The idea of having superdelegates is very anti-democratic. There are enough of them in the democratic party to negate any election results. I think this practice needs to be abolished and all delegates should be pledged. Delegates are there to represent the people’s wishes. By letting them do whatever they want, it defeats the whole purpose of having an election.
Start your own party, make your own rules for it.
It’s not intended to be democratic. It’s intended to give the party leaders a bigger say in the nomination process.
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in 2008 over superdelegates. In the end, it didn’t matter. It will rarely matter. Any candidate popular enough to win a majority of pledged delegates is, nine times out of ten, going to be seen as electable and mainstream enough to win most of the superdelegates for the same reasons they won most of the pledged delegates.
So why keep them around? Take a look at the GOP race.
Political parties are private entities. They could nominate whoever the GOP puppy licks first. Or hold an election in China and run that guy.
Voters didn’t used to get a say in who the parties nominated. Whatever say they have now is only due to the good grace of the parties in question. There’s nothing democratic about it. They could let Bernie and Hillary duke it out all summer and then nominate Al Gore. There’s nothing to stop them except PR.
Honestly, I’ll be surprised if Trump gets the nomination, even if he wins the most delegates. The GOP just isn’t going to let it happen.
When’s the last time superdelegates supported someone who didn’t win the actual primaries?
This year. Hillary came out of the NH primary with more delegates than Bernie, despite him winning the primary vote by a large margin.
You’re confused. It is possible to win more pledged delegates despite getting a lower percentage of the popular vote, owing to how each state assigns delegates. Obama did this a few times in 2008.
No one has any superdelegates yet, for the simple reason that they are not pledged to anyone until the convention. All of the early counts in 2008 turned out to be wrong, for many reasons, including the fact that people change their minds.
I mean at the final convention. Has there been an instance where, going by regular delegates, Candidate A was the winner, but Candidate B won instead because the superdelegates supported B?
It is, but I don’t think that’s a problem. There isn’t any particular reason nominee selection has to be democratic. Indeed, its kind of weird that its as democratic as it is.
As it is, the two major parties have chosen a (pretty compliciated) method where the decision is made by a combo of democratically elected delegates and party office holders and officials.
Plus in most cases, the superdelegates are themselves chosen by some sort of democratic process, whether local party elections, state primaries or elections for public office. So for better or worse, the whole process is arguably democratic, albeit part of it indirectly.
No there hasn’t, they were put in to prevent a dramatically unelectable candidate like McGovern from being nominated. But McGovern was a weird scenario because the rules were zany that year and he didn’t even have anywhere close to a majority of the delegates. No one the Democrats have nominated sense have come anywhere close to being a) so unelectable and b) so unsupported by the party as a whole.
With proportional representation being standardized across all Democratic contests in 2006 it’s honestly just super, super unlikely you’d ever see the pledged delegates unite to deny the nomination to the proportional delegate winner. Under the more patchwork system around before then it was possible for someone without even anywhere close to popular support to win the delegates. It was (and still is) possible for a contested convention if too many viable candidates were running, and having 700-odd superdelegates means the party establishment has a very good chance of directing who wins a contested convention, the GOP would be in true shit-storm level if a contested convention happens this time around because aside form a relatively small number (4% of the total versus 14-15% for the Democrats, and at least a few of those “unpledged” GOP delegates can get “bound” later on) of unpledged delegates the party establishment has no way to really effect the outcome.
Thanks, that answers my question. I don’t think superdelegates are really that undemocratic then
I predict the Republicans, who currently operate without superdelegates, will revisit the issue after Trump secures the nomination.
Yea, the Superdelegate thing is starting to seem like its a pretty good idea.
Let’s call it the Bull Moose Party!
I’d join that party!
Oh, wait! I thought you said Bullwinkle Moose Party!