Super Delegates

B

Bruxley

New member
Hillary is now courting the 'Super' Delegates to secure to nomination should she lose the primary. 1 in 5 Democrat delegates (20% aprox. 800) are 'Super' delegates.

If the democrat party utilizes their ’super’ delegates to select (not elect) Hillary as their nominee then they will not only alienate all those Obama supporters and usher in a Republican, but they will manifest in truth the lie they propagated in 2000 that the President (in this case the nominee for President) was SELECTED not ELECTED.

Why do Democrats even have ’super’ delegates when the Republicans have no such manipulative means in place to subvert their party members’ choice for a nominee? Is there any reason past ‘protecting the party’? Protecting it from what, it’s members?

Here's a link to the list and their endorsements so far: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

I don't know about the credibility or accuracy of this list but the site seems to be pro-Democrat and is a convention watch site for Democrats to use so I didn't smell any bias.
 
Why do Democrats even have ’super’ delegates when the Republicans have no such manipulative means in place to suvert their party members’ choice for a nomonee? Is there any reason past ‘protecting the party’? Protecting it from what, it’s members?
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone could parse the "super delegate" situation in the Democratic party as anything other than a blatant method that enables the party big shots to over-rule the voters' choice. For all their talk about empowering people, when it comes down to it, it seems that the people can't be trusted to choose the "correct" candidate for President. I don't know what the Dems find so wrong with just using their proportional representation state by state system alone to choose their candidate, except that then the big honchos would have to accept the voters' choice.

This is the first year I've heard much mention of super delegates, and I've been through quite a few election cycles. Of course, as crooked as the system seems, I can see why it would be kept out of public view!:rolleyes:
 
Why do Democrats even have ’super’ delegates when the Republicans have no such manipulative means in place to suvert their party members’ choice for a nomonee? Is there any reason past ‘protecting the party’? Protecting it from what, it’s members?
Click to expand...

So, 5% of Republican delegates aren't unpledged RNC delegates, who to my knowledge are different from Democratic "superdelegates" in name only? And there aren't a large number of other unpledged delegates, many of which are free to vote as they choose at the convention? [EDIT: Obviously this means they have less ability to influence the outcome, but that's far from no manipulative means.]

Seems like while the amount (20%, assuming they all go towards the candidate with less pledged delegates) might seem excessive, there would be some benefit to having a means to select the "losing" candidate for the nomination. Especially in a closely divided race. Possible "valid" reasons I can see for doing so would be any possible shifts in the political reality since early primaries or perceived attempts at "raiding" in open primaries (such as this), especially if the other party's race is largely decided early.

But really, parties are free to choose their candidates how they please, and the primary concern for both parties is getting their candidate elected. Superdelegates might seem particularly undemocratic, but at the same time there are so many other aspects of the primary system (on both sides) that skew things that suggesting that any candidate is truly chosen by "the people" is a bit of a leap. Both candidates are chosen by the system, and each side's system is influenced to a large extent by the people.
 
despite the claims of smoke filled rooms the super delegates say they'll put their support towards the clear winner of the primary elections


but thanks for trying to polish the republican halo again, I needed a good laugh
 
The point isn't to polish anything. The postulate is if Hillary uses super delegates to secure the nomination the D party loses the definition of it's title. It seems that by virtue of the very existence of such a powerful group that it is more the will of the party then the will of the people in their party that are the decision makers. A Democrat needs only 2025 delegates to secure the nomination, of the total available delegates 800 have no obligation to vote the will of the party's members. These are people IN OFFICE or ranking PARTY members at the DNC. Are we to believe they WON'T vote the the will of party leadership? The Democrat leadership is well known to 'primary' members that don't adhere to the leaderships will. Lieberman is the newest example.

Obama has the delegates right now. If it goes the distance and he has a majority but not the threshold come the convention and loses the nomination we will see the Democrats fractured nationally as much as they are in the current Congress.
 
on the Republican side

it much more of a slanted allocation of delegates. All the candidate has to do is win a state by one vote and they get all the delegates from that state. So while it is mathematicly possibly to win fewer votes by actual Republican voters than an other candidate(s) it is possible to get more total delegates. The winner in each state get all the delegates. There is no proportioning delegates based on percentage of voters desires for individual candidates.

Any claims that the Republican delegate system is fairer than the Democrat's system is talk not reality. In reality a Republican candidate only has to win in the larger states to sow up those delegates totals into a win.

There is no doubt there are staff members on Republican teams who do nothing but compute the numbers so a candidate can focus on big delegate state winnings.
 
despite the claims of smoke filled rooms the super delegates say they'll put their support towards the clear winner of the primary elections

but thanks for trying to polish the republican halo again, I needed a good laugh
Click to expand...

