Voters Not Superdelegates

As Republicans get their political house in order with Romney bowing out and Mccain making nice with the conservative wing of the party, Democrats appear to be heading towards chaos. Most troubling is that party insiders, members of Congress, union leaders, party officials and an assortment of activists known as superdelegates, now hold the key to the nomination for Obama or Clinton. Each of the superdelegates' votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters. With the candidates almost tied in delegates to date and with battles brewing over currently disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan, the Democrats must move now--before the fight moves from a principled one to a purely political one. Once it becomes clear exactly how the superdelegates will impact the vote, an objective assessment will be impossible. In an effort to avoid another Bush v. Gore crisis of confidence, we have called for all the superdelegates to simply support the vote of their state or district and effectively disqualify themselves now.

Watch the segment here

Comments

[TheIndependenceParty]

To paraphrase Leslie Gore, ... "It's your party, ... you can cry if you want to!"

Seems that when the Democratic Party stops acting democratically, ... we are hosed as a nation.

[RFrancis1980]

I can't believe the commentators on here supporting the idea of superdelegates.

Can't you see the whole point of them is to help well connected party insiders?

Why do we continue to vote for a party that is so hopelessly corrupt, every bit as corrupt as the Republicans.

Supporters of superdelegates, that aren't themselves a superdelegate or party insider ought to listen to that song Happiness in Slavery by Nine Inch Nail's Trent Reznor.

[feelfree]

I object to making the rules up as you go along.

The primaries aren't finished and it looks like gaming the system.

If you had a complaint you should have voiced it long before we're half way through the primaries.

[ntmessage]

Dan – through out all the noise you have been the most empirical of them all. I say that you count all votes – including FL and MI, otherwise the DNC disenfranchise millions of voters with one swell swoop. On the delegate front, I know they also represent constituents but they are not voters. So the only intellectually honest answer is to count all the votes or count all the delegates. Not some votes and some delegates.

[mnmills]

We need a widely circulated petition signed by Obama supporters pledging to vote for him as the official nominee of he legitimately wins the nomination, or alternatively as a "write-in" candidate should he win the most delegates prior to the Convention and then be denied the nomination by the Superdelegates.

[feelfree]

Why base it on delegates?

What if Hillary Clinton has won the majority of the popular vote? Shouldn't the Superdelegates go to her?

Isn't winning the popular vote as legitimate as winning the most delegates?

If you're going to be gaming the system then there are lots of ways to game it.

[HighBeam]

The Super Delegates were put in place for exactly what is happening now. You have one candidate that is backed by some Dems, some Inds., and some Repubs (winning red states). You have another that is backed by the rank and file of the Dem Party (winning blue states). The candidates are lobbying the SDs right know. If they can convince the SDs to vote for them, so be it. The SDs can vote for whomever they think is best for the Dem. Party. If it is Sen. Obama, fine. If it is Sen. Clinton, that is fine, too.

[Petey]

Here's a thought: Maybe the wooing of the super-delegates is yet another test of leadership, apropos to building political alliances in the same way the next president will need to do while pushing for a progressive agenda. Only half the supers are pledged, and the other half can change their mind. Let's see what Obama and Clinton can do as the delegates balance their different styles of courtship with "the will" of their states.

I'm not defending the system, mind you (or attacking it necessarily). But, just as we should follow The Rules as they pertain to Florida and Michigan, we should make the best of what we encounter here. Sure, lobby to change the rules later if there are better ideas out there, but I, for one, am glad the Dems got rid of the winner-take-all system the GOP still uses. Fate has just made this a year to really test our candidates. Let's have a little faith in their political capabilities.

(For those who say Obama has no experience, the fact that he's managed to get this far against the best-established candidate in the freakin' universe is itself a huge example of his executive, leadership, organizational, and political mettle.)

