Democrats discuss whether to do away with 'superdelegates'

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

National Democrats began a formal debate Friday over whether to do away with "superdelegates," a system that gives special voting rights to prominent party members and that came in for criticism during the 2008 primaries.

Ordinary delegates must line up during the presidential nominating convention with the candidate who won their state. But about 850 party leaders -- among them House members, senators, state governors and members of the Democratic National Committee -- may cast their ballots for whomever they choose.

These superdelegates, or unpledged delegates, acted as de facto tie-breakers in the close 2008 primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The system was criticized by some because of the possibility that the superdelegates might tip the scale away from the nominee backed by a majority of Democratic voters.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052105111.html?wprss=rss_politics

[boppers]

1. Have the superdelegates ever voted against the majority?

The article mentions some scattered differences, but has their ever been a case where the superdelegates actually reversed a national majority's decision?

[quakerboy]

2. Do they have the potential to create the appearance of

an early landslide thus having undue effect on voters?

And if all they do is vote with the majority, what is the point of having them?

[boppers]

4. What is the point of the electoral college?

I'm guessing the point is having a balance to mob rule.

[rpannier]

6. Define Mob Rule nt

[Tesha]

7. The actual party members having a say, as compared to the fat cat mostly-incumbents. (NT)

[Bette Noir]

12. The current rash of anti-Latino legislation in Arizona,

reputedly favored by 70% of the electorate.

But that's what we have a Constitution to prevent.

[No Elephants]

36. There's nothing unconstitutional about primaries selecting a nominee though, so the analogy doesn't

hold.

[saracat]

18. Nice to know what you think of the people having the vote. Perhaps

you would rather go back to a monarchy? Or a dictatorship? That also prevents "mob rule"

[The Green Manalishi]

20. The point of the electoral college

is to intensify and accentuate the difference between the winning and losing candidate so as to make it appear that the nation is more cohesive than it really is.
It is not only possible, but the design tends and was intended to turn a 48/52 split in the popular vote into something that appears to be much more decisive. Amongst other reasons, such as giving established members of the political class a say in who becomes President regardless of what the voters do.

It also is, as with the bicameral legislature, a balance for the more agrarian areas against the overwhelming number of votes in the cities.( A principle I wish we had MORE of here in california as LA would gladly drain dry every river and lake to provide water for swimming pools and *should* be able to do it if one believes in raw democracy.) Otherwise a candidate would only have to win the big cities and do fuck all for anyone outside of a place with a population of 500,000. This pisses off many progressives, of course, because in a pure popular vote progressive positions would win big, particularly if candidates ONLY had to pander to the cities.

I think a part of the point of the super-delegates is to look coldly and rationally at who can *WIN*. The fact is that primaries are usually won by the candidate who brings out the most partisan and motivated voters and, especially, volunteers and contributors, Sara Palin, or for us Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich, who may or may not be the most viable candidate in the general wherein most of the voters can barely be roused out of their chairs to come to the polls.

[mvymvy]

29. Electoral College Realities

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

[mvymvy]

30. The National Popular Vote bill

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

31. Big City Realities

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

[tabbycat31]

39. in 2004

I did not see a single presidential commercial on TV from either candidate. That was a first for me.

I lived (then) in a dark blue state that the Republicans wanted to pick off parts of by holding their convention there

[No Elephants]

37. Where are you getting all that about the electoral college?

[No Elephants]

35. Primaries are "mob rule?" LOL

BTW, the purpose of the {outmoded} electoral college was to strengthen the power of less populous states vis a vis more populous states. It really has nothing to do with Super Delegates, which do not serve that function.

Only similarity: Many Democrats consider both highly undemocratic. (Republicans tend to loves them some electoral college.)

[No Elephants]

34. Good argument for eliminating them, then.

If your best argument in favor of Super Delegates is that they have never done the one {highly undemocratic} thing that they were invented to do, that's a great argument forending Super Delegates.

They exist only to overrule the majority, if they/party "leaders" deem that desirable.

Either they serve no function at all, or there is a danger that may vote against the majority in the future. Either way, eliminating them is the way to go.

