eliminating super delegates. Why?
Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:31 AM - Edit history (5)
Here's at least part of the reason, from the listening I've been doing.
African Americans are already under-represented in Congress. There are only 43 House members and 2 Senators -- out of 435 total House members and 100 Senators.
African Americans comprise 12.5 of the US population -- and 22% of Democrats -- but only about 8% of Congress. To reflect the population, there would need to be 50% more.
In the Senate, instead of 10 or 12 black Senators, there are only two.
So already the influence of black people is not felt in Congress as much as the influence of whites.
So sending members of Congress to primary conventions as super-delegates is a way of ensuring that at least some black people -- the elected members of the House and Senate -- have a voice in the selection of the nominee. Otherwise, the members of the CBC have good reason to be skeptical that black people would play a significant role. And if they had to run as pledged delegates in their own districts, they would be competing against their own constituents.
The end result could be that the conventions would be even more dominated by white people than Congress is now.
Is that what any of us want?
So this system of super-delegates is an imprecise way of insuring at least a somewhat more diverse and representative convention.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)when you control the situation you can do this...
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)is funky, so I can't watch that right now -- but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with why the CBC is strongly objecting to the proposal to eliminate super-delegates.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Each time I see CBO I think, why does the Congressional Budget Office have anything to do with this?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)perspective, would you consider that group or any group within the DEM party establishment or no?
if they fall into the former category then what DWS stated on that vid holds...
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)They won't win the nomination unless Democrats vote for them.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Including a proportionate number (approximately) of black people.
That's not happening in the Senate, especially. Why do we think it would happen in the primary conventions? Would all the problems of gerrymandering that reduces the influence of the AA vote simply go away?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I replied to.
I don't think the current caucus system reflects the diversity of America, so I have a hard time answering your questions.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Primarily, becoming a delegate - as opposed to a superdelegate - is something one volunteers to do. You step up, you file your paperwork, and then you go around to convince people in your district that you'd be a good delegate for whatever candidate you're looking to be pledged for. There's some state-by-state variations on this, but it's still pretty similar across the board.
If there are a lack of black delegates at the convention, then either this is due to a lack of interest in becoming delegates, or maybe you're trying to say that the Democratic party systemically avoids awarding black delegates in the allocation process. Which I don't think you're saying, but hey, you've said some odd stuff recently so I dunno.
The CBC is trying to paint a lacquer of righteousness onto the reality - they oppose abolishing superdelegates because they are superdelegates. They enjoy having the clout to shut out hundreds of thousands of voters just like their white counterparts do.
And before you pretend to be completely clueless about what I'm talking about, I invite you to look at Oregon. Oregon has 61 pledged delegates, and 13 superdelegates. After the Oregon Primary, Sanders won, coming away with 36 of those 61 pledged Delegates, leaving clinton with 25. But. All but two of those Superdelegates have pledged support for clinton, meaning that Oregon, despite favoring Sanders by 12% in one of the nation's cleanest, most inclusive primaries, will be a tie at the convention.
That's what Superdelegates do. That's their whole purpose, to nullify voters.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)which assigned all the delegates -- most to Bernie.
Then more than 800K voted in the primary -- which Hillary won --but their votes won't count at all.
At least our super delegates will be able to reflect the will of the people, even if the pledged delegates won't.
(And don't bother arguing that Bernie supporters were too smart to vote in the primary. More Bernie voters participated in the primary than in the caucuses. And the supers had already said they were going to be considering the results of the primary in making their decision, so that should have been a motivation to participate in the very simple mail-in primary -- for everyone.)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Funny thing is, the state party could decide to take the primary results over the caucus results. They've decided to stick with caucus results. As they've done for years. As voters know they've done for years. If that upsets you I suggest you write an angry letter to 615 2nd St Suite 580, Seattle, WA 98104. It'll be more productive than yelling at me on DU. In the meantime, the superdelegates are thus still operating to disenfranchise people who voted within the system that Washington uses.
