Screw superdelegate count-give nomination to the one with most votes in total counting every contest

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/03/DI2008020302985.html

Paul Kane: Sorry Reading, Ohio is not at all where Clinton could wrap things up. We've done a bad job of explaing this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).

Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.

And then the super delegates decide this thing.

That's the math.

[robbedvoter]

1. Let the popular vote decide - it would be democratic this was (whichever candidate gets it)

[GoldieAZ49]

4. they cannot and will not change the system put in place in 1972

certainly not in the middle of an election

[robbedvoter]

8. Too bad. I'd like the whole delegates system gone. Along with electoral colleges

Most civilised countries have direct vote. And equal. And secret.

[papau]

11. Amen - I totally agree

[Eurobabe]

32. I second that, get rid of the obstacles to what the PEOPLE want!!

[mac2]

2. Obviouslty Edwards was a factor here.

[GoldieAZ49]

3. And that ladies and gentlemen is why the DNC is expecting the convention

to be almost as bad as the 68 convention, and why Howard Dean is saying the candidates need to cut a deal between them.

[seybor]

5. I agree - forget the rules - advantage: Clinton

(copied of my post from another discussion - this one's more relevant anyway)
Full disclosure - my response may be biased by my passionate support for Clinton.
Super delegates and a limit of 4 pre 2/5 primaries are DNC rules. Question is, should we scrap those rules now because they've proved problematic? What impact would that have?

Under the current rules, MI/FL delegates don't count and HRC could win on super delegates even if Obama won on pledged delegates - taking the votes out of the hands of the many and giving them to the few goes against liberal values, so I see where this smells rotten.
Aye, but here's the rub...If we pitch the rules, MI/FL delegates do count and HRC is even further ahead of Obama based solely on pledged delegates.

Some suggest that the Michigan primary wasn't fair because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. That was a bed of his own making - not something agreed to as part of the party's consequence for MI's early primary. At any rate, here in Michigan Obama's camp promoted "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies with great success, capturing a large share of the vote in a state that would likely have gone even more heavily for Clinton due to demographics if she, too, had campaigned in any way. Besides, we Midwesterners have national news, radio, and, yes, access to the internet. People had plenty of access to information about all of the candidates. Didn't work out very well for us, but it was OUR primary in OUR state held OUR way - we all have to live with it. Obama also ran regional ads that aired in FL. Effectively, his campaign reached both states. They just weren't his type of states. It pains me to admit that it would not be fair for the results to count since MI/FL clearly broke the rules. However, the results of the election are fair.

So, I completely agree that counting the super delegates AND MI/FL would be inappropriate and would disenfranchise voters in a very unbalanced way. However, not counting super delegates AND not counting MI/FL would be inappropriate for the same reasons. Our party. Our rules. I'm conflicted - for my part, Hillary would benefit from the switch to counting all pledged delegates and only pledged delegates. However, I'd really like to avoid more talk of a redo in MI/FL because of the cost to our very vulnerable state party and elected positions.

Hey - on the upshot - at least we're all feeling inspired and fiery - we can reform both the primary process and super delegate rules by working together.

[papau]

9. superdelegates (advantage Clinton) and overwieght rural (advantage Obama) w/ 60/40 a 2/2 split-sucks

popular vote for president (get rid of electoral college) and popular vote for nomination.

[seybor]

17. I don't follow - who are the overweight rurals

and who do you think they support? What do they have to do with this?
As for favoring a popular vote - on this we certainly agree. In the day of pony express the electoral college was a necessity. It's now an archaic tradition.

[pampango]

22. I just saw a map of Missouri that showed that Hillary won every rural county.

Obama won St Louis, Kansas City and Columbia and the rest of the state was all Hillary.

Is Obama stronger in rural areas in other parts of the country?

[4themind]

21. Thanks for the interesting post

I think it may also depend upon what you mean by "pitching the rules". Hypothetically it could be CHANGED,but changed to allow for the running of another primary in these states, in addition to just seating the delegates as mentioned. The relative benefits of which can be debated but I do not believe that one logically follows on the basis of rule change itself (and I don't want to assume you meant that necessarily) along with the changing of the superdelegate rules. However, I do think that change ,if decided upon, should wait untill after the elections cycle (and I concede that I don't have a logical reason for this other than my perception of the problems it could cause otherwise). Of course the "decisiveness" of the super delegates themselves relative to other parts of this process can be reduced if a decisive majority of them agree to go with the pledged/delegate counts. If they don't decide to do this, I would be sympathetic with people who disagree with the result on moral/personal grounds while not legal ones

[papau]

24. a decisive majority of superdelegates should agree to go with the popular vote

[4themind]

25. Apologies

I originally planned to put that in an option for debate as well.

