Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Concept of Fair Reflection?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:16 AM
Original message
Concept of Fair Reflection?
Ickes is an ass. And I mean no disrespect to all asses out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. ICKES IS ICKY.
And I do mean that.

shudder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Fair reflection: "delegates bound to support candidate in whose
name they were elected...



Lessons of the 1980 Democratic convention and nomination race were not lost on the member of the Hunt Commission (named for its Chair Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina) as they met to write delegate selection rules for the 1984 nomination season. The 1980 race had concluded in an especially bitter and contentious convention fight between President Jimmy Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy. The convention fight had centered upon Rule 11 (H) that bound delegates to support the candidate in whose name they were elected. Senator Kennedy’s campaign, in an effort to convince Carter delegates that they should abandon Carter and support him, waged a series of platform and rules challenges culminating in the fight over Rule 11 (H).

In short order the Commission agreed to get rid of the controversial Rule 11(H) and replace it with a less intrusive rule, but one that, nevertheless, urged delegates to vote for the presidential candidate they had been elected to support. The new 11 (H) read:

“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

(This rule exists today, in 2008, as Rule 12 (J) of the delegate selection rules and has not changed since.)

More...
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18072/history_of_superdelegates_in_the_democratic_party.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ah - so it was a cowardly way for Ickes to say "there's no such thing as pledged delegates"?
Am I understanding correctly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I agree, unless one's conscience determines that the original
pledge wasn't a good idea after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. I think what Ickes was aiming for was that Edwards delegates
should not be awarded to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Could be, but it's seems to be about equality among delegates.
"A History of 'Super-Delegates' in the Democratic Party"
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18072/history_of_superdelegates_in_the_democratic_party.html

"Opposition to this proposal came from supporters of Senator Edward Kennedy (who, at the time was expected to make another run for the presidency) and from organized feminists. Kennedy supporters on the Commission feared that a large number of Senators and Congressmen at the convention could stop him. On the other hand, former Vice President Walter Mondale, felt certain that a large number of these delegates would favor him and his operatives, therefore, embraced the 30% number.

Organized feminists, on and off the Commission, however, make a new argument. Speaking on their behalf, Technical Advisory Committee Member Susan Estrich of Massachusetts argued that creating a new category of delegates who were not subject to the fair reflection and candidate right of approval rules would create a new status of delegate which she referred to as “super-delegates.” These delegates, argued Estrich, would be overwhelmingly white and male. Even were they balanced by an equal number of women in the total delegation — there would still be the problem of “equal power.” The “super-delegates” because of their greater flexibility in the choice of a nominee, would have greater power than the female delegates committed to presidential candidates. (“Unintended Consequences,” by Susan Estrich, Memorandum to the Hunt Commission, September 9, 1981.)

The issue was finally resolved through a compromise created by Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. The Ferraro Proposal reduced the total number of un-pledged delegates to 566 or 14% of the Convention, but it left selection of the Congressional delegates in the hands of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses. (See, Bringing Back the Parties, by David Price, Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984) The 14% number was far short of the original proposal that 30% of the convention be unpledged. However, if the number had been much larger, it would have been practically impossible to meet the equal division between men and women requirements in the rules.

Super-delegates today, in 2008, are no longer elected by congressional caucus. There have been some additions over the years and thus the total number of super delegates as a proportion of the convention has increased by about 5%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I liked him storming out of the room
That was priceless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbrother05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. Unable or unwilling to explain it in public.
Good work, MR. ICKES! (Anyone know of a snarl/sneer font?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. What was the relevance? I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. It seems to mean an allocation of delegates that "reflects"
the will of Democratic voters in the respective states.

Since no one really knows what that was, lol, it's a slippery term, imo, but it will be useful in herding us all back together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. rule 13a
being taken WAY out of context, which is why Wexler pwned Ickes on needing to be educated. The voters of Michigan certainly didn't know what rule 13a meant when they went to the polls. So in no way could forcing them to remain uncommitted be fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. which Hillary's supporters are in favor of when it comes to Michigan
but against when it comes to Florida. :eyes:

or maybe it's the other way around, but it's definetely not consistent. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. Aka, "Unfair Reflection."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC