Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

In Defense of the Superdelegates

February 13, 2008 By Christopher

Why is it assumed that this process must be directly and absolutely democratic?  We’ve come a long way from smoke-filled rooms, but you wouldn’t know it from some of the complaining I’ve heard, first about caucuses and now about superdelegates.  To me it makes sense the DNC members and members of Congress have their own seats at convention, just as DSC members and legislators are automatic delegates to our state conventions.  This is simply a method of checks and balances to allow both activists and regular voters to gave a say.

Both Clinton and Obama have their share of superdelegates who have publicly endorsed them.  Even if all superdelegates were with one candidate it would not be enough to overturn a clear voter mandate.  In the case of Senators who are superdelegates, they are also colleagues of both and frankly probably do have more, or at least different, insight than the rest of us as to who would be a good President.  Keep in mind that the members of Congress and Governors are themselves elected by the people and DNC members are elected by the DSCs who are elected by the people.  These people should be prepared to explain their votes, but they should vote their consciences.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: convention, national, primaries

Comments

  1. freshayer says

    February 14, 2008 at 8:04 am

    This is simply a method of checks and balances to allow both activists and regular voters to gave a say.

    <

    p>

    Keep in mind that the members of Congress and Governors are themselves elected by the people and DNC members are elected by the DSCs who are elected by the people.  These people should be prepared to explain their votes, but they should vote their consciences.  

    <

    p>…define the problem and does not justify it. It is supposed to be a system of representational government where we voters have the say and from hanging chad’s to caucus’s dominated by party activists to (GOP) winner take all vs. proportional (Dem’s but still 20% of the delegates are super delegates not beholden to the will of the voters who elected them in deciding who gets elected) to the electoral college itself the system is broken and needs fixing not justifying why the broken pieces somehow add up to it working.

    • bob-neer says

      February 14, 2008 at 10:21 am

      The superdelegates are a legacy of the back room dealing that characterized the Democratic Party for much of its existence. They are part of the same tragic political family as indirect elections of Senators and the President (as originally drafted in our Constitution) and laws that prevented women and various minorities from voting in the past (and indeed at present, in some cases). All of these rules give an edge to unelected insiders at the expense of regular voters. What’s the point of having caucuses and primaries if in the end the insiders make the call.

  2. afertig says

    February 14, 2008 at 10:41 am

    And people more familiar with the history or who lived through it can please correct me if I’m factually inaccurate.

    <

    p>In 1968, a year of tumult by any standard, President Johnson stepped out of the race for his re-election very suddenly, and after the New Hampshire primary. This allowed Hubert Humphrey to set himself up as the establishment candidate at the convention, even though he did not participate in a good deal of the campaign. Humphrey lost that election for a whole host of reasons, but one thing was clear: the party needed a more open and perhaps more democratic way of picking our candidate.

    <

    p>So before the election of 1972, Democrats adopted some major reforms of the McGovern-Fraser commission including:

    • Any candidate receiving over 15% of the vote should receive that % of the delegates.
    • Half of the delegation was to be female (gender parity)
    • There was an emphasis of primaries over caucuses, the former a creation of the Progressive era push to minimize the power of party bosses, incidentally.
    • There was a degree to which the party encouraged minorities to go to the convention. If I’m not mistaken, between 1968 and 1972 minority representation practically doubled to 15% or so.

    But who did we get? We got a really, really horrible candidate who also lost for a plethora of reasons. This yielded another series of reforms, which is where super-delegates come in.

    <

    p>The superdelegates were designed to be 20% of the delegation who are party leaders (read: establishment). This gives the establishment the opportunity to block a populist, far left candidate who might do well in primary races, but not well in the general election. In other words, the whole reason for their existence is to be inherently undemocratic–to thwart the will of the people who show up at primaries and caucuses and actually vote.

    <

    p>Now, we can have different philosophies about whether this is a good or a bad thing, but DFA’s claim that, “if super-delegates don’t like who you choose to be our nominee, they can overturn your vote,” may be entirely accurate, especially in a very, very, very close election like the one we’re having today.

    <

    p>You raise a very interesting question:

    Why is it assumed that this process must be directly and absolutely democratic?

    And the answer is simple. Because most people view a fair system with the one that is most closely associated as a maximally democratic system. You may disagree, but I think we can agree that most people, certainly most Democrats, hold that opinion. And if you view, as I do, justice as essentially fairness (see: Rawls), then the most democratic system is the must just system, and I hope we’re all working for a just system. Why is a more democratic system more fair and just? Because it gives more people a say in the process and it’s more open.

    • christopher says

      February 14, 2008 at 4:44 pm

      The whole McGovern-Fraser Commission part matches my understanding.  It is also my understanding that superdelegates were added in part to remove them from the equation of elected delegates.  If we did not give them automatic seats many would seek elected seats.  With their inherently better connections those who sought seats would probably get them and thus diminish even further the ability of the rank and file to participate.  True, there is definitely philosophical difference here.  While I am a Democrat (capital D) in terms of public policy, I tend to be a republican (small r) when it comes to governing philosophy.  Finally you say, “This gives the establishment the opportunity to block a populist, far left candidate who might do well in primary races, but not well in the general election.”  Isn’t that precisely the point?  A far-left dream candidate will be absolutely worthless if s/he can’t win the general anyway.

