Super Delegate This!
Superdelegates are powerful or prominent members of the Democratic Party who typically hold elected or other offices. They can choose or change the candidate they vote for at any point until the vote takes place at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.
There are some 794 superdelegates. They will account for approximately one-fifth of the delegate vote and will almost certainly have the power to sway the nomination. Each technically has the power of thousands of Democratic voters.
About half of the superdelegates are white men, even though white men only constitute 28% of the Democratic Party.
About half of the superdelegates have already committed to Clinton or Obama. Some have committed because their constituency has already voted one way or another. If you’re a Congressman and your home district has already held its primary, it might not be so bad for you to pledge your vote to the winner of that primary.
But in many cases, the superdelegate has already stepped out and used his or her pledge as an endorsement.
What if superdelegates expect favors from the next president if they supported him or her? What if that’s already happening?
Here’s one of the really insidious elements, from a Boston Globe story, Superdelegates Get Campaign Cash:
Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
Does this seem like a good way to run a “Democratic” party?
What I find astronomically offensive is that one super delegate vote is worth 10,000 mortal votes. That doesn’t sound democratic at all, does it.
As near as I can figure it, these people exist as a safety mechanism for the Democratic party so their nomination doesn’t get hijacked by someone they don’t think represents them. It seems odd to me that “we the people” can’t be trusted.
It’s the same problem with the Electoral Congress in the general election. Heaven forbid the voters elect someone without training wheels on. It’s an incredible insult and just goes to show the concept that politicians have for the general public.
Justin from Colorado Reply:
May 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I have to agree with you. In theory, it’s a completely misguided democracy. However, I will say that there exists a favorable portion of the population that determines their voting strategies based on the color of a candidates skin or their particular gender - and not as I remember someone once saying "by the content of their character". If I wasn’t so cynical about the common voter (all the people who voted for Bush because he seemed like a "good ol’ boy") then I would be more determined to do away with the super-delegate/Electoral congress altogether - as it stands now, I’m just 75% against it.
Why earn votes when you can buy them? It’s hard to criticize the democratic practices of other nations when elements such as these cape wearing super delegates exist on our home turf. It seems like an easy way to manipulate the voting process in case the voting population doesn’t vote the way the DNC likes. No wonder Russia is posturing, we function under the do as I say, not as I do policy around the world; who wants to listen to country A bad mouth country B’s election practices when country A is rife with so many unsavory election elements.
I agree Travis, It’s unsettling to know that while my vote counts, it counts less since super delegates carry so much voting power.
The issue is not the super delegates. The issue is delegates. Should delegates exist at all? Your vote doesn’t count anyways. Your vote goes to elect delegates to a state convention, who then elect delegates to the national convention. At the national convention, the delegates are not officially obligated to vote for anyone in particular. So what difference does it make if we have super delegates? All they do is make a very undemocratic system slightly more undemocratic.
These aren’t laws. They’re rules made up by the party, which has the right to make up any rules it wants for nominating a candidate. If we don’t like the rules we can join the party and actively lobby to have them changed. Or, we can work to change the two party system, which perpetuates this ridiculous, antiquated, undemocratic, elitist, election process.
2 parties is a joke. I see 1 machine that does what it wants, when it wants. Where is the elephant gonna sit? Wherever it damn well pleases.
I’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation why we can’t just lump all the votes for candidate A and B and go with who’s got the most votes. This seems like the most simple and honest way of doing it.
Consider the microcosmic view of town governments. If town officials proposed that their votes for mayor would count more than the general public, there would be an outcry.
I’m not discounting the possibility that I am missing something…I’d love it if someone more in the know than myself could lay out why we shouldn’t elect our government by popular vote alone.
Please…I want to understand this
http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2008/03/clintons-to-pelosi-reed-stay-out-of-our.html
The Clintons will destroy the Democratic party to win. This ain’t gonna get prettier.