[Irizzee]

Not really sure why everyone thinks super delegates worry Obama supporters, if he win the real delegate race, he will win the Super as well...He has no fear of losing any super delegate prior to Super Tueasday, anyone who backed in as the insurgent candidate to the clinton Machine would never think to drop him now that it is neck and neck...Clitnon on the other hand has many endorsements that cam when she was the inevitable frontrunner, thus some people could be construed as pciking their horse for political gain(who would have thunk it)...Especially since we all know the Clintons, whether you like them or not, are really tough to cross and would relegate non supporters appropriately...As the dynamic changes, Obama figures to do among remaining undecideds as well

[lisakaz]

I worry about it because Clinton has tended to attract support from the establishment, esp. existing DC pols. Given Bill Clinton's position, it is easy to think he can sway enough superdelegates to give his wife the nomination. That's what irks me so much. Some feminists keep touting this first woman stuff and if she gets the nomination it could be based on her husband's influence. That's not a model for breaking any glass ceiling. What, we're all supposed to marry ex-presidents to get ahead? Sure, that's realistic.

I like what Petey said but worry how it's an uphill climb for Obama. This is where the Kennedy endorsement may help some, but the Clintons will be utter fools if they split the actual voter delegates and make some play to gain insider votes as the path to the nomination. They will use their own ambition and place it as more important that the November election. And this might be enough, along with galvanizing their opponents, to ensure McCain wins.

[Feettotheflame]

If super delegates decide the outcome of the democratic candidate and not the will of the people, then I will throw my vote to candidate most likely to destroy this corrupt country.

There comes a point when the house cannot be saved, it must be destroyed. For America that time may be near.

[mnmills]

As an Obama supporter I will vote for him as a "write-in" candidate should he go into the Convention with the most delegates and then be denied the nomination by the Superdelegates.

[SethBLiNK]

Beinhart made two incorrect points. Yes, proportional voting makes it more difficult to get a majority, but with two candidates left, somebody is going to get a majority. If John Edwards' 26 votes really stand in the way of either candidate getting a true majority, let Edwards flip the coin.

And it will ever be thus. The cost of running for president is such that we will NEVER get past super Tuesday with more than two candidates still in the race mathmatically. So the Superdelegate system is protecting us from something that the free market economy already takes care of.

As for protecting us from a brokered convention... the superdelegates are already brokering the convention.

Otherwise, the plurality will be a majority. He also says that the vast majority are elected officials? Really? I count about 300 Governors, Senators and Reps out of nearly 800 Superdelegates. I think if it was JUST the governors, senators and reps... people who must answer to a constituency if they vote against their wishes... nobody would be complaining. It's those other 500 people, DNC officials who couldn't save the party from the Florida and Michigan debacle.

The democrats have the opportunity to feature the greatest exercise in democracy in history. They should unseat the supers and restage the Michigan and Florida primaries.

I wondered how the democrats would manage to mess this one up, and it's starting to be clear.

[stoprollingover]

If the superdelegates override the will of the voters in the primaries, or if Florida and Michigan delegates are seated after those states violated the rules, then this convention will make the 1968 Democratic convention look like a picnic.

[trippin]

If the superdelegates overturn the will of the rank and file, the Democratic Party will EXPLODE.

They're already skating on thin ice for taking impeachment off the table, conducting only cursory invetigations, passing unfair trade bills, pushing for telecom immunity for illegal wiretapping, refusing to cut of war funding, approving an Attorney General nominee who woudn't call waterboarding "torture" because he'd have to prosecute the criminals (we tried and executed the Japanese for this after WWII, a fitting end for this murderous regime) --- in short, not getting a damn thing done and hiding behind the excuse of not having even more power to waste while in reality being one hundred percent complicit with the Republican perpetrators.

Superdelegates taking away the will of the electorate would seal the party's fate.

[rwferr]

What is the will of the electorate? As far as I can see it is either a tie or Mrs. Clinton is slightly ahead. That is what the Superdelegates are for! To resolve ties.

[stoprollingover]

You don't know if it's a tie yet! Many other states still have to vote, you know!

[Arleang]

Don't forget that collectively the Congress is in great disfavor for the reasons noted by trippin. Political operatives who are super delegates are appointees, never elected, basically outside the democratic processs.

