I heard the term superdelegate on Monday's show and had to look it up. Here's a summary from Wikipedia:
In some states, the delegates so chosen are legally required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, at least on the first ballot at the convention. By contrast, the superdelegates are seated based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination, although many of them have publicly announced endorsements.Wiki says that the term usually applies to Democrats, although it seems that Republicans have something similar (usually called unpledged delegates).
About one-fifth of the DNC's delegates are superdelegates at this time. Do I understand this correctly? And if I do, does this practice sound non-democratic to anyone else?
16 comments:
There are actually 796 super delegates in the Democratic Primary race. They normally will vote with the state's choice, but do not have to do so. In fact, if they are pledged now, they can change their allegiance and vote at any time. Wouldn't it be amazing in this close Democratic race if a group of unelected delegates went against the voters will and decided to elect the candidate who had won the popular votes and elected delegates? GS
Correction on last post. My point was that the 796 super delegates would go AGAINST the will of thousands of ELECTED delegates by voting in the one not elected in the overall primary. In essence, you would have an election by 796 people. They include past presidents, senators, party activists, DNC Chairmen and past chairmen, and other party luminaries. GS
Here was info I found on Super vs unpledged delegates in the DNC vs RNC.
There are currently 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, including 3,253 pledged delegates and 796 superdelegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025. There are currently 2,380 total delegates to the Republican National Convention, including 1,917 pledged delegates and 463 unpledged delegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 1,191.
To further expand the dem superdelegates represent 19.4 percent of the total delegates which are not required to vote for a nominee in accordance with what the wishes of the voters werein their respective states.
The non elected unpledged RNC delegates represent 5 percent of the total delegates which are not required to vote per how the voters voted in their states in like manner.
So both parties have delegates that can vote however they want. There are several small differences in the process in its entirety but the major difference is the quantity
I think the idea of 'super delegates' (or anything else similar to it) stinks.
This election more than other in my memory has taught me more about how politics really works and how convoluted our system has become. From primaries set up to choose candidates to the electoral college system itself I'd say we need an overhaul.
Incidently, I'm glad your not just laying around doing nothing while you're home getting over the laryngitis. Ha!
Super delegates seems to be a hold-over from the old smoke-filled back rooms.
It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. On the one hand it is true that some super delegates have voiced their preference to the campaigns. On the other hand some of them reside in states that have already voted in one direction or the other (perhaps opposite of their announced intention).
The elected super delegates will have a hard time sticking to a candidate that their constituents have already rejected. Being politicians I have a feeling their desire to be re-elected will trump any personal loyalties.
The unelected super delegates will be another story.
In the interest of 'fair and balanced' has there been any discussion of Washington state GOP trying to stop counting the ballots after 87%? Huckabee has threatened (or even pursued) legal action to get them to even keep counting. Talk about un-democratic!
Gary?
Gary?
Aren't you sick? Lost your voice?
At least you can get that back, unlike your virginity. :)
The delegate process is an analogue to the electoral college---both seem vestigial.
I listened to the show today, in parts that I could hear between jobs, and I found Michael Geer and his cronies to be really crazy. They're fear-based, homophobic,--just the idea that PA needs a marriage law so that people who aren't both male or both female can't marry one another seems to me to be crazy.
Life is short. Life is preciously short. You look back and it was the blink of an eye. If people are in love with one another, and want to get married, let them.
Who gives a damn what sex they are? Love is in short supply in too many relationships, heterosexual or otherwise. What those homophobic anti-sex religious fanatics are actually saying is that the love homosexual people have for one another is invalid because it doesn't fit the parameters of their concept of love.
That's what they're really saying.
Religious-based control freaks.
Geer and company are nutzo.
That character they interviewed who wrote the book citing Darwin as one of the most dangerous scientists of the last 150 years is also crazy.
(Darwin and Abe Lincoln were both born 199 years ago, celebrated today)
His book describes Darminism as a religion, and says that creationism cannot be taught in public schools but Darwinism is being forced on our young students.
What a jerk!!
I don't mind shoddy thinking now and then, I've been known to engage in it myself, but to conflate religion and science and then claim that one is overriding the other is total bullshit.
Darwin was a scientist.
Darwin was a very careful and thoughtful observer of the natural realm.
What he produced is the concept that natural adaptive changes over time favor utility. If something is no longer serving a function, it will recede genetically. On the other hand, if it is serving a function, it will strengthen over time genetically.
This has nothing to do with the concept of GOD.
God and Science are not beliefs. Science is based on observable and repeatable and predictable results.
Religion is based on faith.
They are not miscible intellectual processes.
Keep them separate.
What a jerk!!!
I hate faulty logic.
I do agree with Geer that families ought to be given higher societal esteem. The strongest formative matrix for a child is a stable relationship between the parents. Anything that strengthens the family ultimately strengthens society. I'd like to see parenting classes mandated for anyone before they get married. As they say, you need a license to have a dog, but anyone can have a child.
