Why Super-Delegates if...

[DMan]

Just looking for an honest answer from my Democratic brothers (*I am conservative/Republican)...

What is your opinion on the Super-Delegate situation. Should the Super-Delegates follow the votes of the voters and if so, then why even have them?

One other observation (as pointed out by Rush), there are many people (Democrates) that are saying "Super-Delegates" need to vote the way of the people then those same Democrates don't seem to have a problem when Hillary wins a state then the states Representatives, or Congressman, or Governor say's that the "Super-Delegates" should vote for Obama. (*Rush pointed out certain names but the only one I can remember was Kennedy where Hillary won the state but Kennedy is telling the "Super-Delegates" to vote for Obama.

Just wondering what your opinions are on the subject.

Much love!

[preservanation]

I say it's the most undemocratic thing of ever heard of....coming from the democratic party, doesn't surprise me much.

[Drocket]

I say it's the most undemocratic thing of ever heard of....coming from the democratic party, doesn't surprise me much.

Actually, the Republican party functions somewhat similarly, except they call their superdelegates are called automatic delegates. There's three of them per state.

Strange how the two parties can have such similar processes, yet only one party be called undemocratic for it...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Both parties have mechanisms, that they use to "protect Americans from themselves" as they say, if you can believe it.

Between the electoral college, the super-delegates system, and the partisan pledging that ALL bi-partisans seem to exhibit except for rare examples, remove much chance for the people to truly have their votes count, especially if it would be a political shake-up, like a third party win.

Add to this, the gerrymandering of districts, overall history of preventing positive change to voting methods and viability, including public oversight, and you have a system that is not very representative, nor very democratic, much less a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic.

I think all Americans should come together over the issue of immediate voting reform, demanding verifiable voting machines with multiple receipts, Instant Runoff Voting, and make national ballot access laws universally the same with equalized fees for ballot access. Public poll tabulation should be done with public oversight via video provided by a service like C-Span or similar in style. Primary dates for national office should be nationwide on the same day, and on a day like saturday when the majority of people can be available, or make it a national holiday. Debate coverage should include all people running for the office, not just who the media or some anonymous majority think has a "chance to win", and I would support a form of Open Debates. The FCC has the power to require news stations to provide equal and reasonable coverage to all candidates as a part of licensing to use the public airwaves, and we should demand they do so.

We should do away with the electoral college, the super-delegate system, and all other forms of partisanship division that serve to divide the people on their differences, as opposed to focusing on their common threads which are their individual rights and a guarantee of a republican government, with three equal branches of power designed to check the power of one another.

We the people hold the right and responsibility to ensure our government operate within its spheres of power, with due respect to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the maintenance of both in law.



Thats my two cents.

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

[preservanation]

Actually, the Republican party functions somewhat similarly, except they call their superdelegates are called automatic delegates. There's three of them per state.

Strange how the two parties can have such similar processes, yet only one party be called undemocratic for it...

What, Drocket???
Please explain.
The GOP primaries are all or nothing, the Dems are apportioned...I never heard of a GOP superdelegate.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The GOP primaries are biased and quite different state to state. That is the bulk of the problem, state to state differences and roadblocks to just let the people vote as they want to vote.

In my state, you have to vote by PARTY ballot. I can't even CHOOSE to vote another party if I request a ballot for the party I am forced to choose from.

Its blatant vote rigging.

[Drocket]

What, Drocket???
Please explain.
The GOP primaries are all or nothing, the Dems are apportioned...I never heard of a GOP superdelegate.

No, you haven't, have you. The media loves to spend hour after hour ripping apart the Democratic party for their horrible, awful system - and quite conveniently fail to mention that the Republican party's system is quite similar.

In the Republican system, each state gets 3 automatic delegates. One is the head of that state's party, and the other 2 are chosen via caucus (even in states that choose their normal delegates via voter primary. Since pretty much nobody attends caucuses in those states, that tends to make it a popularity contest among the party leadership.)

I'm trying to find a good link to explain it in basic language, but it looks like the Republican party is trying to bury it as well as they can. The only thing on the Republican website with reference to how delegates are selected is "It varies by state. Contact your local representative for more information." Helpful.

The best I can find from an official GOP source is the rules for allocating delegates, here (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules11-20.htm), rule 13, specifically 13.a.2:


Subject to the provisions of Rule No. 16, the membership of the next national convention shall consist of:

(a) Delegates.

...

(2) The national committeeman, the national committeewoman and the chairman of the state Republican Party of, each state and American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

... (additional elected delegates)

[preservanation]

The supper delegates fiasco is the definition of Stalinist ideology.
They have no resemblance to the democratic process.

[preservanation]

BTW...Drocket.
We have our nominee, no matter how distasteful.
You have nothing but the impeding reality of fire.

[Elrathin]

BTW...Drocket.
We have our nominee, no matter how distasteful.
You have nothing but the impeding reality of fire.


Yes Pres, because (much like the Dems in most elections) it hasn't gone on this far. That doesn't mean your precious Republican situation is any better if given two similar Republicans in the same situation. So you can stop with your party self-righteous routine.

Or pres, are you saying given the same situation your RNC is completely fair and balanced?

[preservanation]

The GOP's best chance is for the Dems to do exactly what they are doing.
This is not an onus one can heap upon the poor besieged *preserva*
If one is a Dem, look inward.

