Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
Even though it’s likely that the Super-delegates will ultimately support the nominee the public chose during the primary and caucus process, the whole Super-delegate thing seems a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?
Rory Marinich
on 04 Feb 08The Democratic Party isn’t the most democratic thing we could get. Sigh.
Beerzie
on 05 Feb 08Maybe they are part of the Fantastic Four?
Rick Klau
on 05 Feb 08Hey Jason – Thought you would be interested in a wiki I started last week to address this:
http://www.superdelegates.org/
It’s a collaborative wiki, aimed at identifying who the delegates are and who (if anyone) they’ve endorsed. A little more background on the wiki is here.
Would love some help to flesh it out…
Jay
on 05 Feb 08The thing is, they’re not choosing who will be in public office—they’re choosing who will run for public office. We could start the Rails party and decide which of us would be the official candidate of our party using Rock Paper Scissors. We’re allowed to choose between ourselves which of us will be the guy, and that’s all that’s really happening here.
Except that we live in a two-party system, and even if we did start the Rails party, or the Green party, or the Bull Moose party, our guy wouldn’t get elected because the Democratic party and Republican party are so entrenched. I think the problem has more to do with this and less to do with the internal mechanisms of each party.
Hank
on 05 Feb 08The United States is not a democracy, it’s a representative republic. There is a big difference.
Plus, the nominations are a political party event. The parties set the rules, not the government.
Anonymous Coward
on 05 Feb 08Hank that is true, but super-delegates aren’t representatives of the people. They are party leaders and hand-picked party loyalists.
Neil Kelty
on 05 Feb 08Hank,
You hit the nail on the head. The nominations are a party event. We could decide our nomination by setting you up in an arena and having a wrestling match to decide the winner.
I’m still a little miffed though about the government paying for these elections, but the parties making the rules? Where is the sense in that?
Peter Cooper
on 05 Feb 08In the United Kingdom, the populace has no control over who the political parties chose to represent in each area at all, let alone who actually stands for Prime Minister. Indeed, the populace doesn’t get to vote on who even becomes Prime Minister at all!
Terry Howard
on 05 Feb 08It seems we all agree that the Republicans and Democrats are all a bunch of crooks who play on our desires of freedom, prosperity, security and having a say in our governance merely so they can retain powers. So why do we continue to not have the balls to vote for someone else. The fact is, we DON’T have a two party system, the media just refuses to acknowledge it.
Every year there are candidates from multiple parties out there but they don’t get invited to debates and they don’t get any attention in the press. Vote Green, Liberterian or something if you like, no one is making you pull a lever for a Dem or Rep. We keep complaining about not having a choice between the two main parties, but it’s only because we don’t make a choice against them, ever.
Luigi Montanez
on 05 Feb 08That article is an oversimplification of how the whole thing works. To get the best handle on the topic, I suggest reading this post:
Superdelegates are People too
and scroll down to read Jenny Greenleaf’s comment (a superdelegate).
As stated, most superdelegates are actually elected (either by the voters if they’re in Congress or a Governor, by their state parties if they’re a DNC committee member, by their peers in a Democratic organization, etc.).
Also, voters don’t vote directly for candidates anyway. That vote you cast tomorrow for Barack Obama won’t be for Obama, but for a delegate who has pledged to vote for Obama at the Democratic Convention. Now here’s the crazy part: once chosen, delegates (both super or not) are free to change their mind if they damn well please. So the whole delegate system (not just superdelegates) is not democratic at all, it’s representative, as mentioned above.
Dave
on 05 Feb 08Jay – you hit the nail on the head. I too used to think that super-delegates were “undemocratic”. But, like you said, the parties just decide who will run for office.
There’s nothing in our constitution that imposes democracy on the DNC. Just like there’s nothing in our constitution that imposes democracy on private corporations.
But correct, super-delegates don’t fit with the ideals of our constitutional democracy…but then again neither do any of the Democratic candidates :)
Anonymous Coward
on 05 Feb 08There’s nothing in our constitution that imposes democracy on the DNC . Just like there’s nothing in our constitution that imposes democracy on private corporations.
