What's this "superdelegate" thing?

[sibelian]

Are they magic people with giant votes? Super chunky gold-plated votes?

Inform me, please, O my American cousins. I am but a humble sheep-shagger from the Highlands and I can't do hard sums without taking off my shoes.

If they are magic people with giant votes, I cannot promise that I will refrain from giving my opinion on the sensibleness of this idea.

[HassleCat]

1. It varies by state

Many states appoint delegates who are "recognized party leaders" by virtue of holding office. I think there is another way to be a "super" delegate in some states, and it connects to being loyal to the party, etc. The interesting thing about super delegates is that they can vote for any candidate they want. The do not have to follow the results of the primary vote. In terms of this election, I'm pretty sure almost all the super delegates will support Clinton.

[sibelian]

2. But how does that affect the result?

What weight do their votes carry?

[MineralMan]

4. Each has one vote as a delegate. It's just that they are not bound

by the results of the primary or caucus system like other delegates are. As was pointed out, most are elected democratic office-holders along with a few party officials. They're basically at-large delegates in a system that elects delegates at district conventions for the most part.

They're called "super delegates" because they can vote as they please, regardless of primary results. Sometimes, they make a difference, and sometimes not. They make up less than 20% of delegates, but can be a deciding factor.

[RKP5637]

9. Why do we need them. Doesn't sound like a democracy to me if some are given special

powers.

[Metric System]

14. It's not a democracy. It's a political party. In my native country of Canada, only party members

vote for party leader at a convention (no primaries or caucuses) and in the general election you vote for your local representative. In other words, the average person never votes directly for party leader. Yes, Canada is also a democracy.

[RKP5637]

15. Thanks!

[MineralMan]

17. It's not so much "special powers." They can just vote for whom they

wish and are not bound to vote for any particular candidate. They have one vote. Many feel that they have earned that vote because they are established elected officials, sent to office by the voters. Their role only really matters when there is a close distribution of votes for candidates at the convention or when there are three candidates and no majority. In those cases, super delegates can affect the election. They exist to prevent "smoke-filled" room negotiations when there are multiple candidates and to arrive at the necessary majority when one cannot be developed through normal processes. Most often, they're just voting delegates.

Conventions now are different than they were back in the 50s and 60s. That's partly because of these super delegates. Some people would like to go back to the old walking caucus free-for-all conventions. Myself, I'm not fond of the old convention system. I think it led to some pretty questionable decisions, really. 1968 was a good example. That year could have been done better and saved us from Richard Madman Nixon. Go read a history of that convention. It was a cluster-intercourse of a convention.

[RKP5637]

21. Thanks for the additional information MM!

[HassleCat]

12. In practical terms

Yes, exactly. In this election, they could be a factor if Sanders finishes the primaries by winning, for example, 35 percent of the pledged delegates to Clinton's 40 percent. With neither candidate holding a clear majority of delegates, the result should be a brokered convention, but the super delegates would all vote for Clinton and she would win on the first ballot. There is some likelihood something of this nature will happen this time around. It's kind of like Bush losing the popular vote but winning (?) the presidency; we said it would never happen, but it did.

[MineralMan]

20. Frankly, the delegate count situation you propose seems to me to

be very, very highly unlikely. I predict that it will be nowhere near that close. If Biden does enter the race, then there might be a race between him and Clinton to be dealt with at the convention, though. I doubt that will be the case, either.

[HassleCat]

22. I agree

The chances are small, but not as small as in a typical primary.

[MineralMan]

24. Actually, the 2008 convention was pretty weird,

and super delegates played a role in it, too. It was a lot closer than the 2016 one will be, though, and still ended up with Obama as the nominee, as it should have. I think Sanders will step out on March 2, 2016 and endorse Clinton. I'll bet he knows he's going to be doing that right now, frankly, and may have known it all along. He has managed to push the conversation further to the left that it might have been, which I think was his primary goal. I don't believe for a second that he thought he'd be the nominee.