      • afertig says

        February 14, 2008 at 7:41 pm

        In 2008, I think it’s safe to say, though, that the super-delegates aren’t functioning in that role. They’re not acting as goalies to reign in a progressive choice (and it seems we disagree about whether they should even do that), since both candidates are remarkably close on most important issues — though I prefer Obama in part because of his stance on open government and his opposition to the war in Iraq.

        <

        p>If the point of a super-delegate is to simply tend to the middle, then it’s not clear to me that they should have the immense power that they potentially wield should the race be as close as is projected.

        <

        p>A note also about your “small r governing policy”: we’re not governing here, or even electing to govern here. We’re electing a candidate to compete in a general election who will then govern (we hope). I don’t really see why representation/smaller choice of decision-makers would be a better system than a maximal egalitarian system, other than the “reigning in the left,” argument which as I said simply isn’t relevant to this case.

        • christopher says

          February 14, 2008 at 10:32 pm

          It’s a combination of voters and party officials, both of which deserve a say in the process.  I agree they are not necessarily reigning in the extreme in this case.  As to the philosophy I meant governing any kind of institution including a party, not just public government.

  3. hoyapaul says

    February 14, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    And I think the DFA is off-base here as well. What vote is there to “overturn” anyway? The race is still basically a tie (which may change in the next few days/weeks, but right now it’s essentially a tie) nearly any way you cut it. Both camps knew the rules going in, and so they knew that a certain number of the delegates they might need to get to 2025 were superdelegates. So I don’t see the “overturn the vote” argument here.

    <

    p>It’s also worth remembering that the United States is the only country with such an extensive primary system (indeed, most have no primary system whatsoever). So clearly democracy does not require primaries at all, yet we do — and the superdelegates are only a minor check on the system. So the claim that our primary system is not democratic seems crazy to me, when one considers the comparative perspective.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022I joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022That’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

activate_media Activate Media @activate_media ·
52m

9PM ET The Big Picture w/Melvin Syrie, Jr.
5 KKKops who look like us take the life of another Brother
Activate Radio http://activatemedia.org
#boston #cambridge #dorchester #mattapan #roxbury #jp #lowell #worcester #fallriver #springfield #bospoli #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1621685978128588802 Retweet on Twitter 1621685978128588802 Like on Twitter 1621685978128588802 Twitter 1621685978128588802
teambrandy617 Brandy Fluker Oakley @teambrandy617 ·
56m

Stay warm this weekend! The @CityofBoston is activating BCYF facilities as warming centers today and tomorrow. Here are locations near the 12th Suffolk, and you can find a full list of BCYF facilities and hours at http://bit.ly/BCYFWarming #MApoli #Bospoli

Reply on Twitter 1621685089489850369 Retweet on Twitter 1621685089489850369 Like on Twitter 1621685089489850369 Twitter 1621685089489850369
activate_media Activate Media @activate_media ·
1h

TODAY AT 9 PM
Eastcoast Underground – Dig Deep
ZuZu · Cambridge https://buff.ly/3l3nuax
#boston #cambridge #dorchester #mattapan #roxbury #jp #lowell #worcester #fallriver #springfield #bospoli #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1621682959341191169 Retweet on Twitter 1621682959341191169 Like on Twitter 1621682959341191169 Twitter 1621682959341191169
salemsafe SAFE @salemsafe ·
1h

Salem needs affordable housing. Support Immediate Needs Bill #mapoli @MannyCruz_MA @SenJoanLovely @LwvSalem @KimDriscollMA

Kim Driscoll @KimDriscollMA

Increasing housing supply is a top priority. The Healey-Driscoll administration is proud to have filed the Immediate Needs Bill to ensure the core capital programs that support these objectives are sufficiently funded and continue to operate. #mapoli https://www.masslive.com/politics/2023/01/mass-housing-crisis-gov-maura-healey-files-new-executive-order.html

Reply on Twitter 1621682908334534657 Retweet on Twitter 1621682908334534657 Like on Twitter 1621682908334534657 Twitter 1621682908334534657
mainenewshound mainenewshound @mainenewshound ·
1h

📛📛📛 MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS BREAKING:
EXPLOSIONS OVER MONTANA
SPY BALLON OVER LATIN AMERICA
REPORTS OF A 3RD CHINESE SPY BALLOON .....ADSB EXTREMELY BUSY
#mepolitics #breaking #breakingnews #mapoli #nhpolitics
WATCH NEWS IN REAL TIME LIVE HERE: https://www.twitch.tv/texasnewsstudiotv

Reply on Twitter 1621677754180665346 Retweet on Twitter 1621677754180665346 1 Like on Twitter 1621677754180665346 3 Twitter 1621677754180665346
daralynheywood DaralynHeywood @daralynheywood ·
1h

Did "W" lose it with another Fed?
Isnt he busy counting stoplight intervals at Nantasket Beach or tittle-tattling on troopers' GPS if they leave their house at 7:03 am ???
Did he "interfere"? Asking for a friend. #mapoli @MSPTroopers @dmb1031 @TheRedWhine

Howie Carr @HowieCarrShow

BREAKING:

New @MassStatePolice scandal?

Word is feds -- Homeland Security -- have served warrants at @MassRMV hdqs in Quincy in probe of commercial drivers' licenses, illegals.

MSP brass angry they didn't get heads up, had verbal confrontation w/feds.

DEVELOPING

#mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1621677733020319745 Retweet on Twitter 1621677733020319745 1 Like on Twitter 1621677733020319745 2 Twitter 1621677733020319745
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2023 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.