Pros and Cons of Superdelegates and why the Democrats have them.

[madfloridian]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Autumn (a host of the General Discussion forum).

From an article from How Stuff Works.

My own opinion: I have mixed feelings about some of the purposes. I can see both sides in a way, but it would be too effective at keeping new people from determining how the elections go. That might keep change from ever happening if the superdelegates hunker down and refuse to change.

Superdelegate Pros and Cons

Superdelegates are simply "unpledged voters." Their vote represents their own choice, rather than the wishes of the voters, and these unpledged delegates can pledge their votes as they see fit.

Superdelegates have to consider how to use their votes carefully. They may:

Vote in step with how the voters in the majority of states voted
Vote in line with Democratic voters nationwide
Vote in favor of the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if it is just a slim majority.

....What's the point of having superdelegates in the first place? Explains Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, "You have superdelegates because … You don't want bleed-over from the Green Party, the independents and others in deciding who your nominee will be" (source: CNN). Brown cites the ability of undeclared or non-Democrat voters in some states to cast a vote in Democratic primaries or caucuses. The logic follows that if enough of these nonaffiliated voters cast ballots, voters outside the Democratic Party could decide the nominee.

Adding superdelegates to the convention provides a countermeasure against such an event. Since superdelegates are all registered Democrats (and usually elected officials), it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't vote contrary to Democratic Party lines. But to some, the power superdelegates have to sway a nomination flies in the face of a democratic process. "If the superdelegates go against the popular will of the voters, whoever emerges as 'victor' will enter the presidential election shorn of democratic legitimacy and devoid of electoral credibility" warned columnist Gary Younge during the 2008 race (source: Guardian).

More details on how and why the Superdelegates began. It is from a review of
Reinventing Democrats:The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton

It was part of the power grab of the Democratic Party by the Democratic Leadership Council.

Game Plan

If you imagine the DLC as a team, then the captain would have to be Al From. A veteran of the Carter administration, From took over the House Democratic Caucus after the 1980 elections with visions of rejuvenating his ailing party. He had some natural allies. As Baer points out, there were at least three strains of Democratic pols who felt the party needed redirection---Southern Democrats like Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Lawton Chiles, neoconservatives like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and neoliberals like Rep. Tim Wirth and Sen. Gary Hart. Although they came to their views from different angles, they wound up agreeing on many of the same positions: They believed that the Democratic Party should be tougher on crime and foreign policy, less spendthrift with entitlements, and less indulgent of entrenched special interests like civil servants and unions. They also thought that moving the party in this direction would "restore its electoral viability" with the middle class that had deserted it for Ronald Reagan.

How did a group of elite politicians and operatives transform a political party?

First, they gave themselves a little bit of distance. After several unsuccessful attempts to influence the party establishment from within, the reformers formed the DLC as an extra-party organization in 1985. This avoided what Bruce Babbitt referred to as the "Noah's Ark problem"---the need to satisfy diverse constituents by taking representative positions on behalf of each one. They could also raise their own money (which DLC honchos like Virginia's Chuck Robb were notably good at), start their own think tank (the Progressive Policy Institute), and publicize their own views without tangling with the cumbersome Party bureaucracy.

Second, they worked the rules. They pressured the party to create a new class of "super delegates" consisting of state party leaders and elected officials who, they hoped, would balance out the interest groups that had come to dominate Democratic conventions. They also lobbied to cluster Southern and Western state primaries on "Super Tuesday," so that candidates who were strong in that part of the country (especially conservative Southern Democrats) would get an early boost that could offset a poor showing in more liberal Iowa or New Hampshire.

[Odin2005]

1. The superdelegates need to be abolished.

They are an affront to democracy.

[madfloridian]

2. Yes, I think so.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. The things I could tell you abut Willie brown....cough cough....

So, in 1985 a group of Dems decided to block forever any possible 3rd party.
Thus deciding that "democratic" did not really mean Democratic.

