Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates

[IndianaGreen]

Keeping superdelegates is an insurance policy against any rank-and-file insurgency. Remember how Hillary tried to used superdelegates to subvert the popular will? Now the tables are turned! Not democratic at all! BTW, the GOP has no superdelegates, and they are the fascist party.

Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates

A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback.

by Colin Woodard
August 02, 2010

Before 2008, your average American might not have known what a Democratic Party superdelegate was. But that year these mysterious party insiders became a feature of the daily news cycle as the fierce presidential-primary battle swept across the country. In a neck-and-neck race, the party confronted the very real possibility that these unelected delegates to its national convention might support Hillary Clinton in sufficient numbers to give her the nomination, despite Barack Obama’s slim but indisputable lead among pledged delegates, who are assigned by the results of state primaries and caucuses. The prospect of Democratic insiders taking the nomination away from the first African-American to qualify for it threatened to seriously damage party unity, and prompted a move to reform the Democrats’ nomination process.

But recently a party committee quietly tossed out a plan to take nominating power away from the superdelegates—former presidents, current senators and Congress members, members of the Democratic National Committee, and other party luminaries such as labor leaders. The superdelegates currently have automatic seats at the convention and are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they please.

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary.

<snip>

But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week.

“That’s going to be disappointing for a number of grassroots delegates across the country who worked very hard on this,” said one commissioner, Rebecca Prozan, an assistant district attorney in San Francisco. “We need to make sure that the candidates are out convincing voters in the cornfields of Iowa, the South, and Latino communities in Arizona, not spending time convincing superdelegates.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/democratic-party-to-keep-controversial-superdelegates.html

[ixion]

1. K/R Superdelagates?

How about We, the People?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Locking in established blue dog democratic candidates indefinitely.

We'll never have a remotely progressive candidate with superdelegates.

[Recursion]

3. The argument is that it's to avoid another McGovern, but...

...the first use of them gave us Mondale. Six of one...

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I don't anticipate another "McGovern". I'd be happy with Alan Grayson.

Dennis Kucinich is "too pure" for the homogeny of the Party, although I'd like to see his ideas considered periodically.

[yellowcanine]

9. I had no problem with McGovern. There was no need to change.

The only Democrats who had a problem with McGovern were party bigwigs who did not get their way because the people had their say - in other words, democracy happened.

[Recursion]

10. Err.. some elements of the party like to win elections

Or at least get more than 3 electoral votes.

Now, like I said, Mondale's performance undermines that argument severely, but the purpose behind the superdelegates was to keep the base from nominating someone unelectable.

[yellowcanine]

13. Having lost in 1968, 1972 was pretty much a done deal.

Truth is, it was highly unlikely that any Democrat was going to win, it is debatable as to whether any other Democrat would have done significantly better. As it turns out, history vindicated the McGovern platform in 1972.

[Jim Sagle]

17. That was the STATED purpose. The real purpose was to shut the base down. Which it has.

[Citizen Worker]

6. Exactly. And this also makes it impossible for working class people to

take control of the party apparatus. With this decision it should be apparent to all that we are in desperate need of second political party. Business Party 1 and Business Party 2 are quite content with the status quo.

[Bitwit1234]

4. Of course, cause that gives them control over who is chosen

as the Democratic candidate. I don't know why we have primaries if they are going to be the last word. And while we are at it..CAUCUS IN STATES instead of voting at the ballot box should go. It has outlived it's time.

[suzie]

7. Since your average superdelegate is usually an elected official or a former

elected official, they are probably much more in touch with the actual electorate than many of the issue group "party insiders".

Many of whom are political groupies that have no desire in ever submitting themselves to the electorate in any kind of local/state/national election. They are content to spend their time in party politics, getting elected or appointed to positions of power with the party. And trying to put forward their ideas/ideology, however out of touch that may be with the actual electorate.

The nomination of delegates process within the Party is far from democratic and is usually managed by these not-ever-interested-in-getting-elected party insiders, who seem to spend most of their time trying to figure out how to put forward candidates that have absolutely no chance of ever getting elected to anything.

