The Tyranny of Super-Delegates

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Free and fair elections....uh-huh.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=266130

Clinton – 169

Obama – 66

Edwards – 47

In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 "super-delegates" – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.

In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."

In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word "change" is being bandied about, isn't it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.

[The Magistrate]

1. Quite The Contrary, Sir

The professional politicians animating the Party structure should have the means to express their judgement of the best course for the Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Why? And, who elected them to do so?

[The Magistrate]

5. They Are, Sir

Persons elected to public office in general elections, or persons elected to Party office in intra-party state and local conventions. All know a great deal about what is involved in moving the public, and have had success at it. This reservoir of expertise should have influence.

[rug]

7. Therefore the public, being moved, must get 50 %, and the professionals, 10%, to select the nominee?

[The Magistrate]

11. The Figures Are A Little Different From That, Sir

Theoretically, if all these Party delegates went for a single nominee, in a two person contest, they could over-rule the popularly selected delegates if the nominee they favored had about two fifths of the elected delegates.

In practice, it would not work out that way. The majority of the Party delegates would simply vote with the bloc of elected delegates that represented the majority of the primary and caucus electorate. Carrying such a majority in the primary process would establish to professionals the bona fides of the candidate in question as a serious political operative, and demonstrate, too, the strength of feeling for him or her among the rank and file of the Party membership, on whom these people understand their own positions depend.

[rug]

13. Three problems:

1) Why is it necessary for the rank and file "to establish to professionals" any winner's bona fides? The tally is sufficient.

2) If the electorate fails to demonstrate a candidate's worthiness to professionals, what are the professionals going to do about it? Exercise their 40% bloc?

3) The professionals are beholden to the party apparatus and in any tug of war will side with the apparatus rather than an insurgent rank and file candidate.

Finally, if the 40% frontload is of no great moment, as you imply, it's not needed. The only functional purpose it serves is a check on popular votes.

[The Magistrate]

15. It Is Not Necessarily Sufficient, Sir

You can see the process in state slating frequently. Here in Illinois, the Republican primary has on several occasions been kind enough to select candidates for state-wide office that have no chance whatever of appealing to any electorate wider than the primary electorate of that party, and on one or two unhappy occasions, the Democratic state primaries have had a similar result. In a nationwide contest, it is more likely this will not occur. because success in the various regions of the country necessarily entails a broader appeal, even when there is only a party primary electorate in question, since the rank and file of the Party itself differs considerably from place to place. It is certainly possible to conceive of a situation where the judgement of the professionals could save the Party from an electoral disaster. It is worth noting that in the pre-primary era, a good many excellent figures emerged from the proverbial 'smoke filled rooms' as the choice of hard-bitten professional politicians.

It is hardly a question of these figures being 'beholden to the party apparatus': they are the Party apparatus. If an 'insurgent candidate' should emerge, pitching his or her campaign on attacking the Party itself, it would need, and should need, an exceptionably solid showing to in effect overthrow the Party structure: fifty percent plus one really does not do in such a situation. Either way the nominating process went, it would reflect a deep and bitter schism that would likely doom the electoral prospects of whomever emerged as the Party's standard bearer, and be, in short, a disaster for the Party and those who look to it as the champion of their cause. Some people seem to operate on an unexamined and romantic view that 'insurgency' is good in and of itself, but that view seems to me very much mistaken. Serious insurgency seldom works out for the best, whether in a political party or in a nation at large.

[rug]

16. Fifty percent plus one really does do in such a situation. It is democracy.

The rationale you propose for the braking power of the super delegates is dubious. In a national campaign the winner will emerge only if broad support is demonstrated.

I disagree that the elected officials themselves constitute the sum of the party apparatus. Wholly unelected fundraisers and large contributors wield enormous leverage over the elected officials. It is far from running for a seat in Warwickshire and an elected official is not a wise esquire from the Midlands.

The experience and judgment of elected officials can be exrecised in more useful ways than a 40% bonus rendering the primaries an idle exercise. The present system is authoritarian, undemocratic and based on a fundamental distrust of democratic principles.

[The Magistrate]

17. Insurgency, Sir, Does Not Succeed By Fifty Percent Plus One

It succeeds by breaking the power of its opposition completely, and this takes a good deal more than a narrow majority.

[rug]

18. Actually, a true insurgency requires a much smaller vanguard.

In any event, if an insurgency does achieve fifty percent plus one it should succeed unless the defeated former majority resorts to violence or other extrajudicial tactics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Fine. Let them run, and be voted on, for their "expertise".

If the citizenry finds their services valuable they should have no problem in achieving their ambitions.