Let's hope that there are some surprises in the primaries between now and June 6th, and that actual voters define a majority.

If Florida and Michigan delegates are counted without Obama having been able to campaign and actually not being on the ballot in Michigan, all Hell will break loose.

At what point does this process become toxic enough to seat yet another republican president? I would say shortly after June 6th unless there is a large delegate (chosen by the voters) advantage by that time.

[rwferr]

If Obama had done better on Super Tuesday this would not be an issue. It is just another attempt at a rabid minority of Obama supporters to attempt to game the system against Senator Clinton. If Obama had said more than "Hope" and "Change" maybe more of us would have voted for him but after eight years of no details we need a little bit more. Obama talks a good game but when you analyze what he says there is no there there.

[stoprollingover]

After Florida and Michigan violated the rules and moved their primaries up, they were told by the Democratic party that their delegates would not be counted. Consequently, the candidates did not campaign in those states, which would have been a pointless effort, having been told that those delegates would not count. Then those states, in violation of party rules, held their primaries anyway.

Consider this, how many voters in those states did not go to the polls because they were essentially told their votes would not count? How many voters are saying, "If I had known my vote would count after all, I would have voted!" How is seating the delegates now, as you advocate, fair to those people? It isn't. But now, people like you want to reverse the rules after the fact and seat delegates who have no legitimacy. So tell me again please, WHO is trying to game the system?

[jeffhas]

The Superdelegates have existed for over 40 years in the Democratic Party, and some are saying they should not be allowed to cast their votes as they wish, that they MUST adhere to someone else's version of the will of the people.

If you can change the rules about Superdelegates, you can change the rules about FL and MI.

I'm not saying that's what you should do, I'm saying you can't have it one way and not the other.

[RonC]

As far as I know, Florisda had a record turnout in the Democratic primary. By the way, thanks for the last post. I too will vote for the Democratice nominee, no matter who.

[stoprollingover]

rwferr, you also said: "If Obama had done better on Super Tuesday this would not be an issue."

Maybe the inverse is true...that if Clinton had done poorly, it would be a huge issue.

[stoprollingover]

rwferr, you also said: "It is just another attempt at a rabid minority of Obama supporters to attempt to game the system against Senator Clinton."

No, Obama supporters just want to make sure that everyone plays by the rules that were laid out by the party prior to the primaries. Anyone seeking to overturn those rules, after the fact, is the one trying to game the system.

[jeffhas]

But the people stating that superdelegeates are not allowed to vote their conscience (as they have for 40 years - as per the 'rules' of the party) are also gaming the system.

You can not have it both ways... if you break the rules with Superdelegates and shame or force them to vote for a candidate not of their own choosing, then it's fair to say we should look to change the rules regarding FL and MI.

[rwferr]

"...the Democrats must move now--before the fight moves from a principled one to a purely political one."

What does this statement even mean? This is a purely political process beginning to end. Always has been and always should be. It is a process that is operated by long standing rules. There is nothing wrong with either candidate doing whatever is legal to gain the nomination. And what on Earth is a news organization doing calling on Democrats to do anything?

[stoprollingover]

You said: "It is a process that is operated by long standing rules. There is nothing wrong with either candidate doing whatever is legal to gain the nomination."

It IS a process operated by long standing rules, and the rules were this: if Florida and Michigan held their primaries in violation of the Democratic party rules, then their delegates would not be seated. Violating that rule, then, would not be legal.

[jeffhas]

and the rules state that Superdelegates for vote for any candidate they wish, without having to represent their state, local or national constituents.

Superdelegates have been around for 40+ years.

So don't seat FL and MI, but don't ask to change the rules regarding Superdelegates either.

[ntmessage]

It is obvious that this was always political and not principled. The democratic principle is to never, ever disenfranchise or suppress voters. To resolve an internal squabble this is exactly what they are trying to do. It was the leadership of the parties not the voters’ decision. You must count the voters decision without exception.

[Delaware22]

Dan, if you are so worried about each vote counting, than also call for Florida and Michigan to be seated! Otherwise, you're just another pro-Obama sheeple.

