Democrat superdelegates

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Syne, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    How do Democrats feel about their own party potentially disenfranchising the popular vote in their primary?

    http://truthinmedia.com/dnc-chair-superdelegates-protect-party-leaders-from-grassroots-competition/

    CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Wasserman Schultz on Thursday, “Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire’s superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who says[sic] this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?
    ...
    [Wasserman Schultz] added, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We are as a Democratic Party really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grassroots activists and diverse, committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend, and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.
    ...
    Responding to Wasserman Schultz’s comments, Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw voiced concerns that the superdelegate system seems to be disenfranchising Sen. Sanders’ voters and asked, “There were a total of 151,584 votes cast for Bernie Sanders, giving him 15 delegates. That means that 10,105 people had to drag themselves out in the snow for each delegate he received. Why should voters have any faith in a system where one person appointed by the party leadership can cancel out the votes of more than ten thousand people who chose the other candidate?
    Granted, it's my understanding that superdelegates are free to, and often do, change their vote as they see the popular vote take shape, but they are under no obligation to do so. Seems this system is intended to keep the leadership in control of the democrat party. Do democrats generally agree that their party's leadership knows better than the voters do?

    And if there's any democrats here who also advocate doing away with the electoral college, how do you square these two things? Are both bad?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The superdelegate question has always been uncomfortable, but nothing good is served by this sort of political balbutive.

    There is certainly the question of what people think about the rules, but these are the rules to which the Democratic candidates agree. I think Democrats in general will deal with the problem more directly when the frame you apply actually becomes reality.

    One of the questions that frequently occurs to me when people posture the institutions as somehow inflicting something against them is how it got to this point in the first place.

    Shane Ryan↱ of Paste magazine explains the general concept of Democratic superdelegates, and it's hard to know what to quote from that one:

    “Oh no,” you might be thinking, “look at those delegate totals! He's getting killed! The New Hampshire primary is meaningless! He didn't even really win!” On the Sanders Reddit page this morning, users were asking whether the whole primary process was a Sisyphean task, and if victory was impossible.

    Make no mistake: That's the point of this kind of messaging. To discourage, dismay, and dishearten, in the wake of something that should feel really positive for Sanders supporters. Reality check: The system is bigger than you, and you can't change it, so go home.

    I have no clue if Timothy McBride has any affiliation or even affection for Hillary Clinton, and he was certainly not alone in advancing this talking point. What I do know is that he tweeted these statistics out last night and again this morning, and whatever his intentions—and those like him—Clinton herself could not have written a better media script.

    So what's happening here? Are those delegate counts right?

    Well, no—McBride's math is wrong, but I'm assuming that wasn't a malicious mistake. The actual count is 394-42.

    So technically, yes, the count is close to accurate. He's not overtly lying. But are the numbers illustrative of some critical, insurmountable problem for Sanders? Not at all. Are they even relevant to the primary race? Barely. Certainly not now, and probably not ever. Are these messages deceptive, even subtly? Yes. Absolutely. And they're propagated by “experts” who are withholding the full story in the hopes that people like you and me are too stupid and complacent to find out on our own.

    McBride's sneaky tactic is to count “Superdelegates,” which is how he arrives at his imbalanced total. Accept the numbers blindly, and you might feel an impulse toward panic. My message to you: Chill. It's a clever trick, but a silly one, and it won't affect anything. To counter this narrative, let's examine the political reality behind Superdelegates, and explain how they really work, Q&A style.

    Q: You say Superdelegates don't matter, but I don't even know what they are. How does Hillary have 300+ already?

    A: Let's start simple: The Democratic nominee for president is decided based on which candidate wins the most delegates. You will find conflicting information about how many there are in 2016, but according to the AP, the delegate total is 4,763. It takes 2,382 of those to secure the nomination. And of the 4,763, 712 are “Superdelegates”—about 15 percent of the overall total.

    Q: Okay, but what's the difference?

    A: The 4,051 “normal” delegates are allocated based on the votes in each state. That's why we have primaries and caucuses in all of them, eventually—the will of the people decides where each of these delegates goes. In New Hampshire last night, Sanders won 13 delegates to Clinton's nine, with two left to award when the last precincts report (in all likelihood, based on current percentages, it will finish 15-9 for Sanders). In Iowa, where Clinton won a narrow victory, the current delegate count is 23-21 in her favor. This process will repeat in every state until all 4,051 “normal” delegates have been alloted.