Jacque, am I setting myself for abuse by agreeing with you? ;)
I can't agree with you more about about ID. I read a lot, and I understand that I'm not as knowledgeable as everyone, but *everything* I've read about ID leads me to include that the ID crowd is guilty of some horrific logic and a deceitful gameplan.
I'm calling shenanigans on ID. Maybe this should be its own topic sometime so those with opposing viewpoints can discuss it.
You can only agree with others when what they say sympathetically resonates within you, Jay. Either biologically, intellectually, or spiritually there must be an internal resonance or else it is ignored.
That's why we have people in the US endorsing torture -- somewhere within them is the biological urge to cause pain. If that sadistic streak did not exist within them, they would never endorse torture of another living creature. A lot of Americans have that sadistic streak. It is the nature of our primary culture to inculcate meanness towards others as acceptable behavior.
That's why we're the leader in arms sales for the last 60 years. That's why our media is rife with imagery of people hurting one another.
Hell, we don't even attempt to cover it up. Freud said that anything deeply buried in the psyche would eventually emerge, often in a distorted way---this at least explains pornography: anyone who is healthfully sexually discharging pentup energy within them isn't that interested in pornography. People who are unable to discharge that energy are. A lot of the same energy becomes frustrated and angry and gives rise to a desire to inflict pain on others.
It's a strange world we live in.
I did not know of the Gliewitz Incident, or Operation Himmler.
Do you guys?
It was the basis for Hitler's attack on Poland.
A complete fabrication.
Like 9/11.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Gleiwitz+incident
When the militarists want to play soldier they can always find an excuse for their actions.
Always. As long as a sadistic streak exists within their populace. . . . . . . .
"Why, Of course, the people don't want war---why should some slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” (Hermann Goering)
George Bush and Cheney and the rest of them did the exact same thing to Americans ----and the Americans bought it hook, line and sinker because they have a sadistic streak in them.
"That's why we have people in the US endorsing torture -- somewhere within them is the biological urge to cause pain."
I don't think that's fair.
I know a lot of intelligent, reasonable people who disagree with me on issues like capital punishment and torture. But, I can't think of a lot of people in my personal life who disagree because of an evil heart.
We see things differently and while I hope to convince them of my position, I'm usually just happy to reach the point where they understand that there's a reasonable (and even good) argument for the position contrary to their own.
None of us have exactly the same facts, life experience or even time to devote to thought as everyone else. Why would it be surprising in that context that we come to different conclusions about things important to us?
I didn't get to hear very much of the show today, but I am assuming from Jacque's comments that the Marriage Amendment was discussed. I have been opposed to this for a long time because I do not think that we should be able say that other unions are somehow outlawed. We have through history, through religion, and through custom, defined marriage. The problem for society is not that we haven't defined marriage already and all of the benefits derived from it; rather it is that we have not defined the other unions that exist. People of the same sex who have been in love and union for 30 years care little what we think about marriage as society; they only know that their relationship has been a deep and caring one to them. Society needs to respect that in some way including provision for sickness, property, and death. Their union does not threaten mine, nor cheapen the love my wife and I have. The government's role here, it seems to me, is to make sure that our responsible liberties as individuals are guarded and not usurped by the compacts of government we have with each other. GS
I've responded a few of times, but my post hasn't come up the last couple of times. What's the deal?
Fred, flood control or a timeout? I had this problem trying to comment on another blog and it's frustrating.
I know the Blogger software says it can take a few minutes to appear, but it's always been instantaneous so far.
Let me know if you continue to have problems posting comments.
We could easily stick a fork into this gay marriage debate:
Let the State recognize civil unions as a legal contract between two people who choose to make the committment. Let the Church recognize a marriage.
Therefore, all marriages become civil unions in the eyes of the State, but not all civil unions are marriages in the eyes of the Church.
The controversy over gay 'marriage' is a perfect example of the kind of poop we have to deal with when we attempt to mix Church and State. We keep them separate so we can preserve both institutions.
Just a point of clarification. Let's say Ted Kennedy is a superdelgate.(which he may well be) If I understand this correctly, Ol' Teddy gets to vote once in the Massachusetts primary as a citizen and then votes again later as a superdelegate. Is that right? So the ruling class are allowed two votes? Granted, it's only a primary and not the general election but it does seem to fly in the face of "one person, one vote".
On the topic of gay marriage, I agree with Fred. This wouldn't stop the debate about what should be considered a civil union but it would eliminate the emotion that currently exists due to long standing and heart felt religious definitions of what constitutes a marriage.
Well said, Fred.
jim,
I get quite bent about the 4 so-called "hot button" issues that surface every election year and then disappear only to surface again when it's time to choose 'leaders'.
I have a common sense plan to defuse all 4 of them and forever remove them from the national political landscape. You know my attitude toward the 'gay marriage' flap. I'd be glad to address the other 3.........God, guns, and abortion.
Pick one and I'll explain how to remove the issue as a political football once and for all.
Post a Comment