He does have a point that the superdelegates (and unpledged RNC delegates) have the ability to vote counter to the choice of the party's voters. But you simply can't ignore the many factors in primaries and primary elections that aren't relevant to general elections.

Over in t'other thread we've got the OP (who I'll take the leap and assume is a Republican voter, based on his post) talking about which Democratic nominee he should vote for, and deciding if he should vote for Clinton because she has a worse change against McCain. This isn't exactly a dynamic that will be present in the general election, so when choosing a candidate to run in the general election maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't put all of our faith in a primary voting process susceptible to this.

Then you've got the fact that the first primary is held in what, January? And the nominee is chosen in what, July or August? And there's no chance that things may have, you know, changed in the meantime? That not one New Hampshire voter (or even a voter from any of the Super Tuesday states) would, given the option, choose differently come summer? This is again much different than a single election held nationally on a single day.

The purpose of the nomination process is to choose the candidate who will win the general election while still (to whatever extent possible) representing the party's values. Sometimes that's the guy that won over the voters (who were disproportionately members of the party), sometimes it isn't. Either way, it's still only an issue in closely contested races...often a candidate can easily secure enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the help of the other variety, so if the 'voice of the people' is overwhelming they will get their nominee.

Obama has the delegates right now. If it goes the distance and he has a majority but not the threshold come the convention and loses the nomination we will see the Democrats fractured nationally as much as they are in the current Congress.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. First, a majority of people (and a majority of voters) don't follow political news during the primaries, so a large portion won't even know what happened...they'll just know that Clinton (or Obama) got nominated and now it's down to him and McCain.

If, however, they choose the losing candidate (right now it looks like Clinton), and then lose the general either because they've alienated their party due to the superdelegate issue or simply because she's the weaker candidate then so be it. That's what should happen if they choose their nominee poorly.

it much more of a slanted allocation of delegates. All the candidate has to do is win a state by one vote and they get all the delegates from that state. So while it is mathematicly possibly to win fewer votes by actual Republican voters than an other candidate(s) it is possible to get more total delegates. The winner in each state get all the delegates. There is no proportioning delegates based on percentage of voters desires for individual candidates.
Click to expand...

And this is different from the general election how? Might as well get them ready for the concept. Also, not every state mandates winner-take all...many are proportional. And since the number of delegates is tied heavily to Republican influence and marginally less so to population (I'd not be surprised if Kansas or Iowa have more delegates than Massachusetts, for instance) this means Republican candidates do have to be able to win the states that they'll actually have to carry come November. Ideally I suppose California would have zero delegates, but you can only go so far without alienating the voters who might at least put some of your boys in Congress even if they can't deliver you electors.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think at both conventions, if no one has the required votes after the first round then most state delegates are released to vote as they want. Sometimes they can actually split votes. So, basically if it goes past a first round then all bets are off and it becomes a party power struggle.

When no one wins the first round, Wikipedia calls this brokered conventions, or if you wish, ....horse trading, back room deals, power maneuvering, etc. The good news is it makes for really good TV viewing.:D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

Remember one other issue, especially for the Republicans. Example: Romney retains control of his pledged delegates up to the convention, so some negotiation can happen with these pledged delegates.
 
The Republicans, recognizing this being a Republic after all, work their primary the same way as the general election. Recognizing the entire State (in this case that States Republican Party) when the majority of that State (States Republican Party)speaks. Thus empowering the State (States Republican Party) as a whole rather then internally fracturing it.

The Democrats, consistent with straight democracy verses a Republic, divey up each State and take a proportional piece among the various candidates. This fails to recognize the State party and it remains impotent in the face of the national party will. This would seem fair and good if the power of the party being centralized were a benefit. EXCEPT the central party holds the will of the 'super' delegate for it's own will to 'protect the party' as they put it. Against what? The mistaken or misguided votes of the membership.

Imagine the Federal Election Commission reserving 20% of the electoral college votes for those already holding a Federal office to be cast at their own will despite the results among their constituencies to 'protect the federal government'.

Such a large percentage of delegates being reserved for those party members in leadership within the national party to sway the results for the nomination for the purpose of 'protecting the party' looks specious at best.
 
This is what we get having a duopoly. They can simply say "Oh, you don't like it? Go vote for the other" which they know full well is a non-option. The founders warned us this would happen. Gee, ya know I find myself saying that a lot these days. :(
 
The Republicans, recognizing this being a Republic after all, work their primary the same way as the general election. Recognizing the entire State (in this case that States Republican Party) when the majority of that State (States Republican Party)speaks. Thus empowering the State (States Republican Party) as a whole rather then internally fracturing it.
Click to expand...

