The House passes the Senate's healthcare reform bill 219-212.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Super delegates, super mess?
If you’re not sure what the Democratic Party’s superdelegates are and what they do, don’t feel bad: The Democrats are confused, too. Here’s a brief Wiki explanation of superdelegates. Meanwhile, as the primary season speeds (mercifully) toward the finish line without a clear victor, the party is fighting over what to do, the Washington Times reports.
Obama’s camp argues that the state super delegates should support the winner of their state primary or caucus. Others, such as DNC member and California super-delegate Bob Mulholland (a piece of work in his own right) say super delegates should vote independently.
“My state voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, but it doesn’t mean [the super delegates] should vote for Hillary Clinton,” said Mr. Mulholland, who is neutral in the race. “There would not be a purpose for having 796 superdelegates if their only purpose was to rubber-stamp what the 50 states did.”
Yeah. Who cares what the voters think?
back to top18 Comments to “Super delegates, super mess?”
Does anyone think there will be superdelegates next time around? I don’t.
Far be it from me to tell the Dems what to do, but it will look bad if the ultimate vote goes against the will of the people. What is far more pathetic is how the Clintons think they will be able to pull off victory with the superdelegate vote AND get Obama to accept the VP slot. I think that’s called chutzpah.
Report comment to moderator
Once again, it falls to me to point out that the Republicans have a very similar system.
The only real difference is that the Republicans don’t give their unpledged delegates a catchy name. They’re not a factor in the Republican primary only because McCain won a decisive majority of primary votes.
It is true that the Republicans have fewer of them , but they have fewer total delegates. As a percentage of the total, it’s not that much different.
Report comment to moderator
That said, I tend to agree with NJLawyer on this one. (It happens sometimes.) If we go into the convention with Obama having a clear lead in the number of pledged delegates, the superdelegates really should not able to give Clinton the nomination.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, if this blows up in the Dem party, it would be stupid for the Repubs to retain it, too, now wouldn’t it? (Not that….)
Party bosses _____ — well, you finish the sentence.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – It is much less significant in the GOP due to the large number of winner take all states in the GOP and the fact that the Democratic National rules require each state to apportion the delegates to match each state’s popular vote.
The GOP system will magnify the delegate lead of a candidate above his or her percentage lead due to the winner take all states.
It should also be pointed out that the Democratic system is sort of fuzzy as to whether the elected “pledged” delegates are actually bound to vote for the person they are “pledged” to. The GOP rules are much stronger in that regard.
Report comment to moderator
The superdelegate system sounds closer to the intent of the Founders in crafting an electoral college in the first place. As I understand it, the idea was that each community would chooses delegates whose judgement they trusted, and the delegates would choose the president. The founders feared the susceptibility of the masses to deceptive rhetoric and manipulative propaganda. They hoped to mitigate that by adding a layer between the people and the vote for president.
But I could be wrong on that. Where’s Jon Rowe when you need him?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like the superdelegate system, but I like the “winner take all” idea even less. I think the delegates should be apportioned by the popular vote in each state.
But I can hardly wait to see the mess the Dems are likely to have at their convention. It should be such fun! Obama is likely to go in with a small lead. Hillary is likely to steal the nomination from him through use of superdelegates, cattle futures, Arkansas hit men, or some other scheme. Then the Rev’s. Sharpton, Jackson, and other ne’er
do wells are likely to protest the whole thing.
Hellooo President McCain!!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with JJF on this one.
If states get delegates proportional to their populations, and they are apportioned by the popular vote and committed to their candidates, then it’s all just a mathematical exercise. Neither the conventions nor the delegates have any real power or judgements to make, and the entire primary season might just a well be held all in one day – as it’s just a spread out, majority (or plurality) vote.
I’d hope that to the extent we still have “party bosses” and people who focus and stratagize on winning elections, that those people would again have significant power and influence at the conventions. I think we actually got better candidates for the general elections, when there was that behind-the-scenes horse-trading going on at the convention.
Is there anything, in the end, that says political parties must have a primary system, with the appearance of democracy, to nominate a candidate? In theory, couldn’t the leaders at whatever level just meet, and by whatever private machinations, say – here is the candidate we are putting up to represent us?
Report comment to moderator
Sullivan portrays the Clintons as a Horror film that just won’t go away… says they live for the risk, almost bombing out, and then miraculous re-birth… Somehow that horror film analogy seems appropriate…
http://tinyurl.com/yomymh
Report comment to moderator
I never quite grasped the rationale behind the primary system. Although the Clinton camp has decried the caucus system as undemocratic, I prefer the caucus system. Clinton’s complaint is rather self serving since she lost all the caucuses. The caucus system keeps the choice of candidate(s) within the party and forces the nominees to rely on loyalist.