Now, how about addressing the points I brought up?
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)to go to court to sue to overturn the voter-approved referendum that set up the primary. The Dem party argued that it should be able to ignore the will of the voters and choose delegates in the caucuses instead -- the caucuses we voted to get rid of.
So the people of the state are being disenfranchised by the party's decision to ignore the results of the primary. The super delegates are giving us our voice back -- at least in part.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Might.
But no, they're not split. They're wholly clinton. They were wholly Clinton before a single ballot was deposited. For you to claim they're "giving our voices back" is pretty laughable, when what they are actually doing is drowning out people's voices, nullifying people who stood up to become delegates, whose communities voted in as delegates. They're shutting out people who took the state's election system in good faith, and who are now being told, "you voted wrong, so we're going to erase you."
Superdelegates exist purely to subsume the will of voters. DWS points this out. Elsewhere in this thread MADem outlines it. That they happen to favor your candidate does not change this function. Superdelegates exist to override pledged delegates in favor of what the party heads prefer.
Also? Can't help but notice that not a single one of the Washington Superdelegates are black. There's one Native American woman (Lona Wilbur) and two Latinos (Juanita Ruiz and Rion Ramirez.) Soooo. Yeah.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)For those of us believe the primary reflects the true will of the people, then even with the super delegates included, Bernie got more WA delegates than he deserved.
The super delegates here were NOT wholly committed to Hillary. That's why they said they were waiting to decide based on the primary results. Well, they got them. And using the caucus results meant that Bernie was getting a lot more WA delegates than he would have under the more representative primary system -- the system the voters had chosen.
The supers couldn't rectify the situation all on their own. Bernie still got more delegates overall in this state even though Hillary clearly won the primary. But with all the supers voting for Hillary, they partially made up for the unfair caucus system.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Because, as I have covered, the caucus is what Washington uses to decide Delegate allocation. It has done so for quite a while, and I think it's safe to assume that people who are interested in the outcome of Washington elections understand this.
So when Washingtonians show up to caucus, they do so understanding that their endeavor will be what makes the decision. They learn the rules, they follow the system, and they expect that the outcome will reflect their decision, whatever it might be. This is all in good faith. We abide by our part, with our understanding of how things work., and we count on the party to respect that.
Unfortunately, the Superdelegates of Washington had already decided they were supporting clinton. Before the Caucus. Certainly before the primary. This has the net effect of telling the men and women who participated in Washington's election that their votes would not count. That it didn't matter what the people who participated in Washington's method of allocating delegates, because oh, we voted wrong.
That is what superdelegates do. That is their function. To "correct" voters when voters "vote wrong." See here. See here, as well.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)to go to court in 1988, in defiance of the will of the voters, to overturn the referendum we worked to pass, which was supposed to replace the caucuses with the primary. You're worried about disenfranchising voters -- this is exactly what happened when they overruled the voters on having a primary. They disenfranchised the state's voters and replaced the will of the voters with their own.
I don't care how long the party has used caucuses instead-- it was wrong then and it's wrong now.
Many people can't get to the caucuses for one reason or another and they are closed out of the system. Others want a secret ballot and not to have to sit for hours arguing issues with their neighbors. The system is unrepresentative, not inclusive, and unfair.
So, knowing this, the super delegates chose to side with the voters who participated in the primaries -- three times as many as those who went to the caucuses. And good for them. Thanks to the supers, a state whose primary voters chose Hillary has a less lopsided delegate count for Bernie than it otherwise would.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)scare the beejezus outta the establishment... peruse any and all engaged citizenry when protesting for reforms
this is why SDs were created, to create a 'firewall' to prevent actual grassroots from 'winning'
DWS spoke the actual truth on that vid I linked
MADem
(135,425 posts)When those "grassroots" picked a candidate who got his clocked cleaned in the general.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)"After the 1968 convention in Chicago highlighted the problems inherent in the Democrats tradition of nomination by party bosses, the Dems experimented briefly with making the process more democratic.
