It looks like Clinton is currently ahead by about 90 delegates. She’s also ahead by about 90 superdelegates. Effectively, they’re tied with respect to voted-for delegates. How are superdelegates fair to voters and the democratic process?
How are they fair? Interesting question. I am friends with 2 of Connecticut’s Super delegates. I worked with them on the town counsel and they both went on to be legislators. Speaking from a side line view, they both vote based on what they perceive as the best person for the party.
With all due respect to parties as institutions, how does that impact its fairness to the democratic process as per the OP? I myself do not know how much latitude the parties as private organizations should be given to pick candidates or not, given that they are private organizations, but I would not pretend that using preselected superdelegates who can vote for whomever they want is a democratic process.
All the latitude they want. The Democratic Party belongs to the Democratic Party, and if they want to give extra votes to party officials, or let non-Democrats decide who their candidates are, that’s their decision to make. (ditto for Republicans) If they wanted to decide it with a rock, paper, scissors competition, that’d be their right too. If people dislike this decision, they should join those parties and work to change those rules.
I understand that, but it seems analogous to my rugby club’s current officers getting together to decide next year’s officers, regardless of what the players had to say.
I read somewhere that the superdelegates exist to “promote and retain the ideals of the Democratic Party.” It seems that by taking away 20% of the voice from the people, and giving it to those already in power, that true change is now 40% harder to accomplish.
And? Of course change is more difficult - that’s the whole point. Superdelegates exist to perpetuate the status quo.
How is that good?
Well, you have to understand that not all that long ago, there were no primaries, and superdelegates were the only delegates. That’s where the smoke-filled rooms came into play.
The primaries were a reform of this - but as a compromise move, the elected officials were permitted to retain a role in the process as well.
Didn’t say it was. But it is in the interest of the Democratic Party, as an established organization, to maintain its existance in a fashion that provides its bigwigs with power and patronage. The people hardly matter at all.
I think that’s the nub of the problem.
Sure, the Democratic Party, as a private organization, is within its rights to select its nominee however it wants.
But if the Democratic Party isn’t a democratic party…you see the problem. Not just from the POV of being a little hypocritical (when has that ever stopped a bunch of politicos?), but also from the POV of selling your party to the people whose votes you need.
What people? The Democratic party (in theory) exists to certain degree to maintain some ideals that identify the party. The folks who are the party regulars, the ones who do all the leg work, organize the fund raising, run the campaigns, etc are supposedly the ones who maintain that vision and focus. In any large political party I’d want someone in place to maintain the purpose of the party.
Remember back in 2000 when Pat Buchanan hijacked the Reform Party nomination? I don’t think that’s likely to happen with the Dems and Repubs, but it’s a good safety measure against something like that.
Why go through the entire expensive Primary Election process when you hold the superdelegate trump card to appoint whoever you want anyway. The entire setup smells like a sham.
There are only about 800 superdelegates at the Democratic out of a total of over 4000 total delegates, so it’s not like the Superdelegates can appoint whoever they want (not to mention that it’s unlikely all the superdelegates would be united anyway).
Has there ever been a primary where the superdelegates changed the result? I.e. the candidate who got the most “normal” delegates did not get nominated?
Surprise surprise, a system no one had any real problems with, someone now has a problem with because it may not be beneficial to their favored candidate.
The simple fact of the matter is, purely democratic means of making decisions are not, in fact, always the best way to make decisions.
When is it the case that a purely democratic decision making process is not the best way? Well, take for example a corporation, like IBM.
I own some shares of IBM, do I own very many (in the grand scheme of IBM)? No. Do I get to “vote” periodically? Probably–I’m guessing I do; I own shares of many, many corporations, and I get letters in the mail all the time about voting on certain issues, like most shareholders I throw these letters in the garbage.
Why? Because, corporations aren’t Democratic. Whoever has bought the most votes (by buying the most shares) gets to make the decisions. In the case of a company that doesn’t have any single shareholder who controls more than half of the voting shares (like IBM) typically the power is wielded by combinations of the largest shareholders whose interests are represented in the board of directors (who in turn hire/fire CEOs and et cetera.)
Publicly traded corporations aren’t democratic because, each shareholder gets to vote based on how many shares they own–so a rich shareholder gets far more votes than a poor one. This is an ideal system because corporations should not be run democratically, surviving in the business world is something it takes a significant amount of expertise to do. Most of IBM’s shareholders have no idea at all how to run IBM, that is why IBM and most other similar companies have structured their corporation to insure that only select, qualified persons get a real say in how the company is run.
That’s an ideal, undemocratic system for a corporation.
The goal of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, period–that being the case it doesn’t make sense to implement a purely democratic decision making system.
Some would argue (and this isn’t a new argument) that government itself should be run by “the experts” and that individuals shouldn’t have much of a voice. This sort of idea goes all the way back to Plato who advocated a society ruled by Philosopher-Kings.
However, most modern ideas about Representative government hold that since we all have a very significant vested interest in society, we all deserve a fair say in the governing of that society (in a corporation, each shareholder definitively has a different amount of vested interest, in society, it’s quite arguable we all have an equally vested interest.)
However, the Democratic party is not explicitly an organ of government. As a political party it is somewhat regulated by government, but it is not truly a statutory part of the government. The Democratic party’s primary purpose is to win elections and advances its ideals. In a sense, it is sort of like a corporation, but since it has a huge number of members with a significant vested interest, it makes sense to choose its candidates in a more democratic fashion. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to choose candidates in a purely democratic fashion. The professional politicians know better than America at large the political landscape, and it isn’t unreasonable for them to have a say.
How long has the superdelegate distinction in the Democratic Party been in existence?
Are you talking about the stripping of delegates from MI and FL? 
I tend to agree with superdelegates in principle. Superdelegates are a good tie-breaker because they probably have a better sense of electability and what’s good for the party than the average voter. I think it will naturally be disappointing when any primary is decided by party insiders, but I don’t have a particular problem with it if that’s the judgment of the party elders.
The concern in this case is that superdelegates won’t play that intended role. Instead, they will reason that the Clintons value loyalty and punish disloyalty more than Obama, and that Obama will be back eventually. The Clintons also have a lot of favors to call in, and have been open about doing so with superdelegates. I think that probably perverts the role of superdelegates.
Since primaries first started. Wikipedia entry on superdelegates says:
So those party officials used to have total control over the nomination process, and now they only have 20% control
Topical article: Dems head for messy nomination process - POLITICO
I had the very same conversation with a good friend who is a CT Superdelegate. You are right that the Clinton’s have a lot of favors to call in, and there is some insider info being shared amongst bigwigs. The question is, have the Clinton’s pissed off more people than they have favors to pull? Think about this in terms of who get’s into the WH next. I think there are a fair number of superdelegates who are looking at the tidal change and may eat the blue pill instead of the red one to turn out for BHO.