Superdelegate Creator Tad Devine Urges Reexamination Of System

This video is published on Why Tuesday? as well as OffTheBus.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - To help launch the Huffington Post and OffTheBus' Superdelegate Investigation Project we headed here to talk with the man who had a hand in creating the system, political consultant Tad Devine... and even he thinks now is the time to "take a step back and take another hard look at our nominating process."

Got 10 minutes? Here's the raw footage of our wide-ranging Democratic superdelegate conversation with Devine. A highlight: when I asked Devine if the system is undemocratic. Watch the video for his answer.

Why Tuesday? is an effort to make America's democracy stronger through increased voter participation; we work to make election reform an issue that our politicians cannot afford to avoid. Help investigate superdelegates, keep up on campaign news, and more at OffTheBus by clicking here.

Comments

[flabingo]

Colin Powell may have been able to keep us out of Iraq. Now Hillary has a chance to help the democratic party not only win the presidency but create a congress with many more democrats for many years. She should gracefully withdraw before the next primaries. Her legacy would cancel her husband's negatives and pay him back for the many years of humiliation that she suffered because of his immoral behavior. Sorry I was just dreaming

[Silpat]

They never meant to set up a system that would allow a black man to get elected. This system must be disbanded now!!!


LOL

[rwferr]

Hillary just needs to continue to hold her own and get the superdelegates and she is in. The Country is at stake and she should win by any legal means to save us from disaster that is Obama.

[NYCBear]

If the Democratic Party wants to keep those of us who are already disgusted at the spineless pandering of our "national leaders", the superdelegates will have to agree beforehand to vote EXACTLY in the proportion of their state's primaries.

If Obama wins the popular vote, but Clinton wins the nomination, everyone who was outraged by Bush's 2000 election will be outraged by Clinton's nomination.

Long term, the party can't afford the massive defections that turning your backs on regular voters would spark.

[MinerSam]

This means that Kerry, Kennedy and a some Massachusetts Reprentatives will have
to change theri vote in favor of Hillary. Because Hillary won MA an overwhelming majority.

And by the way, Hillary also won California, Florida, New York and New Jersey, New Hampshire and Nevada amongh others, and any superdelegate who lives in or represents those states, who have not already done so will have to vote for her.

[gnoice]

Win at any cost despite the will of the PEOPLE. Definitely a par for the course, unethical Clintonian view. OBAMA in 08

[gnoice]

Win at any cost, despite the will of the PEOPLE. Definitely a unethical Clintonian view.

[vsign]

You don't know who the people are do you? Were you born here? This is a big country. Everyone should have the right to vote. Your Boy President is not letting everyone vote. Impeach his candidancy. Save our party. We are patriotic. You are not.

[bavaria]

Super Delegates ? just another way to subvert the will of the people. You call that a democracy ? And then we have the nerve to tell other Countries how to hold there elections.!
Elections are just as corrupt in this country as in other countries, the Supreme Court comes to mind. I have firsthand knowledge of how this is done on a local level.

[mikonyc]

those be the rules, can't change them mid-stream, rwferr is right, Hillary should do all she has to to wrap up the nomination....experience is more important that prose by a novice!

[Wulfstan]

If the superdelegates go against the will of the people I shall vote for an independent candidate.
That might mean gaga Warmonger McLoony

[EinChicago]

This year is pretty much more important than ever for the superdelegates. We have teh fringe rabble of the dem party pushing a completely unelectable candidate to the lead and now more than ever we need to take back our party from the fringe nutcases.

[PinkoAttic]

If you succeed, you'll be running against him as an independent and you'll still lose.

[springsm]

Well we do always have the Supreme Court, don't we? :-(

[EinChicago]

Nope. That's the GOP version. we just have the nader herd to guarantee our self-destruction.

[longislandlol]

Exposing the disarray in the Democrats' rules will only serve to elect the Republican candidates.

[BurlingtonPol]

So after McGovern lost 49 states they came up with this rediculous "super delegate" system, which, to date, has only pushed Walter Mondale over the top, who in turn lost 49 states. If they ever fulfilled their purpose and overturned the voters, it would smash the party to pieces. The system is ill-conceived and stupid.

[eddiestardust]

Burlington you are correct.

