Democrats Strip Superdelegates Of Power In Historic Reform Vote

Politics & Elections
41

Pledged delegates aren’t legally bound by their pledge, so I guess the moral of that story is that the state parties, which choose the delegates, should choose wisely. One should ask oneself, though, what a delegate should do if he or she is strongly convinced that the candidate pledged to will lose in the general and that another candidate will likely win. Should the delegate ignore his or her own analysis and just go with the will of the people? What if the polling in that delegate’s state shows the other candidate is polling much better in recent polls than the candidate to whom the delegate is pledged?

I don’t know the right answer, but I think reasonable people can disagree on what the right answer is. The best I can come up with is it would depend on the particular circumstances, and I’d hesitate to say what I’d do in advance. But I can imagine there would a scenario where I would switch. A very rare scenario, but not something I would completely rule out.

42

No, I’m pretty certain it was my kid brother. On the up side, he finally got interested in politics. On the down side he REALLY got more interested in politics.

Alternately, can I propose a combination of primary and smoke-filled rooms? Maybe the primaries select out the weak-links and the conventioneers pick from the top four primary winners or something? Might take away some of the populist problems while leaving room for professional election-winners to have a say in vetting electability.

43

Even the ones posting here?

44

It’ll depend on how many hoops you need to jump through to get the ballot.

45

Isn’t that how it happens now? Not the “smoke filled room”, but by the time of the convention, is there ever more than 2 candidates in contention anymore? In fact, aren’t the conventions almost always choreographed coronations of the winner of the primaries?

In 2016, was there any doubt that Clinton would get the nomination once the convention was underway?

46

No, not at all. None.

But if the process led to an assumption that the top four delegate winners would be in contention there’d be more back and forth. Sure, if someone comes to the convention with 90% of the delegates it’s over. But if there’s a real split, even with someone with 60% of the delegates, there’s room to manuver. Maybe even force a VP pick.

47

I’m not talking about his supported candidates, which have not done very remarkably. Seems like every week there is another article about the unprecedented waves of 1.women candidates and 2. Democratic candidates in races which have been uncontested for many cycles.

I don’t think progressivism is going to look like Bernie, not soon anyway. But that doesn’t mean that there are not a lot of people champing at the bit to push out the old tired Democratic leadership so tied to corporations and the status quo.

48

I’m not talking about his supported candidates, which have not done very remarkably. Seems like every week there is another article about the unprecedented waves of 1.women candidates and 2. Democratic candidates in races which have been uncontested for many cycles.

I don’t think progressivism is going to look like Bernie, not soon anyway. But that doesn’t mean that there are not a lot of people champing at the bit to push out the old tired Democratic leadership so tied to corporations and the status quo.

As my dad always used to say, “Throw the rascals out! Let’s get some new rascals!”

49

Meet the new boss…

50

It seems that this move is largely a symbolic measure that was pushed for by the Bernie wing and generally opposed by the establishment, particularly the black leadership. My assessment is that it won’t predictably help the leftist faction, though, but will merely introduce more chaos and possibly even more elite control into the process. I do favor the introduction of absentee ballots for caucuses, however.

The new rule states that superdelegates can’t vote on the first round if someone has won a majority of pledged delegates during the primaries – IOW, the supes can’t steal the nomination from someone who won a majority of the vote (Almost certainly…it is theoretically possible, as DinoR points out, that someone could win a majority of delegates without quite getting a majority of votes cast). I don’t see how anyone could possibly object to that.

However, it’s not uncommon for nobody to win a majority, and that’s where the potential problem comes in. If there’s no first ballot majority, then the superdelegates get to vote on the second ballot, at which time most of the pledged delegates become unpledged and can vote for whoever they want. So there could then potentially be two factors that could work to the advantage of the candidate(s) who didn’t win the most votes. If the problem is that the process is perceived as undemocratic, I don’t see this as being a fix.

There’s no perfect system, and reasonable people may disagree on how much influence elites should have. I assume we can all agree that if Dwayne Johnson gets 50%+1 of primary votes cast, he should be the nominee. Likewise, if the primary vote ends up Sanders 49.6%, Biden 49.4%, others 1%, I assume we can all agree that the 0.2% margin shouldn’t be decisive and some sort of role for party elders in breaking the virtual tie is appropriate. But what if it’s something like Sanders 40%, Harris 25%, Biden 20%, Booker 15%? IMO, Sanders should be the nominee, but OTOH you can argue that he didn’t come close to winning a majority.

What if we assume that polls show a majority of the non-Sanders voters would prefer any of the other three over Sanders? Would it be a relevant consideration if Sanders’ large plurality consisted almost entirely of white voters? Should polls comparing the candidates’ relative chances in the general election be taken into account?

I think there should just be a simple and straightforward rule that ensures a candidate will win the nomination not only if they get a majority, but also if they get a decisive plurality. Say, if the leading vote getter gets at least 35% of the vote AND beats their nearest competitor by at least 10%. If that doesn’t happen, the convention has to decide, and determining the precise balance of power between voters and party leaders that should exist in that situation is above my pay grade. (It would be even better to use ranked-choice voting in the primaries, but that’s another thread).

Consider the scenario I outlined above, where both Sanders and anti-Sanders forces would feel strongly that they had earned the nomination at the polls, and whichever side came out the loser after the convention shenanigans would go ballistic. If everyone had gone into the process knowing exactly how well they had to do at the polls in order to avoid casting their fate to the convention, they would hopefully at least not go quite so ballistic if the process didn’t produce their desired outcome.

Ultimately what the party needs isn’t a particular set of nominating rules, but an atmosphere of mutual respect between the candidates and their supporters, and a willingness on the part of all sides to put the primaries behind them and unify behind the nominee. I worry that, on the whole, these new rules make it more likely that a situation will arise in which maintaining those attitudes will be harder than it needed to be.

