Democratic Party May Dump Superdelegates

Seems like only yesterday that the entire nation was thrilling to the sturm und drang of the Democratic Party presidential primary process. Remember that nonsense? Michigan and Florida had their delegates denied! Texas had some three-headed demon-cow thingy called a primacaucus, which no one understood. Delegates were awarded proportionally, based upon voting numbers, a fact which escaped sage-genius and microtrending bridge troll Mark Penn. And somehow, the whole mess culminated in some horrible dust-up at a DNC meeting in Woodley Park, where the only thing everyone could agree on was that Sam Stein needed to be yelled at, repeatedly, while eating a sandwich.

It's impossible to look back on those halcyon days and not wish that they would soon come again, especially that sandwich, because it looked delicious. Well, those monsters at the DNC are aiming to wreck a large part of what made last year's presidential primaries so downright magical. From The Note:

One year after the country got an in-depth lesson on "superdelegates," the Democratic Party may consider doing away with them in the future.

Nooo! Surely this can't be happening! If only because superdelegacy is basically a stupid perk of being a top dog in the Democratic party hierarchy, an honorary title that allows the "some" to feel more important than the "many." Repealing a cliquish privilege? In Washington, DC? Whoever heard of such a thing? There had better be a good reason!

Touching on what may prove to be one of the more contentious issues considered by the DNC, one presenter, Democratic Party activist and Harvard University lecturer and former superdelegate Elaine Kamarck, suggested that it may be time to completely eliminate superdelegates since most of those party leaders clearly determined their role in 2008 to be one of ratifying the decision made by voters in primaries and caucuses.

"We can probably let go of the superdelegates," said Kamarck.

"Their deliberative role," she added, "has in fact been supplanted by a very very public process."

Ahh. I get it. Being a superdelegate was all fun and games until there actually came a time when it suddenly mattered. Is a perk really a perk if it comes with responsibility? Surely not. And shucking responsibility? Well, that's even more Classic Washington than accruing pointless and inane honorifics!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[bronncohowie]

Forget the super delegates, the Dems need to go back to the "winner take all" primaries. Hillary Clinton would be President right now if the Dems had the same system as the GOP !!!!!

[LinkSync]

If they were actually Democrats they would scrap the electoral system and all it's ramifications as far as they could.
Just hold a single day national primary with one person and one vote and show the way forward.
But NO!
They are as self interested and corrupt as the G.runting O.ld P.igs party is in their own way.
Where is Democracy in the USA?

[Deadgnome]

Really hasn't ever been here.

[super]

Next step: the electoral college.

[WowJones]

Electoral College and the three fifths rule were a compromise to the Southern slave holding states, who had less population than the North. It's outlived it's usefulness.

[edwarvir]

All I ask is that you vote to get
rid of the Grand Ole Party as well

[JackRusselTerrier]

Superdelegates should not be part of the process. Period. Party candidates should be chosen by the people, in one national election, not multiple state elections over time. Period, Independents - no changes necessary.

Next topic: Eliminate the delegate system

In the final NATIONAL election It is said that every vote counts. This is simply not true.

Due to the delegate system, if you live in a predominately Republican state and you vote for a Democrat or vice verse your vote is effectively cancelled out. I can understand how this would be fair if this was a local election. But in this case, a national election, this makes no sense at all.

The voting process itself is inconsistent and questionable to say the least. Some states use paper ballots. Some utilize electronic voting. The paper ballots are slow. Electronic voting is vulnerable to hacking and has no paper trail.

Why can't we have both. When I get money out of my local ATM, I am using the best of both worlds. I would suggest that we have electronic voting, but with the addition of receipts. After I complete my vote, the machine would give me receipt. I could check the receipt for accuracy and then drop this in a box to be available to be checked by voting officials against the computer record.

[teron678]

I fully support the Delegates system ... hate the way the GOP does theirs ......

Delegates System enable a prolonged primary .... which is very beneficial in the G.E .. IMHO

[JackRusselTerrier]

What exactly do you like about a prolonged primary?

They're already campaigning for 2010 & 2012.
I would rather have them doing their jobs than be on the endless campaign trail. Also, they play too many strategy games between states during the primary which usually benefits the candidate with the most cash, not necessarily the best ideas.

[mredder4]

Bah, bad math.

Regional primaries, 50 states, 5 per group, two weeks per group, 20 week primary.

[mredder4]

It's 2009, there's no excuse not to have regional primaries. 50 states, 5 states per group, 2 weeks per state. That's a 10 week primary schedule.

Also, enough with Iowa. Tired of having hayseeds with nothing to do but caucus decide my party's nominee. Iowa is 91% white. Please try to tell me with a straight face that this still "represents America".

[Justin Gibson]

Electoral College should also be gone. Keep the caucuses at least.

[Cilantro33309]

The electoral college is really only there to make the winner look like a bigger winner than he really was. For instance, Obama won by 11 million votes. Not that much in the sceme of things, but by electoral vote it was a landslide.

It's mostly psychological, and rarely (if ever) decides an election. I think it's actually a good thing, giving the incoming or incumbent president a psychological boost so he can get some things done.

[teron678]

true ......

[super]

Works the other way too; case in point: Bush v. Gore 2000. A comfortable win for Gore in the popular vote turned into a 5-4 Supreme Court award in favor of the popular loser. The electoral college is there only for historical reasons, harking back to a time when Americans traveled the country by wagon cart and battled masked outlaws in the banks (ok, that part we still have).