It was during that experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders. High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their partys duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later. The Republican party, by the way, has no superdelegates.
Office-holding superdelegates (most of whom are democratically elected to represent their constituents) are not obligated to support the candidate of their constituents choice. A 1988 study confirmed that superdelegates are more likely than regular delegates to vote for candidates with Washington experience."
http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections
BTW.. this guy is an SD: Rajiv Fernando
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
Does there need to be some reform to SD if not outright stripping them from the process entirely?
FACTS, facts would point you in a direction that 'YES" would be the appropriate answer
MADem
(135,425 posts)came OUT of 68 and, most significantly, 72. Those were the years we had our behinds handed to us.
I don't agree at all with this writer's thesis that the Carter election in 76 was the sole impetus--after all, he, unlike the last two "picks" actually WON. He brought in all the constituencies that were traditionally Democratic, and he brought us back into the South, as well. Carter only became a scapegoat after his SECOND election--the one he lost to Reagan, helped along by both Ted Kennedy (who primaried him and trashed him up and down the northeast--not Ted's finest hour by a long shot) and the Ayatullah Khomeini.
I don't think any SDs would overturn the wishes of the majority of Dems, and I do believe that thesis is just not supportable or proven. What they DO do, though, is serve as that "cooling saucer" Washington ostensibly mentioned to Jefferson. For this reason, and the reason that supers ensure very disparate representation in terms of race/ethnicity/religious (or not) affiliation/orientation/gender identity, etc.--things we can't always trust state parties to get right--we need supers to make sure our conventions LOOK LIKE AMERICA. And Supers do that better than voters do--otherwise, we wouldn't have so few women and only one black Democratic politician in the Senate.
Never has a crew of superdelegates voted for a candidate who got FEWER pledged delegate votes, OR fewer votes from the citizenry.
There's absolutely no need to fix what ain't broke.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Overwhelmingly white, and not a single poor person in the whole lot.
Any whiter and it'd look more like Monaco, frankly.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)your 'plenty of people' are establishment DEMs
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/history-of-superdelegates
OR this one
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/04/democratic-superdelegates-how-the-party-learned-to-start-worrying-and-fear-its-voters.html
That puts the SDs in the proper context if you do not like the other link I replied with
Consider this... why did SDs pledge BEFORE a single primary vote was cast? that goes directly against your premise here: 'I don't think any SDs would overturn the wishes of the majority of Dems'
It's 'broke' and it does need to be 'fixed'
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ask President Obama about that. He managed to convince many super delegates, by the enthusiasm of his campaign and the reaction by the voters, to flip.
Sanders did not have that ability--his campaign did not resonate like Obama's did. He ended up behind by millions of votes.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree. I stand with the CBC on this issue--I prefer a convention that looks somewhat like America, and if we left it up to state parties, we'd have a very homogeneous group at our convention.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)you stated 'I don't think any SDs would overturn the wishes of the majority of Dems' but I factually pointed out that SDs pledged BEFORE a single primary vote was cast...
Then you replied with 'by the enthusiasm of his campaign and the reaction by the voters, to flip.' again the SDs already 'flipped' before a single vote was cast
How could have 'Sanders did not have that ability' affect a situation that occurred before a single primary vote was cast and counters your replies?
the SDs and the process needs to be reformed, this much is clear
'I prefer a convention that looks somewhat like America'... one that doesn't follows the rules after those said rules are created to favor establishment?
you're entitled to your own perception but not to your own facts
MADem
(135,425 posts)I understand that you dislike the system, but I disagree with your opinion on that score. I've explained why. And noted the salient fact that the SDs have never, not once in the history of the SD system, banded together to contravene or thwart the voting public's decision.
The one with the most votes from the citizenry IS the one who goes on to be the nominee in every instance.