That's my opinion and projection only, of course.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Think Orwell. Some votes are more equal than other votes.

[tularetom]

6. Maybe we could have "supervoters" as well

If you paid a certain amount to the party of your choice, you could buy additional votes on a proportional basis. The more you pay the more votes you get.

Or we could just quit pretending that voting even means anything, eliminate the middle man and just auction the presidency off directly to the highest bidder.

[RKP5637]

10. Just thinking about it, seems "Citizens United" has done just that, and was clearly a death call for

democracy in the US. A better name would have been "Wealth United."

[tammywammy]

5. ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[sibelian]

7. ....... "Each state has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots..."

wwwwwwwWWWWWWHHHAAAAAAAAT?????

[cheapdate]

31. Tennessee, where I live, has some of the least restrictive ballot access laws

in the country. Getting on the ballot for any national or state office requires only a petition signed by 25 adult residents of Tennessee, and completing a two-page application. That's it. There's no application fee.

In contrast, Florida requires a petition signed by something like 2% of the number of people who voted in the last election (which in Florida is something like 150,000 signatures) and an application fee of several thousand dollars.

Registering a party in Tennessee is not so easy. The Green Party took Tennessee to court over the party registration laws, and won, I believe.

[sibelian]

37. OK.

Is there a good reason for these discrepancies across states?

[cheapdate]

39. It's just how our government is ordered.

There's no reason it couldn't have been ordered some other way, but this is the way it was done.

The U.S. Constitution states that "The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"

Each state makes it's own rules regarding the specifics of elections. There are some other constitutional requirements that must be met, but the individual states determine their own particular rules.

[sibelian]

41. I see.

My feeling is that in a democratic system under a ruling class of any kind there should be no access-to-power differentials maintained over geographic areas. All should have equal access.

[cheapdate]

43. The United States is a federal system,

where power is divided between a national government and the states. Election laws must be applied uniformly within a state, and all state laws must conform to federal laws and constitutional requirements.

There's a pretty good case to be made for the states having control over their elections. Local control can be preferable to central control for a variety of reasons.

The authority of the states is not absolute. Citizens of a state have recourse with the federal government if a state's election laws violate federal law.

Party politics is a whole other matter. How the political parties choose to select their candidates is largely completely up to them, although there are some aspects that are governed by both state and federal law.

[sibelian]

48. "Local control can be preferable to central control for a variety of reasons."

Yes, where the local control is part of a system that only affects that locality. When it's part of system that has global effects, local control is in danger of becoming a power-access distortion, not a specificity filter.

There needs to be things about the different states that makes access to power granted from those states differentiable. What is it? Does Delaware produce stupid people? Is Colorado liable to produce only novelty candidates? Does Florida need more time to think because they're all too sleepy?

????

The reason I think discrepancies between ballot laws across states is anti-democratic is because it's part of a process for a position over the entire nation, not just the individual states. The states and the nation are seperate legal entities, you don't need me to tell you that, I'm sure!

Do you not think, sir/ma'am, that you may be justifying this simply out of habit, out of familiarity with it? I am possibly not in a position to make such comments as that, as I am from a tiny country in Europe with a very old and much simpler democracy, and have not as much knowledge of the intracacies of the American electoral system as yourself, but your "local control" point seems terribly fuzzy to me.

[cheapdate]

50. I'm simply describing it and not justifying it.

I'm describing the political arrangement that was made in 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. It established a federal system with power being shared by a national government and the individual states. It was left to the states to decide when, where, and how to hold elections to choose who will represent them in Congress.

"Local control can be preferable to central control" is a general premise that might be true for a variety of situations. I'm not sure what's "fuzzy" about the idea of centralization vs. decentralization. The question arises in education, economics, politics, etc. Decentralization is inherent in a federal system.