[lily]

Thanks Drocket.......I learned something today!

[preservanation]

My point is the angst of the DNC has been that of their own making....look at the party which has constructed the rules and mentality which has brought them to this.
Blame can only go as far as their own nose

[Elrathin]

Pres so are you saying once and for all the RNC practices are 100% fair given the similar circumstances? Come on let's here it from you.

[4Reaganomics]

they aren't 100% fair

but they didn't screw everything up as bad as Howard Dean and the DNC

[Elrathin]

they aren't 100% fair

but they didn't screw everything up as bad as Howard Dean and the DNC


Please tell me that you are saying given the same situation that the RNC isn't screwed up?

Dean had nothing to do with this, it's the states that fucked this up. They are the ones that decided not to follow the rules.

[Trish]

The whole delegate/superdelegate situation is confusing at best! The way I understand it (speaking from the Democratic side of things) is that there are pledged delegates and unpledged delegates. The pledged delegates are determined by the primaries and caucuses, or in some states like Texas some combination of the two. The pledged delegates vote for the nominee according to the results of those primaries and caucuses. The unpledged delegates are the superdelegates - who are usually party leaders and big whigs. They do not have to pledge to vote for anyone, announce who they are voting for, and can even vote for candidates who have dropped out of the race. They are not obligated to vote according to the primary/caucus results. The pledged delegates make up the biggest portion of delegates - over 90% and the unpledged or superdelegates make up the remainder.

Superdelegates were apparently created to cast swing votes in case of a tie situation. Or at least that's what is purported. Rather cyncially, I have wondered if they weren't created to make sure that the party powerful are the ones determining the Democratic nominee.

I wasn't aware until Drocket explained it the Republican side of things worked, but did know they had something similar in place - and for much the same reason I think - for the party leadership to determine who wins the nomination.

But that's just my take on things.

[4Reaganomics]

they aren't 100% fair

but they didn't screw everything up as bad as Howard Dean and the DNC


Please tell me that you are saying given the same situation that the RNC isn't screwed up?

Dean had nothing to do with this, it's the states that fucked this up. They are the ones that decided not to follow the rules.



They could have just penalized the states for moving forward. They didn't have to completely nullify the voices of the people

[Elrathin]

My opinion on the delegates both for RNC and DNC, is that there should be no delegates, super delegates or what not. My opinion is that the percentage of each state should carry over and the overall percentage should win.

If 48% vote for Hillary and 52% vote for Obama for a state that should carry over in the selection for primary candidate and award the percentage of over all delegation to those percentages.

Also and I have already emailed the DNC on this and I hope others do as well, the order in which a state should be able to vote should be done at the draw of a hat. All 50 states should be put into a hat (container) and drawn out in the order they can go for that election.

[Elrathin]

They could have just penalized the states for moving forward. They didn't have to completely nullify the voices of the people


Penalized how 4R?

[4Reaganomics]

taken some delegates like the RNC decided to

that way the vote wouldn't be completely nullified, and the people would still have some representation at the convention

[Elrathin]

taken some delegates like the RNC decided to


Ah so you are for nullifying some people, but just not all, and who would you decree gets nullified then?

[4Reaganomics]

Taking some delegates away from the people (as a percentage from each district, or however the decide) will decrease the size of their voice on the national level.

This wouldn't work for the DNC

they decided to completely SILENCE the voters

really nice

[Elrathin]

Taking some delegates away from the people (as a percentage from each district, or however the decide) will decrease the size of their voice on the national level.

This wouldn't work for the DNC

they decided to completely SILENCE the voters

really nice


They decided to nullify a state that went against the rules, IMO, that is justified. They shouldn't have gone against the rules and they would have been counted.

[Drocket]

I have to agree with 4Reaganomics here: the Republican's cutting the state's delegates in half WAS a better plan than the Democrats cutting them off entirely. The states most definitely needed to be punished for breaking the rules, but by completely eliminating the state's input into the election, you're certain to anger and alienate voters, which isn't a good idea by any measure. Cutting the state's pledged delegates in half and eliminating the state's superdelegates/automatic delegates (as direct punishment for them) is a much fairer plan, IMO.

Now that the decision of stripping the state of their delegates has been made, though, I think its necessary to follow through. Backing down now isn't going to be good. Unfortunately, though, its almost certain that the DNC WILL back down, at least partly. The most likely scenario at this point seems to be seating half the delegates, and splitting them evenly between Obama and Clinton. Probably the best compromise possible, but still an unfortunate result of a bad original decision.

Getting back to the topic of superdelegates/automatic delegates: the uproar over them is pretty stupid, especially when you consider the absolute silence on the Republican side of the issue. The reality is that their numbers are so small (2.6% on the Democratic side, 2.4% on the Republican) that they only affect the outcome in ridiculously close elections. You need some method of running a tiebreaker, and superdelegates are as good as any.

[Elrathin]

I have to agree with 4Reaganomics here: the Republican's cutting the state's delegates in half WAS a better plan than the Democrats cutting them off entirely.


Sorry but the states KNEW what would happen if they went Early. I don't agree with it, but then they shouldn't have agreed to it either. If they thought it was wrong they should have protested it before hand and not signed the agreement.