And you, too, are entitled to your own perception--but not your own facts, either. I'll stand with the CBC.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)yet you continue to avoid the point that SDs pledged before a single vote was cast in primary... where's 'the will of the people' in that?
those are the facts, and they match perfectly to the perception I've presented
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)that Sanders would be handedly defeated in the primaries. I can understand why they were committed to Clinton, she was the one that in their minds was going to win. They predicted correctly.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)but that wasn't the premise, first deflection, now a pivot? the premise was SDs follow the 'the wishes of the majority of Dems'
now you're making the claim 'correctly predicted'? How does that work within the context of 'FOLLOWING the wishes of the majority'??
I get that you'll most likely not answer this directly but surprises do occur...
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)it isn't rocket science or a pivot. It's common sense. When the candidate blew away the opponent on several super Tuesdays it's the writing on the wall. The opponent admitted he was a long shot, not exactly a way to instill confidence in supers. None of this is a pivot or deflection, these are facts that you are having trouble digesting.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)The op is talking about the CBC wrt to Superdelegates.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)so I AM addressing what the OP is asking 'why'...
If you have an issue with my facts or perspective then address that
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the DNC?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)... and that is ESTABLISHMENT
that vid clearly clarifies the WHY of SDs and their function as stated by the CHAIR of DNC...
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I think it is important to have that insurance. Also, we only need to look at Trump to see that the party needs a safety net--just in case the voters go off the deep end.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And all you have to do is look at the elections results of 1972 to see what happens when dreams overtake common sense. We got crushed that year. Of course, part of the problem was the everyone regarded McGovern as an aging hippie peacenik. He refused to let people understand that he had some serious street cred when it came to the war business. He should have exploited his own rather heroic WW2 service record; it might have changed a few minds.
I hope the map looks like Losing in 1972 for the GOP this time around.
FSogol
(45,525 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)this is the KEY paragraph:
Good post, btw, I think it is fair to highlight this issue.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)One scene in particular and I don't think there is a youtube of it out there.
I did find this from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Freedom_Democratic_Party -- The scene I recall is about this issue.
I personally am quite fine with super delegates -- I don't want them removed.
To be really honest, I have a feeling that the GOP wishes they has some Super delegates right about now.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)dsc
(52,166 posts)nearly all of the districts they come from are rather overwhelmingly African Americans and thus would quite likely select African American delegates. I do get their point about not wanting to take slots from their constituents but the fix for that is to let them go and write the rules, and platform but not have a vote on the candidate. If they want to be able to vote for a candidate then they should take one of the slots that are regular delegates. Now on open primaries they are absolutly correct and they should be consulted before any changes are made.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)that has ever elected a black Senator?
Where I live, black people are less concentrated in certain precincts than they may be in the east. Seattle had a popular black mayor even though blacks were a minority of the population. So I don't think your point holds for many parts of the country.
And it certainly doesn't hold for women, who are grossly underrepresented in Congress.
dsc
(52,166 posts)and one of those three is Obama. I can't see how four people could possibly make that ratio better.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)some black voices at the convention, who don't have to compete with white people to get there.
Igel
(35,356 posts)It's the convention delegates that matter, and how they're chosen is unlikely to be consistent across states.
However, where I live the delegates go by *district.* If you live in a mostly black district, the delegates to the local convention will pretty much have to be black. They send a smaller number to the state convention, but I'd have to assume a lot of those would be necessarily black. Then the state convention sends people to the national convention.
Now, things may alter the ethnic/racial balance of that representation. Perhaps the local convention doesn't send blacks to state. Perhaps since mostly black areas are poor and the state doesn't, to my knowledge, pay their way to the state convention only more prosperous local delegates volunteer. Or perhaps it's a matter of transportation or getting time off from work or away from families (where two-parent families would have an advantage). And perhaps the same kind of apparently-racial but actually-financial filter applies as we transition from state to national conventions. Dunno. But we make the assumption that since blacks aren't proportionally represented in the Senate, where senators are chosen by a state-wide poll, that convention delegates are chosen the same way. They're not.