Our national government simply does not have the authority to move into the states and run their elections. That would require a constitutional amendment to replace Article 1 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

So, with the understanding that this is purely an academic discussion -- the U.S. federal system being what it is -- local control is more democratic, not less. With each step up in levels of government, an individual citizen's direct influence becomes more diluted. Elections in the United States are very much a local matter. Tennessee, where I live, is typical of many states. Citizens register to vote at their local county elections office. The county elections supervisor is locally elected. Election volunteers from the local community staff the polling stations on election day.

Regarding your question, why are voting laws and procedures different in Colorado and Tennessee? They just are. 50 different states have independently determined their own manner of holding elections. I don't know what else say. Feel free to explain why you believe a homogeneous, centralized, federally-run system of elections is inherently better than a heterogeneous, decentralized, state-run system.

[sibelian]

51. Well, fair enough, but my goodness...

If there is no appetite to change it, my railing against it is doubly foolish as it doesn't even affect me, I suppose...

Having said that, I don't really know what to say about your last statement as it seems to me that if you're getting together a mandate for a democratically elected representative of a geographic area, then there shouldn't be power-access discrapancies over that area. It's quite different if you're only electing representatives for that area, obviously.

"They just are." - Well, that's exactly what I was saying! Support for a process solely through familiarity!

As each state is putting forth their bit of mandate for the same position (the presidency) then their process for doing so ought to be the same, no? Otherwise it's not fair! I'm sorry but I don't know how else to say it, it seems so intuitively obvious to me. If not the same, why not? Why should it be harder for Florida to get behind a candidate than Tennessee?

I don't know if this will mean anything to you but if we had different access processes for parliamentary candidates across the UK, people woud be up in arms about it!

Isn't there perhaps a movement in the States that wishes to homogenise ballot access?

The advantage of homogenous system is that it's difficult to exploit and game the system, for one thing.

[cheapdate]

58. There are various proposals to amend the U.S. constitution

in all sorts of different ways. Some of the perennial favorite proposals are: to reform the electoral college system for selecting the president in favor of direct election, to establish term limits for Congress, and to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (the Equal Rights Amendment was passed in both houses of Congress but narrowly failed to win ratification by the required number of states.)

There is no widespread movement to replace Article 1 Section 4 that I'm aware of.

Your "fairness" argument -- such as it is -- is unconvincing. You say that if there is a group of distinct, independent, political entities (the states) who each have the authority to put forward their choice for a national leader, then "fairness" demands that each state conforms to the practice of every other state. You propose that the truth of this is self-evident.

The U.S. constitution and federal law includes guarantees and requirements that elections in the states are internally consistent and fair. The U.S. constitution recognizes the states as independent political entities with the authority to put forward their choice for a national leader, independently and without regard to what other states choose to do.

Your argument says that fairness demands that states must give up their independence and autonomy to freely determine who they would put forward for national leadership.

There is nothing inherently unfair about a group of independent entities holding independent, internal deliberations over their choice for collective leadership. I would suggest that that is self-evident.

(P.S. : Twice you've suggested that my perspective is the product of simple "familiarity" -- as if I'm unwilling or incapable of objective, critical examination of the American political system. That's mildly annoying.)

[sibelian]

60. OK, I will not argue the toss...

In the end, sir/ma'am, it is your country, after all.

I apologise for annoying you.

Yuo already know what I think so I will not repeat my arguments.

[cheapdate]

63. Thank you for that.

Maybe I already know what you think and maybe I don't. I'm not sure.

If I've got it right, you say that independent states with the explicit authority to establish internally consistent, constitutionally sound, and democratic processes for determining who shall be their choice for national leader is inherently unfair and "anti-democratic" if those states don't all go about it the same way.

Anyway, I agree with you that we've beat this thing to death.

[sibelian]

8. sorry, tammy, I shoud probably have just gone and looked...

[sadoldgirl]

11. After McGovern lost the election

the party honchos felt that there was too much
democracy as far as primaries were concerned.
Thus they made sure that 20% of the delegates
were entrenched party "functionaries". They
called it: putting some adults in the room.
Generally they vote with the establishment
candidate. They knew that Obama belonged
into the establishment group, and so when courted by him
they gave him their vote to a good degree.

