 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 14, 2008 at 21:16:18
Superdelegates... Bad for Democracy by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Don't like the electoral college and the idea that a president can be elected without a majority? You'll hate the way superdelegates can and will affect the primary election process-- unless you like feudalism. A mea culpa. I've been hearing about superdelegates but hadn't gotten up to speed on them. I just took a leap of information and I'm not happy. 
For starters, people have been saying that so far, with the states that have voted so far, there's only a seven point delegate spread between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
Wrong!!
Throw in the superdelegates, including those from Michigan and Florida and Hillary has 203, Obama has 98 and Edwards has 46. Kucinich has 2.
Changes things, doesn't it?
Ends up that all the members of congress get a vote, DNC members get a vote-- and that adds up to 796 superdelegates-- about 20% of all the delegates available.
Here's a link to a page that tells a whole lot about this, including listing who is committed to who.
So far, about 350 have committed to a candidate. That leaves 440 uncommitted-- about 20% of the number of delegates needed to win.
Here's a link to the current list of un-decideds. Most of them are state bigwigs-- Democratic chairs and co-chairs, union officials... my guess is these are not the most liberal of Democrats.
I can just hear my readers who say the Democratic party is lost and should be given up on.
I have to confess that knowing that regardless of all the effort the candidates put in, a group of 450 individuals have the clout equal to 20% of the tens of millions of voters who will go in earnest to vote in the primaries, many of them not even aware that these superdelegates in their state coul neutralize their votes.
It sucks. It turns the Democratic process into a chimera that hides far too much insider power.
I imagine that gradually, the superdelegates will commit. Who knows what kinds of deals will be made to secure those commitments. Hey, there are a lot of jobs that will need to be filled as all of Bush's "Brownies" are turned out to pasture and pigpen. How do you think the successful presidential candidate will decide on appointing hundreds of people-- merit? Well, maybe for some posts, but I'm going to guess that superdelegates will be in very good position for either jobs or benchmark funding for special projects-- direct or through corporate shells or second hand parties.
Call me a cynic. Superdelegates belong in a feudal system, not a democracy. It's bad enough that we have the electoral college. At least, when we're selecting candidates, special, powerful people should NOT be given special powers and privileges to influence the primary elections. The hell with that idea.
I may be late getting up to speed on this. I may not have the whole picture. I'm willing to be educated and enlightened by anyone willing to go into more detail. But from what I see so far, superdelegates are bad for democracy and they should go. Now, how do we the people take away the influence powerful insiders in the Democratic currently possess?
1 | 2
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 12 comments |
|
Well...
Of course you're right as you often are. But, in the end most of the super delegates end up going for the candidate who wins their state, or who wins the primaries in general. The only time that they could ever be important is in a West Wing season 7 kind of scenario. That's right, you fellow nerds know what I'm talking about. But of course, that can never happen because Aaron Sorkin didn't write it. by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra (32 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM  (0+)
|
|
What's your point?
If the form of government in the United States were a democracy, you'd have a point. But, as it happens, the form of government is a constitutional republic. So, it would appear your complaint lacks foundation. by Steve Fallon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:16:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You're right, of course, about US being a Republic...
... But Rob is correct that the two-party system commits us to a disguised form of modern feudalism. The corporation that's the USA is bankrupt. The only hope for us is to restore the Republic, legalize the Constitutution, and abolish the IRS. If we don't undo corporatism... by shrinking this out-of-control behemoth... the coming economic collapse and shock treatment... may very well be... totalitarianism. Yes, it IS happening here. The evidence is literally overwhelming - and it's too damned blatant to ignore! by bejeezus (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:41:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Unaware Will Doom Us All
Agreed. Those who look only one direction to determine the weather are taken by the storm. by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Democrats always drive the get away car for the crooks.
We need to get rid of delegates altogether and substitute direct voting in its place with one month campaigns devoid of media extortion. Then, the leadership proposed and WE dispose. Republicans and Democrats differ only like Bonnie and Clyde differ. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:43:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Superdelegates - Supervotes - Supernotes
You've just filled me in on a missing link on how The Great Red Dragon really works in today's world. I just explained Supervotes and Supernotes at And you've just explained Superdelegates. That completes the circle of who buys whom, and how it is done. No wonder our representatives don't represent US! Very much appreciated. by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:31:02 PM (0+)
|
|
The Stacked Deck as a Brake on Populism
In part, superdelegates help protect a political party from being compelled to nominate a candidate that is not a member of the party, or at least is not what the leadership of a party accepts as legitimate or “mainstream”. It acts as a check on any populist wave that may occur among the general populace or supporters of a party, which the leadership of a party may oppose. Of course, the members of a party can change the rules of a party; you just have to convince the other members to do so. A party defines the rules under which it operates internally. The courts support this approach and are extremely reluctant to do anything that restricts how a party operates internally. An individual is always free to support the party of their choice or establish a new party. Of course, in a country where two main parties dominate the landscape, and which establish rules and laws at the state and local level which for all practical purposes prevent a third party from easily participating in an election, you can understand why some may feel the system is rigged to a degree. It is certainly not a political game of three-card monte, but the deck is stacked, and it therefore discourages major shifts in the political landscape. by DGallion (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 2:19:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Smoke and Mirrors
No smoke-filled room, but still a convention which may have to sort this out, per Truthouts's explanation. A given: Democratic party has at least 3 major groups. They don't come together in Congress, thus the Pelosi dance. Not noble, but real: someone can be for someone today and change mind in the crunch. Just like the days of Honey Fitz and Boss Crump, and a bunch of other bosses. This time they reside in Washington and try to tell what grassroots are willing to go for. Superdelegates are local leaders and have to give a little credence to their constituencies. Questions: What will the DNC do? What will Senators do since this is infighting between two candidates? How can the also-rans throw their support to a candidate? Without a clear leader (Kerry is seen as history) who will prevail? How much influence does the DLC still have? My effort will be on pressing hard issues. Candidates are going to have to stop waffling. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 9:26:03 AM (0+)
|
|
The monopoly duopoly
You can keep track of all delgates, including the "superdelegates" count at this link: Election Center 2008. Currently, Clinton has nearly a 2.5 to 1 advantage over Obama, for example, yet Obama has one more "pledged delegate" than Clinton. The DNC has already decided for America who will represent the Democratic Party and it is Hillary Clinton. by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 5:21:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Rob, I agree with you to a point....
However, the media is not giving much weight to the super delegates, because they really won't make a difference unless the race is a squeaker. I am thinking this will not be that way... Besides, after the recount in NH, maybe people will start looking differently at Hillary and whether or not she really can win... etc.... Anyway, There is also this nagging court case that may materialize into something.... the case where she was caught on tape directing illegal campaign contributions... Eventually, that will be aired, it is just a matter of where and when.. I am sure the Republicans are itching at the possibility of using that in campaign ads if she does not get arrested first... Just something to think about... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 7:03:29 PM (0+)
|
|
democrates
They said we can not loss this time around because w has distroyed so much. But somehow It appears that the democrates want to loss this time around. by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 7:26:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Too much power
To me, both parties have too much political power. by David666 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 8:16:46 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
