Letters to the Editor
-
Democrats: Let's lose the superdelegates altogether!
The very idea that there are delegates that are more equal than others and therefore get more of a say in the primary just smacks of something those other guys would do. Do we really need this? In the very possible case that the superdelegates chose the candidate that did not win the popular vote, is the democratic party prepared for the inevidable rift and mass exodus that is bound to occur? How will it be able to get anything done when its members have given up on the process (because, really, why bother)?
Those of us still pissed off about the corronation that happened in the 2000 general election, this is infathomable.
-
Just say no...to primaries
What a mess.
So, we have what are essentially 2 private organizations vying for power, doing their best (although, if this is their best, I'd hate to see their worst)to paint so semblance of democracy onto what is really a publically funded whitewash of what increasingly seems like an oligarchy.
I say, let the Democrats pick their nominee by banks of monkeys typing - The person whose name shows up first, wins.
Seriously, after this year, No more primaries - It just reinforces the two party power structure.
As far as this year, how about...The person with the most votes (NOT delegate votes) wins. This must include Florida (Which was more evenhanded), with Michigan (Which was not) as a redo in July-ish if it looks like it would make the difference.
-
August IS a Long Way Off
Joan, Thanks for taking the equivalent of a deep breath here.
I think the case for Superdelegates being independent, deliberative voters is a strong one. This year's primary schedule is so front-loaded and so far in advance of the August convention, that there needs to be some check and balance built in to the system to provide some kind of reassessments in the summer before the party commits to its nominee. If a week is a long time in politics, then six months is a virtual Geologic Age. Of course, supporters of Obama and Clinton will make arguments on behalf of their candidates in an effort to lock up support of the Supers as early as possible. Why wouldn't they?
I think it's a good thing that Superdelegates are there, and why it is a good thing for many of them to remain Uncommitted and Unpledged -- regardless of national or statewide primary and caucus results -- until Denver.
In fact, I just ran in New Jersey's primary as part of a slate of Uncommitted delegates who ran explicitly in order to withhold support for any one candidate until things looked clearer later in the summer.
OK, OK, we only got 2/10 of one percent, but it was a good argument !!
-
Interesting
I've asked before, how is a Superdelegate from, say, Nevada, supposed to vote in the convention? HRC won the popular vote; Obama won 13 delegates to HRC's 12 in that state. It seems either way the superdelegate votes s/he is supporting roughly half of their constituents and dissing the other half. And that's the case in several states.
And the "special interest" and "party leader" type delegates: who, exactly, are their "constituents"? The people who share the same zip code? The people who support their foundation or project? (How are we to get the breakdown on, say, women in the teachers' union in Ohio, or Idaho members of the Sierra, or NAACP members in Maine?) The people who benefit from the Superdelegates' work? (What's the voting split on recipients of Habitat For Humanity home repair in Georgia?)
No one from the opposite camp will accept superdelegates "voting their conscience." But I think that's what they'll have to do, in the end. If Obama wins Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states, I expect most superdelegates will support his candidacy. If HRC has a surge, and gets a lead in popular vote and delegates, I expect most superdelegates to support her. If it's a dead heat, then I think a superdelegate's personal preferences are just as valid a criterion as any other ("I've been an HRC supporter for years" or "I find Obama inspiring" or "I just think s/he will do a better job/be more electable" etc).
There still needs to be a resolution on Michigan and Florida (personally, FL should go to HRC, and MI should hold a "real" primary in June, which would probably go to Obama, but I'm fairly certain this will never happen). Will superdelegates from those states be ignored as well?
The one thing I beg is, whoever wins the nomination be allowed the full support of the party, including ardent fans of the other candidate. No recounts, no lawsuits, no cries of "stealing the nomination." The party must unite behind whoever becomes the nominee, or we can look forward to a McCain presidency, a century of war, a Supreme Court that harkens back to the Spanish Inquisition in its conservativeness, and greater economic disparity between uber rich and working stiffs.
-
@bignose
I was typing when you posted, so I didn't see your take on FL and MI. Here's to minds thinking alike!
-
the only problem with the superdelegates
is that for the first time their votes matter -- Obama and Clinton (despite what either camp or their supporters say) are, for all practical purposes, tied -- neither has, nor can either have by the time of the convention, enough delegates to be the nominee. If Clinton didn't have the so-called "lead" among the pledged superdelegates (who can still change their minds and vote Obama, btw) there wouldn't be all of this outrage over this "anti-democratic" procedure.
-
I Love The Right Wingers
Hammering away about the democratic superdelegates. The FOX mouths (Hannity, Wallace, O'Reilly) are all saying that the superdelegates cannot stray from whoever is leading, even if no one gets the 2,025. Probably because Hillary is slightly behind now and they want her to lose.
Can you imagine if the republicans had the same system in a similarly tight race with McCain leading. Hannity and Limbaugh would be saying that the GOP superdelegates have an obligation by principle to go against McCain.
-
Rules are rules
Rules are rules.
1) The superdelegates may be undemocratic, but they're part of the rules this year. They're free agents who can do what they wish.
2) Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates, and all candidates agreed to that fact and no one campaigned in those states.
That said, putting moral pressure on the superdelegates to reflect the will of their constituencies or to ratify the pledged delegate winner, is NOT the same thing as trying to change the rules.
On the other hand, trying to seat Michigan and Florida delegates after everyone has agreed that they wouldn't be seated, that is obviously trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. In fact, it's cheating, and, more than anything else, more even than the possibility of superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates, would rip the Democratic party apart.