SuperDelegates? Does this strike anyone else as arrogant?

[XOKCowboy]

So who came up with the idea of SuperDelegates? Delegates with a vote in the nomination of our candidate but with no obligation to vote the wishes of their local constituency? They're only SuperDelegates because of what? They're already connected into the current political power scene and somehow know what's best for us peons?

Tell me what I'm missing here. Since when didn't the will of the people stop mattering in even the Democratic primary?

[truedelphi]

1. I only heard about this on Tueday.

The M$M:
Super Tuesday Yada Yada Yada

Other blog sites:
Super Tuesday Yada Yada Yada

Then Tuesday night - oh by the way there is this magic entitiy of SuperDelegates, and the delegates that your vote just helped to choose don't matter al that much

WTF?

And I still have no idea how it allbundles together.

I feel like I am in a Dungeons and Drangons video game where no one explained that behind the peasant warrior lurks an invisible log that spits out Death Rays.

[msongs]

2. yeah makes ya wonder why obama endorses such a system nt

[DJ13]

8. yeah makes ya wonder why obama endorses such a system

Hillary's been in that system longer than him.

[razors edge]

3. When exactly did the will of the people

ever count in anything? Not counting the times they tar and feather the politicians, of coarse.

[pinto]

4. No. "super delegates' run the gamut of elected (D) officials -

Governors, Congress, past Presidents, Vice Presidents, etc.

While they are hotly courted by campaigns, they remain free to throw their convention support to whichever candidate they so choose.

I see your point - they are not directly held by primary/caucus results. But it isn't inherently undemocratic imho.
They are Democratic party members who have held a *publicly elected* office.

And, as a side point, they are not, from what I can see, a monolithic group. Especially not this election season.

[durrrty libby]

5. Blame Ted Kennedy. These were put in place after he made a big

mess running against Carter

[Orangepeel]

6. Most of them are elected Democratic officials

I don't mind that Democrats who have been elected to office have some control over who represents the party as the nominee. I think that there are too many superdelegates -- I'd prefer they be about 10% rather than 20% of delegates.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

7. Superdelegates exist for one reason only

So that the "wiser" people in control of the democratic party can override "bad" decisions by the primary voters.

[Samantha]

9. That's exactly correct

It's a derivative of that argument which kept the framers of the Constitution from formally cementing that document for years: half of the framers thought the people were too stupid to elect a president and the elite among us must do that for them; the other half of the framers thought it was the right of the people to do exactly that, elect its President. The Electoral College is the compromise reached between the disagreeing factions.

MSNBC did the math today and said that one superdelegate's vote will equal 10,000 individual votes from the people. Not all of these superdelegates are who one might think they are -- Senators, DNC people -- some are party activists and members of for instance the Teamsters, the Head of the Teacher's Union. The discussion was amazing, truly.

I do not know how this will end up for our party this year, but if the superdelegates' votes are the determining factor, all hell will break lose among the base. And rightfully so .... People are sick and tired of not having their votes counted, regardless of the reason, but when they realize their own party is sticking it to them as opposed to the opposition, watch out ....

[pinto]

11. Don't agree. The system's not perfect, but the super delegates aren't "in control"

of the party.

Yeah, they were set up to give elected Democratic party officials, Federal and State, a say in the nomination.

Elected officials.

[XOKCowboy]

14. I didn't elect those officials as delegates

I elected them for a specific office. Voting in the primaries should be the people voting on who they want as the candidate.

I, for one, don't want the current Democratic "leadership" to have any voice in nominating the next candidate.

[XOKCowboy]

13. That what it seems like to me...

especially this year. I guess a better question is should the Democratic Party have "superdelegates"? What's wrong with the people voting for their candidate. The primary system is completely screwed up if ya ask me.

[chyjo]

10. Before 1960 it didn't matter at all

From that perspective things have actually gotten better. In this day and age the Clinton/Obama split pledged delegate situation that may occur SHOULD be ridiculously unlikely( usually one campaign emerges from the pack ala Gore in 2000, or Kerry in 04). Smoke-filled back rooms used to be a every four year tradition of the Democratic party.

It might actually be better to be decided this way : imagine the scenario where Obama had fifteen more pledged delegates, but Clinton had won 50.2 percent of the popular vote or vice versa. In that scenario the backers of the popular vote getter will be royally pissed at the archaic nomination process. By relying on the superdelegates, they get to be the bad guy.

[MaineDem]

12. The term is made-up

The DNC refers to them as Unpledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials, which is exactly what they are. I think the term "superdelegates" was created by the media.

Many of these people are just ordinary Democrats who were elected in their states, either as Party Chair and Vice Chair or as DNC members.