But since most nominees are selected on the first vote, and the delegates are bound for the first vote, it's not like a black is any more free to have a say based on race than a white would be to have a say based on race. What's left is looking at the tv screen and proudly saying, "He looks like me!"
And, of course, blacks are demographic minority #3, after Latinos. And this fall the number of eligible Latino voters will be just barely less than the number of eligible black voters. (Largely because undocumented, non-naturalized immigrants can't vote. The 2020 election cycle should see Latinos push black voters into #3 status, as well. But still, the country is fixed on binary oppositions.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)he really just warmed the seat for Markey, and then there's Carol Moseley Braun, Barack Obama, and Roland Burris, who was ALSO a seat warmer--selected, not elected, to fill out a term (Barack's, in fact).
Tim Scott hangs his head in shame over on the GOP side of the chamber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott
The Senate is a national embarrassment. We could and should do better.
supers definately make it worse. For several conventions there has been a quota where half the elected delegates have to be women, no way the Senate helps with that.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The Senate is a pretty white outfit. They're not overflowing with women, either, though they're better than they used to be.
I mean, there's no way to parse it--the Senate does not represent America:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_United_States_Senators
As of November 2015, there have been 1,963 members of the United States Senate,[6] but only nine have been black.[7][8] While 58 nationwide organizations exist to elect women to the United States Congress, including EMILY's List and the Susan B. Anthony List, no organization has been formed to elect African Americans to the United States Congress.[9]
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I can't imagine how that poor guy gets along at GOP meetings.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)"First, let me point out that 12.3% (the percentage of African Americans in the U.S.) of them would be 304. But as it stands the RNC plans to invite just 18 or 0.7% of all delegates. The Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently had more than 20%; well over what would be fair based on the countrys demographics."
From here
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And that the 20% you mentioned INCLUDED super-delegates. So including them in as super delegates helps ensure their numbers are representative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)You wrote "So sending members of Congress to primary conventions as super-delegates is a way of ensuring that at least some black people -- the elected members of the House and Senate -- have a voice in the selection of the nominee."
You based your conclusion on incorrect assumptions that blacks are under represented at the convention.
The existence of super delegates is for a reason other than giving black people an equal convention voice. They already have a voice that is close to the racial diversity of the country.
Therefore super delegates are unnecessary to give POCs a representative voice and the reason the CBC wants super delegates resides elsewhere, probably in the same reasoning as other incumbents, removing political influence from the people they represent.
Igel
(35,356 posts)20% of the delegates to the DNC are black. Should be 22%. Let's just stipulate that.
The superdelegates include whites, blacks, and everything else but Greens.
The Congressional representation, the OP points out, is around 8% black. That means it's *less* representative than the delegates at large would be. When you include those in the mix, it drags *down* the proportion of blacks at the DNC. You'd need an additional 60 or so black Congressional superdelegates just to leave the black/white percentages at the DNC uncharged. Suddenly race/ethnic proportionality is an argument against superdelegates, at least Congress-based superdelegates.
The argument really rests on the composition of the superdelegate list as a whole. I'm going to guess that it's not much different from how Congress is weighted, but it's a guess. No numbers, can't crunch them.
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)They are the party's delegates, after all.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)how does increasing the power of the establishment promote diversity? If anything, this seems like a good reason to eliminate superdelegates - all of the power would be coming from the more diverse electorate, with less power coming from the whiter establishment.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)less reflective of the proportion of African Americans in the party.
Eliminating the black members of the "establishment" wouldn't magically mean more black activists would be chosen. It would probably lead to more white activists taking their places -- simply because white people are a larger fraction of the population.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)No one is talking about only eliminating the black super-delegates. Eliminating all super-delegates would probably mean that African Americans and women would have a greater voice, if the current group of super-delegates is anything like the group in 2008:
...