I agree with Laura from Mass, the system we use has been on duty for a long time, and it needs to be renovated, but there is a process which needs to be followed. Yes, the pachyderm carries a lot of weight and will sit where ever it fucking feels like sitting because we have let the fucker do it for many years, and it has grown accustomed to shitting and sitting anywhere. Like any animal, it needs to be brought in for remedial training. Question remains: does the thought of elephant cheeks on your head upset you or do you not give a fuck?
The problem with changing this, but you’d have to amend the constitution. It is hard enough to get any bill through congress right now, let alone one through both houses and ratified by 2/3rds of the states.
As I said on the show, the only reason it exists is for multiple party systems. Someone has to carry the majority of electoral votes. So, if three parties are somewhat close and no one wins the election, the senate and house decide for us.
How would you amend the constitution? To make it to someone that must win a majority (50+% of the popular vote)??? In that case, what happens when you have another G H W Bush vs Clinton vs Perot??? Clinton won with 43% of the vote… Would you have a runoff of the top two?
On the other hand, with a “runoff system” you could skip the primary process altogether. At that point, you take the top two or three vote getters from the first election and have another one a few weeks later!?!?!?
As I mentioned on the show, it should be this simple. Popular vote only. And none of this primary crap either. All the canidates run for president, and drop out only if they feel the need or want to. When November comes and the voting happens we should have the choice of Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Kerry and anyone else. Imagine if there were six choices, thats alot of options and then people wouldn’t vote simpily on their only options. And JfC, I’m glad we see eye to eye, you made some great points on the show today, rather ironic we were back to back!
Why does it half to be 50%+? Why can’t it just be the person who gets the largest percentage?
Hell, while we’re at it, lets include a Vote of No Confidence on the ballet. I think alot more people would come out and vote if actively voting for none of them was an option. If Vote of no Confidence gets the majority of the votes, we tell the lot of them to go home and pick run it again till they get it right! …or something
It’s easy to ignore someone who just doesn’t go to the poles because they don’t like any candidate, but it’s quiet another to give them the option of actively making that statement in their vote.
I like this no confidence idea, but then again, ‘ol G W would be here awhile. And going back on my own statement, could you imagine having 6 option. Staunch Democrates and Repubicrates would have to choose, no more checking a Dem or Rep. box, the countries’ brain would start to hurt.
A vote of no confidence is not applicable in this nation. First off, it is generally used in nations with a Parliamentary government (where there is just one house and it elects the prime minister). If such a vote passes, elections must immediately be called to vote for an entire new house of parliament. This nation would literally be paralized for months straight. Essentially, since we have a democratic congress, Bush has been thrown a vote of no confidence. He won’t be able to get anything done.
Keep in mind, Britain does not have regular elections like we do. The Parliament stays in power until elections are called. We have set guidelines for how long each term is.
Scott & Travis, If you have all of those candidates, it would be unfair to give the election to the person who wins the plurality. You’d have people taking the office of President after winning only about 20% of the vote. That’s why there should be a run off if no one gets a majority.
I know how a vote of no confidence works in other countries. What I’m talking about would be different. Call it what you like, but I’m talking about giving every voter an option on the ballet to say “I don’t want any of these people in office”.
Plenty of Americans feel disenfranchised by the political system. They deserve a way to say so when it comes time to chose a leader.
You can recall your elected officials. Look at how Arnold got elected governor of California. With that said, a vote of “I don’t want any of these ‘tards in office” will not help you at all. It will just leave your city, county, state, or country with one less elected official or unrepresented completely.
I still have faith in the system and that is why I want to run for state senate in 2 years. I just have no clue where I am going to raise the money from to help pay for my campaign.
What it will do is separate the people who don’t vote because they’re lazy from the people who don’t vote because they don’t want any of the choices in office.
I think many people in politics think that all those people who don’t vote fall into the former catagory and I really don’t think that’s true. People are angry and frustrated with the system. Something like this would give them a chance to express their frustration as a group.
