So what is the purpose of super-delegates, anyway?

[pnwmom]

To line up behind the nominee who is ahead but hasn't obtained the required super-majority?

To divide themselves proportionately between the two candidates depending on their support in the primaries or caucuses?

No. It would have been simpler just not to have a super-majority -- to let the winner be the one with more regular delegates. But instead, we have super-delegates. And they have always been expected to use their own best judgment in deciding who to vote for. Otherwise there would be no purpose for their existence at all.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. To rubber-stamp the will of Democratic Undergr.... er, the people

[Jacobin]

2. To make sure that the status quo doesn't change much

Can't be too careful, now can we? Can't have the PEOPLE just running around choosing a candidate for president. They might pick someone who would like want to End a War, or do universal health care, or screw up some other moneymaking scam that has been institutionalized by the two parties in power.

[mcscajun]

3. To keep the party, not the people, in control of the ultimate nominee...

and hopefully, put the most electable (in the GE) candidate up against the Republicans.

Getting the Democratic nomination with overwhelming numbers didn't get George McGovern the White House in 1972; on the contrary, it was a landslide election for Richard Nixon. McGovern won only one state and 37.5% of the popular vote.

The super delegate selection/process was instituted following the 1972 election, to prevent another such occurrence.

[elleng]

7. mcscajun is right,

I'm afraid.

So Dem party more confused/messed up every year.

[pnwmom]

9. And THAT was such a depressing year.

My introduction into politics.

[mcscajun]

13. First Presidential Election I was able to vote in...

...thanks to the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18. (I actually turned 21 in 1972, but had the age for voting remained at 21; I'd have missed voting that year by a week or so.)

I had such high hopes that year...and had them all dashed, as did we all.

[pnwmom]

18. 49 states for Nixon!

I'm still not over the shock.

[hedgehog]

4. To ensure that even if party leaders failed to back the right

candidate from the beginning, they'd still go to the convention. We tend to forget that the party is involved with more than the Presidential race. People are out there in the trenches year after year electing city council members and state legislators. These people missed the boat the year McGOvern was nominated and wanted to make sure that they were at future conventions no matter what.

[cd3dem]

5. Got a Problem? Ask the Super

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[pnwmom]

11. Thanks! And here's the piece that most people seem to forget:

From your post: "Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats."


Absolutely, this is true. Take my state, for example. All the delegates were determined from the caucuses, where Obama had more than a 2 to 1 lead over Clinton. But in the primary a little later, Obama and Clinton were within a few percentage points. So Obama got many more delegates through the undemocratic process of the caucuses than he would have if we had just had a primary.

[GoldieAZ49]

6. So how should the super d's vote?

neither candidate can reach 2025 without them

Some are elected others are not

Now either they vote for who they think is best for the party (which is why this freakin system was set up to begin with) or they vote the way THEIR constituents voted.

I favor the latter, but, who has the map of where each of these supers are from and how their 'particular' (ie; voters that elected them) voted?

And who tells the super D's that are not elected how they should vote?

A classic clusterfuck for the history books. Nice.

How and why this system was set up:

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

so voters (ie: us) could not screw up the party for them (ie: politicians)

[pnwmom]

12. Here's Geraldine Ferraro's take on that, thanks to cd3dem

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

SNIP

Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by?

Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics.

So we created superdelegates and gave that designation to every Democratic member of Congress. Today the 796 superdelegates also include Democratic governors, former presidents and vice presidents, and members of the Democratic National Committee and former heads of the national committee.

These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.

SNIP

[cottonseed]

8. To protect their own arses.

If I was a Democratic politician, I'd be thinking real hard right now about what happened in 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

[Recursion]

10. To keep the voters from throwing out incompetent but well-connected party elite

Not to put too fine a point on it; party people like to keep their jobs.

[SoCalDem]

14. Supposedly, it was to prevent a "crackpot" from getting the nomination

or someone who was liked, but had NO chance of actually winning.. ..a Bob Dole fer-instance..

The cooler-heads, and party loyalty of the sooooopers would kick in and give a more viable candidate their votes, before the convention..and then there would be no ugly convention stuff..

They are totally unnecessary anymore though, because of the relentless 24-7 media cycle.. NOTHING escapes the attention of outlets that are ravenous for every little tidbit of non-news..

Soooopers need to be gone..

They are an impediment now.. To have a group of unassigned hyper-partisans, just waiting in the wings, waiting for their chance to undo all the primaries & caucuses...well that's not a good thing..

[GoldieAZ49]

15. the "crackpot" was McGovern

and any other far left candidate


it is all about the center for both parties because that is where America is, in the center

[SoCalDem]

17. Yes..in that instance..but they hoped to control the process from there on

and to dictate the winner...to make sure he(she) was the one they approved of..and to hell with what the people wanted

They should scrap the whole thing..

Just add up the pledged delegates, divide by 2 and add 1.. That's the winner..they could tweak it and make it a 2/3 majority..but it should always be based on the REAL delegates based on districts..not sooooooopers who get to decide any way they want..and play games with the candidates in exchange for future appointments and or jobs for family members..

[LisaL]

16. Obviously if it was just go with the candidate that has a

majority, super-delegates wouldn't be needed at all.

[TheDeathadder]

19. Obama has a slight lead in delegates

Clinton has won more of the big states

This is going to be a battle and the super-delegates vote on their own judgment, it's their vote to make, those are the rules.

This thing is neck and neck and Clinton is going to win.

Reply all you want it won't change reality, but Clinton will save America.

[writes3000]

20. Obama has a large delegate lead

If he keeps it, I don't think the superdelegates will overturn it.

The party leaders are going to have to intervene and try to broker a deal which both candidates ultimately endorse.

[BzaDem]

21. Superdelegates have some influence. They don't "decide the nomination."

They represent 1/5 of the convention. So they don't get the entire say; far from it. The closer the pledged delegate lead is, the more influence they have. If Obama were landsliding hillary in the delegate count, they would have much, much less influence, since Hill would need a huge majority of superds to put her over the top.

Their real purpose is to give experienced elected officials a say in all of this. Primaries are spread out over a period of months -- new information could come out towards the end of a primary season that could doom a candidate.

In my view, it also allows them to look at the national popular vote, which I believe is much more fair than a delegate system that awards a voter in Idaho 25 times the voting power (in terms of votes/delegate) as the voting power of a Texas voter.