Putting an End to this Superdelegate Silliness
With Barack Obama's ten-state winning streak, and growing pledged delegate lead over Hillary Clinton, we are likely seeing the last gasp of the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4th.
If Senator Clinton doesn't win big in Texas and Ohio, the only real question left in this race pertains to the so-called superdelegates.
Will Clinton be able to hold on to the majority of her current superdelegate support, and then try to orchestrate some kind of "superdelegate coup" that would thwart the will of rank-and-file voters--in whatever way you wish to define that term (be it by Congressional district, state or national vote and delegate totals)?
That scenario seems less and less probable by the hour, with her superdelegate supporters slipping away, like so many water-torture drip...drip...drips.
What this whole situation calls for however, is a good hard look at the superdelegate process. At best, during the primary and caucus season, these superdelegates have been a superfluous distraction, confusing all concerned. At worst, the murky superdelegate system is an undemocratic way for Party power-brokers to maneuver behind the scenes--to scoop up PAC money and favors--and to possibly rig our nomination process.
Sorry, superdelegates. It's time that this bad idea meets with its demise. We don't need Super-Democrats coming in to make decisions for us. The people are perfectly capable of electing their own nominee for president.
While there's been much public hand-wringing and uproar about this superdelegate issue in recent weeks, there is only one grassroots project that has people all over the country engaging in a collaborative effort to introduce some sunlight into the shadowy superdelegate system. And, my, how our superdelegate friends have run for cover and made much ado about how they would never thwart the will of the people.
The Superdelegate Transparency Project began two weeks ago, and currently represents a partnership between my blog, LiteraryOutpost, OpenLeft, DemConWatch, HuffingtonPost and Congresspedia (which is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy and the Sunlight Foundation). Combined, these partners have brought nearly 300 volunteers to STP, folks that are concerned about what effect the superdelegates might have on our Democratic nomination.
These volunteers are putting in time to track down vote totals, district-by-district, along with pledged delegates. Then they are tracking down, interviewing and publishing stories about the superdelegates, recording how they are currently pledged, whether they've switched, and eventually what their vote will be.
A few blasé voices here and there have said we don't need to worry about the superdelegates this time around. But the point is: We should never have to worry about them again.
The Superdelegate Transparency Project, when completed, will provide evidence to make that argument forcefully. No longer will we have to speak in hypotheticals about what superdelegates probably did or didn't do. This time, we'll have a first-ever, complete set of data that tracks the nitty-gritty of superdelegate behavior--district by district.
As the New York Times said, "[STP] is the kind of tool that the back room bosses from 1984 could never have imagined -- and today's political bosses are probably horrified to see.
Rank-and-file Democrats will be able to make the case that early endorsements and pledges from superdelegates--those that are collected before the primaries and caucuses even begin--are only an unfair advantage for whomever the Establishment has chosen as the annointed and "inevitable" one. But guess what? It's not their call.
The Blasé Band can say what they like about how we didn't have to worry. But they miss the most important points. The Superdelegate Transparency Project moved people from concern, straight into action--and transparency is playing its very important role in keeping the superdelegates honest. Sorry, we didn't want to sit around on our couches, talking about throwing pies. We wanted to make sure this never happens again.
Next, we can use the STP data to bring all Democrats around to a necessary realization.
Superdelegates? We don't need no superdelegates!
We need a Democratic nomination process that is democratic.