    On the Democratic side, these delegates are rewarded proportionally in each state, rather than on the winner-take-all basis most states use in the electoral college. Those delegates are “pledged” to the appropriate candidate, and will not change affiliation at the national convention.

    Q: That makes sense, but what are Superdelegates?

    A: The remaining 712 delegates are not decided by each state's popular vote, but rather by individuals who are given a vote by the Democratic party. They are free to choose whoever they want at the national convention, regardless of how the vote went in their home state.

    Q: Who gets to be a Superdelegate?

    A: Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates—an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.

    Q: So they have way more importance than an ordinary voter?

    A: Oh yeah. In 2008, each Superdelegate had about as much clout as 10,000 voters. It will be roughly the same in 2016.

    Q: How did this system come to exist?

    A: I'll make this history lesson brief: In 1968, after the riots at the Democratic national convention in Chicago, party leaders knew they needed to change the nomination process to give ordinary people more of a say in how the potential president was chosen. Thus, the state-by-state primary/caucus system was born. By the 1980s, the party elites felt left out of the process, bereft of all influence, and they thought their absence had hurt the party when weaker candidates like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter were nominated. Jim Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, was commissioned to fix the alleged problem, and by 1984 the Superdelegate system was implemented. Democrats thought that by giving more power to party leaders, it would prevent “unelectable” candidates, beloved by the populace, from costing them the general election.

    And in case it isn't clear, I should note that "McBride's sneaky tactic" is to attend the rules.

    Meanwhile, at Bustle, Seth Millstein↱ tries to explain the Republican question of superdelegats; the title is, "Does the GOP Have Superdelegates? The Republican Party's Rules Are Different This Year".

    With the presidential primaries in full swing, you can expect to hear a whole lot more about delegates and superdelegates over the next couple of months. In Iowa, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton outright tied each other, but Clinton’s superdelegates put her over the top. What about in the GOP? Do Republicans get superdelegates, and could they tip the nomination?

    The technical answer is that yes, the Republican Party does have superdelegates. However, they function differently for the GOP than Democrats, and in 2016, Republican superdelegates will have way, way less power and autonomy than the superdelegates on the Democratic side.

    The thing to keep in mind about delegates and superdelegates is that they were created not by Congress or the Constitution, but the parties themselves. The GOP and the Democratic Party are non-governmental organizations, and so they can basically set whatever rules they’d like regarding delegates and how they’re distributed.

    †​

    The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state’s national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates.

    The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The national Republican Party ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that’s the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.

    It's a place to start. But the question itself―

    "How do Democrats feel about their own party potentially disenfranchising the popular vote in their primary?"

    ―stands on an exceptionally weak interpretive foundation.

    It is, by any observational standard, a potential outcome that the Democratic nominee could defy the popular vote, but what, really, do you think would be the result? It would wreck the Party, and framing the question as you have would presume this outcome deliberate.

    It's one thing to aim for cynicsm, sir, but quite another to think your cynicsm is any more wise than the next. The Democrats could fuck all this up quite eaaily; the superdelgate question is not unimportant, but neither is it the main challenge facing Democratic voters. The reality is simple: If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination and loses the general, it's on her. If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination and loses the general, it's on Democratic voters.

    This is what Democrats know, and it scares the hell out of them.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Millstein, Seth. "Does the GOP Have Superdelegates? The Republican Party's Rules Are Different This Year". Bustle. 12 February 2016. Bustle.com. 12 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1Terwps

    Ryan, Shane. "After Sanders' Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here's Why It's Bullshit". Paste. 10 February 2016. PasteMagazine.com. 12 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1Terwps
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well, here is the thing, Republicans also have super delegates.

    So why have you have you not mentioned the fact Republicans also have super delegates? Super delegates have long been apart of the American political system. Both parties have them. So to focus only on Democrats as you have done is more than a little disingenuous.

    Political parties are not government institutions, they are private institutions. And as private institutions they make their own rules. The whole point of the nomination process is for the party to nominate a presidential candidate to run for POTUS and win in the general election. And if you look at the last 24 years, Democrats have been far more successful in that endeavor than Republicans.

    I'm an independent, I don't affiliate with either political party and in my state, that makes me ineligible to vote in the primary elections for either party. That's real disenfranchisement. But it's allowed, because I'm not a member of either party. I live in a Republican controlled state, and becoming a member of the Republican Party isn't an easy process in this state. Republicans in this state like to keep a tight rein over the party. They don't want people like me in their party. I might introduce some thoughts and ideas that might threaten the status quo.