But then again, I’d like to make voting in elections of higher office mandatory like paying your taxes. There are few things required of us for living in a democratic country. Voting for who leads us should be one of them. If you don’t vote, you get pegged with a fine. See? It’ll even bring revenue into the system! Win Win!
I’m sure this will be an unpopular idea, but that’s how I feel…
Not only unpopular, but unconstitutional. Keep in mind we like to think we live in a free country, where we can choose our leaders. Choosing NOT to choose them is one of those freedoms. Where in the world is this system in place where we can look at how it works? Being the only country to have a system where its citizens are penalized for NOT voting is silly in my mind (I’m glad we can voice our likes and dislikes, don’t you?). Being fined will make it even more of a chore for some people and may even become a deterrent because some people are just palin rebels.
Travis, we’d have to disagree with that one. There is no way you can force people to vote. It is a right and NOT an obligation. Even our own elected officials may abstain from voting.
Actually, only 18 US states offer recall options for governors, and we sure as hell don’t have a recall option for presidents or vice presidents.
Which is kind of embarrassing, especially when you learn that the supposed “dictator” of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, not only made popular recall an option AFTER he became president, but he actually allowed a recall referendum attempt to unseat him go forward. Can anyone imagine Bush championing and then permitting such a thing? Which one is the “democracy”? Indeed, can anyone imagine Obama advocating a Constitutional amendment for popular accountability? What a sham our system is, with no prospects for modernization in sight…
. . . sham indeed
Yes, but even our elected officials need to officially abstain. That’s where the "Vote of No Confidence" comes in. You don’t have to vote for one or the other, but you need to stand up and make that statement.
And there are plenty of obligations to living in this country. We’ve all got to pay taxes (except those of us who find ways around that). Then you have all those pesky laws that we need to follow.
Also, I’m not sure where it’s written in the constitution that we all have the right to not vote. Granted, it says nowhere that we have to, but that’s what amendments are for.
But maybe you’re right…maybe we’d get more flies with honey. Rather than charge a fine, have receiving our semi-annual tax break contingent on whether you voted or not.
There are many amendments that grant the rights to vote.
Amendments 15, 19, and 26 all added people to the voting populace.
If you fined people for not going to the polls, can you imagine how many people would claim that you are "disenfranchising" them?
Just because it doesn’t say we don’t have the right not to vote (okay a triple negative statement), doesn’t mean that we are required to.
About the Presidential Recall or a No Confidence vote… First off, you’d need a whopper of a constitutional amendment repealing sections of others and setting up new rules. It would simply make it harder for any president to make a tough decision that may be unpopular. Also, this would eliminate the system of "checks and balances" by giving WAY to much power to the legislature.
Travis: If you want to mandate voting you better be prepared to also mandate being well informed…which is impossible. I know some people choose not to vote out of a sense of frustration or mere complacency but do we really want those people who don’t know or care what’s going on in the world nor have the desire to vote choosing the leaders of our nation? They certainly have the right to do so but, if they don’t, so much the better.
There are so few things that are required of us for our democracy to function. Voting is one of them. If everyone isn’t voting then the people are not being represented. Yes, it’s their own fault if they don’t vote, but it’s to the detriment of our democracy that they don’t.
This is a serious problem.
We are not a democracy. We are a republic. While the differences are not large, we are ultimately not responsible for those who make choices for us when we choose not to vote.
Well, if the choice for as many as 6 canidates is too much to bear, then maybe throw in a “green party” or “independant” option (if theres a difference in the 2). This narrowing down to 2 is too much like the playoffs and November 4th is the Superbowl. I still don’t understand why we can’t have more then 2 options. If 20% wins the vote, chances are a narrowing down would have the person as an option. The least they can do is do with out the electoral college and all the delegates, and let the tax payers choose. Just a popular vote, kinda like in high school.