[Note:If you have some time today, come join STP's Barn-Raising effort. We're trying to get the last bits of data updated, so we can begin releasing our findings to the media next week. ]
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
the use of super-delegates is an intricate and essential part of the primary process--not some corrupt
last minute strategy. all primary voting is done under a different mind-set with voters (tentative and
experimenting)--and nothing is really built like the finality in voting apportioning of delegates.
the super-delegates are there to insure protection from one awful catastrophe that has happened
before: most people go to the primaries on a whim---and even in a year like this, are driven by the
stage of the moment--not a process of debate or exposure. The super-delegates are meant to insure
that we will be spared someone who was a splash in season, but could not win in the general election
--and the professional politicians should have a big strong say in that. they spared us from Eugene
McCartthy in my days of yore, ensured Harry Truman when he was a "crabby wisp of wind" and
essentially demanded that Kennedy use Lyndon Johnson (both despised each other) in order to win
--the whole Roman Catholic thing then was off=set by Johnson's well-deserved reputation as a man
of "civil rights" which included his regard for Roman Catholics--he went out of his way to lure in Paul VI who considered Viet Nam a monstrosity.
I say God Bless the Super's--keep them there--they will know when, for whom and how loud to speak when we need them in summer. WE MUST WIN--WE MUST NOT HAVE A GEORGE III--ONE
WAS ENOUGH!!!!
How much hypervenitlating is going to continue about this "10 state winning streak". 10 states is a lot, sure, but let's put it in perspective: DC-3,HA-4,KA-6,LO-10,ME-4,MD-10,NE-5,VA-13,WA-11,WI-10 for a total of 70 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win.
But let's sandwich those in between CA-55 and
TX-34,OH-20 or a total of 109 in 3 states alone.
Hillary still has to win TX/OH I admit, but if she does it kind of makes this month of hype about these 10 states a bit overblown, don't you think?
I mean "we are likely seeing the last gasp of the Clinton campaign" seems a little pre-mature unless you're hyped up on some kind of Kool-Aid.
But your true fears are shown when you actually spend 3/4 of the article arguing to change the rules in Obama's favor for the super delegates. It's not like Obama hasn't had things handed to him on a silver platter with the rw and lw attacking Hillary non-stop, the non-stop MSM attack.
I guess it's like Michelle Obama, who just now, if she gets to be first lady and rule the land, that she will finally be proud of our country. After everything else, we should change the rules so Obama wins no matter what, then you will all finally be proud, I suppose.
This is crazy. We obviously do need Super Delegates because the Party rules have always been that you have to get a certain number of delegates to win. It has to be a plurality, not a majority.
The whole process is messed up, not just the Super Delegates who you find inconvenient. My guess is, if Obama was in Clinton's position, you would argue the other way.
We allow Republicans to vote in some states. We make voters show up at a certain time in other states. We allow a couple of small states and media to anoint candidates.
I say we all vote on the same day with primaries. Why should Chris Mathews leg chills weight more than long time loyal member to the Democratic Party, which I remind you is a private institution and one that nobody has a "right" to participate in.
As I said yesterday to a similar blogger, Arianna is not even a Democrat. I bet many Obama supporters are not even Democrats. Are you?
We need to close our primaries or at very least not allow Republicans to vote. Either that or we make all ballots wide open with a run off type system nation wide.
This republic has always had a fear of pure majorities and the party requirement of getting 2025 delegates reflects those sensibilities. So do the Super Delegates and the Electoral College. You can argue against them, but that has been the history of our system.
Be it in Denver, or November, I will fight against "The Movement."
The only thing worse than a Super delegate not following the will of the people {the voters} is the systemic disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters . Count the vote , count the vote , count the vote stupid . The super delegates should be thrown out and whom ever wins the popular vote total { all votes from all states } should be the nominee . Then and only then will I fully support the nominee no matter who that person is . One person one vote and all votes count . A little less confusion for the simple of mind .
except, to be fair, the votes in FL and MI should be do-overs, as not all the candidates were even on the ballot in MI, and no one could campaign in FL.
I am a Michigan resident and I concur with jennix. At the request of the DNC, Obama graciously took his name off the ballot -- as did his fellow candidates -- with the lone exception of HRC who, shockingly, won the state! To award MI delegates to HRC at this point is utterly ridiculous and undemocratic, to say the least. That she filed to have these delegates seated speaks volumes about the lengths she'll go to get back to the White House. Let me get this straight, she is supposed to get MI delegate because she defied the DNC's own mandate? A mandate supported at the time by her very own campaign advisor, Howard Ickes. Very troubling...
