Fixing the superdelegate system should be simple

[MindMatter]

There were all sorts of problems in the nomination process exposed by this primary season. Perhaps the most discusses and cussed is the role of the Superdelegates. There is a lot of discussion about this in the aftermath, and plenty of gnashing of teeth about how the system could be improved.

It seems vanishingly simple to me. The stated purpose for having superdelegates is to resolve an impasse in the event that no clear winner emerges from the pledged delegates. The answer to that problem seems absolutely obvious.

Don't allow the SDs to vote in the first round. Allow only PDs to vote in the first round. If that doesn't produce a winner, then have at it with the Superdelegates in the mix. In practice, most SDs wanted to back the peoples' choice, and this would simply formalize that philosophy.And in the event that there is no clear choice from the people, the SDs would come in with their voice, which is as it should be, I believe.

Could somebody tell me what is wrong with that?

I realize this doesn't attempt to address the other problems, such as caucuses, states voting out of turn, and PD who violate their pledge, but I think there are straightforward solutions for those as well.

Thoughts?

[hvn_nbr_2]

1. I've never heard the "resolve an impasse" rationale for superdelegates.

I'm old enough to remember when the superdelegate system was invented, after the movement in the 1960s and 1970s to open up the nominating process to the people's choosing, rather than having it done in cigar-filled back rooms. The result of that opening up was that high-level officials, including even the party's elected Congress members and Senators, would not be delegates to the party's convention if they backed the wrong or no candidate in the primaries. It seemed painfully obvious that some party regulars ought to be delegates, and that's how superdelegates came into being, at least as I remember it. Now, it seems to me equally obvious that we have way too many superdelegates to achieve the original basic purpose.

Leaving the original rationale aside, your system sounds feasible to me.

[hokies4ever]

3. Superdelegates make up 20% of the total delegates, making it impossible to clinch without them.

Definitely need to lower the number of SDs for sure. To clinch without them, you would have to average about 63 percent of the delegates in all of the states. This is virtually impossible in a competitive 2-person race, especially when you consider that the first few states will have a lot of competitors.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Huh?

This is, I think, only the 2nd time the superdelegates have been used to "clinch" to the nomination. Most nominees clinch it easily without the use of superdelegates.

[hokies4ever]

6. Perhaps you should read messages along with the subject?

"Definitely need to lower the number of SDs for sure." The same sentiment has been expressed by Nancy Pelosi. If there's any kind of somewhat competitive race throughout the primary season, it's virtually impossible to clinch the nomination without superdelegates. That's why all of the, "Why can't he close the deal?" talking points were pure BS. You would need to consistently get 70% of the vote in most states in order to clinch the nomination. If there is more than one viable candidate, even if it isn't a close race, then you wouldn't be able to clinch.

Understand now?

[MonkeyFunk]

14. but your claim was just flat out wrong

ignorantly wrong.

[hokies4ever]

15. Not nearly as ignorantly stupid as your claim

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

17. Every race since 1988 has been clinched without SDs

Your comment about how it's impossible to clinch in a close 2-person race is technically true. But in almost every race, a huge winner emerges and wins a huge majority of delegates. Usually all but one drop out after half of the contests, so the last half are won by the last person standing by 50-80% margins, like for Kerry in 2004 or Clinton in 1992.

This was the closest primary race in either party since at least the 60s, and this kind of thing almost certainly will not happen again for decades. So in that respect, the SDs situation probably doesn't need to change, but it should to eliminate unlikely, but possible, problems.

[hokies4ever]

19. Proportional delegates vs. winner-take-all delegates

If you don't understand the difference... :eyes:

Bottom line remains that if there is a race that is even remotely competitive, the superdelegates are needed to decide it. A candidate could average 60% of the vote in all of the contests and still fall short. When was the last time that you heard about a 60% vote being anything but a mandate from the people?

[electron_blue]

2. You're describing the process as is. No SD's have voted yet. That happens

at the convention. This still doesn't prevent SD's from 'endorsing' someone, which is basically a promise to vote for a candidate at the convention. As you know, however, even those promises aren't binding, many SD's have switched allegiances during this season.

[hokies4ever]

5. In that case, no pledged delegates have voted yet either

Sounds like the score is 0 to 0 and it's anybody's game. :eyes:

[electron_blue]

7. What's your point?

[hokies4ever]

8. According to your logic, Kucinich is just as likely as Obama to win this race

Superdelegate endorsements are counted to determine the presumptive nominee for a reason, you know. Someone else please help me explain this simple logic. :eyes:

[electron_blue]

10. I wasn't using logic, just stating how the process goes.

I suppose if you want to get technical, Kucinich *could* still win, but that's incredibly unlikely as pledged delegates are supposed to vote for who they're supposed to vote for. And the vast majority of them do vote for who they're pledged to. Some flip. Many SD's have already claimed to support either Clinton and switched already to Obama, or vice versa. One guy even endorsed Clinton at the beginning, switched to Obama and recently switched back to Clinton. You really don't know for sure how any SD's will vote until the convention. You can be pretty sure before hand, but not absolutely sure til the convention. Hillary made it clear back in Feb that she considered even the pledged delegates (for Obama) as fair game and said she'd go after them.

I hope that clears it up. If not, check out this link: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledged-delegate-switches-to-obama.html

No need for the sarcasm, btw.

[notesdev]

9. Here's the fix: eliminate it

The very concept of "superdelegates" contradicts the idea of popular selection of nominees.

Why should one of these superdelegates get the equivalent of 75,000 regular citizens' votes in selecting the nominee?

It's a virtual invitation to corruption. Get rid of them entirely. No one's vote should count for more than any other.

[MedleyMisty]

16. This would be my position

Just go with the popular vote results of the primaries.

I remember hearing a superdelegate talking on NPR, I think, about having earned her place at the table. I was like, "Okay, yeah - and what about all the people who didn't have the opportunity to become a superdelegate? Why does your voice count for more than theirs?"

Well - first I cringed at the place at the table cliche for about five minutes. Then I thought that.

[ladjf]

11. I think that they should be eliminated entirely. We don't want

a decision as important as the Candidacy decided by a handful of individuals. For one thing, it could
set up a bribe situation. Would interested parties be willing to pay millions to guarantee a nominee?

[Firespirit]

12. What problem?

The only fix I'd make is a DNC-imposed ban on superdelegates making any public statements of support before the first primary or caucus, on pain of forfeiture of their vote at the convention.

Party insiders should not get to stack the deck for a candidate before a single citizen gets to vote.

[L. Coyote]

13. Just double the number of other delegates. Bigger convention, more democratic.

Or some such increase that keeps all the elected Reps and Senators.

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

18. Superdelegates were created to reign in choices that were

deemed too liberal, such as McGovern. I read and article from the 80s about this recently, and that was the stated reason. The party heads were worried about the primary voters selecting someone who is too liberal that has no shot at winning the general election, so the SDs were implemented to change things if it's relatively close and the leading candidate is less likely to win the GE than the 2nd place candidate. I don't know if I agree with this.

I think there should be 1/3 as many SDs as there are now, at most.