[Mnemosyne]

4. It's all a con now. Super delegates are bullshit and we need popular runoff voting, on paper. nt

[el_bryanto]

5. It's a solution to a problem we don't have

A bit like the Republican crackdown on "Voter Fraud." I agree that if we had strong vibrant multiple parties, the way they do in many European nations, the superdelegate idea would make sense. You wouldn't want an election, particularly a primary, being decided by people who actually mean to do harm to the party. But that's not an issue in the United States. So the superdeldegate solution is not to the problem "What if another party messes up our primary process" but a solution to the problem "What if the Democratic Voters select the wrong candidate.

That said I think the problem is a bit overblown - if Clinton has to rely on Superdelegates to win, it will be a phyrric victory at best, and I think many of the superdelegates, when faced with the issue, would realize that - they would vote with how the rest of the state voted.

Bryant

[stopbush]

8. Super delegates are party big wigs and loyalists.

That's why they're super delegates.

Their first loyalty is to the party, not a particular candidate. That certainly means that a D super delegate is going to be pre-disposed to support a long-time, time-tested D over a candidate who decided to change their party affiliation to D only a few months ago, for the simple fact that from a party perspective, the first candidate is a known quantity and the second isn't.

You could also have the opposite situation, where none of the long-time Ds had a credible chance to advance the party's agenda while a newcomer to the Party might be exactly what's needed for the good of the party. Obviously, Bernie supporters feel this is the situation today. Unfortunately for them, the long-time party members might feel differently.

[el_bryanto]

18. If it's a close thing than they may throw it to Clinton

On the other hand if Bernie continues to do better than expected they might decide party continuity is of more value than supporting a known candidate. Because if Bernie seems to win and then the Superdelegates hand it to Clinton, well that's a lot of very energetic people you've just turned away from the party (granted some of them may turn away anyway).

Bryant

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. Sanders beat Clinton by 22 points in NH, but people were circulating a rumor that Clinton got

as many, if not more, superdelegate votes as Sanders did. Totally UNTRUE! Sanders got 15, Clinton got 9!

There was also a rumor that Clinton's staff was offering money for the votes, which is apparently legal since they are not voting in the election right now, but Sanders REFUSED to try to buy votes from superdelegates.

I also read that Sanders is the ONLY Candidate who is paying his staff, at $12/hr, but was catching flak because of his stance on raising the minimum wage to $15/hr. I have no problem with that, though, since he IS at least paying his staff when no other candidate from either side is.

Peace,

Ghost

[stopbush]

6. Reality check: the Democratic Party exists to elect Democrats.

Not conservatives, or liberals, or progressives or whatevers. Democrats. If you're a big-tent party like the Ds, you have conservatives and moderates and progressives and extremists in your party, but they're all Democrats.

Political parties exist to get their candidates elected. It's true of the Ds. It's true of the Rs. It's true of the Greens and the Libertarians and the Socialists.

And it's true that super delegates exist as a check to insure that Democrats (and Republicans) get nominated as Democratic (and Republican) candidates. Otherwise, you could run into a situation like you have in NH where the primaries are open and you can vote for whatever candidate you want no matter what your party affiliation. Would it make sense for the Libertarians to allow an ultra-progressive D to get their party nomination because a bunch of Ds crossed over and voted Libertarian in an open primary? Would it makes sense for the Ds to have no check on an open primary in a heavily Republican state where thousands of voters crossed over and voted for an extremely conservative candidate to be the D nominee? No.

There is a YUGE difference between nominating a PARTY candidate and voting for a person in the national general election. There are no Constitutional rules governing what political parties may or may not do when it comes to how they select their candidates. In the past, it was done by the party elite with no input at all from the general populace. Today, the general populace has a say in who may be the candidate, but they don't have an absolute say. They have some say, but it's a weighted say. And super delegate votes carry more weight than delegate votes secured through a primary. Super delegates serve as a check on the system, the same way the Electoral College serves as a check - and has the last word - on who gets to be president, pace the popular vote.

So, the nominating process isn't "democratic" enough? Who said it was supposed to be? Again, the parties exist to elect Democrats or Republicans or whatevers. That's the reality of the situation, a reality that Bernie certainly understands.

