Hold the phone!! The Tyranny of Super-Delegates

[SHRED]

---

Check this out.


The Tyranny of Super-Delegates

Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa was also a good night for our democracy. The turnout broke records and young people – who were mobilized and organized – participated in unprecedented numbers. And now that Iowans have spoken – the first citizens in the nation to do so – here's the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):

Clinton – 169

Obama – 66

Edwards – 47

"Huh?" you say. "vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo."

In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 "super-delegates" – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.

In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."

MORE:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=266130

---

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Super Delegates aren't locked in. They can change with the political winds

[arewenotdemo]

9. Even the ones who have already committed?

[Joe the Revelator]

14. Yes even those. Up until the convention they can change their side

nt

[K Gardner]

2. WTF???

[Joe the Revelator]

3. I'd also love to watch her try to claim a victory after losing most of the delegates given by the

voters. Talk about a Bush stategy. There would be a revolt in the party. Which is why the superdelegates will change to whoever is winning.

[mmonk]

4. There will be an uproar if the Super-Delegates

go to Clinton IF she doesn't get election victories to back them up. Time will settle the issue.

[Gman]

5. Sounds like the super-delegate system is functioning well as it was intended

I have no problem with the super-delegates. Thank goodness for the super-delegates. Maybe Obama should have worked the super-delegates a little harder. He'd have more.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. The superdelegates will start moving to Obama soon

All Hillary has to do is keep losing.

[K Gardner]

7. Well, she's not going to win NH by a long shot, so I hope you're right.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Of course I'm right

This isn't the first time a superdelegate favorite started to lose the nomination

[Strelnikov_]

10. Wow, thats a real (d)emocratic position n/t

[Gman]

16. Super-delegates have nothing to do with democracy

they have to do with rules of an organization that too many here at DU despise.

[Strelnikov_]

17. And that organization would be? n/t

[TwilightGardener]

11. If Hillary loses but tries to hang onto them, prepare for torches and pitchforks.

[mod mom]

13. or a third party entry.

[goldcanyonaz]

12. Popular vote has never won anyone the White House. nm

[goldcanyonaz]

15. k for dupe.

[Occam Bandage]

18. They're 1/6th of the vote total, and they have never gone against the popular vote.