"Grassrooots delegates" - what a joke. These people usually hate the actual electorate. I love the quote from the non-elected ADA in San Francisco, explaining about what candidates should be doing.

There was a good reason for incorporating superdelegates. Perhaps their numbers should be limited to elected officials.

I know that would offend many party insiders who look at anyone who actually runs for office with utmost disdain and contempt.

[yellowcanine]

8. That isn't the point., The point is superdelegates are undemocratic.

Either we practice democracy or we don't. This half and half crap is bogus. Every state should have a primary or a caucus and the delegates should be won according to the proportion of the vote won. The candidate who wins the majority of the delegates gets the nomination. This would go a long way toward restoring people's faith in politics and the political parties.

Also, in my experience, most "party insiders" are or have been elected officials. So I don't get your distinction.

[suzie]

11. The least democratic process that I've ever seen is the way that regular delegates

are selected.

The process of selecting them is manipulated in the most incredible way by those not-interested-in-running-for-public-office-themselves party insiders at the state level--last I looked, delegates were selected at the state level.

These people spend all the time between elections rewriting the rules so they can see that their delegates are selected the next time, or that their chosen candidate has the inside track.

Very few of the "party insiders" at the state level are elected officials as far as I've seen. Elected officials are usually out doing real stuff, instead of sitting in endless meetings talking about political party rules.

As far as I've seen, elected officials are far more inclined toward democratic actions than the political groupies that hang out year in and year out reworking the Party rules.

People's faith in politics would be completely and totally destroyed forever if they knew much about the workings of political parties and the kinds of groupies that have only disdain for both the electorate and the officials selected by the electorate.

[yellowcanine]

12. State Committees are usually elected though. The fact is, not many people want to

stand for election to the state party committees so you are left with what you are calling "party insiders." Anyway, regardless of how the rules may be manipulated, any process where primary voters have a say in the selection of candidates is inherently more democratic than super delegates. I would also argue that the prospects for insider deals, etc. is enhanced by super delegates. That is exactly why they were invented after the 1972 election - so that never again would the party nominee be entirely done by the actual primary voters. Well I voted in the Democratic Party primary in 1972 and I voted for McGovern. And I resent the fact that the Democratic INSIDERS changed the rules so that my vote would never again count as much as it did in 1972. Shame on them. And yes, many of those insiders who changed the rules were elected officials - why do you think that a big block of super delegates are elected officials - many got shut out in 1972 by the Democratic primary voters and they did not like it one bit.

[suzie]

14. State committees are elected by the same group of political groupies that

make up the Party structure. And they come up with rules that apportion delegates in all sorts of ways that I would consider far less than "democratic".

That's when they're not sabotaging legitimate candidates for office with their endless manipulations. As far I could see, these party insiders care far less than elected officials about democracy and are always more than willing to destroy a very popular and electable candidate because they don't like them or the candidate disagrees with--or doesn't cater enough to--their single issue stances.

I too voted for and worked for George McGovern, who was an honorable and respectable guy--and one of the worst political candidates that I've ever seen. And that was my frank opinion way back in 1972 when I saw McGovern on the campaign trail.

What you and many others seem to ignore, in your disdain and contempt for elected officials, is that elections are about getting more of your side out to vote than the other side on election day. Elected officials generally have groups that have supported them who can help with that process.

Shame on those of you who would rather lose every election to Republicans than include those who have a pretty big stake in getting Democrats elected, and who know something about it since they've done it, and who have actually faced the electorate and might have some understanding of who's electable.

Shame on those who would substitute the judgment of people who would never chance getting defeated themselves for that of the electorate or people who've been elected. Because the finagling of the rules to allow political groupies to be the kingmakers rather than elected officials is the least democratic thing I've ever seen.

[yellowcanine]

15. "Shame on those of you that would rather..." Cartoon much?

I'll speak for myself, thank you. You don't know what I would rather do. Do you always debate both sides?

[yellowcanine]

16. State committees are elected by the party members who vote.

If more party members voted in all elections, not just the general Presidential election every 4 years, it would not be such a small group electing the state committees. By your definition anyone who bothers to vote in a primary election and in off year elections is a "political groupie."