The percentage of white male superdelegates is disproportionate to the share of white males who make up the overall Democratic electorate. According to a January 2008 national poll by Zogby International, 28 percent of Democratic voters are white men. Women account for 55 percent of Democratic voters.
But superdelegates have never reflected the diversity of the Democratic party as a whole, nor were they designed to. They represent the party insiders, a group that white men still dominate.
I haven't been able to find the demographics for the 2016 super-delegates though; if you have, feel free to share them.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)primary convention than we have in Congress.
According to this, Democrats have about 20% black people as delegates -- including super delegates. (Similar to the 22% of Democrats that are black.) So I don't see how eliminating super delegates would improve the representation for black people. Not unless you think black people have a greater chance than whites of getting chosen as pledged delegates.
http://winningdemocrats.com/guess-how-many-of-the-2472-republican-delegates-are-black/
So how many of the 2,472 Republican delegates are going to be African American? First, let me point out that 12.3% (the percentage of African Americans in the U.S.) of them would be 304. But as it stands the RNC plans to invite just 18 or 0.7% of all delegates. The Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently had more than 20%; well over what would be fair based on the countrys demographics. The numbers are not in yet for 2016 but last year they came very close to doubling that figure. The Republicans on the other hand dropped from a mildly respectable 6.7% in 2004 to a beyond pathetic 2.1% in 2012. It wouldnt be so sad if they hadnt congratulated themselves so heartily for it 12 years ago. Regardless, if they dont do something fast that number is going to be cut by two thirds at this convention.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)deciding who would be president. And that's what eliminating super-delegates would mean.
I'm also not sure there's any reason to think that "elected" pledged delegates would be any less diverse than superdelegates. In fact, we have reason to believe they would be more so - at least in terms of gender, I believe there needs to be an equal number, and the state parties are supposed to set goals for pledged delegate diversity I believe.
But if they are pledged delegates, then the power to decide who will be the presidential nominee is left up entirely to the electorate, which is more diverse than the superdelegates (going by the most recent demographic information I could find).
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)So why do you think that getting rid of the black super-delegates (of all super-delegates) is going to IMPROVE the proportion of black delegates -- who would be chosen out of our gerrymandered precincts?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Pledged delegates will vote for the presidential nominee that the electorate voted for. The electorate is more diverse than the superdelegates. So removing the superdelegates would make the people who are choosing the president more diverse. The pledged delegates aren't going to be the ones making the decision (assuming things don't go to a second ballot, but that's a separate issue).
I also thin that 22% might be a bit low - that seems to be the number from 2012. 538 is estimating 24% of the Democratic vote in November will come from African Americans. If we assume the white proportion saw the same decline over the past 4 years that it did the 4 years before that, then the superdelegates are 5% whiter than the party. If there was no decline (I doubt that, but possible), then the superdelegates are 2% whiter. They're also 58% men. Not sure how their inclusion increases diversity in the decision making process.
2016 superdelegate demographics here
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Superdelegates conservatively reinforce the status quo at the expense of liberal plasticity in the makeup of our government.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)As blacks are underrepresented amongst superdelegates, then removing all superdelegates would actually make the whole delegate representation more diverse. I can't help but think, and this is not in reference to CBC specifically but to all superdelegates, that they like having that extra bit of power and don't want to gve it up.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But there is no reason to think they would be, not with the gerrymandering we have now.
