Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Dem nomination system is institutionalized vote dilution. It is undemocratic. It is a travesty.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:44 AM
Original message
The Dem nomination system is institutionalized vote dilution. It is undemocratic. It is a travesty.
Another excellent post by Big Tent Democrat.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/9/64755/09579

The Will Of The People? Not To Be Found In The Pledged Delegate Count
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008

Yesterday, Barack Obama won Wyoming by 2,000 votes of 8600 cast. He gained a 2 (and with the add on delegate to be added later likely 3) delegates to his pledged delegate lead. Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Barack Obama won Vermont. The difference in the popular vote that day was was 334,000 in favor of Hillary Clinton, as she garnered 2.84 million votes to Obama's 2.51 million. We are told that Hillary gained a net 4 delegates that night.

This is because Ohioans choose one pledged delegate for every 15,000 Ohioans voting, Texans choose one pledged delegate for every 22,373 persons voting, Rhode Islanders choose one pledged delegate for every 8800 persons voting and Vermonters choose one pledged delegate for every 10,066 persons voting. By contrast, Wyomingians choose one pledged delegate for every 725 persons voting (not counting the add on delegate.)

The Democratic nomination system is institutionalized vote dilution. It is undemocratic. It is a travesty. It is no way to pick a nominee. The will of the people is reflected in the POPULAR VOTE, not the pledged delegate count.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Caucuses+Superdelegates= A mess.

I am anxious to see how this thing shakes out.

Who will have the popular vote?

Who will have the Pledged Delegate count?

What will happen with the voters/delegates in MI&FL?

How will the Super Delegates break?

What will the perception of the winner be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. The superdelegates are going to have one hell of a decision to make.
It's going to be epic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. the clintons and the DLC worked hard for this system,
thinking it guaranteed her ascent to the throne she was owed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Nonsense
just pure made-up bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. she is, I agree completely.
no substance, all spin. Her foreign relations experience - IRELAND? My ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You honestly think that's a reasoned debate tactic?
What are you, 12?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. at least. possibly older.
but my trips to ireland probably had as much impact on the Troubles as hers did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. yet she was there, and presumably made lasting contacts, and, not a little impact
. . . as direct representative of her husband, who was described as instrumental.

That is, on its face, more experience, by far, than her rival.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Being married to someone is experience?
Wow. Hillary supporters are getting desperate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Nonetheless
how did Clinton design the current system?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. a history here
Although it did not have a formal set of rules before 1972, the Democratic Party operated with two controversial rules from its earliest conventions. The UNIT RULE enabled the majority of a delegation to cast the entire vote of the delegation for one candidate or position. The unit rule was abolished by the 1968 convention. The TWO-THIRDS NOMINATING RULE mandated candidates for president and vice president were required to win a two-thirds majority vote (as opposed to a simple majority). The two-thirds nominating rule was abolished in 1936 because the rule produced seven multi-ballot conventions between the years of 1832 and 1932.

Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota was an unmitigated disaster as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972. But he had a lasting impact on the party through his work as first chairman of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection. Because of the McGovern committee's work, it is no longer possible for small groups of state party officials to handpick convention delegates, tell them whom to vote for and, in effect, choose the party nominee without consulting the voters. (Hubert Humphrey was the last such candidate -- he received the 1968 nomination despite having won NO primaries or caucuses.)

Beginning with reforms proposed by the McGovern panel, the Democratic party "democratized" the presidential selection process through a succession of commissions between 1968 and 1992. This series of changes succeeded in 1) crafting rules to guarantee better representation for women, young people and minorities; 2) secured PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION of delegates, based on state primary or caucus results (eliminating winner-take-all allocation of delegates); and 3) gave convention votes to party leaders and elected officials (they are nicknamed SUPERDELEGATES and are allowed to remain uncommitted until the convention).
Year-by-year review of notable Democratic rules disputes/changes

* 1968-72 Rules: A commission headed by Sen. George McGovern produced a set of guidelines in 1972 requiring delegates to "fairly reflect" their state's preferences among presidential candidates. In addition, the makeup of each delegation had to be "in reasonable relationship" to the proportion of minority groups, women and young people in its home state. No more than 10% of a delegation could be named by a state's Democratic Committee. Rules requiring the "timely selection" of delegates, publicizing meetings at which delegates were chosen and public notification of a delegate's candidate preference were enacted.

As a result of the changes, there were challenges filed against more than 40% of the delegates selected for the convention. Perhaps the most notorious battle involved the revocation of the credentials of 58 Illinois delegates led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the awarding of their seats to an alternate delegation led by Jesse Jackson. (Sources: The National Journal, August 23, 1980; St. Petersburg Times, July 17, 1988; Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections.)

* 1976 Rules: A commission headed by Rep. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland replaced the demographic quotas of 1972 with affirmative action requirements to increase participation by women, blacks and other minorities. (However, this specific plan had the OPPOSITE effect, decreasing the proportion of women from 38% in 1972 to 36% in 1976. The proportion of blacks declined from 15% in 1972 to 7% in 1976. After 1976, quotas for women delegates were reimposed.) PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, the distribution of delegates among candidates to reflect their share of the primary or caucus vote, was mandated by party rules. (Sources: The National Journal, August 23, 1980; Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections.)

