Who's Really Picking Our Candidate? "Stuper-Delegates"

[allinktup]

As we see record turnout after record turnout one thing is becoming painfully obvious. Even though we contribute to 99.99999% of the vote in the primaries, our votes are really only counting for 60% of the delegates awarded.

How is it that 40% are un pledged and are awarded by elected official? Do they think we don't deserve to pick who we want our president to be. I don't like the fact that the people can choose one candidate, but unless it is by an overwhelming majority, these politicians can essentially tell us who we get to vote for. How is that democratic? Even the repugs know that is a very flawed system.

The last time I checked, elected officials were still only individuals. How do they get to make up 40% of our vote? I understand that super-delegates were supposed to add some "Establishment stability" to the nomination process, but I think we have enough establishment in our lives.

I know, I know... What can we do about it... Well, I don't know what to do about getting them to change it, but I do know that I can call my local and state officials and tell them that if their S-delegate vote doesn't match what the people of the state decide, I'll be voting against them in the next election.

That is something we can all do. If we put them there, then it is our responsibility to make sure they are voting in OUR best interest.

[Selatius]

1. It's meant to prevent people from hijacking the party structure, people who could be extremist.

I'm being facetious, but I often wondered why the upper echelons of the party is structured in that fashion.

[allinktup]

2. I understand that, but...

Why should so few control so much. I mean, doesn't it actually assist in hijacking the party?

[Selatius]

3. It's likely a remnant of the old way the party used to do things, like the Iowa/NH caucases.

There could be a better way of doing things, but this time around, we opted for tradition instead of progress.

[allinktup]

4. Hmmmm... Sounds familiar.

Just like how the S-Delegates are being awarded. Only, the people want progress, not tradition.

[Selatius]

5. I'm sure the people who benefit most from the current system don't want to listen

Power concedes nothing without a demand. Never has, never will.

[NWHarkness]

7. How can the party hijack the party?

Most of the superdelegates are not governors and senators, they are people who join their local party organizations, work long and hard to elect Democrats and push for progressive change. They get rewarded by being elected to positions in the party, and are given a seat at the table when the big decisions are made.

We can certainly argue about how much weight they ought to be given in the process, that is a question worth examination. But they are, for the most part, the people who keep the party going year in and year out; They are the people who man the offices and answer the phones and keep the lists when the campaigns are over and 90% of us walk away until the next cycle begins. So, "hijack the party"? I would say, no, they don't assist in hijacking the party.

[allinktup]

9. NO, they're not.

Super delegates are awarded by elected officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

[NWHarkness]

11. Check your own source

Superdelegates are not "awarded by elected officials". What does that even mean?

Do you know your state chair and your national committeepeople? I know mine. They are good, loyal Democrats, and they are superdelegates.

Why shouldn't those who work hard for the party year in and year out get some say in who we nominate, when we allow independents and even, in some states, Republicans, to show up on primary day and weigh in?

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Are you sure about the 20% figure?

Another DUer recently reminded me about how the whole primary/delegate/superdelegate system came about. It was in 1972 and a compromise between George Wallace's camp (third-party candidate but VERY influential with the die-hards in the South), labor unions and women's groups. The eventual agreement was 80% of the votes were to come from the states and 20% from the party (i.e., delegates and superdelegates).

The entire system was brought about to avoid a replay of the 1968 Democratic Convention melee in Chicago -- essentially to have the candidate chosen BEFORE the actual convention.

[allinktup]

8. It's not 20%

It's 40%. Super-Delegates count for 40% of the total primary vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

I got interested after I noticed that with the ones awarded by our voted obama had a 3 point lead (before SC) but if you tallied in the SDs, Clinton was leading by like... 200 i think, or 100.

But the link is right above.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. I think the difference may lie here:

From the link:
"Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination."

As opposed to total number of delegates.