Of course not, but then why have primaries anyway? If it’s ultimately not about the people’s vote, why have them vote?
Dave
on 05 Feb 08@AC why have primaries anyway? If it’s ultimately not about the people’s vote, why have them vote?
It’s great to point out issues with the current system like the original post does. However, why resort to whining and rhetoric?
You don’t like rules that Democratic National Committee authored, voted on, and eventually approved? Then join the DNC. Join your state’s Dem party. The rules that you’re whining about are the people’s vote – people who are members of the DNC.
The Democratic candidate is determined 100% by delegates elected to the Democratic National Convention. 60% of those delegates are determined by the people’s vote, 40% by super-delegates.
Don’t like it? Join the DNC; or vote Republican (where super-delegates only make up 10% of the majority needed for a nomination); or vote Libertarian.
Fabio Papa
on 05 Feb 08Now I’m not American (unfortunately, yet)—and if I were I’d be a republican, but this seems to me to be a little bit like the electoral college during your elections. Until I understood the electoral college system, I was against it, but now that I get it I love it.
I don’t get this super-duper-delegate thing, but I’m sure that if people were to read up on it and find out why its done that way, there’d be a very logical explanation. Maybe not one that everyone agrees with, but logical none the less.
Anyways, there are far better reasons not be be a democrat than this. ;)
dusoft
on 05 Feb 08The whole indirect voting for president seems too much undemocractic, huh?
Kevin
on 05 Feb 08Why do you “get” the electoral college, Fabio? If it were a council of eldermen, it would make sense, albeit undemocratic. If it was a body that directly reflected the will of the electorate, it too would make some sense. Right now, it is neither. It’s a vestigial organ that distorts democracy while allowing no other advantage over a straight popular vote.
Superdelegates are rather insignificant compared to the electoral college. Afterall, if there was no electoral college, there would be no President George W. Bush.
Erik
on 05 Feb 08Super-Delegates are the result of a compromise. When The Democrats decided to go with proportional representation during the Primary Process( which weakens the state politcal machines and the need for National Candidates to cater to the Sates Political Bosses), they had to give some power concessions to the Political Bosses. So they gave state Political Bosses Super Delegate power. Hopefully we will soon go to Proportional voting during the general election too.
David Andersen
on 05 Feb 08“It’s a vestigial organ that distorts democracy while allowing no other advantage over a straight popular vote.”
The U.S. is not a democracy so there is no democracy to distort.
You need to read more about the Electoral College.
Kevin
on 05 Feb 08Well, thank you professor for your reading assignment but may I ask a question: If democracy is not the point of the electoral college, then what is? This is a design blog—tell me how exactly the electoral college is good design? Why does it need to go through the twists it goes through to select a leader?
And you’re wrong, the US is not a democracy nor a representative republic. It’s both, contradictions and all.
Dave
on 06 Feb 08@Kevin
The Electoral College is a brilliant design.
The framers of the constitution wanted to preserve power and decision making at the state level. The constitution names a few powers granted to the federal government and assumes all other power stays at the state level. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that any power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved to the States or the people.
The Electoral College promotes a powerful autonomous federation of States. As the Constitution is written, all real decision making is made by the House and Senate – both of whom are elected by a popular vote.
As the federal government grows people misdirect their anger and frustration to the Electoral College. However, if we correctly followed the Constitution the President’s role would be extremely limited. Throughout the Constitution, there are references to House and Senate checks on the President’s power.
If the Federal Government keeps growing (federal health care, federal income tax, attacking nations without Congressional declaration of war, federal mandates on education, etc.) of course the Electoral College looks bad. But most of those issues (education, taxation, health) SHOULD be state issues where the state leaders ARE elected by popular vote.
As the Constitution is written the President should have a very limited role in a very limited Federal Government. In 2008, just because this is no longer true, doesn’t mean that the Electoral College is a bad design.
Steven
on 06 Feb 08Hi, I’m from the UK with no prior knowledge of any politics whatsoever, period. I’ve been looking for a website/resource to give me the latest news and updates by RSS but I don’t know which one to choose.