[joeyhegele]

Who would have thought the Republicans have a more fair primary system?

The Democratic primary should be more like the general election: direct voting done in a private voting booth (no caucuses), winner takes all of the delegates from the state they win, and the number of delegates should be the same as the number of electoral votes in the general election. That seems the most fair and accurate way of determining the most electable candidate.

Plus, no more of this punishing states for voting early. Thankfully Florida and Michigan did not hold it against us, but it could have cost us the election (especially with Florida).

[kdublya]

"most of those party leaders clearly determined their role in 2008 to be one of ratifying the decision made by voters in primaries and caucuses."

===

In less polite circles, it's called stealing credit. I liked the process though. At least it brings some of the backroom dealing forward. It provides interesting side stories to keep John King away from his awful magic board.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Considering that Super-delegates were created to obstruct an "Obama" from being nominated, it looks like about time.

[Mnemanth]

The "parties" can do whatever it is they like.
Umm...while they're playing their play ground games, I think the American public would like to get back to voting in who they want.
How it is that we've been brought to believe that we are only allowed a choice between candidate "A" and candidate "B" eludes me. The fact that it is what it is basically underminds the very idea that we live in a democracy.
To the casual observer, there's only one "party" anyway. The Corporate America Party.

[BrickSykes]

Where can I get a list of the "Democrats" that did NOT vote for this Bill?

Brick

[FessorFrink]

The less democratic the primary process the worse it is for all of us no matter who won. I voted for hillary in the primary and Obama in the general. But the process made a close election worse by the controversy surrounding the superdelegates. So getting rid of them is a fine idea.

I don't have a major issue with a long primary, there should be some attrition and endurance required. I think it's more of the problem of campaign finance across the board i have a problem with. I wish we had public campaign financing for all congressional, senatorial, and presidential elections. Raising $700 million, even though we won, is a grotesque figure and will always lead to questions about donors and/or lobbies (lobbies are different but part of the problem. I said last month the all congresspeople and senators should wear nascar suits so we know who is sponsoring them.).

[ibsteve2u]

Scrap the NASCAR suites, and make 'em all wear hats Bluetooth-equipped monitors of their heart rate, blood pressure, and amount of sweating they do when they answer questions...

I'd rather know when the S.O.B.s were lying, than know who bought that particular lie....you can usually guess who bought whatever legislation, anyway.

[AnnfromCA]

Frankly, it was a travesty. I lost all respect for the party in this election. But what's worse, I've concluded that I was right.

Watching the lobbyists eat up every proposal is just beyond my tolerance level.

There is no difference between these Dems or GOP.

It's a corporate fight.

[GeorgeP922]

Whats one have to do with the other.

Our primary system served you fine when the handsome white men were running.

Folks, I suggest you read this link to see where Ann is coming from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/eating-a-reuben-amidst-a_n_104486.html

[cjk002]

PumaAnn strikes again, and she stil hasn't gotten over it....

[GeorgeP922]

Or Hillary could have withdrawn after the Maryland Primaries were Obama clinched the nomination.

How many millions did we waste on that primary post super Tuesday? 100, 150?

Had she withdrawn, our party could have had some policy discussions, instead of going right from a primary ending in June right into a general election.

[AnnfromCA]

For me?

Dems can keep up their goofy system as long as they like. I'll never engage again.

The revision will be as stupid as the original, I predict.

It's about the same as their bills coming out, written by lobbyists.

[TheBaffler]

Mmmmm, the tasty tears of a petulant PUMA. HRC lost, lost, lost, and if still feels good. Savor the failure.

[AnnfromCA]

I'm so not a PUMA. I think Hillary is goofy for taking the SOS job.

I think none of what she's doing now makes any sense.

I really always admired her. She was my own first lady in state politics. But she really doesn't make sense now to me.

Whatever......I simply am not into personality politics like so many of you are.

It's just not my thing.

[ibsteve2u]

I don't know that she is a PUMA, per se...more like one of those "blue dogs", who want to throw "the masses" a bone now and again, as long as it doesn't slow their rate of wealth accumulation.

Hillary was their ideal candidate.

[frantaylor]

By not voting, you are voting for the status quo.

You are telling your elected politicians that you like things just fine the way they are.

[frantaylor]

Wow, someone from the party that produced the team of McCain and Pailin is making fun of the Democratic candidate selection system.

[AnnfromCA]

Frankly, this is a move that won't matter.

Most of us have moved on.

And it's to INDEPENDENT status.

We're over both parties.

[disgustedbyitall]

i don't know about "most"--that would certainly be a positive thing, though. i'd like to see the two main parties slaughtered and hosed off the sidewalk.

i wouldn't even call myself an "independent" since anyone wanting to participate is still a slave to the same corrupt system.

[GeorgeP922]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/eating-a-reuben-amidst-a_n_104486.html

God Ann, the world is passing you by.

Thank you Jason for digging this back up, we need folks in our party to stay sharp.

The DLC/Puma factions are still out there, from the chief of staff down to PumaAnn.

[cjk002]

Still trying to speak for everybody huh?

The Democratic advantage in party ID has stayed pretty much the same since the election, most of the new independents have come from the Republican party.

FYI, 90% of Hillary voters voted for Obama, and the overall Democratic vote for McCain was about the same as it is for a republican in every recent election.

[noudidnt]

Youre an admitted republican. Why are you still here???