Like wise the line about them getting two votes is a bit unfortunate. All delegates would get 2 votes if we think of it that way. They’ve got those pesky voting rights that let them do horrendous things like vote as private citizens in their own party’s primary. Then they get a second “vote” of a different sort as a delegate at the convention this July. Because that’s how the delegate and party convention systems work. At base. Pledged delegates do the same thing, they’re just selected specifically because of a stated preference for a particular candidate come convention time. They lose their regular individual access to the polls because they’re now a party functionary? I’m pretty sure a friend of mine was selected as a delegate for Bernie in Washington last week. Should he not have participated in the caucus before or after his selection? So as to avoid having multiple votes. And then all these people get a third vote come the general in November. Should they all just skip that? So they have only one vote?
I’m wondering how all this effects Legislators. They get to vote multiple times to. First in primaries, then potentially as delegates, then in an election they very may well be running in. And then daily after they win. Motherfuckers get all the votes.
After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination. Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%
Superdelegates have been an active part of the nominating process for 7 contests ('84, '88, '92, '00, '04, '08, '16). They haven’t yet determined the nominee. Let the process play out.
Which seemed at the time, entirely plausible. Except maybe the claim that superdelegate haven’t voted since 1984… it seems they did vote in 2008. (But not in 2012?)
I’d love it if someone would just explain the history of the superdelegate process since 1968 when they were invented.
I bet the Republicans with they had a bunch of superdelegates.
I’m honestly torn on the idea, I get that it is undemocratic, but electing a nominee isn’t the same as electing an actual leader. The Republican legislative nominees for the past few years have been selected by the democratic will of their party and have been extremists who get nominated because the primary population isn’t remotely representative of the general public. If the Republican party elites were selecting they’d choose moderates who would get more votes and genuine public support in elections, isn’t that more democratic?
In the Republican primary superdelegates would help them select Rubio, Kaisich, or Cruz over Trump. All three would get more votes in the general election than Trump. If it is true that Hillary is a stronger general election candidate (I know about the Bernie matchup polls and I don’t believe them this far out when he’s never been subjected to a hostile campaign) then the superdelegates are pushing the party to a nominee supported by more Americans.
Far be it for me to add reality in the mix for Bernie supporters, but this is the most ridiculous nonsense ever put forward as a controversy. It was bad enough when the Berners thought that the superdelegates were out to steal the election for Clinton after Bernie won New Hampshire (Even though the Superdelegates’ votes or intentions won’t even count before the convention). But now they have just really gone off the deep end. This episode between Levi Younger and Kim Metcalfe is just the pinnacle of hysteria and desperation on the Berners’ part. (FYI, I think Ms. Metcalfe was supremely patient and forthright with Mr. Younger. Indeed, as she predicted, his tone changed to aggressive as he realized she would not allow herself to be bullied.)
Let’s start with some stubborn facts, shall we? Bernie Sanders supporters have initiated a concerted effort to sway the votes of the Democratic superdelegates in regards to the nomination for president. The name of their group is entitled the Superdelegate Task Force Army. It consists of passionate partisans angling to get superdelegates in states won overwhelmingly by Bernie Sanders to declare or flip their votes from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Their clarion call is that the superdelegates should allow democracy to reign by pressuring the officials to follow the will of their states in regards to overwhelmingly voting for Sanders. Their position is highly disingenuous on the merits, and is cynically self-serving in its implementation. But why you ask? Well, never mentioned in their passionate demands to follow the will of the people who voted in large numbers for their candidate is the obverse calls to superdelegates supporting Sanders from those states that overwhelmingly voted for Clinton to now fall in line for her. Apparently, reciprocity is in short supply, but hypocrisy is abundant with this group. It should also be noted that the amount of chutzpah that these activist have in trying to dictate to superdelegates how they should vote is off-the-charts. This system has been set up for decades, and despite what sour-grapes Berners may say at this crucial point in time, it is not a corrupt system and should not be remade immediately so that their candidate can have a better shot at the nomination. (Perhaps if he started dominating the voting from this point onwards?) Remember that these people,the non-officeholders, became superdelegates because they were in the trenches and worked hard to establish the Democratic party into the modern organization that it is today. They have earned their autonomy and freedom to cast their nomination votes as they see fit. Berners, a very recent phenomenon, should have a seat and a muzzle before telling any superdelegate how he/she should vote before the convention. Their incredible ignorance and desperation is astounding to behold.
Alaska has 16 delegates. 3 for Clinton, 13 for Sanders. Plus four superdelegates-- who can vote as they wish. It’s not unprecedented that they might depart from the winner-take-all fiction
Are they saying that those superdelegates shouldn’t respect their electorate? Clinton supporters are completely free to ask them to if they want.
And who are they, anyway? He only has 32 superdelegates who’ve said they’d support him - looks like 10 of them are in states Clinton won, and most of those from reasonably closely fought states.
Don’t need 'em. Superdelegates are a hack to safeguard against results beyond the range of acceptable in an otherwise democratic process. The Republicans never even attempt to claim a democratic process. They can shut out Trump through any number of simple procedural maneuvers, as they did with the bulk of the Tea Party uprising.
They won’t do that until they have to, of course. It looks bad and puts them in a weak position for years after, but it wouldn’t be the death of the Party. They wouldn’t get the Presidency with or without Trump. So at this point they’re just asking themselves how many House seats they’d lose from Trump voters walking away when they freeze him out.
Superdelegates aren’t pledged to represent any specific electorate - that’s the point. They’re party insiders, not representatives. Before widespread primaries made the parties’ nomination processes more democratic, it was all caucuses and superdelegates.
The superdelegates are completely free to do what they want. And we are completely free to observe what they do, and decide whether we want to support their re-election
I’m not arguing that they should follow their electorate - if they did, there’d be no sense in having them.
But I am arguing that those that put them in power should examine how they vote, and let that inform whether they want to continue to support them or not. And I think it’s perfectly reasonable to contact them to let them know what you think.