Bad enough the party "leaders" anoint people to begin with, as Reid did with Obama vc. Clinton.

[Enthusiast]

3. Do away with it.

Why should certain individuals have more influence than others? This is against the very spirit of democracy.

[Dinger]

8. +1,000

[CLANG]

13. +1000 too!

[Igel]

22. For example, Supreme Court justices

in deciding Roe v Wade?

Or perhaps legislators in passing the Civil Rights Act?

Or perhaps the president integrating the military when most people would have been against it?

Why, indeed, should certain individuals have more influence than others. This is against the very spirit of democracy.

Which is why, in fact, we have a republic. Not a pure democracy, in which 50% + 1 could dictate unilaterally and preremptorily to the 50% - 1, but a representational and constitutional democracy in which we give certain individuals more influence than others and place words written on a piece of paper--the constitution--above even them. At least in theory.

[No Elephants]

38. Yep. The spirit AND the letter. IOW, it's undemocratic, plain and simple.

[Demeter]

5. Superdelegates Keep the DLC Alive---Get Rid of Them

Otherwise, we can't have any real change that anyone will believe in.

[saigon68]

25. Disgusting waste

[Bitwit1234]

9. I think they are a waste of time

when the people vote for a candidate THEY should be the ones who make the decision. Not those already in congress who get a chance to over ride the public opinions. Cut em loose they are out dated.

[robinblue]

10. The media chooses the candidate, so why have the supers?

[Bette Noir]

11. What tie? I remember Mr. President holding a commanding lead.

The superdelegate issue was a desperate ploy by a loser. Sorry, Madam Secretary, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[saracat]

19. Look again. It was close. Not a tie but close and the superdelegates could have swayed it.

There was a reason folks were threatened for their vote and they were. No delegates on either side should have to be in that position. Delegates should vote as pledged at least on the first ballot. And they did not. There is no point of having Primaries if the pledged delegates do not have to cast their votes for the people that voted. Superdelegates need to be abolished. And votes need to be cast as submitted no matter who has the lead.JMHO.

[dsc]

33. You are right about the closeness of the race but wrong about pledged delegates

The pledged delegates were indeed required, unless released by their candidate, to vote for their candidate in the first round. Superdelegates are unpledged so have no such requirement.

[woo me with science]

14. They should just create some "ultra-super-delegates."

That would fix things.

[salguine]

15. The only purpose of Superdelegates is to enable the DLC to thwart the will of the voters.

[D-Lee]

16. Actually, I like superdelegates

they help assure some political saviness and steadiness -- and the ones I've known have been resposinsible, elected public officials (mostly legislators) who ARE accountable to thie respective localities and local voters.

[Stardust]

17. "they help assure some political saviness and steadiness" ...oh, please,

tell me you're joking. If they truly are accountable to the local voters, what's the point? We don't need politically savvy officials to speak for us, thanks anyway.

[EFerrari]

23. Right. Because we can't have the rabble choosing.

:eyes:

[Missy Vixen]

28. No, they don't

They prevent those who organize on a local level and work their hearts out for the party and for the nominee from getting that seat among delegates at the convention. After all, it's too important for the superdelegates to network and perform other "urgent" Party business.

I've watched it happen over and over in the Democratic Party structure of Washington state.

[Arkana]

21. Whatever.

As long as they don't decide to do away with proportional allocation of delegates to candidates in each state, I'm good.

[EFerrari]

24. I give this headline an A for the best ironic headline in recent memory

[mopinko]

26. seems like you need something like this at any rate. we are a party.

our elected officials should have SOMETHING to say about who is on our ballot. or you end up with nut cases. not all, of course, but there will be some. look at the clown we got for lieutenant governor in illinois. (again)
fortunately the "elders" of the party got the clown to step down.

[Odin2005]

27. Eliminate them! It is how the DLC maintains power.

[hayu_lol]

32. Yes, eliminate the superdelegates...

eliminate the Caucus process

eliminate the Texas Two-Step

eliminate the puter voting machines

go back to pencil and paper ballots