![[The Democrats' Super Disaster]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH261_yoo_20080323172903.jpg)
Posted on 03/23/2008 9:29:58 PM PDT by jdm
** EXCERPT **
Until recent weeks, one of the least understood aspects of the Democrats' primary contest was the role of superdelegates. These are Democratic Party insiders, members of Congress, and other officials who can cast ballots at the party's national convention this summer.
But now these unelected delegates are coming in for a close inspection, because neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win their party's nomination without superdelegate support. The big Pennsylvania primary on April 22, for example, has only 158 delegates at stake (each of them will be pledged to support one of the candidates). By comparison, there are a total of 795 superdelegates, none of whom are required to honor the will of the voters of their state at the party's convention.
Sound undemocratic? It is. That the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries flew for too long under the commentariat's radar. This from the party that litigated to "make every vote count" in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.
Democratic Party reforms in 1982 gave super-delegates about 20% of convention votes -- so that party greybeards can stop a popular, but politically extreme, candidate from seizing the nomination. The Democrats deliberately rejiggered their party's rules to head off insurgent candidates, like a George McGovern or a Jimmy Carter, who might be crushed in the general election. Unelected delegates thus have more than twice the votes of the richest state prize, California.
So much for unfiltered democracy. In truth, the Democratic Party...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This from the party that litigated to “make every vote count” also will ignore the voters of Florida and Michigan.
democrats are a disaster ping
Written by a Law Professor at Berkeley no less.
Their disaster has nothing on what’s coming in November.
The super-delegates could cause all sorts of disasters for the Dems. But the idea might not be as undemocratic as some want to make it sound. Because the black/white volatility gets tangled up in it this year, it seems like a terrible idea, but it does give the party a mechanism to use if a candidate wins the primaries, then subsequent events (or damaging information) make the winner far less electable in the general election. That might be a good mechanism to have in place.
If terribly damaging information came out about McCain, do Republicans have any recourse just before the convention?
|
I can't help but wonder if it is just a Clinton ploy to bolster the supporters of B H Obama and then at the last minute change their support back to her thighness leaving Mr. Obama high and dry.
To Hellary, the Super Delegates are her future legacy.
See post #9.
What? The author calls Carter an insurgent candidate. He won.
"The Democrats have created an electoral system that echoes failed models from the American past, and threatens to sap the presidency of its independence and authority by turning it into the handmaiden of Congress instead of the choice of the American people."
And he knows not of what he speaks. What he's really saying is that the Dems have screwed up their nominating process so "lets get rid of the electoral college", Constitutional method of selecting our President.
He cites the history of presidential elections.
The democratic presidential selection is "internal party politics".
It has nothing to do with a presidential election, electoral college, or The Constitution.
The so called "professor" makes a lousy, backdoor argument for electing the president by popular vote instead of by the Constitutional electoral college method.
Carter was insurgent “candidate” in 1976. No one really heard of him a year before the primaries and he ended up being a disaster as President.
Make that:
The Democrat's presidential candidate selection is internal party politics.
yitbos
Hillary caught lying about sniper fire in Bosnia. Obama caught with a racist Black Liberation Theology preacher.
The Draft Gore ‘08 movement gains steam long before the DNC convention even opens its doors in Denver...
I thought it was strange to reference Carter, since he won in 1976. It seemed to attack their own argument.
Not once he gets about 80 more bound delegates (who legally cannot vote for someone else on the first ballot.)
Yes, Carter was a disaster, but they don't care about that. They care about winning. From the article - like a George McGovern or a Jimmy Carter, who might be crushed in the general election.
I thought it was strange to reference Carter, since he won in 1976. It seemed to attack their own argument.
The Dim “superdelegate” system seems like a perfect fit, a mess of their own manufacture. Perhaps it reflects their true worldview, an appearance of fairness with a reality of personality, a celebration of celebrity. Let the masses think it’s about the masses, while all along it’s about the elite, honoring those who can sell the lie, oh I meant sell the dream.
I believe...and I’m not an authority on primary history...that at least up until the late 1800s...there was no primary...but simply a caucus type system where a couple of state folks met and pretended to be open but basically instructed the state delegation to vote in a strict fashion (to be paid back later). If you look at the Alabama delegation who left the convention floor in 1860 and went back home...helping to dissolve the whole convention before a winner could be announced...the system has vast holes in it...and has barely worked since the WW II.