On June 5 1984, Gary Hart had so many delegates that Mondale needed Superdelegates to give him
enough to clinch it.

He got them and then he lost.

This year, I'm afraid that if everyone goes with Obama we may be in the same position.

Thankfully, they can change their vote.

Of course, a little known fact is that your vote as a regular delegate can be changed...not by you but by some other higher party official.

Just look up the Stats for Pennsylvania...They didn't dare mess with the Jackson votes but they stole the Hart votes.

[AZDemocrat500]

The nominating process is completely broken. We not only need to do away with the superdelegates but the caucus process. Having everyone vote who wants to, is by far the best way to select our nominee. Furthermore, Iowa caucusing first is not a true representation of America.

[springsm]

Boy do I agree with this. Caucus's are the most exclusive elitist way to send delegates to the convention. Our state sends 100% of our democratic delegates from the caucus's. About 7% (last I heard) of the dem. voters. Those who can't find a place to park, work, are unable to get to the farther away caucusing place, the intimidated, etc. Many reasons why folks can not go. I find it rather undemocratic and very hypocritical to do the decisions this way. And then we have electronic voting machines. YUP.

[Metacortex]

The whole point of a checks and balances system is to allow an outsider (someone not intimately tied to either of the dominating parties)a chance to become the People's choice for President. Let the parties have the legislative branch and give all of the People their choice for President.

[Lucyd1]

Kudos to Huffington Post for doing this. This is not about one political candidate or another...we cannot call ourselves a democracy and yet have a system in which a small group of insiders actually determine the outcome. The system was put in place to prevent Jesse Jackson (or another political 'outsider' like him)from being selected as the nominee. Doesn't sound democratic to me...

[Hunkmiller]

The caucus system and the Fraser/McGovern guildlines that govern it was designed to encourage participation of the elected officials in the activities of the party.

Too often, when a person ran and was elected, he/she did it in spite of the party rather than because of it. For many candidates, the positions of the party platforms were difficult to run on, even though they supported the issues gay marriange, legalization of some drugs, immigration reform, war opposition, etc.) so they went off in their own direction rather than get involved with the parties.

The guidelines were intended to have a moderating effect on the party by encouraging the involvement of those who had gained some level of political wisdom and sophistication through their activities and successes.

Allowing those who had actually stood for election, or had been intimately involved in the workings of the system for many years to have a role in making choices of candidates is important to the process, since the caucus system seems to attract many single-issue advocates and attendees who occupy the fringe of the parties. To mitigate that effect, and to attempt to reflect the general attitude of the non-activist party members (the General Election voters) the elected officials and party offices are included as delegates to provide guidance and institutional memory to those convention attendees who are new to the process.

It's not a perfect system, but it's better than it was before the institution of the "guildlines." Perhaps it is time to look at moving away from the caucuses completely and depending on primaries instead. The caucuses were created to allow lesser known or unfunded candidates a level playing field where they could compete. We really should look at whether it is time to change the process to a new one that better reflects reality.

The midst of a presidential election is not the proper time to look at changes, however.

[raker]

I like the variety of info on HuffPo, but this site is fairly unabashed about its mission to destroy Hillary Clinton. It's unclear if the weird devotion to Obama is real or if he's being built up as a way to bring Hillary down. It's a level of blinding hatred and cruelty unknown outside of seventh grade. How does HuffPo expect us to take its other political content seriously next to this personal vendetta?

[NYCBear]

Really? How do you manage to hold this view in the face of the Obama-bashing columns that have run here? Most recently, the Clinton organization's anti-Obama "plagiarism" charges were leveled here, too, in spite of the fact that nothing he's done has actually been plagiarism.

Hillary has her flaws, she's definitely human - if pointing those flaws out is "blinding hatred and cruelty" to you, you need professional assistance - you've gone a bit crazy.

Obama has his flaws too - but some of us think that he is who we need right now, in spite of his drawbacks. We see them clearly, and believe that he will be able to overcome his weaknesses and use his strengths to help take the country in a better direction than Clinton would.

No experience can prepare someone for the presidency. It's just too unusual a job. All presidents say that after they've been in office for awhile - Bill Clinton said it too before Hillary began her plan to run.