Question?
Do Superdelgates vote in there home state during the primaries and then at the convention? If so isn’t that voting twice?
Good question. I don’t know.
But no, it wouldnt be voting twice. One the first one, you are voting to elect a number of delegates and on the other you are voting on an actual candidate.
Who said that these super delegates actually voted for the same person? I bet there are some that pledged themselves to one person whil really wanting the other to win.
I have not heard discussion of why the Democratic Party schedules states for primaries in the order they do. I think this is an important topic and I hope you will give it some attention. (I listen to your show quite often, and apologize if I have missed any substantial discussion of this.)
The logic of having Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina go first is:
(1) The states represent four key regions of the United States: the northeast, the Midwest, the west, and, the south.
(2) These four states have smaller populations and commensurately fewer delegates to the convention. This means that
a. A less well-known, and likely less well-financed candidate can get some traction in the primary process. If the first state were, for example, California the cost of entering the primary process would often exclude less well-known candidates. Advertising and travel costs in primary states with larger populations and larger geographical size are higher than in smaller states. The hope is that less well-known candidates will get some credibility in the primary process if they get some early wins in small states.
b. Candidates that enter the primary process with more name-recognition and, therefore, likely, larger budgets will not get so many delegates early on that equally worthy, but less well-known candidates have no chance of winning enough delegates to become the nominee. The process is designed to allow worthy, but less well-known candidates some time to make a name for themselves during the primary process.
The early primaries are very heavily covered by the press. Thus, if a less well known candidate that starts out with limited financing, wins in a small state, this accomplishment will receive recognition from the press and consequently the candidate will be given serious consideration by the voters in later, and larger states. In addition, immediately following a win, the winner usually gets a strong influx of donations.
The point of the “soft start” process is to not create impassable barriers to entry for worthy candidates. It also assures that potentially viable candidates stay in the race long enough to encourage a good amount of debate among promising candidates and a good vetting of the prospective presidents.
On Saturday, May 31st, the Rules Committee of the Democratic Party is faced with a very challenging situation. A candidate who entered the race with a great deal of name-recognition and a comfortable amount of campaign financing is asking the party to do exactly what the primary process is designed to prevent. She won early in two states with very large numbers of delegates. She is asking that these delegates be seated. If the party does not seat these delegates the residents of Michigan and Florida (whose primaries were held in January) will feel slighted. If the party seats them the party may see chaos in future elections because larger states will have been signaled that the rules can be violated with impunity. Since the rules have had the result they were designed to allow for -the early favorite has not prevailed - the early favorites request to not enforce the rule on primary dates is quite a serious exception to be seeking. I do hope this topic will be explicated in more detail on your very thoughtful program.
Coming to my home state’s defense here:
WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK OHIO’S POPULATION IS SMALL?
It is the 7th most populated state… That means there are 43 states with smaller population!
I am just personally sick and tired of people treating the Buckeye state as a little po-dunk one strapped between Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan.
Ironically, Indiana’s pop is 15th, Michigan is 8th, and Pennsylvania is 6th.
Ohio is one of the most important states to carry in order to win a presidential election. Only once in the past 50 years did Ohio go to the loser (Nixon vs Kennedy). It goes with Florida and I think Pennsylvania to form what some people call the Holy Trinity of the presidential election.
Ohio’s primary is traditionally in the last group. It is just as important to have a more populated state decide on the final candidates as it is to cut down from the initial candidates.
Martin from Virginia Reply:
June 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
John, a dear friend is part of a group of citizens against the war, I need to know if you know of any soldiers who are willing to come and talk with them and answer questions in a very non formal setting? She lives in a small town in the Buckeye, close to Mansfield. Please reply to this if you can make it happen.
John from Cleveland Reply:
June 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
nope… I know no one that can make it happen. Remember, I am a republican…. therefore, I, and all those over privledged people around men was able to buy my way out of serving our nation.