[maxiep]

Does their existence offend anyone else? If I were still a member of the Democratic party, I'd be fuming. Is there anything less democratic than these participants in the process? Basically, the powers that be in the party don't trust their members to make the right decision. I think it speaks volumes to their approach to governance: we know better than you what you need.

[crandc]

I'm not a Democrat but my understanding, maxie, is that the superdelegates arose because things can change between primaries and conventions. So someone might win the primary and then events take place in those months that make him/her a bad candidate. In fact they have never overturned the people's choice to date. I think it arose from 1972 when McGovern rode a wave of activism to the nomination but had little support among the party's base and got clobbered.

Maybe a Democrat has more knowledge and can add to this.

At any rate, not my party (and probably not yours) so not my headache!

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by crandc

I'm not a Democrat but my understanding, maxie, is that the superdelegates arose because things can change between primaries and conventions. So someone might win the primary and then events take place in those months that make him/her a bad candidate.

It still seems contradictory to democracy that a small group of people can make the decision that a candidate has become a "bad" candidate after the people have voted.

It is scary to imagine a small group of people overriding the general election and appointing somebody else as president because the small group felt he/she is a "bad" choice.

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

It is scary to imagine a small group of people overriding the general election and appointing somebody else as president

I don't want to relive the 2000 election.

[SodaPopinski]

If it comes down to it and the majority of the superdelegates side with Hillary and the majority of the people side with Obama, I think there will be significant uproar.

Right now, I think the expectation is that Obama will mostly split the primary with Hillary in Pennsylvania. Once that happens, Hillary's chance of winning the majority of the delegates will go down significantly, and many of the superdelegates will switch allegiances to Obama and give him the nomination.

But if Hillary ends up winning 60/40 or something like that, we'll see. I expect Obama to do well in the remaining primaries, but a large victory like that in Pennsylvania could be decisive.

All polls right now are showing it's a statistical dead heat, with a slight edge to Hillary. Not enough for her, IMO.

-Pop

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

If it comes down to it and the majority of the superdelegates side with Hillary and the majority of the people side with Obama, I think there will be significant uproar.

Right now, I think the expectation is that Obama will mostly split the primary with Hillary in Pennsylvania. Once that happens, Hillary's chance of winning the majority of the delegates will go down significantly, and many of the superdelegates will switch allegiances to Obama and give him the nomination.

But if Hillary ends up winning 60/40 or something like that, we'll see. I expect Obama to do well in the remaining primaries, but a large victory like that in Pennsylvania could be decisive.

All polls right now are showing it's a statistical dead heat, with a slight edge to Hillary. Not enough for her, IMO.

-Pop

Well, those are the specifics of this election, which to me are largely irrelevant. Clinton and Obama are pretty much the same candidate. I'm talking a bit more globally. As an American, I find it offensive that one of the two main parties in this country doesn't trust their own membership.

And regarding Stockfire's idea that the 2000 Election was decided by a small group of people, I disagree. It was decided by millions. Those millions that decided they didn't feel like voting. If there was a message from 2000, it's that every vote counts.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by crandc

I'm not a Democrat but my understanding, maxie, is that the superdelegates arose because things can change between primaries and conventions. So someone might win the primary and then events take place in those months that make him/her a bad candidate. In fact they have never overturned the people's choice to date. I think it arose from 1972 when McGovern rode a wave of activism to the nomination but had little support among the party's base and got clobbered.

Maybe a Democrat has more knowledge and can add to this.

At any rate, not my party (and probably not yours) so not my headache!

I largely agree with your recollection of the facts, crandc. And that's what I find so troubling. That a small group of party insiders believe they know better than the masses they claim to represent. If this isn't Animal Farm, ("All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"), then I don't know what is.

I hope this clusterf*ck (I'm sorry, I really can't think of a better word) with the Dems brings real change within the party. I disagree with many of the economic and security platforms of the Party, but a well-functioning and truly democratic Democratic Party benefits the country as a whole. This inside baseball stuff, where promises and bribes will be made, stinks to high heaven. I would hope we've moved past the smoke-filled rooms of the past.

[crandc]

Well, maxiep, since neither of us make the rules for the Democratic Party, it's really up to them to decide how to make their decisions.

I can see extreme situations: people vote for X in February and March, then in July X is charged with a felony. The people would not have voted for him/her had they known. So there should be a chance for a fix.

