I'm Tired of the Superdelegate Trashing

DISCLAIMER - I'm from Florida. We don't have any delegates. My hopes of attending my first convention as a delegate were dashed by the pissing contest between the Florida Democratic Party and the DNC - and I was caught in the middle. I"m going to have to rely upon the rest of you to decide the nominee of my party. I'M NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT I'M SEEING FROM ALL OF YOU SO FAR.

This notion that the superdelegates should be required to ignore their own best judgement and reflect "the will of the people" just escapes me. What people? If they are a congressperson should they accede to the vote in their congressional district? If they are a senator or governor, the overall vote of their state? What do the DNC members do - pull the ouija board out of the attic?

Come on people! These are the leaders of our party. Are we saying that they are no better than 7 year olds who need others to make decisions for them.

Yes, the methods we use to select our nominees for the most important office on the planet really suck. Sometimes I think we 'd be better off resorting to jello wrestling (my apologies to HRC for that analogy.)

But it seems we are having this discussion because we have 2 good candidates, both of whom have very passionate supporters who do not want to see their candidate lose the nomination. And at the moment, neither one has broken out to sew up the nomination. As a result, the superdelegates may actually count for something for the first time.

But these are the rules that have been established for determining the nominee. No Florida votes; no Michigan votes; and superdelegates that may indeed cast the deciding vote.

But it's all part of the complex, convoluted and torturous process that has been set in motion and must be seen to it's conclusion. If we took the Republican route and had state "winner take all" primaries, we might not even be in this dogfight.

There is going to be one winner and one loser. We will count the votes in Denver based upon the current rules and emerge with a nominee.

A nominee that I will support with every fibre of my being because the alternative of 4 more years of Republican administration is far more of a horror than this nomination process we are currently experiencing.

•  I've been proposing that, given the feeling here,

  the DP should forbid Michigan and Florida from listing our candidate on their general election ballot at all.

  These people must be punished

  That'll sure teach 'em!

  by Clem Yeobright on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:13:24 AM PDT

  •  Be reasonable ...

    If you let delegates from FL and MI sit, you're punishing states that abided by DNC recommendations and held their elections/caucuses later.

    And, you're really telling candidates that they should ignore the DNC and campaign in all primaries, whether authorized or not.

    A good way to end up with a completely disorganized mess where no one listens to the DNC.

    A do-over election in FL/MI has been proposed, and seems to be the most reasonable way forward.

    by Bronxist on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:34:04 AM PDT

    •  Is that the Equal Protection argument?

      After the first person has voted, the second person dilutes his vote, which deprives #1 of equal protection of the law, right?

      by Clem Yeobright on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:55:02 AM PDT

•  The problem with Florida

  and don't take it personally because it could have happened in any state with our creaky machinery and I'm talking about 2000 not now is this.

  GEORGE BUSH LOST THE VOTE and only became President because of some compromise 200 year old anachronism.

  Any legitimate process and Bush would have lost and we would have had a real President.

  If Obama ends the process with more voted and more pledged delegates but loses because of super delegates the party will have a problem.  As it would if Obama were to win the same way.

  Democracy means govt. by the people, not a select few.  There is a reason we don't do the "smoke filled room" like in 1912 anymore.

  That is the issue.

  by 7November on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:19:43 AM PDT

•  I'm tired of superdelegate love

  They are given unnecessary influence in choosing the nominee.  Sure some may make logical, rational decisions and choose the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

  But many others will vote not by their conscience but rather their own self-interest.  Some old-school politicians (not naming names) may be inclined to offer nice positions in the administration for the delegates and their children.  

  Quid pro quo should not determine our nominee.

  If we allow her to bully the superdelegates in making a bad decision it will be for the party's detriment.

  If superdelegates "steal" the nomination for their favored daughter, there will be a massive uproar.  She will not be supported.  The young voters will be disheartened and not turn out.  The independents may go to McCain or stay home.  The African AMerican voters will never vote for her under those circumstances.

  You are correct in saying that we have two good candidiates.  However, given how high the stakes are, how passionate the voters are, superdelegates deciding anything other than the color of the tablecloths at the convention would be a joke

  by njhoo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:23:56 AM PDT

  •  They were given that influence

    by the same DNC that stripped MI and FLA. Why do you support one action and not the other?

    by Jim Riggs on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:33:25 AM PDT

    •  Because one has nothing to do with the other?

      by a wolf raised by boys on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:16:11 AM PDT

      •  It's just a coincidence that you support the one

        that helps Obama and you don't support the one that helps Clinton.

