On Superdelegates, Michigan and Florida.

[rjones2818]

Ok...let's see a show of hands!

How many of you dislike the Superdelegates for the Democratic Convention? Hmmm...let's see...yep, it looks like a clear majority of you.

Here's the next question: How many of you want to see the Michigan and Florida delegates, as chosen by their primaries, seated at the Democratic National Convention? Just as we could have guessed, very few of you!

Next: How many of you don't support sitting the delegates because it would be changing the rules in the middle of the game? Ah...most of you! Kewl!

Next: How many of you want to keep Super Delegates because getting rid of them would be changing the rules in the middle of the game? Hold on...I see lots of hands kind of going up and then coming back down. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Let's get back to that one in a bit. Let's try this: Super Delegates are a bad idea. Hands? Virtually all of you.

Ok, changing the rules in the middle of the game is a bad idea. Hands? Once again, almost all of you.

Should we seat the Michigan and Florida delegates as voted for in the primaries? Almost none of you...good.

Should we not seat them because it would be changing the rules in the middle of the game? Once again...most of you.

Should we allow Super Delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention? Most of you, no.

Should we allow Super Delegates because not doing so would be changing the rules in the middle of the game? Hmmm...looks like you're still having trouble answering that one.

We'll come back to it later.


Originally posted here: http://rjones2818.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-superdelegates-michigan-and-florida.html

[Fovea]

1. My vote

Superdelegates No
FL and MI get shiney new primaries.
Send the Bill back to the FL comptroller
with a polite note that it should be passed on to the FL legislature.

[Tarc]

2. "Assume" usually makes an ass out of "u" and "me", but in this case

it is just you.

Superdelegates are a good idea, as it balances out the states that let any old Republican or independent come in mucking up the votes, and to balance the inherently UNdemocratic caucus system.

Something has to be decided on MI and FL delegates. Yes it was bad of the local parties to muck it all up, but a million+ voters cannot just be left out in the cold and disenfranchised. It will send a terrible message to those states for years to come.

[mkultra]

5. the message shoudl be sent

To the state leadership of MI and FL. They are the ones that screwed their residents out of a voice.
If you want them seated, they must revote.

[Tarc]

6. A revote isn't going to happen

Not enough time, too much money to force the states to spend to hold another one. Plus the unfairness to John Edwards, who was a viable candidate at the time but would now be screwed by being out for so long.

Like it or not, something will have to be worked out so at least some of the delegates are seated. Perhaps cutting them in 1/2 like the GOP does.

[mkultra]

7. Well, i dont have to like it or stand it

i think i should mention that they probably will not be seated at all unless it is seen that thier vote does not affect the outcome at all. This has been stated by leadership.

So , like it or not, they have already been disenfranchised by their state leadership.

[WilyWondr]

12. "Like it or not"

Why? The rules were set before this primary season started and changing the rules in the middle of the game will get you a net loss of support.

The peoples representatives in MI and FL chose to sacrifice their delegates to have their primary early. End of Story. Get over it.

[pampango]

3. SDs are a bad idea, but most accept that they are with us for 2008 and

they have the power to vote as they wish. You can't change that in the middle of the game, even if you don't like it.

Everyone gets to pontificate on what the SDs "should" do and lobby them to come around to their way of thinking, but the fact is that they will do whatever they want this time around.

[mkultra]

4. My votes

I dislike the strength of super delegates in the party
I do not want to seat the pledged because i don't want a midstream rule change.
The supers did not break the rules and are entitled to be seated.

If the supers override the electorate in the upcoming convention, my actions will be dictated by the degree of their actions.
If the electorate is very close and the supers go against, i will support the decision and expect a reduction in super power.
In my opinion, the supers, who where established to allow for the override of bottom up initiative, have demonstrated to much authority and need to be limited.
If the electorate speaks clearly and the supers override, i will not vote and will leave the party for good. The supers know that an action like this would tear their party apart and i doubt they would do it.

