The *REAL* reason for Super Delegates (not the new one)

[incapsulated]

Many here don't like the superdelgates and their role and have decided to reinvent their reason for being.

Like it or not, in 1980 they were created, not to insure that the pledged delegates would have the last word, quite the opposite.

They were created so that the voters in the states did NOT have the "last word" in a close race.

Now, I don't care for this system, which is why I would prefer Florida and Michigan have a revote to decide this if it comes down to that. But that doesn't change the fact that the supers were created to influence, not reinforce, the primary voting.

The creation of these elite delegates after the 1980 election was one in a series of moves by the Democrats to moderate the impact of party reforms of the 1970's. The changes had the effect of diluting the power of elected officials to influence the party's choice of a nominee, and this, in the eyes of many politicians, helped lead the Democrats to defeat.

By automatically making top party leaders delegates, those drawing up the party's rules sought to give active politicians more power in choosing the nominee.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D9133CF930A15750C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic ticket. In response, the superdelegate rule was instituted after the 1980 election. Its purpose was to accord a greater role to active politicians.<3>

In the 1984 election, the major contenders for the Presidential nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each of them won some primaries and caucuses. Hart was only slightly behind Mondale in the total number of votes cast, but Mondale won the support of almost all the superdelegates and became the nominee.<4>

The superdelegates have not always prevailed, however. In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held. Nevertheless, John Kerry defeated Dean in a succession of primaries and caucuses and won the nomination.

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

[incapsulated]

1. shameless self-bump before it falls off the first page

:P

[Jane Austin]

2. That's the reason I'd read, too.

I wonder what I was doing when they slipped that one in on us?

Vigilance! (Hat Tip to the great Kent Jones!)

[MaineDem]

3. I'll throw in a kick. n/t

[damntexdem]

4. I always understood the reason.

I was a McGovern delegate to my state party convention in 1972. At my caucus, had one of us not stepped down, the country Dem chair would not have been a delegate. I was very upset that one of us stepped down and let the bastard become a delegate. In the subsequent campaign, he did what he could to undermine not just McGovern but also other progressive Dems. The hacks want free tickets to the conventions, without having to bother to get enough supporters to caucuses and district meetings to ensure their places.

It's time to change the terminology: they're not super delegates, they're inferior delegates.

[Exultant Democracy]

5. Look at all these facts with accurate historical context.

[Jax]

6. Kick

Very important. Just talked to 2 of my State's 'undecided' superdels for all the good that did.

They have spin down very, very well.

Appreciate the info here incapsulated.

Alyce