With the campaigns for the Democratic nomination running so closely, the media and party activists have begun to focus on how some 796 "superdelegates" will cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention in August. The numbers are key. There are 4,049 total delegate votes total. A candidate needs 2,025 to secure the nomination. Of those delegates, superdelegates count for about one-fifth of the votes at the convention.
Now, what exactly is a "superdelegate"? The technical term under party rules is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates." Unlike the vast majority of convention delegates, the superdelegates are seated automatically. They include all Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, city council members, and state party officials. And they are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
Only the Democratic Party has such a system, and then only in its present form since 1980. The purpose of the system was and remains to give a greater say in the process to party leaders. Walter Shapiro, who wrote "A non-paranoid's guide to superdelegates" for Salon, quotes former House Democratic Caucus chairman Gillis Long, who argued before the DNC reform commission in 1981, "We in the House, as the last vestige of Democratic control at the national level, believe we have a special responsibility to develop new innovative approaches that respond to our party's constituencies." (For a details about the superdelegate and why it exists, see Harvard lecturer Elaine Kamarck's A History of 'Super-Delegates' in the Democratic Party. Kamarck is herself a superdelegate.)
There is no rule saying that superdelegates must back the candidate with the most pledged delegates or greatest share of the popular vote. It's possible that Barack Obama could arrive at the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, only to lose the nomination if the superdelegates vote for Hillary Clinton. Something similar happened in 1984, when Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado challenged Democratic front-runner Walter Mondale. Hart won 16 states and caucuses over Mondale's 10, and trailed slightly in the overall popular vote. But Mondale had the support of nearly all of the party's 700 superdelegates, which guaranteed Hart's defeat.
So, superdelegates exist to elect the Democratic Party establishment favorite... truth or not?
Thoughts
Or, as in this case
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by John 2000... to prevent a hostile take-over bid. The added difficulty with this season's particular bid is the overbearing weight of the captive black vote.
... thus, as usual, 'establishment' democrats have created a better self-trapping rat trap, and the gerbils are spinning them round and round.
Operation Chaos
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by Minuteman CAIsn't it great to watch the Dem's implode? I love that the concept of splitting every state's votes has left them fighting each other well into May. This is incredible considering how bad the Bush legacy is. I thought they had the White House practically handed to them, but no..they decided to have the road to the convention play out as the next sequel to DUMB AND DUMBER.
Long live operation Chaos. Woohoo.
Maybe McCain will inadvertantly be replaced by a real candidate and this year will actually have something to offer.
"Liberal elitism?"
Submitted on March 14th, 2008 by AnonymousCan you remember how it came to be that McGovern was the candidate? It wasn't that the "people" wanted him, it was that the Republican dirty tricks machine smeared all his opponents.
The "average voter" votes for whoever was nominated by a party or for whoever had the money to get himself listed on a ballot.
The "average voter" is only allowed to help decide who is the nominee because that will get him interested enough in a certain candidate to send money.
Is the concept of a political "party" just to commplex?
Re: Superdelegates
Submitted on March 7th, 2008 by JoelActually, as I understand it, superdelegates were more or less created to make sure that old hands -- like former Vice President Walter Mondale -- could still get into the convention and hobnob without being elected delegates in their own right. Nobody expected they'd ever actually have to decide anything.
That said, I imagine you'll see some rules changes from the party after the election is over. But it's not a good idea to change the rules midstream....
The Democrats are the new
Submitted on March 7th, 2008 by AnonymousThe Democrats are the new fascist enemy of the United States, pure and simple.
Super Delegates
Submitted on March 7th, 2008 by AnonymousThe Democrats don't trust their own voters to do the right thing (according to the way THEY want to see the voting go during the primaries) so they established the Caucus and threw in the Super Delegates for good measure (after McGovern took that licking a way back when).
How ANY reasonable person could call him/herself a Democrat after taking that kind of abuse (from their own party) is beyond me....
My View on it
Submitted on March 4th, 2008 by AnonymousPrimaries are Party Business and taxpayers should not have to pay for them. The delegates alloted to the candidates are only to give guidance to the delegates at the respective National Conventions. There are no laws stating that any delegate has to or even should vote the 'will of the people'. The primaries are a waste of time in which both parties are trying to find the most electable of those in that party that wish to be President. It may even turn out to be someone who so far has not entered the race.
Cheerily
IJK
The So Called "Super Delegates" of the Democratic Party.
Submitted on March 4th, 2008 by AnonymousTherecan be no doubt in anyone's mind that happens to be thinking logically that the existence of such a totally obnoxiuos group in a party that truly representsthe people of America as the Democratic party does is a travesty.
It is truly amazing that such a bunch of prople are affiliated in any way with the Democratic party, especially when the character of the two presidential con tenders are taken into consideration.
Just to start, consider the fact that Hillary Clinton was at the side of the man who had the ultimate power in the United States for four years when very few of the American militaries were lost. One of the so called super delehates is only abot 19 years of age, I sure as hell he studied a little bit about American government when Mrs. Clinton and her husband were running the country in a safe manner. Frank Malone, Sarasota.
Delegates and elections
Submitted on March 4th, 2008 by AnonymousWith the delegates not required to vote the way the people did, followed with the electoral college not having to vote the way the people did, is there any reason for the individual to vote for any presidential candidate? Are the local elections the only place we have any say? Send me back to the u.s. the government for the people, by the people, and of the people!
This is utterly facetious
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by AnonymousThe primary is not a right. Up until very recently, historically speaking, "the people" had absolutely no say in the candidate for any particular party. The only right you have is to vote in the general election. You don't get to pick who gets to run. That would be undemocratic.
Superdelegates
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by AnonymousPrimaries are not a democratic process. Primaries are a time when the Political Party selects its candidate. The Party decides who they will run.. it's not by popular vote. That's the way it's set up... the popular vote comes in November (the General Election).
Thwarting or not this stinks.
Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousHow can they purposely ignore the will of the people. This whole thing smacks of liberal elitism - as if the average voter can't judge for themselves.
Superdelegates
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by ConnieThis is a tough question to answer due to the closeness of the dems race and the nearly equal distribution of superdelegates up to this point. I will have to wait a while longer before commenting on this. I will say that Barack seems to be the better choice, but that's all I can say.
Blacks not backing Obama threatened--Blackmail !
Submitted on February 29th, 2008 by popaj506If the entire black race can legitimately label anyone with "traiter" for differing in opinion as to whom to back then superdelegates formed twenty eight years ago can surely adher to their reason for being. Theirs has always been the promotion and advance of our political party and should remain so.