( For us, this is great fun. Oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the bitterness, the anger)
I can't wait 'til the convention.
Posted on 01/05/2008 11:24:42 AM PST by doug from upland
The Tyranny of Super-Delegates
Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa was also a good night for our democracy. The turnout broke records and young people – who were mobilized and organized – participated in unprecedented numbers. And now that Iowans have spoken – the first citizens in the nation to do so – here's the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
"Huh?" you say. "vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo."
In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 "super-delegates" – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.
In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word "change" is being bandied about, isn't it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.
Imagine the shit that will hit the fan if the Super Delegates carry Hillary to a narrow win.
Wow! I didn’t know this! In the coming months we could witnes a meltdown and civil war within the Democrat Party!
I’ll have my camera ready!
Bingo! LotsTons of Obama supporters will sit out the election rather than voting for The Evil One.
They will not go into civil war. If anything, they will breathlessly admire Hillary’s Stalinist coup.
I had totally forgotten about this
( For us, this is great fun. Oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the bitterness, the anger)
I can't wait 'til the convention.
Doug, have you figured out how the Democrats will be able to blame President Bush for this one?
Doug, please excuse my ignorance but:
What the heck is a “super” delegate and what is their purpose?
And
Does the GOP have “super” delegates too?
Far be it from the Dems & Hillary to support this type of selection which subverts the popular vote and the will of the people! Aren’t these the same ass-clowns who cried for the abolition of the Electoral College after the election of 2000?
Amazing...
As bad as another Clinton in office would be, the Democrats that are left [pun intended] are much worse, now that Biden and Dodd are no longer running.
interesting. Wonder what Obama’s supporters think of this?
Some of these people are just newly engaging in politics and the Hilda beast stifles them.
How on earth do people NOT know this??
Its been common knowledge for 35 years.
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so.
He may have been "right" in some sense, but not in the sense of that old document "The Constitution."
The way in which individual States choose their electors is up to them, and political parties fall outside of the Constitution altogether.
Nothing whatsoever will come of any outcome except that the democrat party will select a candidate. - And the people of America have no legal standing in how they do that.
Then again, they don't have to vote for hillary. - but they will
I mentioned this in a couple of threads already. Dick Morris talked about it months ago. Unless Obama is able to consistently beat her by large enough margins that people get really pissed if he isn’t nominated, she will get the nomination. And since I’d like to see Thompson/Watts, I don’t want Obama nominated. You know if we put a black guy on the ticket against Obama that’s all we’ll hear “it’s only cuz he’s black” not on his merits, which would suck.
They are elected Dem officials. They have the right to support the candidate of their choice, no matter what the voters in their state want. Hillary has a majority of them. Republicans don’t have this system.
Here is an article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/
Most people don’t know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.