[stoprollingover]

The candidates did not campaign in those states because they were told that the delegates would not be seated. If they had campaigned there, it might have made a difference in the way those states voted. You can't change the rules after the fact. If those states had wanted their delegates to count, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BROKEN THE RULES. You want to cheat, but not have any penalty for it.

[frenchynyc]

you think the republicans are not going to have a field day with this?? and how many independents are going to accept the "annointment" of either hillary or obama if it's not in accordance with the popular vote...not many!!! i sure won't!!!

[HighBeam]

The Super Delegates were put in place for exactly what is happening know. You have one candidate that is backed by some Dems, some Inds., and some Repubs (winning red states). You have another that is backed by the rank and file of the Dem Party (winning blue states). The candidates are lobbying the SDs right know. If they can convince the SDs to vote for them, so be it. The SDs can vote for whom ever they think is best for the Dem. Party. If it is Sen. Obama, fine. If it is Sen. Clinton, that is fine, too.

[leftbehind2000]

Florida and Michigan Democratic voters were wrongfully stripped of their right to weigh in on their choice for nominee.

That said, to reinstate these votes long after the elections were ruled invalid would be equally wrong. Consider two factors here:

1) Many individuals no doubt chose not to participate in a beauty contest "vote" of zero consequence. You can't tell these people that the election is invalid, then later come back and say, "we changed our minds."

2) Because the states were declared off limits, the candidates did not run any kind of campaign in these two states - other than Clinton. Consequently, the voters were not exposed to these candidates as they were HRC.

If something like this were to happen, it would absolutely fracture the party.

[editrix66]

I am sick of this attitude. Did anyone know at the time that Michigan and Florida were unseated that Clinton was not going to get her anointed nomination? No. All I heard last year was that Clinton had the money, the superdelegates, and she was going to rocket to the nomination. We are actually having a real election, and the other side is upset about it. If Michigan and Florida had wanted their delegates to count, then why did they not move their primary and caucus to February 5? They knew the consequences, so people should stop whining now. Clinton had superior name recognition in Florida, and she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan (and she still had a large number of uncommitted voters), so seating those delegates now is cheating. I am sorry for the voters because they had stupid state party leaders, but they can fix that in the next election.

[MDDem444]

Are you kidding me? Now that superdelegates help Hillary (although Obama has been doing all the back room wheeling and dealing to get his hands on them) it seems incredibly inappropriate to even talk about this now. To change the rules at this point is politically motivated by Obama supporters. If someone was really sincere and wanted to be reflective of voters, we would:

1) Redo the proportional awarding of delegates in the states where someone can lose the popular vote but pick up more delgates (Obama in Nevada)
2) Get rid of superdelegates
3) Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan

Then maybe you'd have my vote for making changes in the process at this late date. If you want to fix the system it has to be BEFORE the process starts.

[AnninCA]

This is a Third-Party run. And these are people who would usurp the Democratic party, using the label for their own purposes.

And you are doggone right.

If they wish to change the system, then commit.

Until then......no way.

[Irizzee]

One thing reading Clinton supporters blatant hypocrisy and mental shortcomings here has at least shown me one thing, the exit polling is right about who the educated wing of the party is voting

[Mollye]

You must be joking. I have seen more Clinton bashing and threats of civil unrest from Obama supporters on Huffingtonpost than on any other blog site. If you want a united party, then best let your intelligence kick in and learn how to unite....

[Mollye]

Hmmm...you must be joking. Higher education all around in my immediate and extended families....guess who we voted for on Super Tuesday? Guess who they will vote for in Texas Primary?

Hillary Clinton 2008

[realitybase]

Get rid of the entire electoral college. Popular vote AND instant run off voting and a 6 month campaign schedule prior to the general.

[RFrancis1980]

Your average democrat had not even heard of a superdelegate before.

I know I had not heard about them and was quite irate when I did.

Though I am not really surprised because the Democratic party is every bit as corrupt as the Republican party.

Both parties will do everything in their power to help well connected party insiders above outsiders no matter how much the public votes for them.