[seybor]

27. Should that vote include the counts from MI and FL?

[4themind]

28. If the popular vote is decided to be used..

some possibilities may include using the vote from the original contests or those totals from a repeat of these primaries

[seybor]

26. I agree with following rules now and working together in '10

My vote probably won't count in the primaries - I've accepted that, and I share in the responsibility. I don't think the decision to fully alienate MI/FL is a sound one, but I certainly understand that the DNC made the consequences clear. Conversely, I think it is equally fair to say that the rules around super delegates were clear from the beginning and both candidates have had months to work them. Most are elected officials and are beholden to their constituents.

As for a redo, at least in MI, I don't think it is appropriate for a number of reasons.
A redo seems fair on the face, but a redo would have to be caucus-style (a primary would be too costly/unmanageable at this point). Given analysis, that would give an advantage to Obama in two states in which Clinton already won. Outsiders might not like the results of our primary, but it was our primary and we all had the opportunity to participate - many of us did.
A redo would be costly in a state that has a very vulnerable set of democrats - we're dealing with a lot of recalls over tax increases (actually, rollbacks to graduated tax cuts inherited from a mad man of a repub governor) made to cover an incredible budget shortfall (legacy of that same horrible republican...sound familiar?). The party would have to pay for the caucus process as the state already sunk millions into the early primary. It could be disastrous for the state committee, which would be bad news for the DNC, too. Michigan moved the primary up in an act of desperation. Our state is really struggling with the highest unemployment rate in the country. I drove through my Ford headquarters middle class neighborhood the other day and within 5 blocks, on one side of the street, saw 4 foreclosures and 5 for sale signs. We can't afford the caucuses and we can't afford the fight. I think our collective funds should be saved for the general elections, and any dem funds directed to Michigan should go to helping protect other vulerable positions.

The whole situation stinks here. I don't want non-Michigan voters to feel disenfranchised because of the super delegates. I'm feeling disenfranchised by our party policies and politics. It seems we're caught in a lose-lose here, in which the only fair thing is to disenfranchise everyone equally. Therein lies my inner conflict.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Yeah, let's change the rules halfway through if it'll benefit Clinton!

[papau]

7. so popular vote is bad - don't the Obama folks call this attitude Obama's "WIN AT ANY COST" plan?

[CK_John]

10. We have representive government not a mob. n/t

[papau]

12. Then why did we stop Federal Senate & electoral college Selection via State Legislature?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"

Now "electors" is the designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President

We once had elector selection by the state legislature. It was used by more than half of the states in 1792 and 1800 and exactly half of the states in 1812.

[CK_John]

20. You are mixing a party function with government. There are DNC rules and can be changed

by the party convention in the off year cycle (2010). Get active and become a party delegate and work to change the rules.

[papau]

23. The rules can be changed at this years convention for this years convention -indeed

folks can just agree to vote that way since once elected - even if pledged - you can vote as you want (Edwards pledged from Nevada in 04)

[robbedvoter]

29. EVERYTHING can be changed. Albeit, party rules, easier than constitution

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Of course they don't want the popular vote to choose our candidate because Obama would LOSE.

The fairest way to settle this would be to take the popular vote. NO ONE can argue with that. If they let super delegates decide this and they choose the candidate with the least amount of pledged delegates, but the person they believe would be the BEST to lead our country, SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN. That's all there is to it. The popular vote is the best way to go. IMCPO.

[seybor]

13. I shouldn't have been so glib in my subject

If the sarcasm I'm sensing is aimed at my post. It belied the consideration I'd given my post and my sincere inner conflict over what is best for us as a party at this juncture. This experience has illuminated a seriously flawed nominating process in which both candidates have been helped and hindered and voters are on both sides are being disenfranchised due to party infighting. As a Michigan voter, it's been really heartbreaking.

[TheUniverse]

15. I would absolutely agree with this.

I believe that elections should always be decided by popular votes and not some obscure delegate system, or even worse superdelegate system.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. We should act like Democrats, and let the popular vote decide our nominee.

Remember 2000.

[seybor]

18. It's so nice to hear an Obama concede to this fair approach

even though it would mean a Clinton nomination

[papau]

19. Amen - I total agree - to Howard Dean - please consider this idea! - - Thanks :-)

[mac2]

30. I agree

[cobalt1999]

33. Does that include the popular vote in Florida and Michigan?

Or do you only like to do away with rules that don't favor your candidate?

[Vinca]

31. I would agree that counting the popular vote would be the most fair

way to do it - excluding Florida and Michigan - even if Hillary wins.

[Carrieyazel]

34. That isn't going to happen. Superdelegates are the rule in the Dem Party.

They should be outlawed, but its too late to do anything about it this year.

[LiberalFighter]

35. It was not intended for candidates to win nomination absolutely without super delegates.