Leaving the selection to the party bosses is similar to Orwell's observation about the Communists and Fascists - "Some animals are more equal than others."

[The Magistrate]

10. They Have Run, Sir

As indicated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Not in the primaries as declared delegates.

And, why does holding a previous office, or having run for an office, supersede the democratic process?

If they are qualified to be delegates why should they be treated any differently than other delegates?

[The Magistrate]

14. Meaningless, Sir

They have run for the positions they hold, one perquisite of which is delegate status at the quadrennial national convention of the Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Nonsense. They never ran to be a delegate.

It is a perquisite endowed on them by the DNC, not the people.

And, as stated in the article, "It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party,"

[The Magistrate]

22. The 'People', Sir?

Political parties are private organizations: 'the people' have no particular right to anything involving them; their active membership has some claim to have their desires for the course of the organization heeded by its leadership.

What is wrong with such an organization preserving some check against a nominee 'out of synch' with its programs and aspirations quite escapes me.

[TheUniverse]

24. The Supreme Court has stated otherwise in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Herndon

[hfojvt]

20. unfortunately, both those processes seem to be undemocratic

candidates, such as Senator Clinton, are often hand-picked, and party-leadership positions tend to be decided by very few. My own county, for example, has a central committee of about 23 with 50 vacancies. I ran for my own position unopposed and so did the county chair and vice chair. So did local delegates to the state convention. It's decided by about ten people in a county with maybe 7,000 registered Democrats, most of whom probably cannot name the county chair or their precinct person. Who knows how these state leadership positions are filled? Probably they are hand-picked by the Governor.

[Kip Humphrey]

4. You've GOT to be kidding, right? This outrage is the mark of tyranny raising the question,

Why bother to vote?

We need a revolution.

[The Magistrate]

6. As The Man Said, Sir

"I have a great sense of humor, and I tell hilarious jokes, but I never kid...."

[JackintheGreen]

3. We are a "representative democracy"

after all, and not a true one. Somebody else can decide what we want when we are too daft to figure it out for ourselves. If 99% of Americans want us out of Iraq, say, but one crusading, Mr. Smith-like senator decides we are all wrong, well, order some more body bags and keep the Delaware AF Base open all night long.

I love democracy.

[Emit]

9. "Undecided 'superdelegates' hold much power at Democratic convention"

Undecided 'superdelegates' hold much power at Democratic convention
STEPHEN OHLEMACHER ([e-mail])
ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 3, 2007
WASHINGTON --

~snip~
The nation's first presidential primary, for Democrats anyway, is being waged among hundreds of party insiders -- superdelegates who could play a big part in selecting the nominee at next summer's national convention. So far, most of them still haven't been sold on any of the candidates. The Associated Press contacted 90 percent of the 765 superdelegates, mostly elected officials and other party officers, who are free to support anyone they choose at the convention. Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin among those who have endorsed a candidate. But a little more than half of those contacted -- 365 -- said they haven't settled on a Democratic standard bearer.

~snip~

Superdelegates tend to support the front-runner, said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. "They want to be on the winning side," he said. So, why don't more of them back Clinton, who leads in national polls? "They are still concerned about her ability to win the general election," Rohde said. He said Clinton's high negative numbers among likely voters have many party insiders skittish. However, he added, if Clinton sweeps the early voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, "these people will flock to her." On the other hand, a spokeswoman for Obama expressed confidence he would pick up superdelegates after doing well in early voting states. "We are pleased with our current support in the DNC," Jen Psaki said.

Superdelegates are the ultimate party insiders, including all Democratic members of Congress, as well as a number of other elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee. They will attend the convention next summer with about 3,200 other delegates who have been pledged to various presidential candidates based on the outcomes of primaries and caucuses in their states.

Democratic candidates need a little more than 2,000 delegates to claim the nomination. That can make the superdelegates, who will number about 800 after state parties select a few more this summer, important players in choosing a nominee. The Republicans have far fewer unaffiliated delegates, a little more than 100, making Democratic superdelegates a unique political force.

~snip~

They all, however, have more superdelegates than Kucinich, who has only one not named Kucinich.

~snip~

That would leave Kucinich with just one superdelegate so far -- himself.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/NEWS19/712030329/1232/NEWS19

[Emit]

21. This may explain why they're leaving Edwards out of a lot of the coverage, doesn't it?

From the articles I've read, Edwards appears to have the least chance of the three to garner support of these superdelegates, who wield 40% of the pie.

[DaLittle Kitty]

23. WE MUST OVERTURN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ESTABLISHMENT! They Are Protectors of THE Fascist State!

SEND THIS AROUND THE GLOBE! K&^R!