A general queston: does anyone at DU support the notion of "superdelegates?"

[Political Heretic]

How is this remotely a good idea?

Separate question: how is this in keeping with the ideals of democracy?

Final questions: have there been any times in history where superdelgates have been the deciding factor in a nomination? Don't guess, I'm only asking for a response if you know and can point me to information.

[Fovea]

1. Between superdelagates and the electoral college

The elites might as well take a big sniff downwind of the polling place and decide who our next deciderer is.

[JeffR]

3. Your answer covered my opinion completely

and did so more succinctly than I could have. Thank you.

[Political Heretic]

4. I really feel the same way. I don't understand how the EC has lasted so long.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Because it's in the constitution

and three fourths of the states would have to vote to change it, and far too many states benefit from the current system.

The EC will never be done away with.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. but we might see a good work-around some day

That plan where individual states pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote could eventually take effect.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Yeah, that's possible

but again, I don't see many smaller states agreeing to that.

Edit: There's also a constitutional question involved. Article 1, section 10 says:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[Fovea]

47. Between the EC and non-proportional seats in the Senate

We go from that tyranny of the majority to the tyranny of the minority.

I beleive that is will change, because the constitution has already evolved past slavery
and extension of voting rights to women.

It tried banning liquor, and then changed its mind.

In light of such dramatic evolutions and devolutions, I don't see
the EC being so sacrosanct that time and circumstance won't do for it someday.

Big winds comin.

[orleans]

29. someone was explaining super delegates lately and basically

it keeps the final say-so in the hands of the powerful in case all of us idiots don't know what the fuck we're doing by voting for someone who just isn't the correct choice!

they might have been talking about this on olbermann lately.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Don't you think it's time to dismiss the whole electoral college bs and have direct vote like

all normal humans on the planet do?

[SlipperySlope]

12. Think of it like this...

The president of the United Nations isn't selected by a popular vote of all the citizens of the planet.

The president of the European Union isn't selected by a popular vote of all the citizens of Europe.

The president of Switzerland isn't selected by a popular vote of all the citizens of Switzerland.

The president of Germany isn't selected by a popular vote of all the citizens of Germany.

The United States is a *union* of *states*. In that context, it makes sense that the president is selected like that of most federations; by an election of the member states, not by a election of the general citizenry.

Given all that, I don't know what you meant by "all normal humans on the planet"...

[Political Heretic]

19. Bartlett: "There are times when we're fifty separate states and times where we're one big nation."

That's the sentiment I agree with. When it comes to the federal election of a president of the untied - untied - states, I strongly believe that it should be a single popular vote of all the people of that united states.

State Governors, legislators, mayors, councils and boards are all elected at state levels to represent state interests. But a national election should be determined by a national popular vote.

[Bill McBlueState]

35. it's a good sentiment

Since 1787, we've moved a long way toward the "one big nation" concept. While it may have been different very early in our history, the President clearly leads a nation of people, not a federation of states.

[SlipperySlope]

39. Where in the Constitution does it say that?

I've looked, and I can't find anything in the Constitution or amendments that says that.

Many people might wish that the United States was "one big nation" instead of a federation, and I grant that it often operates as if it were "one big nation" instead of a federation, but that definitely isn't how it is constructed or defined.

[Bill McBlueState]

42. it doesn't say that, of course

Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote would require amending the Constitution. Given how the nation, the federal government, the office of the Presidency, and ideas about democracy have evolved since 1787, a national popular vote makes more sense now than it did 230 years ago.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. The European Union is a federation of COUNTRIES, not states

... Each European Union country has its own everything. That they banded together to be stronger, that's fine. It doesn't mean they're not countries. They agree on certain things, but country rules itself.

That's not the case here, as much as federalists get all hot and bothered and horny about the possiblity. States don't have presidents who decide world affairs. This is a country subdivided into states the same exact way our states are divided into districts, counties and parishes. Any arousal that federalists might derive from thinking that this is a federation of countries rather than subservient states, comes only from the imaginations of people who think Alexander Hamiliton was the father of our country.

I think it's ridiculous that my vote is not a full vote depending on where I live. It might be .50 of a vote, or .15 of a vote, or some such absurd nasty-ass bullshit because somebody wants non-direct voting, lest it give "the people" too much power.

