Super delegates or no super delegates? You decide.

[ozone_man]

The primary and caucus process awards pledged delegates that are selected by voting, while super delegates are a combination of elected officials and other party leaders that do not necessarily reflect the will of the voting public.

As it stands, 80% of delegates are pledged delegates and are selected by voters, while 20% are super delegates and are not selected by voters.

How do you feel about the super delegate process?

Please feel free to elaborate below. For example, should the primary process be changed to a plurality instead of a majority?

[usregimechange]

1. Send them packing with Lieberman

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Tiebreakers ONLY

No more party mugwumps.

--p!

[ozone_man]

3. Then we only need one super delegate?

:)

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Keep all 800. Then make them vote over and over until they get a 2/3 result

And make them pay their own way to the convention.

:)

--p!

[LadyVT]

4. I believe that there needs to be a check...

on the people AND checks and balances on government. Otherwise, it is inevitable that we will end up like so many, many countries, getting behind a candidate who turns this country into an authoritarian regime. People in other countries in which this has happened were not stupid, or different from us. They were just under the influence of a profound cultural phenomenon-- we have a biased media in this country now, and a populace ready to make just about anything into a football contest, with very little willingness to dig deeply on their own. This is not to say the superdelegates couldn't all lose their minds, but as long as both systems are working, it makes it less likely.

Yes, we sure do need the superdelegates. AND the Independent media!

[GoldieAZ49]

5. isn't going to happen they set this up after McGovern and they will keep it

Howard Dean said the candidates will have to make a deal if it goes much longer. He does not want it going to the convention with both, having a bloody fight, and only 8 weeks before the GE.


Super Delegates
How, Why, and the effect on previous elections

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

[ozone_man]

11. Why shouldn't all the states get to vote?

I don't understand Howard Dean on this. I think the potential source for a bloody fight lies solely with the super delegate process. If it were a plurality required, then there would be no fight. Whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. Simple. It's the fight over these super delegates that gets bloody.

The only year when they may have an impact was in 1984, he said. The loyalty of Democratic elected officials probably helped Walter Mondale survive an unexpectedly strong challenge from Sen. Gary Hart who had beaten Mondale in New Hampshire and other primaries.

“The super-delegates clearly gave him his majority and helped him wrap up the nomination earlier,” Mayer said.

So it gave us Mondale, but he was not a strong candidate. :)

Perhaps super delegates are an archaic system? My concern is that a candidate will have a plurality of pledged delegates, yet will lose based on the super delegates who are not selected by voters. We may have an interesting test case at the convention.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Mondale won the primaries

the superdelegates didn't choose the second-place finisher - they just confirmed what the voters said.

[GoldieAZ49]

25. ah but the super delegates are selected by the voters

they are the currently 'elected' officials of the party and any living past presidents and vp's

I preferred Gary Hart myself, I think he would have been a much stronger candidate, he was the first 'swift boated' candidate in my opinion

You are right, if it goes to the convention with both candidates viable but neither having the 2025 delegates it is going to be bloody, much like 1968

I first heard they were preparing for a '68 ish convention months ago, didn't pay much attention to it, wrote it off as overly dramatic. Now, not so much, the DNC saw this coming.

[ozone_man]

32. Super delegates are not selected by the voters in the primary.

And many of them aren't elected publicly, but are DNC Party leaders.

I like rug's idea the best. Include them in the process, but require them to have been selected as pledged delegates in the primary. It's the back room wheeling and dealing that turns people off of the election process. If they can see up front that it was a fair contest, they'll be much happier about the outcome. At a time when we're trying to bring out the vote, this sends the wrong message to new voters, that their vote doesn't really count after all.

[GoldieAZ49]

39. True, some are selected by Howard Dean it does send the message if they

'choose' the candidate, alienating the voters. as CTyankee said below. It just doesn't feel like the democratic process. Depending on how this turns out they may change policy, however they cannot in the middle of an election without a battle from one side or the other, it may be a real mess this time around.

[CTyankee]

34. But voters were voting on those "electeds" on other issues, not on whether they would be

nannies of the Democratic Party process. So that logic is faulty.
I'm not saying that their wise counsel should not be consulted and given full audience because I think they add value to the conversation. It is the idea of superdelegates that seems to me so antithetical to the democratic process.

[XOKCowboy]

49. You are wrong.

When I voted for those people, I voted for them to win one office. I didn't vote for them to be delegates in the primaries. It's an arrogant power grab by those in power who think that they know what's best for "us".

[Yurovsky]

6. If Obama wins more delegates but loses b/c of the SDs...

there will be fucking hell to pay.

Denver will make Chicago look like a Cub Scout den meeting. We'll burn that mother DOWN ...

[MonkeyFunk]

16. What if Obama has more delegates

but Clinton has more actual votes?

