Wow. We are still hearing all kinds of crazy stories about the delegates to this summer's Democratic National Convention. Once again, passion seems to have gotten the best of reality when figuring out what a delegate is allowed to do with his or her vote. Truth is, delegates can do just about anything they want ... whether elected or not.
Today, accusations flew that Hillary Clinton's campaign was not only going to recruit the superdelegates -- congressmen, senators, governors, and 450 DNC board members -- but was (egad!) going to start recruiting Obama's own delegates to switch to her side.
No matter who wins the popular vote. No matter who wins the most states.
Are you angry? Confused? Take a chill pill and read on.
If the Democratic race between Obama and Clinton is still very close when summer rolls around, with no one gaining a majority, then how else is one of them going to get the nomination if they don't start recruiting delegates of all kinds to switch sides? Somebody's gotta win, don't you think?
The pledged elected delegates (PLEOs) that are allocated by the state primaries and caucuses are only morally bound, not actually bound. This so-called "voting your conscience" rule is true for all the delegates according to Democratic Party rules.
A vision from God, a good stiff drink, or just an old-fashioned fading of that warm, fuzzy feeling inside would relieve any pledged elected delegate from following the will of the voters in his or her state.
"Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot," a recent DNC memo states. "A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required."
Wanna see the language itself?
DNC Delegate Selection Rules, Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12 I -- No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or party rule to vote contrary to that person's presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.
Paragraph 12 J -- Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.
This rule was either tested or arose after the 1980 convention fight when Senator Ted Kennedy (currently an Obama supporter from a Clinton state) fought to get Jimmy Carter's delegates to switch to his side. The ultimate independence of delegates was upheld by the Party. Under the old ways, a presidential candidate could come down and yank a disloyal delegate off the convention floor and replace him or her with someone more true to the cause.
Now, before you attack this rule as undemocratic and un-Democratic, sit back and think like a presidential candidate... Too much responsibility? I agree. OK then, sit back and think like an operative...
Both campaigns have denied that they have plans to lobby each others delegates. Maybe that's true today. But in the end if the race is close to tied, chasing after each others delegates is about all Clinton & Obama can do ... unless outside forces like Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Gore, or Carter intervene to confirm or refute the will of the voters.
Democracy might be messy and even ugly at times, but that does not necessarily make it undemocratic.
I suppose it is conceivable that a delegate could be convinced that their electorate wants them to vote against the candidate they are slated for, but it seems like a hard case to make.
In almost all case, the candidates are right that trying to flip those delegates is a violation of the system.
===
It would OTAY with the repubs, that's for damn sure.
You must not get out much.
" An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason."
-C.S. Lewis
We already know delegates can switch sides, we already know they can vote their conscience, contrary to the will of the majority of the people, but that doesn't make it right.
And it doesn't make it democratic. Democracy in its pure form isn't messy. When it polluted by the corrupt elite, trying to steal power from the average American citizen's vote, it isn't democracy anymore, but some hideous mutation.
You would have us sit silently by and let your father the superdelegate decide our fate. Well, sorry, but if we want to vote a neo nazi into office, an albino dwarf, or a one eyed purple gorilla, that should be our right. And no one, no one...I repeat no one should be able to, with a single vote, or a group of disproportionately powerful votes overturn that mandate.
Just because the DNC came up with the system of superdelegation doesn't mean its set in stone, moreover the right thing to do. The system must be abolished, and your father's vote, Hillary's vote, Ted Kennedy's vote, and Barack Obama's vote must be demoted to a status equalling each and every other American citizens.
Won't happen of course. You rich and powerful types are only proponents for democracy to a certain extent. When it means less power for you, thats when the room begins to fill with smore, and plots like the superdelegates are hatched.
You sir are an enemy to democracy if you support it.