Well, actually the Republicans leave it up to the states individually, and many choose to go with proportional representation. Still recognizing different attitudes between states and leaving them to their own decision, which is an ideal that I find myself siding with Republicans a majority of the time.

The Democrats, consistent with straight democracy verses a Republic, divey up each State and take a proportional piece among the various candidates. This fails to recognize the State party and it remains impotent in the face of the national party will. This would seem fair and good if the power of the party being centralized were a benefit. EXCEPT the central party holds the will of the 'super' delegate for it's own will to 'protect the party' as they put it. Against what? The mistaken or misguided votes of the membership.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Like I said, the primary election system has a few nuances that don't translate well to the general, so it's quite possible that in a close race the candidate who "wins" the primary elections isn't really the better of the two. In a race that isn't close, obviously the superdelegates aren't going to change anything.

Imagine the Federal Election Commission reserving 20% of the electoral college votes for those already holding a Federal office to be cast at their own will despite the results among their constituencies to 'protect the federal government'.
Click to expand...

Well, the national parties are extraconstitutional entities, and there's nothing saying that a candidate for President need be nominated by either party or that a voter vote for either party. Besides which, binding electors to vote according to the wishes of their state's voters is (I believe, could be wrong) a fairly new concept and not required anyway in several states.

Such a large percentage of delegates being reserved for those party members in leadership within the national party to sway the results for the nomination for the purpose of 'protecting the party' looks specious at best.
Click to expand...

I can understand this position. Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a reasonable percentage?
 
If the democrat party utilizes their ’super’ delegates to select (not elect) Hillary as their nominee then they will not only alienate all those Obama supporters and usher in a Republican, but they will manifest in truth the lie they propagated in 2000 that the President (in this case the nominee for President) was SELECTED not ELECTED.
Click to expand...
How are you making this comparison?

The super delegates only come into play during a tight race and their "role" is to tip the balance in the case of a tie or a race too close to call a definite winner. That was what they were created for...to prevent an undecided primary.

How is that the same as the supreme court ordering a halt to the election process?
 
Super delegates have been around for a long time. It's just convention spots set aside for the party faithful and big wigs.
You'll notice governors and senators on the list. There are also long time party workers.
The Republicans have the same thing.

The super delegates can vote for whoever they want just as any other delegate.

For instance I am a delegate to the county and district conventions for my party. I am right now pledged to one candidate. I can at anytime change to another candidate. If I get chosen to go to the state convention I can once again change the candidate I support. The same is true if I were to go to the national.

The exception is mathematics. Each county/district is allocated a certain number of delegates. If a candidate doesn't have enough precinct delegates to get at least one delegate out of the county convention. then they will get no delegates. Some districts use a 15% rule where a candidate needs at least 15% support to move delegates on the next convention.
That's one of the fun parts as delegates from other candidates lobby to get support from the under 15%ers.

If your state has a caucus sytem then get involved next cycle. You'll learn a lot, meet lots of like minded people, and be able to bloviate face to face instead of keyboard to keyboard.
 
How is that the same as the supreme court ordering a halt to the election process?
Click to expand...

Or, more accurately, the recount process.

A recount that, while you can declare it a "lie," may well have gone either way. And the Supreme Court certainly no way of knowing which way it would fall at the time they made their decision.

But again, we get into the fact that that was an actual election being held according to our Constitution...not an internal convention being held by what is for the most part a private organization.

The Republicans have the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the topic may get more interesting if we can cut through Bruxley's hyperbole and talk about why the Democratic Party has more of them rather than acting like it's a uniquely Democratic feature.
 
I heard a snippet on MSNBC dealing with the superdelegate issue. IIRC, the Democratic party bigwigs in the late '60s and early '70s were very worried about the party getting hijacked by radical elements so they devised the superdelegate system to squelch radical left wing elements and thus preserve the electability of the party.

If that is true, then the irony is that all those pesky left-wing radicals the party worried about 40 years ago stuck with the party and steadily inched up in influence and now control a lot of superdelegate votes.
 
How is that the same as the supreme court ordering a halt to the election process?
Click to expand...

When did that happen? You surly don't think that is what happened in 2000 when the SCOTUS didn't over rule Florida certification of the election results and make then count the ballots again do you? They did after all certify the results correctly after multiple recounts by 3rd parties. The court decided NOT to interfere with the election process.