[mook]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I think it speaks volumes to their approach to governance: we know better than you what you need.

that's probably the most sinister way to spin it. more accurately: "We want to plan for every possible contingency so we'll make up something that's more complicated than it really has to be."

Republicans start with the absolute least amount of rules possible, wait for massive screwups, and implement just enough rules to maybe take care of the problem. Examples: the "surge" coming about three years too late, mortgage crisis, FDA, Katrina, etc.

Democrats start with bloat and fight tooth and nail anyone who suggest slightly reducing it. Examples: trucking regulations, S&L regulations, environmental regulation, OSHA, mandates and timelines in Iraq.

as long as we keep juggling the two we're fine. they tend to counter balance. the big problems arise when you let one party run things for too long.

even though I've voted Democrat most of my life, I'm nervous about life after the elections. it's looking to be a tidal wave of Dems with no balance on the right (except the Supreme Court). too much victory can be a bad thing.

[crandc]

I think this is one of those "mote and beam" questions. IMHO the real lack of democracy is not superdelegates, who except in unusual cases vote the will of their party. The real lack of democracy is no one can run in either of the two "main" parties without tens of millions of dollars. Third parties have increasingly hard times just getting on the ballot and are excluded from campaign debates, even in local elections. The Congress and state legislatures are all or nothing. In most European countries, for example, they have proportional representation so if a party gets 20% of the vote they get 20% or so of the seats in Parliament but in the US only a candidate with 50% + 1 votes gets representation, so even significant minorities are unrepresented. The presidency is also all or nothing. In the past 2 elections it was very clear the country is pretty much split down the middle but there is no power sharing. The Karl Rove strategy was always get 50% of the votes + 1 and then claim a mandate and do whatever you want in office. This would not be possible in most other electoral democracies.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by crandc

I think this is one of those "mote and beam" questions. IMHO the real lack of democracy is not superdelegates, who except in unusual cases vote the will of their party. The real lack of democracy is no one can run in either of the two "main" parties without tens of millions of dollars. Third parties have increasingly hard times just getting on the ballot and are excluded from campaign debates, even in local elections. The Congress and state legislatures are all or nothing. In most European countries, for example, they have proportional representation so if a party gets 20% of the vote they get 20% or so of the seats in Parliament but in the US only a candidate with 50% + 1 votes gets representation, so even significant minorities are unrepresented. The presidency is also all or nothing. In the past 2 elections it was very clear the country is pretty much split down the middle but there is no power sharing. The Karl Rove strategy was always get 50% of the votes + 1 and then claim a mandate and do whatever you want in office. This would not be possible in most other electoral democracies.

I agree completely. The other key concept in (some) European elections, to me, is the run-off. An election poll reduces the candidates to the two strongest and then there's a run-off election with just those two on the ballot. The benefits of this, in my opinion, are that everyone is free to "vote their conscience" in the first vote, without having to fear that it means "throwing away their votes." If one applies this logic to the 2000 elections, everyone who liked Nader more than Gore or Bush, could have voted for Nader. He clearly wouldn't have outpolled Bush and Gore, but it would have shown representative support for him. Then, in the run-off between Bush and Gore, Nader's backers could have voted the "lesser evil" candidate to them. Allowing all the candidates to get their representative support should lead to third party candidates getting stronger over time, as their votes aren't continually sucked away by major party candidates.

[maxiep]

We basically have the same choice as those "enlightened" European parlimentary systems. Don't forget, they have 100% party unity. You vote the party line. Period.

In lieu of several different parties where you have narrow interests that vote in absolute lockstep, we have two "big tent" parties where party discipline is comparatively lax. These are parties where Nancy Pelosi and Joe Lieberman are both Democrats and Olympia Snow and Duncan Hunter are both Republicans. One party is left of center, the other is right of center. It ensures a system that isn't held hostage by the extreme fringes, which is what happens in parliamentary elections when you need to form a coalition.

In any election, you have to energize the base in the primary, which generally sits at the fringe. In the general, you have to capture the middle. It ensures stability versus massive swings one way or another. We're too important to the rest of the planet to run ourselves like Italy.

But, let's get back on topic. What I don't like about the superdelegates is that the power of the masses are being controlled by those people appointed to make the "responsible" decision. It smacks of the ugliest kind of paternalism. Why aren't Democrats enraged by what's going on in their own party?

[e_blazer1]

I know that there are less of them, but is there any significant difference between the Republicans' unpledged delegates and the Democrats' superdelegates?