51

This line of discussion is really hijacking the thread, but I just can’t resist…

Remember the recent Michigan primaries, how Sanders and AOC spent the weeks leading up to the primaries stumping for their preferred candidates for Senator and Governor, who then suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of candidates backed by the party establishment?

Not a great night for Bernie Sanders personally,* but *…one of his candidates lost to a woman who wants to legalize pot and raise the minimum wage to $15, and the other lost to a Native American lesbian whose main issues are passing strong gun control laws and making childcare expenses tax-deductable. If these are the people who are now considered “mainstream, establishment Democrats”…well, you don’t have to give Bernie credit if you don’t want to, but somebody’s doing a damn good job of window-pushing.

52

It is uncommon. Last time it happened was in 1952.

And the Superdelegates had no effect in 2016, other than let the Kremlin convince some bernie-bros “the fix was in”.

53

Exactly. Bernie pushed the party on some important issues. Even if his endorse-ees are losing some races, they’re usually losing to someone who agrees with Bernie on these issues.

54

You forgot 2008, 1988, 1984, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, and 1960, but other than that you make a great point. Also, it came within a couple percentage points of happening in 1956, 1980, and 1992. Of course, before 1972 the primaries were a relatively small part of the Presidential nomination process, so apples to oranges. So, basically, since 1972, in elections without a Democratic incumbent, one candidate has won a majority of the primary vote in 4 of 8 cases. I’ll stand by my statement that something that happens 50% of the time is not uncommon.

Given that I didn’t claim that superdelegates had any effect in 2016, and I don’t believe anyone in this thread has made that claim, I’m not sure what purpose your second paragraph serves other than to allow you to engage in some grade-school level name-calling.

55

OK, I guess I was wrong. Asahi does sound here as though he believes superdelegates had something to do with Clinton’s win. If there had been no superdelegates, Clinton would still have won on the first ballot. There would have been no talk about “taking it to the convention” and no Bernie supporters harassing superdelegates, so in that particular case a system without superdelegates probably would have helped encourage party unity.

As far as “legitimacy”, I dunno. In 1952, Estes Kefauver won 65% of the primary vote (granted, only fifteen States held primaries then) and the party bosses denied him the nomination. That wouldn’t fly today. The norm that the primary vote should be decisive is a relatively new phenomenon (one of which I approve). But I don’t think we’ve reached the point at which most Americans would regard it as a horrible thing for a party to have nominating rules which could theoretically deny the most popular candidate the nomination. My guess is that, in your hypothetical scenario, there would be a real danger that many Biden supporters would be upset enough to jump ship in the general election, so it would harm the party. But aside from the devoted fans of the guy who got the shaft, I don’t think many independent voters would much care. I mean, if they held passionate beliefs about how parties should select candidates, they wouldn’t be independents, right?

56

I very much mistrust the idea of trusting the professionals to evaluate “electability”. When people talk about “electability”, it seems like it’s usually a code word for “we need to pick a moderate Southern straight white male”(my cite is the “Which Democrat CAN beat Trump in 2020? thread”).

I’m not sure that party elites are any better at identifying “electable” candidates than ordinary voters are; those elites, after all, thought Hillary Clinton was a good idea, and look how that worked out. On the other hand, the Republican elites, who generally despised Trump, held their noses and respected the will of their voters, and look how that worked out. Giving elites more influence will result in nominating candidates who resemble the elites ideologically and demographically, but I see no reason to believe it will be helpful in winning elections.

All through the 2016 primaries, polls showed Sanders would be a much stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton. The Clintonites handwaved that away with “but he hasn’t been exposed to the GOP attack machine yet, and when he is that lead will magically melt away! Hillary’s negatives are already baked in, so she is the more “electable” candidate!” This is IMO a typical use of “electable” being used to mean “just ignore the objective data that’s in front of your eyes and trust my judgment instead, because I am a Very Serious Person”.

57

That’s a fine example of handwaving right there. Good job.

58

2008? Obama received enough superdelegate endorsements on June 3 to claim that he had secured the simple majority of delegates necessary to win the nomination, and Clinton conceded the nomination four days later…Obama was nominated on the first ballot, at the August convention. Obama had 2,272 Clinton 1,978. Obama had a simple majority.

  • Adlai Stevenson (of the 1952 Democratic Party) and Dwight Eisenhower (of the 1952 Republican Party) were the most recent “brokered convention” presidential nominees, of their respective parties.[11] Eisenhower had 595 delegates out of 1206 in the first roll call. However, the convention did not record that as official even though it was an actual vote.[12]*

You make a point about 1984 as “In 1984, as a result of the Democratic primaries, former Vice President Walter Mondale was the clear frontrunner but remained 40 delegates short of securing the nomination. His nomination had to be formalized at the convention, being the last time that any presidential convention opened without the nominee having been decided in the primaries.”

I didnt call you a “grade school name” or any name at all.

59

However, if Sanders had not “stolen” the votes away from the majority in several early caucus races, he never would have been in serious running. I use “stolen” in a ironic sense, since of course- by the rules- he won fair and square, even tho in several cases a majority of the voters outside the caucus favored Hillary.

60

Which was absolutely true. The Kremlin & Karl Rove relentlessly attacked Hillary with lies and half lies. You don’t think the Kremlin could come up with “evidence” that sanders was at one time a card carrying Commie?

But yep, in polls Trump vs Sanders or Clinton, Sanders won. Of course **in POLLS **Clinton beat Trump too.

But in any case, the Democratic voters clearly choose Hillary. If the Convention had ignored that…