Off topic but I thought that the "stolen election" myth had long since lost it's audience due to the realization of facts over hysteria.
 
When did that happen? You surly don't think that is what happened in 2000 when the SCOTUS didn't over rule Florida certification of the election results and make then count the ballots again do you? They did after all certify the results correctly after multiple recounts by 3rd parties. The court decided NOT to interfere with the election process.

Off topic but I thought that the "stolen election" myth had long since lost it's audience due to the realization of facts over hysteria.
Click to expand...

If only it was actually that simple. I'd recommend before anybody take anybody's word on that particular case they go read the decision (and look into the context) for themselves, something that I admit I don't even regularly do.

The Supreme Court may not have overruled the certification of the election results (a technically true statement), but rather they overruled the order by the Florida Supreme Court for manual recounts which would have altered those results (if not the outcome). Recounts which had begun, and which had already previously been stopped by an injunction from the Supreme Court.

Note that the Supreme Court did not rule that the Florida Supreme Court didn't have the power to order such a recount (they specifically affirmed that the FSC did), but rather that such a recount was occurring under standards inconsistent with the fourteenth amendment (equal protection clause) and that acceptable standards could not be drafted and implemented by the requisite deadline for the selection of their electors. Or in other words, that while conducting the recount was appropriate it could not be conducted correctly in a timely fashion so it was ordered to be stopped. So they stopped the recount over time and standards concerns, not because the already certified results were accurate.

I'll agree that it doesn't quite fit the "stolen election" hype, as odds are Bush would have won anyway. But to dismiss the idea that they interfered with the election process is ludicrous; they had to interfere with the process, as you had a result within the margin of error and not enough time to conduct a thorough recount. So either timelines needed to be extended or the recount stopped, either being an interference with the process. That it was the interference you agreed with does not make it less so.

Acting as if nothing happened and everything occurred in a perfectly regular and routine fashion makes light of an event (and a case) that is complex enough that a book could be (and several have been, I'd assume) written on it. Even a reading on wikipedia regarding the issue (the SCOTUS case specifically, or the entire rigamarole) would be at odds with what you wrote there, and a reading of the decision along with an understanding of the timeline certainly is, which suggests you're either intentionally misrepresenting the facts (ah, the slow rewriting of history) of simply don't know what you're talking about. I don't care which.


EDIT: Still curious as to what a reasonable percentage would be, by the way.

EDIT: To Pat H's post below, this is not consistent with the text of the ruling. This point was actually the only one on which the court ruled in Gore's favor.

EDIT: Again, to PatH...D'oh! More specifically they determined that this point was irrelevant, with Rehnquist writing a concurrence (along with Scalia and Thomas) to state that along with the fourteenth amendment concerns they also found as you state.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court may not have overruled the certification of the election results (a technically true statement), but rather they overruled the order by the Florida Supreme Court for manual recounts which would have altered those results (if not the outcome). Recounts which had begun, and which had already previously been stopped by an injunction from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS ruled in the way that they did because the US constitution does not grant authority to the courts of the various states with regard to the presidential elections. The only entity within state governments that has any power in the presidential election process is the state legislatures.

The only known issue that might have granted the state court standing would have been criminal conduct. Criminal conduct was not a part of the case brought before the state court nor the SCOTUS to my knowledge.

It is my position that the SCOTUS ruled properly in this case.

I say all of the above despite the fact that I had no preference between either of the two major party candidates. I voted for another party.

The subject of this thread is the pluses and negatives of the super delegates in this election. Since they've been part and parcel of the primary process for decades, it's hardly an arguable point in this election and has no relationship whatsoever with the Presidential election of 2000.
 
I still don't see what the super delegates are protecting the Democrat Party from. They have an inordinate amout of influence and no accountability.

The division they will cause seems almost inevitable at this point. The little secret is going to come to the surface and either Hillary or Obama supporteres are going to wind up calling foul.

If a case can be made for thier existance then what is it. So far protecting the party is all I've heard. Protecting it from what? Seems their own chicanery is going to bite then.....again.

This is an example of the saying 'Never underestimate the Democrats ability to lose.'

If the Super Delegates wind up deciding the nomonee about half of the Democrats will be essentially told that the party was protecting it's self from them.
 
PBP

How is that the same as the supreme court ordering a halt to the election process?
Click to expand...
Still on that one? The election process was over! The Florida legislators set up the guidelines, the Florida Supremes were over riding that process by trying to continue the process, apparently until they got numbers they liked.

I do think the Dems will have a very divided party if Obama gets the majority but Hillary pulls off a win by super duper delegates. Which of course would upset me to no end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top