Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Kingmakers: Super delegates and the Democratic Party
How did Waring Howe, Jr., a personal injury attorney running a one-horse practice in South Carolina, become one of the most sought-after men in Democratic politics? By becoming one of an elite group known as the “super delegates.” WORLD’s Jamie Dean reports:
The 796 super delegates comprise about 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates sent to the Democratic nominating convention this summer, and they hold unique power. he majority of convention delegates are elected by state parties and are considered “pledged delegates,” which means they must vote in the nominating convention for the presidential candidate who won their states’ primaries. When a candidate wins a state primary, the delegates he or she picks up are pledged delegates.
But super delegates, or “unpledged delegates,” are considered free agents: They aren’t bound to their states’ choice for a nominee, and they may commit support to any candidate they choose at any time during the primary season.
With state primaries seesawing between Senators Obama and Clinton, people like Howe may hold in their hands the futures of some of the most powerful people in politics.
back to top16 Comments to “Kingmakers: Super delegates and the Democratic Party”
It’s the old inside/outside battle. For the Dems, how do you prevent McGovern? How do you keep an even keel and not let the agitated completely take over? Thus, two tiers of delegates. not the best solution, but it works.
I really can’t speak for “your” side here, Lynn, but I suspect you face the same tension: on one hand you have experienced knowledgeable pols, the sort who do know how to cut the deal once in a while. Then there are the activists, so stirred up by passion that threaten to take over the party to the party’s defeat.
Report comment to moderator
“We know what’s best for you little people.” It’s the Democrats’ way. Can’t have those unwashed masses actually selecting the candidate.
When they say they’re “for the little guy,” it has the same meaning as my being “for” my dog. I feed him and take him to the vet and generally make his decisions for him. But, when company comes over, I expect him to go to his crate and shut up.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like the primary system as it is.
Having said that, these superdelegates earn the right to go to the conention because of their long-time support for the party.
Report comment to moderator
Come on StuBob, only one in five Democratic delegates has this power, and at that, the fact that they can cast their vote for a candidate other than the state’s choice doesn’t mean they will.
They will have a lot of influence in a close race, and this year may be one. In a year where one candidate is the clear runaway winner, their influence is minimal.
And here’s something for you: The Republican party has the exact same thing. They don’t call them “superdelegates,” but 463 of the 2,380 Republican delegates also go to the convention unpledged. Article here.
Another point: Many states award Democratic delegates proportionally, that is, even the candidate that doesn’t win the primary gets a share of delegates proportionate to the number of votes he/she does get. Most Republican primaries are winner-take-all.
In other words, if you live in Massachusetts and vote for the second-place Democratic candidate, your choice still gets some delegrates. If you vote for the second-place Republican candidate, your choice gets bupkus.
Which is more cognizant of the will of the people?
Report comment to moderator
#1 STUBOB says
“We know what’s best for you little people.” It’s the Democrats’ way.
#3 STEVEG says
“The Republican party has the exact same thing. ”
Is this STEVEG’s denial of STUBOB’s assertation of comment about the Democras way of doing things, or that Republicans just act the same way.
Either way, STEVEG accepts that Democrats know what’s best for you. Therefore, Democrats are elitists.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles: Try reading.
The Democrats have delegates that go the conventions unpledged.
The Republicans have delegates that go to the conventions unpledged.
It’s the same thing. Like it or not. If Democrats are elitists for that reason, then so are Republicans.
I’m sure you’ll choose to stick with your incorrect but self-satisfying stereotype anyway, but the facts are there for anyone to see.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – the GOP does NOT have exactly the same thing.
In Illinois, for example, the D delegates consist of 185 people, 85 party party appointed and 100 elected (46% non-elected). The GOP has 70 delegates, of whom 13 are appointed (18.5% non-elected).
There is a very strong chance, a near certainty in fact, that the non-elected nearly half of the D delegates will be the deciding factor. There is a much lesser chance of that on the GOP side (with fewer than one in five non-elected delegates).
Report comment to moderator
KRM; Elected vs. appointed isn’t the issue. The issue is pledged (to cast votes for the nominee that wins the state’s primary) and unpledged (the ability to cast votes without regard to the state primary winner.)
Go re-read Lynn’s original post. 796 of the total 4,049 Democratic delegates are unpledged. That’s 19.6 percent.
463 of the 2,380 Republican delegates are unpledged. That’s 19.4 percent.
It’s an almost identical ratio. But somehow it’s only bad when the Democrats do it? ‘Splain that one.
Report comment to moderator
Here are the data leading to my conclusion: According to “2008 Democratic Convention Watch” (demconwatch dot com), HRC has 48 committed delegates to BHO’s 63. That’s BHO by 30%.
However, HRC’s 189 Superdelegates compared to BHO’s 104 give her a total of 237 to his 167. That’s HRC by 41%.
CNN shows the Superdelegates as 184:97. That’s 2:1 for Hillary. So, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Party faithful install a nominee who isn’t the members’ choice.
Add to this HRC’s recent calls for the Michigan and Florida delegates to be counted, and it gets harder to imagine BHO being the nominee, regardless of the members’ vote.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob: You have a fair point there.
My quibble is we don’t know what’s happening on the Republican side. (Or I don’t anyway, maybe you do.)
Republicans also have unpledged delegates, and the percentage of total delegates they make up is almost the same.
Isn’t it possible that Republicans could have the same “kingmaker” scenario, where the unpledged delegates line up behind the candidate that was only second place for the voters?
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.:
I’m rather hoping for that outcome, personally. The voters seem rather likely to choose McCain, but I can’t imagine many truly knowledgeable Republicans (like the delegates) doing so. I’d love to see the delegates give us a different outcome. Of course, I suppose they might split their votes and still end up giving us McCain, but I’m really hoping for anybody but him at this point.
Report comment to moderator
#6 STEVEG
The difference is that Democrats call Republicans elitists but deny their own elitism; Democrats always “Fight for the poor and working middle class!”
Democrats have the “Vision of the Anointed.” You can get the book by Thomas Sowell. He explains it so that even an elitist Republican like me can understand. Here is the short version of the vision of the anointed.
If you give me enough time and enough money I will fix the problem. If I can’t fix the problem it’s because I need more time and money. (Think Great Society)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – The diference is in how the term committed is used.
The elected ones are bound by party rules to vote (on the 1st ballot) for their pledged candidate. The appointed one may have ‘committed’ to a candidate, but they are not bound to honor that committement – they are permitted to change their minds at any time (so they aren’t really “committed” are they?).
Report comment to moderator
KRM: If Lynn’s original post is correct, then the number of Democratic delegates nationally that are uncommitted as you describe is within two-tenths of a percentage point of the number of Republican delegates that are uncommitted.
You may be correct about the higher percentage in Illinois, but on a national scale they’re virtually the same.
So what is the difference again?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – The portion of the delegates classed as “super delegates” in the article may approach the portion of appointed GOP delegates, but the Democrats have a lot more unbound delegates than those classed as “super delegates” in the article.
Report comment to moderator
can you point me to further information on that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m not aware of this and would like to know more about how it works.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!