Having superdelegates is reasonable enough, but I wish they had a clearer purpose governing their existence. The smoke-filled room is exactly what it feels like. Perhaps require each superdelegate to write a detailed explanation of why they felt their candidate best represents the interest of the party. There’s no concrete penalty, but at least if it’s bullshit, it will be a black mark against the superdelegate for the rest of their own political career.
Its a conspiracy. All politics is a conspiracy, of one form or another. This one is outdated, however.
The “leadership” of the Dem party is heavily weighted towards “centrist” Dems, Republicans Lite, who don’t threaten corporate interests, so that whatever scraps of money that aren’t showered upon the Pubbies might be a smidge bigger. Of course, this tends to Dems and Pubbies that are, so far as corporate America is concerned, quite tame, Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. It reflects the Clintonite “triangulation”.
So, the super delegates are a thumb on the scale for the centrists, a way to keep an anti-corporate populist like Pretty Johnny from threatening the established interests, and keep the sweet flow of money intact. And, as you might expect, they lean heavily towards Hillary.
Thing is, they’ve outlived their usefulness, if ever there were such. Corporate money is much more evenly divided that it was, and the vast bulk of the money is coming from the people, which is as it should be. If Obama raises enough clout, they will cave. If it is very close, so close that the thumb on the scales might be missed, they will swing it towards Hillary. But they have to be sure that they’ll get away with it.
The election the superdelegates effect is not making a decision, it’s determining who is going to make decisions* for* us. I don’t understand why everybody shouldn’t have an equal say, instead of just an 80% say in deciding who should make said decisions for them.
I don’t think this can be taken as a direct correlation. Corporations have huge incentives to please their stockholders -and- turn a profit. The government and its elected leaders have not suffered any real repercussions (yet!) from continuing to delve deeper and deeper into debt.
This doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, they know the political landscape better than I do. They also have favors to return, ladders to climb, and asses to kiss.
Surprise, surprise, for some people, this is the first presidential election where they’re eligible to vote. For others, like myself, it’s the first one they’ve been following so closely, since the last two pissed them off so bad. With Obama’s appeal to younger voters, it’s no surprise that those that support him didn’t have a problem with the superdelegate system before.
Political parties are complex organizations that rely on specific people to do a lot of the legwork. As a result, those people are rewarded with more say in the party processes. Anyone (pretty much, depending on state rules) can vote in a primary or caucus; people who may or may not have the long term interests of the party at heart. I don’t think I’d devote a huge portion of my time and energy to the party if I felt that my ideals could be easily dismissed by people who’d never done a lick of work for them.
Again, look at the example of the Reform Party in 1980. Pat Buchanan had no previous association with the party and his people essentially hijacked their name recognition and money to their own ends. A check on that type of action would have been very welcome.
For 99% of the American public there is no concept of membership in a political party. We vote for whichever party we like on primary day, pay no party dues, contribute little or no money to the campaigns. That last 1% does all the organizing, the fund raising, the get-out-the-vote campaigns, create the party platform, run the conventions, get elected, etc. They are the party. And they should get more of a say in party matters.
And it’s open to you as well. It’s not hard to get involved in local party politics. I have friends who are going to be delegates to the convention this year. It’s a fairly low bar to entry; they’re always looking for more volunteers.
Because most people didn’t even know much about it since it never made a difference. Much like complaints about the Electoral College after Gore won the popular vote – before that, there wasn’t any reason for the average voter to worry much about the EC. Once they saw the 2000 results, they started to ask “WTF?”
Personally, I’m not railing against either. But new circumstances make for new complaints.
Thank you. This is the answer I was looking for. It make a lot more sense now.
Right, but I’d be working hard for a particular candidate, and if I were chosen to represent said candidate, I’d be voting for them. I’d be voting to represent a percentage of the population, not to secure my own vested interests. Granted, I may be supporting my own vested interests, but they would be backed up by voters, as well.
I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, and have no voice in how they conduct their affairs. But the time to change the rules is before the game starts. You cannot credibly insist that the current rules need to be changed only after you see that they aren’t helping your side. The superdelegate system has been in place for years – where was your outrage before?
People initiate governments (when they are not imposed upon them) to prevent other governments from imposing government upon them. Within those governments that are not imposed, people initiate institutions to perpetuate what they perceive as protection from tyranny. Their perceptions are based on current threats, and current office holders. The institutions persist long after those characteristics change.
The tendency is for power to be used first to consolidate power, and then to garner more power. Those institutions which do not follow that tendency cease to exist rather rapidly.
Government is tyranny. In the best of cases it is held in check by active interference of its citizens, working from within. When that fails, revolution become necessary. Party politics is just a second layer of government, and functions at many levels without the checks and balances of Constitutional limits.
Tris
Is anyone in this thread claiming the rules should be changed for this election?
I see a bunch of people questioning the fairness of the system, having just now learned how the system works. Surely questioning the system is appropriate at any time, isn’t it?
Exactly. What good is overcoming ignorance if there is no attempt to re-evaluate things from the new, more enlightened perspective?
.
.
So why don’t Republicans use them?
Aren’t most of their primaries “winner take all”?
And of course, Fritz Mondale lost anyway.
Not only that - he carried just one state, in a loss so embarrassing that it was matched by only McGovern himself.
Perhaps you guys ought to bring the smoke filled rooms back. 
Mmhmm, ignorance isn’t a virtue.
Not knowing about how candidates are nominated or elected for President is being ignorant of basic civics.
The Democratic Party is not the government, it is a political party and political parties should and do get to develop internal rules for selecting their party representatives. People shouldn’t confuse a party process like the nominating process with a government process like the actual election. In a party process you do not, in fact, deserve or have any entitlement to an equal say (nor do you even have such an entitlement in a government process.)
I don’t know.
I heard the democrats established super delegates in case a candidate showed up that possibly couldn’t beat the republican, like Jesse Jackson. They wanted to conrol the situation…
If the super delegates decide this democratic nomination and go against the will of the people, then the people better remember who they are and make sure they pay for screwing with democracy.
If Obama wins enough delegates to overpower Hillary, and the super delegates reverse this… there will be hell to pay.
There should be hell to pay.
You can see why this exists in theory. The British Conservative party had changed their leadership elections a few years ago. Previously electing a leader was done my the whole party memebrship on a one man one vote basis.
The Conservative party memebrship as a whole is not a good cross-section of British soceity and the results were that a succession of unpopular (with the British voter in general that is) leaders from the right-wing of the party were elected over candidates from the centre and left-wing of the party who had a wider appeal with the general public. This was a major obsatcle to their electability.
Howvere if the superdelgates were to choose Clinton over Obama it would seem that they are not doing what their supposed to be doing as on paper Obama seems to be more electable.
So…you’d give the election to the Republicans? I don’t understand this mentality. I’m a Republican, I’m going to vote for the candidate who 1. I think will make the best President and 2. has political policies that align the closest to my own.
In general, that typically means I vote for a Republican for President, however I have voted for a Democrat for President. Either way, my vote will go to who I most want to see as President between the two viable candidates in November.
In 2000 I really wanted John McCain to get the GOP nomination, he didn’t. I actually really disliked George W. Bush the candidate in large part because of how he won the primaries in 2000. But, what was I going to do, “punish” the GOP by voting for Gore? Of course not, while I wasn’t strongly pro-Bush, my political leanings synced up with his better than they did Gore’s.
I’d advise Democrats to vote for the Democratic nominee for President, unless you genuinely want McCain, you shouldn’t cast your vote for someone you don’t actually want as President just to “punish” the party.