[Yurovsky]

20. Obama better still get the nomination ...

there are RULES. Counting delegats as per the rules set forth initially is the only way to conduct the nominating process. The Hillary camp is trying to say they have more votes, while including the votes from Michigan and Florida, two states in which Obama followed the letter and spirit of the rules laid out by the DNC. Hell, Senator Obama's name WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT IN MICHIGAN. And not all counties in Florida had Democrat names on the ballot (many simply had amendments being put before the public).

Hillary wants to have it both ways WRT MI & FL, and you simply can't allow those votes or delegates to count unless you reschedule both states' Democrat primaries and actually allow the candidates to campaign and make their case to the voters.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. But the sacred RULES say the superdelegates

can vote for whomever they want - why would having more pledged delegates trump the popular vote?

And this scenario is quite possible without Florida and Michigan.

[doyourealize1]

8. I'll tell you the answer to this question

Most Clinton voters will say keep the superdelegates
Most Obama voters will say throw them out.

Am I wrong?

[GoldieAZ49]

26. yes, both will want the super delegates

because neither will have the 2025 delegates needed for the nomination

[harun]

9. 20% Superdelegates is 20% too many (n/t)

[GoldieAZ49]

27. the super delegates are about 800 or more, that is 40% they can make damn

near anyone the nominee

[HooptieWagon]

10. OK, I voted keep 'em, but...

... I'd like to see the number cut to 200 or so. 800 is WAY too many.

[ozone_man]

14. That seems like a reasonable solution.

I think the 800+ super delegates come to play mostly in a three way race, where no one is close to 50%.

A dead even, two candidate race still runs into a situation where each candidate has 80% of the number required 2,025, which is what we're heading into. It seems simpler and less contentious to let a plurality of pledged delegates decide. I think the original premise for the super delegate system was flawed. They didn't like McGovern basically. They thought he was a weak candidate, so the Party wanted to have a bigger say in the nomination process.

[CTyankee]

31. Why do you think we need super delegates?

I'm truly befuddled on this. It sounds so much like Orwell's "Animal Farm" where "some were more equal than others."

I feel this is so deeply undemocratic that I can't support it. I'd like to know what your reasons for keeping them are...

Thanks...

[HooptieWagon]

47. B/C the Party is not a private club that can admit only "like" members...

Anyone can declare themselves a Democrat and vote. An example I used before; Suppose the fundies quit the Rep party en mass and declared themselves Dems. Suppose they voted for a candidate who was anti-choice, etc. The SDs are a buffer against such radical change happening. Unfortunately, having 800 SDs means even evolution is difficult. The proper # of SDs would be that which permits evolution pushed by the voters, yet prevents the party from being highjacked by a large group of newcomers. 200 is the guess I threw out there - maybe there should be more, maybe less - 200 seems like a reasonable place to start, IMO. That's only about 5% of the delegate total.

[Benhurst]

12. I've never liked the concept of super delegates; but we can't

change the rules mid-election.

If this situation ever happens in the future, why not have a national runoff between the top two candidates, with all states voting on the same day?

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Elections don't come for free

they take a long time to organize, and they're very costly.

[Benhurst]

22. True; but neither do free societies.

I have thought for some time now that we should have runoffs in general elections such as those held in other countries.

[IndianaGreen]

13. It would be a disaster in November if we allow party hacks to pick the nominee

Talking about handing the election to McCain!

Barbara Boxer said over the weekend that she would vote for whoever won California, in this case Hillary. Another Congressperson said that he would vote for whoever carried his district. Either of these two solutions is preferable to undermining the will of people by having party insiders and favorites, some of whom are not even elected officials, to second guess the electorate.

The worst solution of all bad solutions is having the party Chair intervene in the process, as Howard Dean has said he will. Any interference by the party Chair will be catastrophic and would irreparably split the party, no matter what the final outcome is.

Regardless of who you support, Hillary or Obama, keep the party insiders and their clones OUT of our nomination process!

[ozone_man]

19. Barbara Boxer's reasoning is all or nothing

like the Republican primary process. If all of the other super delegates followed the same reasoning, I think that might be OK. It would balance out across all of the states.

But if she is going to follow the California voter's decision, why are super delegates required at all? Perhaps make it a hybrid system, where 80% are proportionally selected delegates (as they are now) and 20% awarded to who won that particular state. The Republicans award 100% to the state winner.

But the way it is now seems to be a recipe for disaster at the convention. A disaster which can be avoided by making a simple agreement to nominate whoever has the most pledged delegates.

[Benhurst]

21. Yeah, but this puts the party in the position of making up the rules as we

go along. What a joke. And do you really think the partisans who have played by the rules are going to go along with the opposition's copping a victory with "rules" made up on the spur of the moment? I think it unlikely at best.

What a mess!

[GoldieAZ49]

28. and if the pledged delegates for both candidates are close and the supers

all go one direction it will be ugly.

If they go with their districts that would be better, but some of those were 50-50 splits too

if they go with the most popular (who drew the biggest crowds) that is a problem too, young voters vs older voters but the votes spilt 50-50

It is going to be messy any way it cuts unless one of the candidates is a clear winner, and that doesn't look likely

[rug]

18. Abolish them. They have the same purpose as the Electoral College.

[CK_John]

23. Everyone who wants to do away with them have no idea how to do it. Another example of

passion without process.