The primary and especially the open primary take the choice of candidate away from the party and allow the general public to have a voice. However much this appears to be democratic, its bad timing – the people have a voice in the general election. The result can be seen in the 2008 Republican quandary — they are stuck with a candidate much of the activist base is not happy with.
The winner take all system and the electoral college system are both undemocratic. A nationwide caucus system at the electoral district level could provide the same function as the electoral college ie a brake on false populism.
Within a causcus or primary the winner take all removes minority voices and results in a disenfranchisement of large portions of the party — a problem seen in McCain’s nomination.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
The electoral college is indeed undemocratic. You get three points on the test. It isn’t supposed to be “democratic,” because we aren’t a democracy, but a republic. It does, however, allow small states to have a voice in presidential elections. Even the smallest state gets at least three electoral votes, not just one or half of one. That means that huge states don’t run away with everything while little states get trampled. It’s brilliant, really.
Report comment to moderator
The Dems have a much bigger problem than the super delegate one, and that’s the caucus problem. Most of their state contests are caucuses, not primaries. Caucuses are much more involved and time consuming than voting, and so they tend to attract the hard core activists, the true believers, of the party. In the GOP, that’s the far right conservatives. With the Dems, it’s the far left liberals. If the Dems didn’t have so many caucuses, Obama would’ve been out of the race a long, long time ago. But he won a few, and then he won a couple primaries in heavily black states, and his successes, coupled with White Guilt, led to Obamania, which is now approaching the levels of national hysteria. Which has got the Dems in a real pickle. Obama can’t win the big states. Sure, Illinois, his own state. And VA, but it’s the black vote that put him over the top there. CA, TX, OH, MI, FL, NY, NJ, etc., have all gone for Hillary, and so will PA in a few weeks. These states are where the electoral votes are. If you can’t win the majority of these states, you haven’t got a prayer of winning in November. No matter what they’re saying publicly, TPTB in the party know that they’re doomed if Obama wins the nomination. The super delegates may be their way of getting around this. If there are riots, there are riots. It’s a chance they’re willing to take.
Report comment to moderator
Thankfully, CherylD, we don’t have to worry about HRW mounting any real attack on the Constitution. I know I’m relieved.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, I think CherylD’s version of the electoral college is more accurate than yours. The idea was that the most populous states would not control everything. It evened things up for those states that were more agrarian. Moreover, the problem back in the day was travel. It took them a long time to travel to Washington. I believe the electoral college voted in March.
CherylD’s right: it was brilliant.
I can’t say I agree with NT’s “white guilt” theory, but he may be right about if there are “riots” so be it.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have strong feelings either way on the Super Delegates or caucus vs primaries. No matter what system you pick there’s gonna be difficulties and problems.
Our Republican friends may be reacting with glee over the present situation, but they should recall that not so long ago it was their party which looked hopelessly split and would go to the convention with no clear winner. But for fate, they could be in the same position as the Democrats.
One should also remember that the Republican’s glee over this situation is political posturing at it’s finest. They are desperate for anything (anything!) that will help them to win in November. They are more than happy to exploit the situation to their advantage. (Mind you, the Democrats would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot).
I think what’s going to happen is the following:
1. The “powers that be” in the Democratic Party are hoping this thing gets settled through the remaining primaries.
2. Florida and Michigan will be used to settle it if necessary.
3. The Democratic Party will call a meeting of both candidates, where extreme pressure will be brought to bear to settle on a ticket, possibly with both on it.
4. The Democratic Party will bring significant pressure on the Super Delegates to fall to one of the candidates, assuring that it will be settled before the convention.
5. If all of the above efforts fail, then you will see a brokered convention.
I do not foresee the knock-down, drag-out fight that the Republicans are praying for.
Just because the Republicans are standing around in a circle chanting “Fight! Fight!” like a bunch of 7th grade boys doesn’t mean we have to listen to them.
Report comment to moderator
If all of the delegates were chosen on a proportional basis, there would only ever be a non-brokered convention only if no more than 2 candidates sought the nomination (e.g. this year someone like Edwards might well hold enough to prevent the 2 front runners from gaining a majority).
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer:
My understanding of the electoral college and Cheryl’s are not opposed. I agree that the EC sought to balance big and little states. My understanding is that as a matter of political philosophy, it was much more than just an attempt to level the playing field. I could be wrong, and I’d be very interested to have somebody who really knows the topic tell me whether I am, but I don’t think Cheryl’s post has anything to do with mine.
Report comment to moderator
I only recently learned that the 1968 nominee, HUBERT H HUMPHREY, didnt win a single primary.
This could be 68 all over again for the Dems. Where are Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin when you need them??? (I know, decesed)
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!