If Bernie can continue to pile up 60% wins across the country, then the super delegates mean nothing. But if the race is close, the super delegates mean everything.

BTW - there's nothing keeping Bernie or anyone else from forming their own political party and making their own nominating rules. Hell, Bernie could have run as an Independent or a Socialist or a whatever. But he did the math and figured that his best chance to be a viable candidate on the November ballot was to win the D nomination, super delegates, party rules and all.

It's not his fault that so many of his neophyte followers weren't aware of the way party politics works. Bernie certainly was well aware. Otherwise he wouldn't be running as a D.

[madfloridian]

7. Would you rather he run as an independent and leave the party to Hillary?

Your words "neophyte followers" are rather insulting. Nothing wrong with being new to politics.

However the use of the word "followers" implies a cult-like thing.

[stopbush]

9. Well, that would have been the more-consistent path to take for Bernie, considering he

had stayed true to his oft-made claim that it would be dishonest for him to run as a D as he had bashed the Ds consistently over the length of his political career.

As far as leaving the party to Hillary, if Bernie had run as an Indie, Martin O'Malley would probably still be in the race and debating Hillary. He might have had an uphill climb, but if this had been a two-person race between two long-time Ds, there would have been more competition for votes among the Ds. While Hillary is greatly admired in the party, there are still plenty of people who would give an alternative candidate a chance, if for no other reason than to hold out against the dynasty of a particular political family. We would have had a more-typical primary season, probably fewer newbies getting interested etc. But no one would have ceded the nomination to Hillary had Bernie not crossed over and changed his party affiliation to run as a D.

And I didn't say that ALL of Bernie's followers were neophytes. There's just no denying that those who are shocked, SHOCKED that a political party's rules are and always have been part and parcel to the business of politics are political neophytes of the most-uniformed kind.

[madfloridian]

11. And there would have been no party shake-up.

You know the two things that made me a supporter of Bernie Sanders? The first is the terrible toll Obama's policies have taken on public education. Would Bernie do better...most likely. He does agree with public schools remaining public.

The 2nd is the TPP, and the apparent eagerness of this administration AND Hillary to bring it to fruition.

To me that is a final straw.

[stopbush]

12. I can't see my way straight to supporting Bernie until he gets straight with us

and puts out some realistic numbers on what all his "free" stuff is actually going to cost. His numbers as presented don't add up. They're an embarrassment, and not what I expected from a supposed straight shooter.

If it's between Trump and Bernie, sure, Bernie gets my vote. But at present, I'd be holding my nose. I don't appreciate the pie-in-the-sky crap when I hear it from Rs because I expect it. But hearing it come from a supposed straight shooter bugs me no end.

He's better than that and we deserve better than that.

[stopbush]

13. Been voting D since 1972. I don't believe for a second that the party needed a shake up.

Obama has been quite a shake-up for the country. His presidency has been transformational and has benefited this country enormously. Gay rights, bin Laden dead, the economy restored, stock market soaring, unemployment under 5%, the ACA a reality.

There are still challenges ahead, of course. But we are better able to face those challenges as a nation due to Obama's presidency. We are still trying to recover as a country from the Reagan years, not to mention the bush years. Obama's presidency has been brilliant in what he has accomplished and in how he has moved this country forward. And all while the Rs opposed him at every turn. The belief that ANY president could turn around 30 years of problems - that were the result of Republican disasters - in seven years is a bit naive.

To my way of thinking, there is plenty to build on from the Obama years. A shake up? Give me a break.

BTW - I put two kids through public schools over the Obama presidency. I know it's not the same everywhere, but my kids attended an excellent public school here in CA. The arts programs flourished, but only because parents stepped up and footed the bill. Academic standards were very high. The school even produced a gold-medal-winning Olympic gymnast during my kids enrollment.

Atypical of most public schools, sure. But not unattainable, even in today's anti-intellectual climate.

[earthshine]

29. I think you live in a bubble.

I'm glad things are good for you. That does not describe most people -- the ones for whom Bernie will fight.