[rug]

29. Let the officials run as pledged delegates.

[ozone_man]

30. That would include them in the process

and the allocation would be fair.

Other than that I think eliminating them all together and making the requirement a plurality instead of 50% majority makes sense. This was presumably the way it was before the super delegates came into being?

I think the argument for their existence is more relevant in a three way race, where a fringe candidate achieves a plurality, say with a 35% to 40% of the vote. Even then I think a form of instant run off works where the top two candidates face off at the convention and the third candidate's delegates are freed.

In a two way race the likelihood of a fringe candidate making it that far is small. In any case, we don't have a fringe candidate that we might need super delegates as a protection against. If the super delegates are used to thwart the will of the people, it may cause an outrage at the convention and fracture the Party.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. its a non issue...all candidates signed unto the rules and they knew what they were signing unto....

[pampango]

35. For the candidates it should, indeed, be a non-issue. I am more concerned

about the reaction of supporters who haven't "signed onto" anything. I could see many of them reacting poorly to SDs overruling a plurality of elected delegates. They will have a tall order convincing the "loser"'s (the one with more elected delegates) supporters that they selected the other candidate for the good of the party and our electoral chances, not as the result of backroom wheeling and dealing.

To me it's not the legality that the SDs have the right to do whatever they want, it's the potential political consequences of their action.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. its happened before...remember the 1980 Convention and we lost the WH because Raygun used...

film footage of Ted Kennedy's attack on this same issue

[pampango]

38. I do remember. I hope and expect that neither Obama or Hillary will do that,

if they lose.

[mohc]

36. Convert them to pledged PLEO

As it stands now we have 415 pledged PLEO delegates, 720 unpledged PLEO, and 76 unpledged "add-on" delegates. Those unpledged PLEO and "add-on" delegates make up what is known as superdelegates. 398 of the unpledged PLEO are DNC members, only 322 are actually elected (or former) officials. The 415 pledged PLEO delegates are apportioned based on their proportion of state wide vote in the various states, the same as the at-large pledged delegates. If those 415 delegates can be made to pledge, why not make the 322 delegates pledge? Once you get past that, I think it would be hard to argue that unelected DNC members or "add-on" delegates should have extra influence, so just pledge them too. This would still allow states that have more PLEOs to have extra influence, which I think is more fair than them being unpledged. It also keeps those individuals among the delegates.

[ozone_man]

40. I like that approach.

It may not be what the party leaders and elected officials had in mind when they created the super delegate process, but I think it's a plan that would sit well with voters.

[mohc]

42. When they were created

We went from effectively having ONLY superdelegates to reducing that number to 20%. It was certainly progress, but just as that system had seen its time pass, so has the current system. Allowing the superdelegates to remain but having them pledge is just the next step as far as I am concerned. Maybe eventually it will be pure national popular vote, who knows.

[TexasObserver]

41. Super delegates should be ex officio and non voting

They're like the friggin UN Security Council, really running the show, but giving the illusion of participatory democracy.

[GoldieAZ49]

43. Super Delegates will decide the nominee

I just did the math

H has 832 delegates
O has 821 delegates

H has 50.05% of votes cast so far

There are a total (w/o MI & FL) of 3427 delegates
1663 have been voted (see above)

1764 are left

keeping the same percentage, since this race is so close, almost 50/50 (tho H will be stronger in some areas and O in others)

There is NO WAY either candidate will get the 2025 needed

So far there are 213 super delegates pledged to H and 119 to O Keep in mind these are SOFT pledges and can change sides anytime up to the convention vote
There are 493 super delegates that have not pledged either way

These numbers were taken from the 2008 Dem Convention Watch

They are not obligated to vote as their precinct or state voted, they can make their decision based on anything they decide upon, collectively or individually.

[hisownpetard]

44. I believe I heard that super-delegates account for 40% (not 20%) of the total delegate count.

Dan Abrams said it on his show.

Is there any way to check on this?

[GoldieAZ49]

45. here is a website with info on both

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

[hisownpetard]

46. Thanks, Will check it out.

:hi:

[HooptieWagon]

48. They would account for 40%

of the delegates needed to win, supposing they unite behind one candidate. that is unlikely. The 20% figure is the % of the total delegates.

[hisownpetard]

50. Oh, I didn't pick up on that distinction. Thank you!

:hi:

[LiberalFighter]

51. The will of the people does not count in primaries.

I don't want Republicans, Independents, Green Parties, or other to decide who the nominee will be for the Democratic Party.

I don't want those that say they are Democrats that are not willing to contribute, volunteer, or be active in other ways for the Democratic Party. If those deciding who the nominee are not willing to invest in the Party then they don't have the best interest of the party. If they are not willing to be a county, district or state convention delegate. If they are not willing to be a precinct committee chair or involved in the local party.