Democratic Party's superdelegate system smacks of elitism

Ventura County Star ^ | May 1, 2008 | Ed Jones

[Signalman]

The Democratic Party is not democratic. It has devised a system of nominating a presidential candidate that is elitist and will result in patronage. It is abundantly clear that the party that claims to trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson is deluding itself and the American public.

We have witnessed a three-month period of hard-fought primaries or caucuses in which the people in 42 states and four territories have voted to select the delegates who presumably will nominate the Democratic presidential candidate. But it is all a ruse.

Democracy has gone out the window because of the elitist policy of having so-called "superdelegates." Here is the math.

It requires 2,025 delegates at the August Democratic Convention in Denver to name a candidate. Of the total of 4,049 delegates, 792 are known as superdelegates, constituting 20 percent of the whole, or 40 percent of the 2,025 needed.

These superdelegates have been elected to vote at the convention by no one. In short, a potential candidate can be nominated by the convention with superdelegates plus only 1,233, or 38 percent of those elected. In other words, because of this system, the will of 62 percent of the public who participated in Democratic primaries could be thwarted.

The rationale for this superdelegate system is so undemocratic that Democrats should change the name of their party. It is simply this: The people can't be trusted.

In the wake of ineffective presidential nominees in the 1970s and 1980s, the Democratic hierarchy, mostly unelected, concluded that the Democratic voting public could not be trusted to nominate a viable candidate, and so they decided to have a wild card — superdelegates, who could save the people from themselves.

And not only that, since even the elected delegates are only "pledged," one of the presidential candidates has indicated that she will try to get some of her opponents' pledged delegates to switch to her. That should go over well with those who voted for her opponent.

But this is not bad enough. We now find in the instant circumstance — neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will be able to reach the needed 2,025 with elected delegates alone — that many of these superdelegates hope the final decision is not made until the August convention. Of course, they hope that a large percentage of them are elected officials, either federal or state.

Many of their votes will be sold to the highest bidder. Do you want my vote? I need a bridge, post office or large government contract for my district. Boss Tweed would blush with envy. What does all this signify for the Democratic Party? For one thing, besides changing its name, it should abandon its traditional Jefferson Day-Jackson Day dinners.

These annual celebrations are meant to show a linkage between the current Democratic Party, founded by Andrew Jackson around 1830, and the earlier Democratic-Republican Party, founded by the champion of the people, Thomas Jefferson.

While Jefferson would be turning over in his grave contemplating the concept of superdelegates, the Democratic Party would be right in keeping with the elitist views of Jefferson's opponent, Alexander Hamilton.

Therefore, the Democrats should change the name of their functions to the annual Hamilton-Tweed dinners. And the Jefferson motto of "All men are created equal" should be changed to the Hamilton maxim, "Government should be in the hands of the rich, the well-born, the able."

[Old Sarge]

Democratic Party's superdelegate system smacks of elitism

YA THINK?

[alice_in_bubbaland]

Did the author just come to this conclusion? Oy...

[counterpunch]

FORMER DEM LEADER ENDORSES OPERATION CHAOS

“A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain. While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us. John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him.”

— Joe Andrew, Democratic National Committee chairman (1999-2001)

 

[Psycho_Bunny]

lol...”Smacks Of” or “Is”?

[steel_resolve]

...snicker...

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Of the total of 4,049 delegates, 792 are known as superdelegates, constituting 20 percent of the whole, or 40 percent of the 2,025 needed.

A little math here: 4,049 delegates minus 792 superdelegates leaves 3,257 regular delegates. In order to win the nomination WITHOUT ANY superdelegates, a candidate would need 2,025 of the 3,257 regular delegates, a whopping 62%. Since, in addition to using the party hacks as superdelegates, the dems mostly use a proportional system of allocating votes, it is very, very difficult for one nominee to get anywhere close to that number of regular delegates.

[Borges]

"the Democratic Party would be right in keeping with the elitist views of Jefferson's opponent, Alexander Hamilton."

Huh?

[rhombus]

Oh no... no winner-take-all, states rights, electoral college thingie for the Democrats either. All votes are distributed proportionally. And then when it becomes the tight race their system guarantees, they want to turn the final decision over to a small group of unelected people to make the final decision for everyone... much their elitist view on how to use the SC.

[vpintheak]

Elitism and communism go hand in hand. Wake up rat voters!

[cake_crumb]

Obama leads Clinton in giving money to superdelegates

WASHINGTON — When Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, she said she'd found a candidate who "gives us a reason to believe again."

Obama believed in her, too, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to McCaskill's 2006 campaign. She received nothing from the PAC of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

And when California Rep. Doris Matsui endorsed Clinton, she said the former first lady had been "a consistent champion and friend" of Asian Americans. Clinton's PAC had also befriended Matsui, giving $5,000 to her campaign. Matsui received nothing from Obama's PAC.

Both McCaskill and Matsui are among the nearly 800 superdelegates who'll have a big say in who heads the Democratic ticket this fall. While both women say the PAC contributions didn't influence their choice for president, a study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take.

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

---

Further down, the article reveals that Obama the poor black man even gave Sheets Byrd $10,000 bucks this year to buy HIS Superdelegate vote....but so did Hillary. We should keep an eye on whom he votes for.

[skinkinthegrass]

LOL!....When has the 'Rats, ever shown "real concern" for the Taxpayers?
the Liberals Motto: Share the Misery

[UCANSEE2]

Bad composition and grammar.

Not a very shining example of ‘professional journalism’.

I have a feeling this was a rant by the author based on watching ‘Boston Legal’ , last night.

which ended up the same way as the Dem primary, unsolved.

[Tzimisce]

Elitist? You think so?

[LS]

Lemme translate. I speak Democratese:

Our star, Obama, is in big trouble. He can't win as long as some of the superdelegates support Hillary. Time to just give him the nomination.

[Sacajaweau]

It smacks of “Hillary has a file on me” that would bury me. Spitzer was the example!!

[Recovering_Democrat]

The Democratic Party is not democratic. It has devised a system of nominating a presidential candidate that is elitist and will result in patronage.

Wow, welcome to the real world, Ventura County Star. And you people consider yourselves journalists, eh? LOL.

[Nailbiter]

4/29
I do not know name of program, but has Shatner as Denny Crane, think it on ABC.
They were doing this very topic, I was LOL, could not determine if they were making fun of this process supporting BHO or HRC.
Only the DNC could come up with this screwy process, and then fall on their own sword. Makes for good comedy.

[MrB]

The ENTIRE leftist mindset is based in elitism.

Read “Conflict of Visions” by Dr Sowell.

The paradigm is that humans are perfectable (not sinners) and therefore some are more perfected than others,

and not only have the right, but the obligation, to make decisions for others who are not as enlightened.

[rhombus]

Only the DNC could come up with this screwy process, and then fall on their own sword. Makes for good comedy.

I have to say I'm enjoying every minute of it. And they think they can run everything? Snicker.