The super process is relatively untested and is not a sacred cow that cannot be examined.

[TexasObserver]

8. You present a false dichotomy. Superdelegates are an affront to Democratic ideals.

Imposing rules on the states for the creation of pledged delegates is not an affront to Democratic ideals. It's a way of ensuring that the delegate selection process follows a plan, so that all primaries or caucuses don't occur on the same day, and don't all occur in January.

Superdelegates take away from ALL VOTERS IN ALL STATES the right to choose their nominee. The willful violations of party rules, knowing the consequences, by Michigan and Florida Democratic leaders, is what took away the representation of the voters who live in Michigan and Florida.

Calling out another member at DU openly and loudly on the board is against the rules. The penalty for that is deletion of the thread. Calling out the admins openly and loudly on the board is also against the rules, and yet, you can immediately glean the difference between those two scenarios, can you not? One comes with a minor penalty, one probably results in a much more severe penalty. It is more serious to thumb your nose at the DU admins, because you are stating to them "F you and your rules, I'll do what I damn well please, and if you don't like it, too damn bad!"

See how things that can be compared are not always alike?

Florida and Michigan willfully disobeyed party rules knowing full well the consequences. It was a willful, volitional act made with malice and intent aforethought. The voters in the 50 states and several territories did not enact the superdelegate rules, and such rules would never have passed but for the action of the very same superdelegates to preserve their stranglehold on the party nominating process.

One action is a betrayal of the citizens of two states by their duly elected and appointed representatives, the other is a betrayal of the Democratic process, both big D and little D democratic process.

There are solutions to the Florida and Michigan problems which can and should be accomplished. The most cogent is that they be given a caucus in May, and that such caucuses be conducted under rules set down by the DNC. This allows for the two states' Democratic voters to participate and therefore be represented in the nominating process, but it does not reward the misconduct of their party leaders. The DNC should strip the responsible Democrats in Florida and Michigan of their convention credentials this summer, as a sanction for the mess they alone have created.

Turning to the superdelegates, there is but one path that is Democratic. The DNC should remove the right of superdelegates to vote in the nomination process, and make such officials ex officio convention delegates who can vote on other things, but not the nomination. This keeps the nominating process pristine, while allowing all the elected Democrats and all the DNC members to otherwise fully participate.

[mkultra]

9. I agree

The super delegate systems was put in place when the party moved to a more open system. The institutional powers wanted more control back so they came up with this.

Its only purpose is to allow the party elite to have control over the selection.

[TexasObserver]

10. Exactly. It was designed to be a veto on the Democratic masses, and it is.

It's repugnant to the democratic ideals we are suppose to cherish and represent. We elect our legislators and governors and DNC reps as our proxies, but sometimes while acting in that capacity, they commit a breach of trust. In law, this would be considered a violation of their fiduciary duty to put our needs first, ahead of their self interest. It's no different than these high ranking officers of large public corporations who give themselves audacious benefits and powers which are an affront to their duties to their constituents - their shareholders. Except this is much, much worse.

If they are going to allow superdelegates to control the outcome of the nomination process, then they might as well change the name to something that doesn't have Democratic in the title. Call it the Superdelegate Party, because Democratic is a false and misleading title.

[rjones2818]

11. Actually...

I wasn't speaking to that at all.

What I was speaking to was that there seems to be, at least in some, a move to try to change the rules on Super Delegates (I happen to think SDs are stupid). There's also a hew and cry against seating the MI and FL delegates if there's not another session to re-choose said delegates (I hope this happens). Sometimes, in some postings I've read out in the blogosphere, there's a want to change the rules on SDs while keeping the current rules on MI and FL. That's what I was trying to point out.

[TexasObserver]

13. We cannot use the bogus beauty contests as a basis for delegate selections in Mich and Fla.

That is my starting point. We can and should see that the Democrats of those states, the voters, get their representation in the nomination process. I'm fully on board for that, but we have to find a way that does not reward Hillary's abuse of the process.