Is there any one that you can recommend?
Steven
on 06 Feb 08Please email me at [email protected].
Ismael
on 06 Feb 08The whole delegates system seems a bit undemocratic, me thinks.
Terry Howard
on 07 Feb 08On the electoral college, and this is a concept most of us were explained in elementary school but didn’t pay attention or just forgot… If we didn’t have the system in place the president would be decided between just a few large population centers which would be unfair to giant swaths of Americana that choose not to live on top of eachother. Unless you lived in a major metro area your opinions and issues would be irrelevant.
Darrell
on 09 Feb 08It certainly is undemocratic, and I think regardless of the outcome, the Democrats are going to be in a lot of trouble over it. After all, the base is going to pretty upset that there votes can pretty much be invalidated by an almost unknown group of elderly wisemen or something of the sort who may or may not be elected (I do believe one of the super delegates is no more than a blogger) and I think that in the end of the day, the Democratic party is going to be forced to reform the primary system and probably do away with, or cut down on the power of the Super Delegates. Ultimately, I think this may be the thorn that could undue the democrats. What they had going for them was the huge voter turn out that Hillary and Obama were able to bring out. Now if the voters see the dismissal of either of the two candidates as unfair, the democrats could have alienated probably 20-30% of their base. However, I think that where going to see an effort by the Democrats to try and wrap this up quick. No need to upset the base unnecessarily. That means start seeing more big name endorsements, though this election year, I don’t really think that they mean much of anything.
ysw
on 09 Feb 08how would you like to be living in Ohio under water, or better yet Under 15 feet of snow. Contrary to popular belief, that is why we have electoral college. To ensure that our federal system does not leave any one state behind.
Chris Stampolis
on 10 Feb 08Hello all. I serve as a member of the Democratic National Committee, elected from California. Serving as a DNC member means I also serve as a “superdelegate” to the national convention in Denver. With all the discussion lately about superdelegates, I may design a big “S” to wear on my chest. :-)
Some quick thoughts about “Superdelegates.” First off, I believe everyone has a right to lobby any superdelegate. We’re public officials, not some quietly chosen folks hiding in a back room. Please invite us to dialogue as you see fit.
1) All Democratic members of Congress get national convention votes. I guess if we removed these votes from the Superdelegate category, all those Congressmembers could compete for “regular” delegate spots at local choosing caucuses, where they most likely would displace local activists, but I have heard few folks complain that members of Congress get to attend the national convention as voting members.
2) All Democratic Governors get votes at the national Democratic convention. Again, I have heard few objections to enfranchising these folks.
3) All State Party chairs and First Vice-Chairs get national convention votes. I have heard few objections that these state party leaders automatically get national convention voting status. Every state party chair and state party first vice-chair are elected through an open process to which any committed Democrat can participate.
4) Then, the national convention also sits “special” category folks like past U.S. Presidents (Carter and Clinton), former DNC Chairmen, etc.
5) Finally, the rest of the DNC members also get seated at the national convention. In many states, it’s simply one woman and one man, both elected through a public system to which activist Democrats are invited to participate. In California, our state is large enough that we get 19 elected DNC members (9 men, 9 women and whoever finishes 19th in the voting). Generally about 100 people run for these positions. Additionally, there are a handful of “at-large” delegates nominated by the national DNC chairperson and confirmed by the elected DNC members. The Republicans limit each state to just 1 and 1 , but we Democrats respect state populations and allocate DNC members accordingly.
Ultimately, the only time the Superdelegates’ votes come into play is when the rest of the country cannot reach a strong consensus on who should be nominated. We have caucus states and we have primary states. While states with caucuses often champion that system, they are inherently not “small d” democratic in the way secret ballot primary states experience. At caucuses, you have to show up in person; you cannot vote absentee; you have to stay for a lengthy period of time; you vote publicly; you can horsetrade votes. As a dad of two young boys, I cannot imagine how my wife and I both reasonably would be able to participate in a caucus system. Think of how many people practically are excluded from caucuses. So, I’m not sure we absolutely can conclude that caucus results represent each state’s “will of the people.”