I doubt that any of them would give Bernie
a chance. If Hillary gets 100% of their vote, then
she only needs 31% of the primary delegates
to vote for her. Any other opponent however
would need to gain 66% of the primary delegates
to win.
That is how I see it.

[sibelian]

16. .... magic people with giant votes.

[sibelian]

18. I probably shouldn't be too critical

The Labour Party in the UK used to have the Unions which were in a similar position.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. They are the Holy Shit Jessie Jackson could win this

Emergency response brigade. For those of us old enough to remember.

[Metric System]

19. OK, that made me chuckle. But as another poster pointed out, I think it originated in the 70s to

avoid brokered conventions.

[Zorra]

52. +1 nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. They only exist to decide a close primary like 2008.

If one candidate is at 47% and another candidate is at 48% they might put their thumb on the scale. I doubt they would put their whole hand on the scale if one candidate was at 48% and the other candidate was at, say 30% , and I stand by that proposition.

[sibelian]

26. OK.

It sounds...

I don't know if I can say how it sounds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Elaborate

They exist , imho, to decide very close and hotly contested elections.

Here's the results for the 1984 election. If not for the superdelegates Gary Hart could have won with less votes by making a deal with Jesse Jackson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1984

[sibelian]

35. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

?

[mrmpa]

25. This is how Mr. Obama became the ..........

Democratic candidate for President. The DNC met & proclaimed that the super delegates were to commit to Mr. Obama. This is where the DNC is stuck in the 2016 election. I think a deal was made with Secretary Clinton that if she did not fight this commitment of the super delegates to Mr. Obama, they would put their power behind her for the election after Mr. Obama's term(s) were over.

[sibelian]

27. That...is...

FFFFFFUCKED.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Some states have primaries...Some states have caucuses...

There have been instance where candidates have won more votes in caucuses and earned less delegates than the loser because of the vagaries of the process...

I don't have a problem with superdelegates putting their thumb on the scale in those instances where the results are close and hotly disputed.

I can't think of one instance where the superdelegates went with the candidate with less votes.

[sibelian]

33. "...if she did not fight this commitment..."

Justify the issue I was actually reacting to, please, DemocratSinceBirth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Many posters here are under the mistaken impression that you can win the nomination with a plurality

Many posters here are under the mistaken impression that you can win the nomination with a plurality of delegates...Technically if no candidate arrives at the Convention with a majority of delegates they will be released after the first round of voting and are free to vote for whomever they want. Then the horse trading begins. The superdelegates are there to ensure this doesn't happen...

If you exclude the superdelegates neither Clinton nor Obama arrived at the 08 Convention with a majority of delegates.

I don't have a problem with superdelegates playing a role in a close election.

[sibelian]

40. That is NOT the issue I was reacting to, DemocratSinceBirth.

You are aware that it isn't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. What is your question?

Here's a question for you...



What happens if Candidate A arrives at the Convention with 46% of the popular vote and 48% of the delegates and Candidate B arrives at the Convention with 45% of the popular vote and 49% of the delegates?

Who gets the nomination?

I submit it's not black and white.

[sibelian]

47. Here's a better question

What happens if candidate A gets 46% of the vote and no delegates and candidate B gets 45% of the vote and no delegates because there aren't any delegates?

Seems easy enough to answer to me.

Also, the FFFFFUCKED thing, i.e., delegates promising support NEXT TIME. Which is the the thing that is fucked. What are your thoughts there?

[MohRokTah]

45. Not true.

In fact, the reverse looked likely to happen and the super delegates decided on their own they would not reverse the will of primary voters and caucus goers.

[sibelian]

53. !

The thick plottens...