"The will of the people"??? These primaries and caucuses are events within the Democratic Party and should represent the will of registered Democrats.
Sweet.
Here's a debate question: Ask each candidate what they will do if the other wins the most committed delegates. Will they honor the will of the voters or try to change the outcome. Make them go on record.
If they get wishy-washy, talking about how close the race is follow-up with the question: What margin of a lead does the other need to have before you'd concede that is was not a tie that needs to be broken by some other means? More that one vote? More than 1%
If Clinton does engineer a back-door jiggering of superdelegates to secure the nomination I can see only three possible results:
1.) She will alienate and disenfranchise the majority of Democratic voters; 2.) She will destroy the current unity and political enthusiasm that has returned to the Democratic party; 3.) She will insure a victory for John McCain, as pro-Obama Democrats, many of whom are energized and voting for the first time in their lives, become disenfranchised by the back-room political dealings drop out of the presidential elections in disgust and stay home in November.
It would be a trifecta of bad politics: bad for the voters, bad for the party, bad for the country. The electoral college has already done enough to disillusion, disaffect, and disenfranchise voters. Enough. It's time for a real democracy. Cheers.
Kudos from your number 2 fan. Great piece.
I'm starting to think that most supers don't even want this super status.
I think the supers should stay for the procedural and platform votes. But drop them from the nominating process.
Agreed, sir.
Go Kucinich/Dodd!
OK, barring that, seeing the Clinton machine crash will work, but I'm predicting this:
Hillary Wins both Texas and Ohio, two states known for being easily--um, handled? Then the rules re Florida and Michigan are rescinded and those go to her as well. Lastly, the Super Delegates, (why do I see Wiley Coyote at that phrase?) being DNC apparatchiks, flock to her new found momentum. and Obama is a footnote.
Taking bets...
Stranger things have happened, I guess. That's another reason the Superdelegate Transparency Project is so necessary.
Here's my bet:
1. Clinton loses TX/OH, or most remaining states
2. But will arm-twist supers in Denver and win
3. People go to the streets across the country in the first massive unrest we've seen that'll make "Czechago" seem like child's play.
All the wimps on this site wouldn't have to balls to do anything except type their complaints. I haven't seen any young people take to the streets for anything, unless it's getting in line for a I-Phone. At least in '68 some people showed some passion on the streets, now we just have morons fainting at an Obama rally, sort of like the tenny-boppers screaming for the Monkees. And then I read the posts here of people that have no understanding of our Gov't, our history and the history of the Democratic party for the LAST 50 YEARS. The DEMS have had ONE successful President in the last 40 years, Bill Clinton, and all I see here are folks trying to get the next JIMMY CARTER ELECTED, because Obama is just like Carter, weak, indecisive and promoted by Ziggy Brzezinski and the David Rockerfeller crowd.
It's amazing. I can't remember an election where more people were as involved and excited and felt like their voice made a difference. Why? Maybe because it actually did -- with an almost-national primary where voters turned out in droves and decided the elections. The superdelegates are a throw-back, Byzantine process that makes no sense in our so-called democratic system. Who are these people with so much power? Give it back to the people. Begone, superdelegates. Hello, superdemocracy.
It's amazing. I can't remember an election where more people were as involved and excited and felt like their voice made a difference. Why? Maybe because it actually did -- with an almost-national primary where voters turned out in droves and decided the elections. The superdelegates are a throw-back, Byzantine process that makes no sense in our so-called democratic system. Who are these people with so much power? Give it back to the people. Begone, superdelegates. Hello, superdemocracy.
We don't have a DEMOCRATIC process, nothing DEMOCRATIC about a CAUCUS, if you don't have 12 hours to vote and a secret ballot you don't have anything close to DEMOCRACY. The DEMS have a caucus because it's cheap, the taxpayers won't pay for a primary and the DEMS won't either. The SUPER-DELEGATES are a great idea, maybe they can help the DEMS save themselves from picking the NEXT JIMMY CARTER.