I sincerely hope Democrats coalesce behind a presumptive nominee prior to Denver. However, if the national results are a virtual tie, I believe it’s reasonable to ask a group of fairly elected representatives to break the tie. Most states expect their city councils, school boards, etc., to fill vacancies by appointment when resignations or deaths occur. This process is similar.
If after 56 primaries our national party does not have a clear Democratic nominee, then I hope Democrats across the country consider the position of “nominee” effectively to be vacant. And, since we blend “caucuses” with “primaries,” we must consider that a cumulative margin of a few pledged delegates will not by itself represent a clear decision, especially if one candidate performed better in caucuses and the other performed better in primaries.
Bottom line: Get to know your state’s DNC members and other superdelegates. We’re all registered Democrats who are actively committed to public service. And, coming out of Colorado in August, the role of Democratic activists across the nation is to ensure our Party nominee wins the fall election. We share a very big country and this is our shared opportunity to shape the future for ourselves and those who follow.
Chris Stampolis, 42, is a second-term DNC member from California who also serves as an elected education board trustee. Chris continues to advocate for grassroots Democratic organizing at the local level, especially through strong, effective, municipally-focused Democratic clubs. He may be reached at [email protected].
Richard Barker
on 10 Feb 08This magnificant country of our is no longer a country represented “By the people – For the People”....We now have, since 1982, a process where the popular vote representing 40 % of the delegates can be offset by the so called Super Delegates….At what point do we say enough is enough? How dare these politicians declare themselves as more inportant/knowledgeable than the voting US Citizen, thus give themselves the right to override the popular vote. This is truly no longer a country “By the People, For the People”
Speaking as a registered democrat I am appaled at the total lack of understanding and support that the American People receive from our so called political leaders and the decisions that the Democratic Senators and Congressmen/women make on our so called behalf….We have our our most prominate democrat elected officials voting against English as the National Language, ammesity for illegal immigrants, Social Security for Illegal Immigrants, etc. etc…..To add to this gross disrespect to the American Public, we have the Super Delegates, which not only suggests, but clearly states that the average American Citizen is not capable of making the right decision on who becomes our next president…...Very sad that this is happening, but even worse that the politicians are getting away with this process.
Jamie Gomez
on 11 Feb 08Many interesting comments have been logged on this topic thus far. Notably above is Chris Stampolis’ comments. As far as I can tell, his points are valid and his facts are straight. I will point out a couple of things in his rhetoric, he writes:
“I sincerely hope Democrats coalesce behind a presumptive nominee prior to Denver. However, if the national results are a virtual tie, I believe it’s reasonable to ask a group of fairly elected representatives to break the tie. Most states expect their city councils, school boards, etc., to fill vacancies by appointment when resignations or deaths occur. This process is similar.”
Wow. I understand that the Democratic Party is not bound in any particular way to the Constitution or even to an particular ideals of “democracy”. However, with the current trend of Obama vs. Clinton – we are staring down the barrel of a “virtual tie”. And so, as Chris says, we will have to rely upon the Super Delegates (and Congress) to decide for us. Just like your local school board. While for some people that may sound reasonable, to me, it is not. So, I will be told, join the DNC and try to change the system (see Dave above). Well, maybe I should. But until I become a super hero and get that job done, this is our system.
So now the question is, what is this debate about? Is it about the unfairness of the Democratic Party’s delegate system? Or is it about the Electoral College System? Or is is something bigger. Jay (above) and others above alluded to a bigger problem. I will not use the term “two-party” system because that is not what we have. In fact, anyone can vote for any party for President. But which parties will receive Federal funding for campaigning? Which parties will receive invitations to nationally televised debates? Which parties, of all the parties that exist, are most likely to have their candidate as the next President of the US?
The internal functions of the DNC are questionable, but that is up to them. What should not be up to the DNC, or any party for that matter, is the ability of other parties (and ideas) to compete for a spot on the ballet (and in our nation’s consciousness, and conscience). Does anyone agree with this? Is this the bigger issue?
This discussion is closed.