According to this, Democrats have about 20% black people as delegates -- including super delegates. (Similar to the 22% of Democrats that are black.) So I don't see how eliminating super delegates would improve the representation for black people. Not unless you think black people have a greater chance than whites of getting chosen as pledged delegates.
http://winningdemocrats.com/guess-how-many-of-the-2472-republican-delegates-are-black/
So how many of the 2,472 Republican delegates are going to be African American? First, let me point out that 12.3% (the percentage of African Americans in the U.S.) of them would be 304. But as it stands the RNC plans to invite just 18 or 0.7% of all delegates. The Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently had more than 20%; well over what would be fair based on the countrys demographics. The numbers are not in yet for 2016 but last year they came very close to doubling that figure. The Republicans on the other hand dropped from a mildly respectable 6.7% in 2004 to a beyond pathetic 2.1% in 2012. It wouldnt be so sad if they hadnt congratulated themselves so heartily for it 12 years ago. Regardless, if they dont do something fast that number is going to be cut by two thirds at this convention.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)At least according to the poster above, who seems to have researched the facts. The existing superdelegate makeup is less diverse than pledged delegates. Removing them would actually make delegate body more diverse as a whole. BTW I don't have a horse in this race so don't really care, just don't like to see math used badly.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)pledged delegates voluntarily stand to be delegates, meaning outreach can directly result in greater diversity.
I could go into much detail about which individuals in the DNC resisted the idea of seeking to increase diversity among the delegates when the focus was on LGBT. There are quotes that might make some seem wildly hypocritical.
2006
New party rule aims to increase LGBT delegates
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories06/september/0901062.htm
2008
Latest Dean Deposition Addresses DNCs Internal Gay Delegate Feud
http://www.queerty.com/latest-dean-deposition-addresses-dncs-internal-gay-delegate-feud-20080728
Super Delegates do nothing at all to increase nor to protect diversity in the overall delegation. Supers protect supers and that's that. It's incumbent powers and those powers are all straight, mostly male and largely white.
David__77
(23,503 posts)It might - I'm not sure. According to this, African Americans comprised 26% of delegates to the Democratic convention in 2012:
http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/Blacks%20and%20the%202012%20Democratic%20National%20Convention.pdf (see page 15)
It seems to me that the African American representation among Democratic senators and house members is a bit less than that percentage. If so, then eliminating those superdelegates in 2012 may have boosted the share of African American delegates, all else held constant.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)So why are you saying that eliminating the superdelegates may have boosted the share of AA delegates?
David__77
(23,503 posts)If in 2012 African Americans comprised 26% of total delegates, including superdelegates, and if African Americans comprised <26% of superdelegates, then removing superdelegates would have boosted the percentage of African Americans among the remaining delegates.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)meaning that you are arguing for an uptick in raw numbers in exchange for actually reducing the ratio further because you are adding more whites than blacks to the over all number.
Cha
(297,655 posts)CBC!
John Poet
(2,510 posts)The Democrats only have 240 members of congress, but there are 718 superdelegates-- 437 of those from the DNC.... and making up something like 20 percent of the total delegate number.
Get rid of the DNC superdelegates, and the superdelegates will probably be less white than before, if that's their concern.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...increase the percentage of black delegates at the convention, then you need the percentage of PDs who are black and the percentage of SDs who are black. The OP has neither.
glennward
(989 posts)and supporters. Open Primaries would seriously dilute the vote of minorities within the party. Super delegates are favored by more than just the CBC to prevent just what is happening in the GOP primary.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)because Jessie Jackson, the last serious left populist contender, was getting too close for comfort.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...since McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972.
In 1982, the DNC came up with Super Delegates for presidential primaries.
Jesse Jackson ran for president in 1984 and 1988.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)they should vote in ways that advance that.
The Superdelegate system might achieve the objective you mention -- but it also ensures that White Insiders also have a disproportionate influence in the selection of candidates and results of primaries, and dilutes the impact of primary voters.
So -- as has often been said to Sanders supporters -- if they want the power they have to work for it at all levels.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I think the practice is an undermining of democracy and of the electoral process.
One person, one vote is a core principle of the Constitution. Super delegates subvert this principle.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Also the argument you're making is 'black votes are undervalued so we need to include superdelegates from a body that is disproportionately white' which makes absolutely no sense.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Would be my guess