[SlipperySlope]

40. This is NOT a country subdivided into states.

This is a union constructed from constituent states (just like the United Nations or the European Union). US states are most certainly not simply administrative districts, like counties or parishes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. Oi vei. You sound like the Repuke federalists. nt

[SoCalDem]

28. It's way past time, but it's also too late

It would require a constitutional amendment, and the smaller (empty) states like having "extra powers"..

case in point..Wyoming..

right at half a million people, and they get 2 senators and one congress person...

that works out to one "legislator" per 166,666 people..

California has 2 senators and 56 congresspersons

that works out to one legislator per 655,172.4 people..

When many small ideologically similar states band together into coalitions, they can stop or push just about any legislation they want..

There are enough of these states to permanently block an amendment doing away with it..

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Then we're f*cked, pardon the French. One thing I don't get about this country is this.....

(and I should preface it by saying I wasn't born here)...

Other countries can and have modified their constitutions or rules of law. Since I arrived in this country tho, I noticed that the people here view their Constitution as if it were a God-given document, some perfect diamond under a glass case, some magical, wonderful instrument that cannot be touched unless hell breaks loose, and even then....

I DON'T GET IT. This is planet earth. EVERYTHING is changeable. I've read the Constitution and it's not impressive. It's in DIRE NEED of changes. But the people here have been brainwashed, generation after generation to think of it as something almost... HOLY? WTF?

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Yes, the constitution IS changeable

we've done it 17 times since ratifying the constitution and Bill of Rights.

The difficulty lies in HOW we amend it - it requires 3/4ths of the states to approve any amendment, and since a number of small states benefit from the electoral college system, they'll never vote to relinquish the extra power it gives them.

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. After selecting McGovern, something had to give. Sorry, but I remember n/t

[Political Heretic]

7. What do you mean exactly?

"Something had to give" - you mean, like the will of the people?

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. McGovern took only one state and had only 37.5 percent of the popular vote.

We may have another brokered convention.

[Political Heretic]

10. Ok, I can't be knowledgable on *everything* hehe...... can you

give me a crash course on McGovern? What happened, how did he get the nomination then? How did super delegates fix whatever the problem was?

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. Another DUer was kind enough

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4111032&mesg_id=4111118

[Political Heretic]

14. Ok, thanks. Well that totally sucks.

I'm sorry, but if the people choose a candidate, you don't just get to nullify that choice because you don't like it.

If the PEOPLE choose a loser, at least that's the PEOPLES choice. I don't agree with this idea that the "masses" need to be protected against themselves by a select few "elite."

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. McGovern won the nomination because most DEMS wanted him to win.

They turned out in the primaries and he routed Humphrey, Muskie and the rest of the DEM establishment.

Superdelegates fixed no problems at all. They helped select losing nominees in '80, 84 '88 and '00 and '04.

McGovern did about as well as Humphrey did in the popular vote in '68, subsequent mythology to the contrary nowithstanding. He got 29 million votes compared with Hubert's 31 million, despite the fact that he ( McG) was running against a sitting president with a huge financial advantage in the middle of a war.

The electoral landslide developed because the states carried by Wallace in the '68 race went for Nixon in '72.

[Political Heretic]

15. Ok turns out I wasn't as confused as I thought I was.

Ok, I knew they McGovern lost horribly. But when you said he took only one state and have 37.5% somehow I thought you meant in the primaries. That's what confused me.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if he lost bad. He was the PEOPLES choice and that's all that should matter. The people got it wrong. That's BETTER than having an unaccountable oligarchy selecting candidates.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. I guess you had to be there. McGovern was pure, but unelectable

I don't hold the good hostage to perfection anymore.

[Political Heretic]

20. totally misses the point.

I don't care what McGovern was. I care that the people chose him.

I'm not saying he was the right choice. I'm saying he was the people's choice and nothing should supercede that, even if it is a mistake. Democracy means sometimes mistakes get made. You don't change the rules and undermine democracy because of that.

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. But we live in a representative democracy. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

6. Not sure

if I like the general idea or not - I can see pros and cons. However, having superdelegates = about 40% of the delegates necessary to nominate is definately going too far.