Big money needs to leave politics -- in particular elections.

I'd rather have a president with pie-in-the-sky ideals than a corporatist who whines that people don't think she's progressive. Her "I lost" speech after the NH primary borrowed way too much from Bernie's vernacular. It's why we call her campaign "Camp Weathervane."

In 2008, I supported Hillary over Obama. But, her campaigning style became vile to me. So, I voted for Obama.

The only things he ever fought hard for is the ACA and TPP, and of course, to be known as the "cool" president.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. Americans are leaving both parties in droves. The parties either need to wake up and

represent the people instead of the rich or they will continue to lose more people and will become obsolete.

[stopbush]

25. So what? Who are all the Independents going to vote for in

presidential elections? It's not the Independent candidate.

The fact is that most independent voters strongly lean toward one party or the other. They call themselves Indies because 1. They don't want to be blamed for anything a D or R president does, 2. They don't want to feel obligated to donate time and money to a political party, and 3. They don't want the phone calls.

I'd guess that 90% of the so-called Indies on DU lean heavily Democratic. Otherwise, why are they here?

The fact is that only 5% of the electorate is truly independent. The rest are lukewarm Ds and Rs who don't have the guts to pick a side in a fight.

Oh, yeah, another fact: most Independent voters ended up voting for the person who loses.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. I love how people just assume things will always be as they have been.

[earthshine]

31. Most who choose to be independents do so because they find party politics to be distasteful.

I'm a registered dem.

I have no problem with indies, and even respect them.

Political parties = big money in elections

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Oh Willie Brown --

One of the most corrupt bastards to ever oversee San Francisco City Hall. And, hopefully, under indictment in the next few years for his pay-to-play scheme that has corrupted my town's politics.

IMO, Super Delegates are way for the Party to keep the rabble in check, the same purpose as the Electoral College.

I see these delegates as Clinton's/the Party's "firewall" against just what is happening with Bernie.

[madfloridian]

14. Another legacy of the DLC's hold on the party.

[ericson00]

21. superdels existed for over a decade before the DLC came into existence

n/t

[madfloridian]

22. From a 2008 post at DKos by pablano (Nate Silver's early username)...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/-

I understand it to mean they were discussing them in the 70's but 82 would be the first year of actuality.

To understand the origin of superdelegates, you have to understand one thing: George McGovern and the 1972 election. But let's first step back and frame things a little bit.

The superdelegate system was instituted over the spring and summer of 1982 by the Commission on Presidential Nominations (CPN), a special committee of the DNC that was chaired by then North Carolina governor James B. Hunt. Superdelegates were the most important of several such changes approved by the CPN; others included shortening the primary season, and loosening the rules for pledged delegates (such that it became easier to be a 'faithless' delegate).

There were a number of rationales given at the time for the implementation of superdelegates, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. The primary purpose of this diary will be to explore those rationales, based on a survey of contemporaneous newspaper accounts from the New York Times. However, it is also important to understand the underlying context: as of 1982, the Democrats had had two absolutely disastrous results out of the last three Presidential election cycles.

[KamaAina]

15. I have heard that they were meant to prevent a repeat of McGovern's win in '72.

It appears to be working.

[moondust]

17. "But if the race is close,

the super delegates mean everything."

That's my concern. Imagine if the California primary was as close as the 2000 general election in Florida. Would superdelegate kingmakers decide who won the California primary?

[Reter]

19. Do Republicans have them to?

Or just us?

[madfloridian]

20. Not last I heard.

Just us.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Superdelegates = last vestige of oldschool "machine" politics (n/t)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Thanks.

You've corrected a notion I had read and been repeating as to the reason we had superdelegates. Sadly, that reason was far less cynical than reality.

[madfloridian]

28. What had you read? There's always more to learn about it.

I can see some reasons they thought they needed them. As long as they vote as the voters wish, okay...... but what if they chose not to do so? Problem.

[Autumn]

32. Locking. Please repost in GDP

Thanks.