[1939]

29. Prior to 1972

A state was given a certain number of delegates based on its electoral vote (as I recall it was 4 per EV for the Dems). A state also received a "bonus delegate" for having a Democratic governor plus a bonus delegate for each Democratic senator or representative. By courtesy, each of the bonus delegate slots were given to the governor/senator/congressman to allow him to be at the convention and vote with the delegation.

The McGovernites did a coup on the various state conventions and made them solidly their followers, freezing out the elected officials from the delegations. The super delegate system was a reaction to that.

[Le Taz Hot]

49. That is the BEST explanation and history of the super delegates

I've ever seen. The Wikipedia article is terrible and terribly confusing. Yours is the most concise and ACCURATE account I've ever seen. You need to post this as an OP. Good job ma'am/sir.

[HereSince1628]

32. The great elders of the Democratic Leadership were recognized by the Gods

and for their greatness were anointed by Shelia to be Super-delegates.

This created the Third-race of democrats, who are worshipped by mortals, who usually on proclaimed Tuesdays approach ground blessedly known as "The Polls" (not to be confused with Festivus Poles) to cast ballots (now often digital) representing assent of the lowly common people of the Third-Way to be governed by their Betters (not to be confused with Beaters, we haven't had beaters since Maynard G. Krebs' bongo drums were tossed in the trash by Mr Gillis).

[sibelian]

34. And, lo, the Great Blue Wall was patrolled forever

by the Guardians of Good Sense and My Goodness We Really Need to Keep Things in Perspective Round These Here Parts.

[sibelian]

36. The whole thing sounds like some weird fantasy cooked up by MANNY.

I'm not joking. It sounds satirical.

[HereSince1628]

46. By a margin of 67 to 26 superdelegates prefer Hillary on Bongos compared to Bernies Singing

This Land Was Made For You and Me.

It seems the DNC delegates are significantly older than hippies

[AgingAmerican]

44. It's what you cling to

When your ideas cannot carry you through.

[sibelian]

54. Well. THAT's bad.

Sounds like a recipe for anti-democratic malarkeys of all shapes and kinds to me...

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. In 2008, Superdelegats voted: Barack Obama 562.5, Hillary Clinton 211.5 they did not affect electio

Florida and Michigan were seated at the convention, but with only one-half vote each, because of their states' violations of scheduling rules.

In 2004:
Carol Moseley Braun Wesley Clark Howard Dean (53) John Edwards (23) Richard Gephardt John Kerry (381) Dennis Kucinich (2) Joseph Lieberman Al Sharpton (5)

John Kerry won 2573 total, so it did not affect election.

For these elections I could not find superdelegate total, but the margins show they had no affect.

2000, could not find superdelegate data, but Gore won 3,007 (85.16%) 522 (14.78%)

In 1992, Clinton (3,372) Brown (596) Tsongas (289) - Not a factor

1988 Dukakis (1,792) Jackson (1,023) Gore (374) Gephardt (137) Simon 161 - Not a factor.

I tried to get more information, but it is not easy to find, and superdelegate totals are just nonexistent.

The chance of them having any affect on the election is quite remote.

Also, they can change their votes if they want.

[sibelian]

56. "The chance of them having any affect on the election is quite remote."

Okidokey. I still don't see what they're for...

[MohRokTah]

57. They are really there to tip the nomination should nobody get the required 50%+1

If somebody could not reach that via committed delegates on the first ballot, the super delegates would tip the balance.

[Adrahil]

62. They are also there to blunt the effectiveness of an insurgent candidate.

Since party primary processes are not actually part of the official electoral process, but are established by parties to determine their nominee, it is not surprising that the party has some processes intended to ensure the party leadership has some influence over who the nominee is in cases of tight delegate counts.

[TheKentuckian]

59. It is the powers that be antidemocracy emergency escape hatch

If the money, influence, excluding as many as possible in all practical application from the decision making, process, and the bought media don't give an acceptable to power result and it is anywhere near close (this could mean even double digits) then they have one last trick in the bag before they really have to get nasty to maitain order.

[mmonk]

61. Just in case the people don't agree.