        Right.

        by Jim Riggs on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:20:52 AM PDT

        •  I don't want to overturn either decision.

          FL and MI should not count, and the superdelegates should remain free to vote as they say fit.  That said, there is no rule against publicly urging the superdelegates to do the right thing, i.e., support the candidate chosen by the voters.  The only ones seeking to override the DNC are the folks who want FL and MI delegates to be seated.

          by a wolf raised by boys on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:27:10 AM PDT

          •  nope

            the Right Thing is to vote for the candidate they feel is most qualified for the job. Regardless how others voted.

            If you are given a responsibilty, you can not just do as everyone does. You need to do what you personally think is the right decision.

            Voting with the majority is the exact equivalent of resigning your voting rights.

            by cris0000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:41:15 AM PDT

            •  regardless?

              Consider what might happen the party's chances in November (and beyond) if the superdelegates handed the nomination to someone other than the pledged delegate leader.  Each superdelegate will make his or her own decision, but that has to be part of the equation.

              by a wolf raised by boys on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:14:14 AM PDT

  •  Why have a convention at all? A nat'l primary

    would do the trick, no? If it's just a 'mail-in' convention, then why go through the sham at all?

    Here's why.

    In 1968, the popular republican Senator Tom Kuchel was up for re-election in California, and was considered a shoo-in. The Democrats had to resort to bribes to get a prominent Democrat (Alan Cranston) to file for the D primary (He was promised he wouldn't have to spend a dime or disrupt his life to campaign).

    The R primary voters, in their wisdom, chose to reject Sen Kuchel and nominate in his place the wingnut and just general nut Secretary of Education Max Rafferty.

    Cranston campaigned and won easily and held the seat for 24 years.

    All because there was no R state convention where party elders could apply some reason against politically suicidal primary voters.

    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:35:48 AM PDT

  •  there we are again.

    "We will not vote for your candidate in the election".

    Thats so serious an argument...

    by cris0000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:37:57 AM PDT

•  Was waiting for this case to be made coherently

  And I'm still waiting.

  by poblano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:34:10 AM PDT

•  All we're really doing reminding

  supers that their best judgement should lead them to make the choice that does reflect the will of the people... which most of them will do.

  by channiga on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:35:48 AM PDT

•  Reforms are are slow in coming

  The Electoral College was a feature designed by the framers of the constitution as a way to give proportion and balance for small states vs. big states. The very idea that big states and their population advantages could overwhelm small, rural or far flung states was checked and balanced by several electoral processes.

  The new reforms of proportional electoral delegates in the  Democratic party are an excellent power sharing feature that improve upon the  constitutional traditions of representative government and electoral college allocations in the selection of nominees. It seems to have come to an equilibrium in American politics:
  A balance of power between Party officials, elected officials, voters in primaries and local caucus bosses creating a real diverse and balanced approach to nomination processes.

  Winner take all is so passé.

  The Obama campaign has reinforced this process by winning in many large states but capturing a wide swath of smaller states who happen to be Red states. The margins of victory in these smaller states demonstrate their electoral power via these processes.

  It is a compelling argument for representative government, proportional representation and keeping the electoral college. It gives voice to the other America outside of NY, L.A., DC, and Mass. who have disporportionate influences that can swamp the voices of rural, remote, regional Americans who are not part of the establishment epicenters.

  I hope someone is paying attention to all of this, because an Obama/ Clinton or visa versa ticket might be an electoral landslide in the making.

  by Brahman Colorado on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:38:41 AM PDT

•  Why Superdelegates?

  The Democratic party instituted superdelegates in order to prevent upstarts like George McGovern  and Ted Kennedy from winning the nomination (Jimmy Carter's role in this is a bit funny, actually, since he won in '76 as an upstart, or at least a fresh face, but wanted to deny Kennedy a chance to beat him in the primaries).  The votes of superdelegates haven't meant a thing since this system was instituted.

  It would be ironic indeed if Clinton tried to flip the result off of the votes of superdelegates.  The Clintons worked for McGovern.  I'd put such an outcome in the "How stupid is the Democratic party" file, because the net result, inevitably, would be accusations of bossism and disillusionment among the next generation of voters.