* 1980 Rules: A floor vote resulted in passage of a party rule binding delegates to vote on the first ballot for the candidate they originally were elected to support. (This was a defeat for Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was hoping to convince Carter delegates to abandon the president on the first ballot.) As a result of recommendations by a commission under the chairmanship of Michigan party chairman Morley Winograd, the Democrats abolished LOOPHOLE PRIMARIES -- where winner-take-all balloting still had been allowed at the congressional district level. Beginning with the 1980 convention, the Democrats took steps to increase attendance by state party officials and elected party leaders -- governors, senators and members of Congress. (Although such officials' convention attendance had been declining since the 1956 convention, their numbers had dropped precipitously after the 1972 convention.) States were urged to assign at-large seats to party leaders and elected officials. (Source: The National Journal, August 23, 1980)

* 1984 Rules: In 1982, the DNC adopted several changes in the nominating process. They had been proposed by the party's Commission on Presidential Nominations, which was established in 1980 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The party created a new group of "SUPERDELEGATES," party and elected officials who would go to the 1984 convention "uncommitted" and cast about 14% of the ballots. (This was a continuation of the effort to bring the experienced, more MODERATE members of the party to the convention to act as a "ballast" against the passions of other delegates.)

In 1984, this had the effect of stabilizing support for "establishment" candidate Walter Mondale over "insurgent" candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Also adopted was a proposal allowing a presidential candidate to replace a disloyal delegate. Another revision was a decision to allow states to choose to keep a proportional representation system AND allow them to adopt a winner bonus plan that awarded the top vote-getter in each district one extra delegate.

Also in 1984, the DNC retained the three-month delegate selection "window" stretching from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in June. But to reduce the growing influence of early states in the nominating process, the Democrats required Iowa and New Hampshire to move their publicized events to late winter. Although these states retained their privileged status of "going first," party rules mandated their initial nominating rounds be held only eight days apart in 1984. (There were five weeks between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in 1980.) The DNC also set candidate filing deadlines of 30-90 days before the election and limited participation in the delegate selection process to Democrats only.

* 1988: Only slightly modified from 1984 process. The number of "uncommitted" party and elected officials (SUPERDELEGATES) was expanded and rearranged to reserve more convention seats for members of Congress, governors and the DNC. Rules restricting participants in Democratic primaries and caucuses were relaxed so open primaries in Wisconsin and Montana would be conducted with approval of national party. Finally, the threshold (or share of the vote a candidate must win in a primary or caucus to qualify for delegates) was lowered from 20% to 15%.

* 1992 Rules: In 1990, the DNC made two changes that affected 1992 process. The presidential primary season was moved forward by one week, from the second Tuesday in March to the first. The second change banned winner-reward systems, which gave extra delegates to the winner of a primary or caucus. All states were required to divide their publicly elected delegates proportionally among candidates who drew at least 15% of the primary/caucus vote. The number of super delegates also was expanded.

(SOURCE: Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections pp. 16-23 unless otherwise noted.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. So the rules were changed long before Bill or Hillary even had a say. More lies from...
...Obama supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. But lies from Hillary supporters are ok? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Straw men are also a common reply by Obama supporters.
As long as you admit it's a lie, though, I'm fine with your straw men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. So that's a yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. None of which answers my question
How did Clinton design this system? Everything you posted were changes made BEFORE Bill Clinton was even the nominee in '92.

The answer is they didn't design this system - you just made shit up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. bigtree wasn't the original person you were replying to, just fyi.
The other person made shit up. And of course, if you say it, it must be true. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. right, I was just helping MonkeyFunk's point out about who and what was involved in the changes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yes, I see now
sorry, Bigtree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. ah thanks
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 09:57 AM by MonkeyFunk
I always get confused when somebody else jumps in.

So the person who made the original claim still hasn't provided one iota of evidence, eh?

Liars abound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. Well, there are many factors and THEY didn't make them...
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 09:41 AM by skater314159
... you could say they are using them to their advantage, but that's about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. The content of your post changed dramatically.
Quite amusing. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. I thought I was responding to another post.
Glad I could amuse you. I though Hill supporters didn't have a sense of humor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. Obama leads 53-47 in the pledged delegate count and 51-49 in the Popular vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. that's without Mich and Fla, which would bring them to a near draw.
The decisions on votes from those states seem to be fluid as to whether their voters will get a shot at having their votes represented. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. If you count Fla, she's down by 300,000. You cannot honestly count Michigan
And polls show that if the election were held there tomorrow, Michigan would be a dead heat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Don't confuse the Partisans with DATA.
It just pisses them off and makes them yell epithets at you - like "sexist" or whatever else they can make up at the moment to make you "look like a bad/mean person".

If that doesn't work, then they will try to use shame and guilt to manipulate you into becoming a Hillbot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
20. Apples and oranges. You failed to note the TX CAUCUS win of Obama, which resulted in
HRC's low "net" of pledged delegates, at least in part.

Obama won the caucus by a resounding 20% over HRC, which took some of her "net" 10+ delegates away, because it gave Obama additional delegates.

Capiche? Each state has its own process. That is the democratic way. I am not in favor of Big Brother dictating the process of all states and territories. If Big Brother does THAT, then Big Brother also determines the outcome. Capiche?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Superdelegates will decide on many factors, and this is one of them. "Capiche?"
Sorry, but neither candidate is winning without the superdelegates, and they both will have to make persuasive arguments. That's a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC