Democrats may take power from superdelegates

[bemildred]

Source: WaPo

Eighteen months removed from a protracted presidential primary fight, a group of Democrats gathered by President Obama has recommended that the party effectively eliminate the influence of so-called superdelegates by redefining their voting power.

The Democratic Change Commission, which was convened last August to examine the nominating process, is recommending that superdelegates -- also known as unpledged delegates -- be required to vote along with the electoral majority of their state.

"We need to show deference to what the party members in our state have done," said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the co-chairmen of the commission.

The elimination of free-agent superdelegates comes after the party split during the 2008 primary over how they should vote. Then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) argued to unpledged delegates -- members of the Democratic National Committee, House members and senators, and former party leaders -- that it was not their responsibility to vote as their state had voted, but rather to back the candidate they thought would be the best person to represent the party.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002624.html?hpid=moreheadlines

---

:popcorn:

[FreakinDJ]

1. kind of over reacting I think

[Arrowhead2k1]

3. No, superdelegates need to go. Power to the people, not the few. nt

[Oregone]

9. Well, the consequences could be a long, drawn out bitter campaign...

driven by media influence primarily instead of party influence (down to the last state).

When super-delegates endorse and tip the scale, they create momentum and can cut a primary season short. Without them, the people that hold momentum is CNN/FOX/MSNBC, etc...

I really don't know the best way to go about it all myself. Whatever system they choose, Id be surprised to see any really progressive candidate being chosen.

[quakerboy]

26. Hold up

Either i am not getting your post, or what you said is terribly ironic.

If I understand you correctly, you contend that removing the super delegates could lead to a long drawn out bitter campaign down to the last state, with huge amounts of media influence? Wasn't that was we just did with the super delegates in place?

I personally say nuke the super delegates. Both ideologically and practically. Ideologically, we should be doing our best to let the people of the party decide, choose they well or not. Practically, using the last primary as an example, I think the whole thing would have been done much sooner without super delegates. They broke for Hillary early, which gave her an appearance of a massive early lead, but toward the end were a wild card that kept hope alive for a lot of the more devoted supporters, even when the math was not working in their favor.

They are such a large block of potential votes that they have a massive and in my opinion undue influence. We did not elect governors, party chairmen, congresspersons, etc to chose our presidential candidates. We chose them for the other jobs that they do/did. And we can pick our candidates just as well as we picked them.

[CreekDog]

5. to what, democracy?

:shrug:

[mdmc]

2. either let the dem voters decide

OR let the SUPERPEOPLE decide for us. IMHO, I think we can decide who to elect without the superpeople.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Super delegates are kind of like a House of Lords whose vote you can buy. nt

[pattmarty]

6. I believe this and other "reforms" were put in after the 72 elections.........

.........to stop another McGovern type candidate from capturing the nomination.

[FreakinDJ]

14. exactly

and what happened in 72

[pattmarty]

17. Those "reforms" protect us from ourselves, like if we maybe would.........

................want a Kucinich or a Sanders for our nominee. Those Dems sure look out for "we the people", don't they?:sarcasm:

[MercutioATC]

7. Finally! A good idea!

...but I wonder how they're going to use an internal procedure change to give money to bankers??

[davidwparker]

8. Remove super delegates entirely. When this came up, it sounded like yet

another method of thwarting what the riff raft may want.

[StevieM]

10. Actually, this has some potential, if I am reading it correctly. Democratic primaries are not

winner take all, for the delegates. This way, if I understand, the superdelegates will go unanimously to the candidate who won the state, rather then the proportionate representation rules. I think that's fair. The whole reason why I rejected the "house of Lords" argument towards the SDs is because without them there almost certainly would have been different rules for awarding the PDs.

[MaineDem]

11. First of all there is no such thing as a Superdelegate; It's a term made up by the media.

They are Unpledged Delegates.

My thought that this will only give more importance to the earlier primaries/caucuses. But just because this commission is recommending this it doesn't mean that the DNC will approve it.

[timeforpeace]

12. Worrying this early about a primary challenge is interesting, to say the least.

[FrenchieCat]

20. It's been a year for an analysis. Ample time....

You learn from the past, not from the future....
so instituting changes based on what happened over a year ago
appears to be logical.

While Waiting till right before the next primary to make changes
would be stupid.

[salguine]

13. Watch them figure out a way to let the Republicans water this down, too.

[Tesha]

19. They'll probably figure out a way to let a specially-chosen Republican focus group...

...provide advice on who we should choose, just "in the
interest of garnering Republican votes", of course!

Tesha

[AngryAmish]

15. PUMA-bait

[saracat]

16. Just verbiage. If anyone things this will make an actual difference, I have a bridege to sell you..

Delegate selection varies by state but it rarely has anything to do with honest selection and if anyone thinks the PTB will cease to be among the anoited, they are nuts. And folks forget tat the elected delegates were the first to be pressured to change votes and will continue to do so, pledged or not, Pledged voting is considered a technicality.

[pinto]

18. for reference - Unpledged Delegates, Dem. Convention, 2008 (WaPo), plus Wikipedia background entry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/primaries/2008_superdelegates.html

Democratic Super Delegates

The following list includes "unpledged" or "super" delegates to the Democratic Party's 2008 national convention. Super Delegates are not elected through the normal primary and caucus process. They are designated by party rules and include high elected officials (members of Congress and governors), party committee members and some former office holders. Unlike delegates awarded through primaries and caucuses, superdelegates are not required to stay pledged to a specific candidate. In 2008, the Democratic Party has designated 796 super delegates. An estimated 4,049 total delegates will vote at the national convention, including super delegates. A candidate needs a total of 2,025 delegate votes to win the party's nomination.

Complete list at WaPo link ~ pinto

*************************************************

Wikipedia entry for "Superdelegates"

"Superdelegate" is an informal term commonly used for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party.

Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials ("PLEOs"). Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate". This article follows the most common media practice in using the term "superdelegate" to refer to unpledged delegates, who fall into two categories:

> delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"<1> (unpledged PLEO delegates); and

> additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.<1>

Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.<1> Another difference between pledged PLEOs and unpledged PLEOs is that there is a fixed number of pledged PLEO slots for each state, while the number of unpledged PLEOs can change during the campaign. Pledged PLEO delegates are not generally considered superdelegates.

more info, references and resources at Wiki link ~ pinto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[blue_onyx]

21. While they are doing primary reform...

I hope they come up with a fair primary schedule and end the undemocratic advantage that Iowa/New Hampshire have over the primary process.

[MaineDem]

22. Iowa, NH, Nevada, and I think So Carolina will still go first. n/t

[blue_onyx]

23. They shouldn't

What's so special about those particular states? I think there should be a rotating schedule so all states get an equal say in the primary process.

[MaineDem]

24. I agree with you but it won't happen

Iowa and NH are traditional, for what that's worth. The other two were added in 2008 to give different demographics a chance. I think those two at least should alternate with other states. Who knows, it could happen but I doubt it.

[Odin2005]

25. GOOD! The superdelegates are anti-democratic BS!

The were deliberately put in to get in the way of progressive candidates.