  Since they haven't done anything yet there is no reason to bash them.  The only way they'd matter, though, is if they backed the loser of the competitive race in large numbers and flipped the result.  Problematic?  Of course.

  by ClaudiusTheGod on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:45:11 AM PDT

  •  166 years ago is was all "super delegates"

    and no primaries or voting from the masses...so to speak.

    We've come a long way baby.

    If we want to reform the system, then let's really have a revolution and go to a parliamentary system of one man one vote in August and elections in November and get away from 3.5 year campaigns. It works in the rest of the world.

    Maybe then we'd get some legislation for the people instead of promises and endless campaign speeches.

    by Brahman Colorado on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:55:24 AM PDT

    •  Make it all write-in too; no butterfly ballots!

      by Clem Yeobright on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:13:47 AM PDT

    •  60 years ago it was all superdelegates

      Democratic party bosses gave us candidates like FDR.  This system wasn't horrible because these party bosses had a clear interest in picking a winner who was broadly acceptable to the electorate.  Do you know what would happen if Denver were run by the old rules and a deadlock developed?  

      Gore, almost certainly, would become the nominee.  Old-style conventions were not rigged to tap the inside favorite.  Candidates who couldn't get two-thirds of the delegates were passed over.

      by ClaudiusTheGod on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:23:17 AM PDT

•  kansasr, with all due respect

  And that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

  by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:51:19 AM PDT

•  I'm starting to like Hillary less

  Especially with her making noise about wanting to count Florida and Michigan.

  Now, FL and MI should have never been excluded. That's shameful. But she can't just up and change the ground rules simply because she might otherwise lose. Especially considering Michigan only had her name on the ballot. If (after the fact) she wins that fight, I will be furious beyond recognition.

  by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:54:23 AM PDT

•  I think you are missing the point....

  It is that a few party leaders have the same weight behind their vote as thousands of "regular" voters. This is why 'superdelegates' are undemocratic, and should not even exist.

  by geric on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:10:36 AM PDT

  •  Then work to change the rules for the next cycle

    Not seek to change the rules mid-stream

    by kansasr on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:43:39 AM PDT

•  Tired of Florida Already

  This notion that the superdelegates should be required to ignore their own best judgement and reflect "the will of the people" just escapes me. What people? If they are a congressperson should they accede to the vote in their congressional district? If they are a senator or governor, the overall vote of their state? What do the DNC members do - pull the ouija board out of the attic?

  Come on people! These are the leaders of our party. Are we saying that they are no better than 7 year olds who need others to make decisions for them.

  What people? The people who voted. FYI, 7 year olds don't vote. The people who voted should choose the candidate. In America we call that democracy.

  But I get what's happening here:

  DISCLAIMER - I'm from Florida.

  Oh, riiiight. Florida, the experts in democracy. No wonder you don't understand the idea of one person / one vote. Look, I know you're pissed off that your state Party blew your elections so bad this time that your delegates can't count. I seem to recall something about the last 8 years that tells me we're better off without your state's "counts" (or whatever passes for counting down there). But still, your state should do its vote over and be counted, just like you should have in 2004, and in 2000.

  See a pattern here? No, not just the pattern of Florida's inability to hold a legitimate presidential election. I'm talking about the criminal incompetence of Florida's Democratic Party to represent Floridia's Democrats. And yet, those Party people are exactly the ones you want to determine the next president, not the voters themselves.

  How perfectly Floridian of you! You are proving the special treatment Florida has earned: whatever the state results, the legitimate result should be the exact opposite.

  Really, the nerve of a Floridian to lecture the rest of the country on how to "trust the leaders" or how to run an election at all. You people might be so dense as to have forgotten that your state is synonymous with "invalid election" for the entire millennium so far. But since the rest of us can still remember that it's your fault we've had Bush for 8 years, I'll speak for the country and tell you to just shut up and vote. Your ballot in a voting booth, properly counted, is all you're entitled to contribute to the political discourse, other than "Mr Bad Example". And you still haven't gotten that one straight. Go back to your Party and get them to run a valid primary election at least, and then maybe you'll be qualified to speak about general elections you've done nothing to prove you know anything about.

  by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:17:20 AM PDT

  •  Now now, let's be nice.

    n/t

    by ClaudiusTheGod on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:25:54 AM PDT

    •  Why

      start now?