Stalin would be proud.
Sounds about right. The first primary is attributed to Oregon, 1910. My guess is that primaries evolved with the spread of instant, personal, daily, mass communications starting with the telephone and radio.
yitbos
The Democrat Party is a microcosm of what Leftists would love to impose on the U.S.A. They love tyrants and tyrranies.
The Democrat Party is the Political Machine of the Left.
The Leftist Dream is an oligarchy of Leftists ruling America.
Anyone who believes their professions of altruism is a fool. It's all self-interest.
But of course the Left--including the Democrat Party--is a magnet for sociopaths and fools.
Makes me smile every time I think of it.
I agree, This whole thing seems to be taking on an air of a sociopathic staged and controlled media event.
Good for the media ratings.
Ratings,.....the new scourge of the west.
G*d help us all !!!
.
There's also nothing binding the elected delegates to vote for the candidate with which they were associated in their states' primary elections on the first ballot at the DEM convention either!!!!!!
That's politics. I suggest that the mechanism is already there. It's called the convention.
If something so damaging comes out that didn't come out before the convention, then the candidate was lying or covering up something. He can always be persuaded to drop out before the convention, freeing his delegates to vote for someone else. Even if the delegates are still bound to a candidate no longer running, then he would decline the nomination and then round 2 of voting would commence. This would make super-delegates unnecessary unless they really want to stop a maverick candidate who otherwise has no baggage, but is liked by the people.
This all supposes that the Democrat candidates can be shamed into dropping out if something extremely damaging surfaces late in the primary process.
-PJ
He may be a professor at UC Berkeley, but he worked for W Justice Department (under Ascroft) in the early 2000s, and was instrumental in crafting the Patriot Act.
It just hasn't been an issue before because the races were never this close, so candidates reached 50% before counting the super-delegate votes.
-PJ
Yeah, I’m aware that Republicans have superdelegates as well, but they’re not the ones that scream about ‘make every vote count’ on every possible turn.
Someone pass me more popcorn.
“make every vote count”,
Unless of course you are talking about conservative American soldier voters who may be stationed overseas and you are a liberal p.o.s. like algore and want them discounted.
The qualifications to vote in a party primary are - nothing, or nearly so. The number of "registered Republicans" who are actually sufficiently committed to the Party to deserve a voice in its nominee can't be more than 30% - maybe less. This is before you start in with same-day registration, independent voting, and crossovers.
The result is that each party winds up with weak, unrepresentative candidates.
This year, the RAT superdelegates have a chance to fix this problem. If the GOP had superdelegates, I think Mitt would have stayed in longer.
Party nominees should be chosen by people who are active party members. Elected officials (who by definition have a clue about the general election electorate) should have a veto. And the present bastard primary system should be done away with.
Because the primary polls (they are not elections) do not represent the party members and can result in candidates being chosen who don't represent the party or its values.
What is quite nice about this, is that it was all predicted long ago that Hillary would destroy the Democratic party.
Now here we are, Hillary mathematically eliminated from being her party’s nominee, yet she hangs around hopint the party blows up even more and she can slip in.
We all need to thank Hillary for destroying the Dem Party.
Never forget that the democrat party lawyers sued in court to throw out military votes from overseas, some of those involved with the recovery of the USS Cole, and won with a democrat judge. Then they high fived one another.
Never forget.
i have known that for years.
THe last moderate candidate was Joe Lieberman and he won only a very small fraction of the Democratic primary vote.
I hope the people who blindly go and vote democrat every election stands up and pays attention to this.
True. Although even though Carter won, given the climate, he barely did so.
Post Watergate and Nixon’s resignation, he had a 30 pt lead in July and ended up winning by 2. Most analysts say that if the election had been held a week later, Ford would have pulled it out. And Carter proceeded to lose big in 1980.
I guess they mean to prevent a candidate who’s weak in the general election, relative to a potential alternative candidate. Ironically, the 1st use of the Supers was in 1984 to boost Mondale over Hart and Mondale ended up losing 49 states, so that just goes to show how much the Supers know.
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.