    Super delegates are not comparable to the Electoral College. The political nomination process, and voting on party rules, and establishing the party plank, isn't like casting a ballot for POTUS. So to equate the two as you have done is just blatantly wrong. You are comparing apples to horses. Super delegates vote for the policies of a private organization. Not everyone has a right to vote during the nomination process. That isn't like electing the POTUS where everyone has a right to vote.

    Personally, I don't see why the state should fund primary elections. Political parties are private institutions. So why should the state fund their operations (i.e. primary elections) if only those who claim a party affiliation are allowed to vote - which is the case in some states?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Tweedism at it's worst:
    Superdelegates abrogate the people's right to democratic government.

    Political parties in and of themselves are a cancer on the body politic of any democracy,
    and the superdelegates are a particularly destructive cancer.

    Superdelegates account for 15% of the democratic party's delegates and 6% of the republican party's delegates.

    They are an abomination.
    Eschew them.
     
  8. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Yeah, but you can't really trust the people to pick the "right" candidate, can you?
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Aye, there's the rub.

    'tis a choice of how we would choose to be governed if we would choose to be governed.
     
    zgmc likes this.
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Well, the framing is being done by Tapper and Schultz (Chair of the DNC). Far from claiming it could 'wreck the Party', I said the superdelegates are likely to change theirs to align with popular vote.

    Maybe you should have read Tiassa's post:
    The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state’s national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates.

    The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The national Republican Party ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that’s the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.
    So yes, there is a significant distinction of which you are obviously unaware. Last 24 years? That seems rather arbitrary. Oh right, the last 7 years would account for almost a third of that. Are you only talking about POTUS, or are you also talking down-ballot? How, exactly, is registering to vote Republican difficult in your state? Party rules? Establishing the party plank? Party policies? What do any of these have to do with popular vote? Seem like red herrings. Superdelegates, just like regular delegates, vote for the nomination of their party to run for POTUS. Some states do have primaries open to voters of any affiliation. And both the delegate system and the EC use intermediate voters in lieu of direct popular vote.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910

    Why? I responded to your post, not Tiassa's post.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And you didn't mention the fact Republicans also have super delegates.

    "In the Republican Party, as in the Democratic Party, members of the party’s national committee automatically become delegates without being pledged to any candidate. In 2008, there are 123 members of the Republican National Committee among the total of 2,380 delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention.[30] There are three RNC delegates (the national committeeman, national committeewoman, and state party chair) for each state.[32]" Wikipedia

    Additionally, committed delegates are only committed on the first vote. So again, you are either ignorant or being more than a little disingenuous. That's why Republicans like Karl Rove predicting a wild Republican convention this year. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-path-to-a-wild-gop-convention-1446682656

    And you think the last 24 years is arbitrary? The unpleasant fact for you is for the last 24 years Democrats have been significantly better at nominating a presidential candidate than Republicans, and that is the measure of success. That's a hard fact. You obviously don't like it. But it is the truth. And really, I think that is very generous, because Baby Bush didn't win the popular vote in the 2000 election. In 2000 Baby Bush only became POTUS via a series of Republican chicanery including unprecedented actions of the Republican dominated Supreme Court.

    If you look at just the popular votes in general elections, Democrats have successfully nominated presidential candidates for all but 4 of the last 24 years. In the last last 6 presidential elections, the Republican candidate won the majority of votes in only 1 general election (2004). So the data very clearly suggests Democrats are much better at nominating winning presidential candidates.

    And already, a good number of Republicans are worried about the Republican nominating convention this year. Republicans may well have a brokered convention this year, and Republican leaders know it.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/republican-contested-convention-whispers-trump-cruz-217741

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/41b3...bio-eyes-brokered-convention-after-nh-setback
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2016
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Well, considering Tiassa happened to post the exact quote I was about to... Anyway, it should now be clear that the rules for the republican superdelegates are not relevant to the thrust of the OP, as they are required to reflect the popular vote. And if republicans didn't have superdelegates, I would not have needed to specify 'Democrat superdelegates'.

    And?



    And? Unless there is no majority winner, the convention need never go to a subsequent vote. The point, which you seem to have either missed, arduously avoided, or failed to comprehend, is that democrat superdelegates could override popular vote right out of the gate, without even the opportunity for the popular vote to be the deciding factor. Yes, I get that you are unaffiliated, and thus don't really care, but it is either ignorant or disingenuous to act as if the superdelegates of both parties are equivalent in all respects (which seems to be the red herring you are asserting).
     

Share This Page