      The people who voted should choose the candidate. In America we call that democracy.*

      *All people except those in FL and MI, special options do apply, see your store owner for details.

      by Kevvboy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:27:04 AM PDT

      •  and people on this site have suggested

        a scheduled caucus to let the voices of both FL and MI be heard.

        by Hey BB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:34:19 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, that's good,

          replace a primary with a caucus, knowing Obama does especially well in caucuses.  So much for observing the spirit of fairness.

          by Kevvboy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:06:14 AM PDT

          •  hern?

            Is this about about the spirit of fairness or the letting the people's voices be heard?

            I'm told the economics of the situation are that a Primary would be too costly. I may be wrong. I'm offering suggestions to get people's votes heard.

            Feel free to continue cursing the darkness.

            by Hey BB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

            •  Caucuses cost money too.

              If you want to "get people's votes heard," you have to let them vote, not caucus.

              by Kevvboy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:19:03 AM PDT

              •  ok

                make it a primary.

                by Hey BB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:23:41 AM PDT

                •  I think that

                  is a better idea.

                  by Kevvboy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:38:43 AM PDT

                •  We have NO control over a primary

                  In Florida, they are controlled by the state legislature, which is Republican dominated, and will do nothing to extricate the Democrats from the position they are in.

                  by kansasr on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:43:09 AM PDT

              •  I'm sure the people's voices

                in Maine, Wyoming, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Montanta, New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii, and Iowa all agree with you about a Caucus isn't really the voice of the people.

                by Hey BB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:29:05 AM PDT

                •  The ones who couldn't

                  vote because they had to work at that specific hour, or were out of town, or were disabled, or many other reasons might feel like their voices should count too.  I think the Democratic party should abandon caucuses and I have felt so for a long time.  The caucus system gives party activists a greater role in the selection than voters.  And yes, I would feel this way if the situation were reversed and Clinton were doing better in caucuses than Obama.

                  by Kevvboy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM PDT

      •  Floridians Did It

        This Floridian is demanding we give more voting power to superdelegates like the Florida Party leaders who screwed their own state's primary. Who helped screw their own state's elections in 2000 and 2004.

        If they want to be elections activists, they've got plenty of work straightening out their own state elections before lecturing us on how to run the national count. And even then they won't be in a position to demand that Party leaders get extra voting power until they've proven those kinds of people are anything but interference with democracy. And even then that kind of nonproportional representation will be interference with democracy. But at least by then they'd have standing as people familiar with democracy to start to argue.

        They've got a long way to go, as they haven't even turned around their momentum from its wide swing away from democracy for many years in that misbegotten state.

        by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:40:15 AM PDT

        •  FYI

          The Florida superdelegates do not have a seat at the convention. They have been stripped, like our regular delegates.

          by kansasr on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM PDT

          •  So?

            Is that all you've got to say? I've made some very strong pushbacks to your arguments, to your political viability itself, and all you can say in response is another guilt trip about your superdelegates and your delegates?

            Thank you for validating what I said about Florida's inadequacy to meaningfully criticize the presidential electoral process.

            by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM PDT

    •  Why Bother?

      Floridians' intransigence and incompetence isn't limited to whining in favor of superdelegates who are rigging the national results to be consistent with the screwed up Florida primary results that are all choosing Hillary as the next president instead of actually fair elections.

      Florida is a swamp. It's not just mere coincidence that their presidential elections have been a big problem for the whole country, throwing the national results away from the popularly elected candidate, since the 20th Century (and probably then, too). Floridian culture is perfectly consistent with this diary's selfish, reverse-logic whining. I've been to Florida many times, I meet Floridians all the time here in NYC. They wear their low quality personalities on their sleeve. And what counts is that they abuse the rest of us by demanding the rest of us live in a world run by their rules. That's not very nice. And being nice in return just gets us screwed. Ask Al Gore about "be nice to Florida when they screw you".

      Zero tolerance for Floridians with no sense of their own severe limitations. It's self-defense.

      by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:36:13 AM PDT

•  Superdelegate shouldn't exist...

  their only purpose to to concentrate political power in the hands of a few elite 'party leaders'.

  If you want them making decisions for you, that's your call. I feel differently.

  by robroser on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:27:40 AM PDT