[Political Heretic]

8. Can you help me understand the Pros?

[HooptieWagon]

13. A certain amount of institutional memory

is not a bad thing - people working their way up the ladder, knowing their way around, know what long term strategies are in place and have developed the skills and connections to carry them forward. IOW, it keeps the party from being hijacked - Suppose all the fundies joined the Democratic party, and nominated the Huckster on a theocratic/anti-abortion platform. Naturally, this would destroy the party as we know it. In theory, the Superdelegates could step in and say "NO".
However, the will of the people has to be respected, too. If a substantial amount of the people don't like the direction the party is going, that should be given weight.

edit: speeling

[Political Heretic]

17. It should be given "weight?" The people ARE the party.

If "all" the fundies joined the party, then it should change the party. It's happened before that parties have evolved. I don't agree that there should be anything that fetters the will of the people.

But this does help remind me that we don't live in a Democracy. We don't even live in a Constitutional Republic. We live in an Oligarchy. Everywhere you look it is some group of select elite that are playing "referee" making sure that the "dumb masses" don't get out of line.

Such a joke.

[HooptieWagon]

22. Well, given a majority

it would be considerable weight. Obviously if the people were to vote for an antiabortion platform in numbers that outvoted the superdelegates, the party would take a new direction. However, if the party was roughly divided 50/50, then the superdelegates could continue the course (sorry about the poor choice of words). Basically, since anybody can declare themselves a party member - the superdelegates are a resistance to extremism and a hijacking of the traditional platform. However, upthread I did state that probably there are too many superdelegates - resistance to hijacking and extremeism is OK, but a roadblock to any change is not. Currently, the superdelegates could thwart a candidate or platform that 62% (if my math is correct) of the party wants. IMO that's too much influence.

[mmonk]

16. Short answer, no. Long answer, see short answer.

[CK_John]

23. Superdelegates came about as a hard fought fight between the union bosses, Wallace forces and the

women's movement which wanted more representation in the selection process. The result of these negotiations was the reforms of 72 which setup the primary and caucus system. It was the 80/20 rule. 80% by direct elections of the states and 20% by the party.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. And that 20% is where the Clintons

can take off with it, I'm sorry to say. And thank you, CK John for that explanation. I had forgotten that the super delegate system started in '72 along with the primary system.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. NO. They are inherently nonrepresentative and undemocratic.

And having them didn't exactly prevent Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis from getting thumped at the polls either.

[HooptieWagon]

26. Actually, they ARE elected

They are congresscritters, Governors, etc. So, unless they were appointed to fill a vacancy they were elected by the people in their states and districts. Its just that they weren't elected in the primary - they were elected in earlier elections.

[casus belli]

30. It's quite non-democratic really....

I read somewhere that, when broken down, each superdelegate vote is equivalent to more than 150,000 or so regular votes. This being due to the fact that one superdelegate vote counts directly in the results whereas the votes of citizens are condensed into representative delegate votes. This places an absolutely unforgivable amount of power (roughly 20% of the total delegate vote count) in the hands of a very small number of people. Assuming the 150,000+ figure is correct, that amounts to roughly 20% of the vote being decided on by <.00001 percent of participating voters.

The long and short of it is this: a candidate could conceivably win an election in which they only received 31% of the delegates awarded on the election results. That assumes of course that the delegate with 31% has all of the superdelegate votes, which is highly unlikely, but it is within the realm of possibility.

I have no explanation why this hasn't been changed. But, it certainly doesn't reflect well on us as a party which prides itself on being a big-tent seeking to give a voice to all people who make up its ranks. This procedure should never have been adopted in the first place, and should at the least have been rescinded a long time ago.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. "Some animals are more equal than others" - George Orwell

Pretty well sums it up.

[KharmaTrain]

36. Beats The Old System...

Many here need to read up on what happened at the 1972 convention...the battles between the party regulars and elected delegates and what ensued afterwards. It created the system we have now that didn't really get much scrutiny until this year.

IMHO, elected party representatives deserve the right to vote as delegates in their own party's convention. This includes representatives, senator, governor and statewide office holders. I'm not so hot on the "party officers"...DNC and other beltway types who aren't accountable for their votes.

Yes...in the past the "superdelegates" did decide candidates. It was known as the smoke-filled room.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. Do superdelegate types have more sway in the Democratic vs. the Republican party?

[Horse with no Name]

37. I'm sure it would quite depend if they benefitted THEIR candidate or not

as to whether they support them or not. That is how it seems to be working out these days.

[MiniMe]

38. The "superdelegates" aren't supposed to declare until the convention

And they usually go with the will of the people. Many have declared way too early, which imho isn't good. I don't like the idea of the super delegates, but I don't think that they usually come into play. This is an unusual year.