The majority isn't always right and occasionally it needs to be protected from itself. Someday the super delegates could save our skins, protecting us and our party not from a good Obama perhaps but from an awful one.
Sorry, friend. I don't think we need to watched out for. And there's too much room in this system for corruption.
"The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right." Alexander Hamilton
Governments have to watch out for the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Political parties are not so burdened. Behaving as if they are is foolhardy.
Democracy is not about some uber lords who "know better" and protect us from ourselves. It's about doing the hard work of helping folks to be critical thinkers and make the best decisions that they can for themselves and their countrymen and women.
From what we've learned this election, the masses need to be more afraid of the Super Delegates than the other way around. From where I sit, I see a bunch of political hacks who have taken contributions from either one or both candidates. I see folks who rushed to prejudge and attempt to sway the election toward Hillary Clinton before one voter even had a chance to cast a ballot and even before any of the other candidates got to make a public case for their own candidacy.
In truth, there is no such thing as an unbiased uber lord (or father figure) who thinks only of the well being of his flock. Instead we have put the nominating decision in the hands of a bunch of calculating, self-interested politicians (elected and otherwise). Me, I'd rather leave it up to the voters.
That is ridiculous. This is a democratic society, and the only way for that to really work properly is for the people to make the choices. It is equally likely that superdelegates can make a bad choice due to political connections and favors owed as it is that they are the "wise ones" that will save us from ourselves.
While we are at it, let's dump the electoral college. It has already provided us with the disaster named GW Bush.
I'll second that!
The electoral college will NEVER BE CHANGED and if not for the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County in 2000 the very wooden Al Gore would be YOUR President today, you shouldn't post your thoughts if you don't know anything
What are you worried about specifically with Obama? He has a solid record of experience IMO. He expanded health care in Illinois to 150,000 people. He passed lobbyist reform. He passed laws against predatory lending. He reformed the death penalty system. In the US Senate, he worked with Coburn and other senators to pass the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency and Accountability Act. He worked with Lugar and other senators to pass the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.
He made it so lobbyists stand up to eat/bribe officials...yea, that's harsh stuff. He also fell for Cheney's garbage and helped pass the 2005 Energy bill, a HUGE mistake for our country. He played the racist card on the Clinton's....and all you guys can do is report on the SDs, challenge their legitimacy, all to ensure they get in your line for Obama. Sounds like a bunch of Obama peeps with power are trying to force him through by saying "We will report all your names, and what you did, if you don't cowtow to us." It sounds like a threat to the SDs to me. The SDs may have more power, but they are citizens the same as anyone and should have the right to vote however they want. Would this be allowed to happen to any other group of voters in America, their votes documented and held up for all to judge them individually. No, I don't think it would happen.
This wouldn't be an issue if Obama's supporters didn't identify it as one. I can't help asking myself, why do they fear the super delegate? Most of these super delegate voters are long time politicians who have dedicated their lives to the party and to the ideals of generations going all the way back to FDR. Instead of mistrust Obama's supporters should be content and confident their man will stand the test and gain the support he needs.
I want to see either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama promise to do away with the system of super delegation.
Of course it would potentially put them at risk at the convention, as they might need those disproportionately heavy votes for their nomination, but what a grand gesture that would be. And would superdelegates defy the will of rank and file voters out of spite. Would they vote for the candidate who didn't seek their demotion, and eradication of this undemocratic system?
The talk of change should also include the political process which is flawed. Not just with regard to finance reform and lobbyists but with these enemies to democracy, the superdelegates.
We the American people aren't stupid, as a whole. We know inequities when they arise, and these superdelegates have been hiding in smoke filled rooms too long. Many of us never knew they existed. Now that we do, they must be eradicated, and the candidate who pledges to do that will earn the trust of the American people.
Is smoking allowed?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
