Keep them or get rid of them?
If the latter, how can it best be accomplished?
Can Sanders and his supporters pressure the party to change the system with the threat of a future independent bid?
Printable View
Keep them or get rid of them?
If the latter, how can it best be accomplished?
Can Sanders and his supporters pressure the party to change the system with the threat of a future independent bid?
Superdelegates are creations of the two dominant US political parties (Republican, Democrat). There's nothing in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights that gives so such power to just these two parties in the first place....but it's become a "norm" in our political culture, nonetheless.
I'd love to see the duopoly challenged by a third party...or any other break-out party....instead of just co-opting the (R) or (D) powers because they have the power. At one time in history, the RNC leadership had enough guts to tell the John Birch Society they didn't belong in the Republican party, and that was when Goldwater coined the phrase that supporting extremism can be a virtue.....
You know what the RNC leadership faced a couple years after that?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://i.imgur.com/7ut3ZKD.jpg
Another amazing thing is that American history is often known better by foreigners.
I don't see the problem. Really the idea that the nomination process has to ape public democracy has always left me scratching my head. Superdelegates in practice are a bluff, a way to make winners seem like they won more heavily, but that's true for the entire shift of the nomination process to provide a veneer of democracy in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I don't see the problem either. In my opinion it us up to the party who they put forward as a candidate, so giving extra votes to the party establishment seems perfectly fine to me.
Its also up the party to not make it seem like they are out of touch with their supporters. If it comes down to superdelegates deciding the democratic nomination thats going to cause problems in the general election, both as an attack avenue and in voter turnout. If the establishment pushes to hard against their supporters, like the coup Romney is trying to build against Trump, you could end up with something as bad as a 3rd party run.
That's that party's problem, really, isn't it? Get out of touch with voters, and you lose them. And if you lose them somebody else will get their votes. Of course that's easier in a multi party system.
Its totally the parties problem, but in our system where we only have 2 viable parties, and horrible turnout, what happens when both parties don't give a fuck about the lowly people?
We end up with the classic turd sandwich vs giant douche.
Of course in that scenario a third party candidate would stand a decent chance.
not likely, we have like a dozen parties on the november ticket. if the voters could be assed enough to vote, you're spreading those people across the board. Not to mention the seemingly impossible nature of outsiders getting news coverage. Before the parties started voting, Trump and Clinton's air time was measured in hours, and bernies in minutes.
Is that true even with the system used in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Since Roosevelt, Ross Perot holds the record and he got less than 20% of the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The thing is, OG, they're well aware of that. The super-delegates are far more aware of that than most of the people voting. Which is why they make their pledges conditional, don't actually have to follow them regardless, and have always ended up going heavily in favor of the person who was winning the nomination run already. They're not going to break from that pattern unless they're sure it will pay off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
A lot of them went for Hillary pretty early this cycle, didn't they? There's an argument to be made here that they influenced that result, and that she might not have done as well if so many hadn't fallen in line behind her (or the media had reported it at least, given the current party argument that they were over-reporting her superdelegate support) before the first primary even happened.
"Pledged" superdelegates aren't all that pledged and lots of the superdelegates aren't pledged at all, even if they currently endorse a particular candidate. But yeah, you can easily make an argument that they influence how the rest of the nomination process goes, how people vote. That's one of the things they're supposed to do. Just like having staggered voting in the first place.
CLINTON BENEFITS FROM US MEDIA’S MISLEADING REPORTING OF DELEGATE COUNTS
Don't know how much you cant trust an article that puts its title in all caps, but its the same theme we are discussing here. By reporting on super delegates, the media is helping to throw the primary. If Bernie picks up ~53% of the remaining pre-convention pledgable delegates, the DNC would have to go against its voting base to nominate Hilary. That would be as equally disastrous as the GOP snubbing Trump.
Regular delegates are also only pledged for the first ballot, right?
I must admit that a lot of what I know about this comes from the West Wing :p
Basically, it depends. There's a lot of historical accidents, rules on the books that seemingly make no sense. The Floridian GOP delegates for instance are bound for the first three rounds of voting, for no particular reason. The whole system is a mess of the states, the parties and the feds trying to make it work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I think it would be truly remarkable if Sanders won 53% of the remaining vote. Essentially, superdelegates only matter if two things are true: (1) There is a substantial imbalance in the superdelegate endorsements, and (2) there is a very close pledged delegate count. This is frankly not that likely to happen, especially because the whiff of undemocratic choices would convince many superdelegates to back the majority candidate (not that party leadership decisions need to be democratic). I think it's frankly a non-issue for the vast majority of campaigns. Fivethirtyeight seems to think that Clinton is running about 10% ahead of the pace needed to cruise to a pledged delegate victory, which leaves her with a pretty decent margin. Obviously there are a lot of primaries left - including in big states with big delegate allocations - but I find it hard to imagine Sanders is going to surprise us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
you mean like in Michigan? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
The exception proves the rule. There are a number of reasons why the polling was off in Michigan, but it has generally been pretty solid in the primaries to date. Absent some game changer I don't think Sanders can muster the broad support needed to win the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I do understand why certain people would dislike the whole super-delegate concept. Those people however would be people who don't like the way things are going in the party they supposedly support to start with and who'd like to upset the party elites and merely use the party apparatus to push their own candidate. It can become a bit awkward of course if the super-delegates from the very beginning throw their full weight behind one candidate in an exercise of faux-democracy. And in the actual elections that awkwardness may come back to bite the actual candiate in the ass. But in principle I don't see any problem with the joe-sixpack party faithful roughly knowing that the party leadership has preferences with regards to potential candidates. After all that leadership is supposed to have more than a notional idea of what the party stands for. Also, they are more likely to have a good working relation if the candidate they prefer is actually elected.
I'm for example not entirely convinced that, if elected, Trump or Cruz wouldn't have problems with their own parties that easily would match any problems they could conceivably could have with the opposing party.
I don't think Michigan is particularly representative of the entire US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You have key failed, bankrupt cities like Detroit - not exactly the same all over your country.
Is there any way to determine whether or not superdelegates have a disproportionate impact on the nomination process when they express preferences for one candidate at an early stage?
You could probably get a suggestion if you wanted to research and write a poli-sci doctoral thesis on the topic. Considering how often the rules, numbers, and behaviors change and the relatively small sample size I doubt you'd get a particularly good answer though. Just what would be your rigorous definition of "disproportionate impact"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The parties already have a machinery of spokesmen and surrogates to influence how people vote, plus strategists and rules committees that control the nomination process. And when the RNC 'leadership' didn't like how Ron Paul played the delegate game, they changed the rules....so what's the point of superdelegates anyway? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I think both parties should see this kind of power-maneuvering helped create a mistrust of the "political elites", and why an "anti-establishment" mood has grown over time.
Democrats have super-delegates, while Republicans have unbound delegates. Both have the same effect -- basically, party elites with more power than the electorate. States like North Dakota and Colorado didn't even hold a (R) caucus or primary....they just let congressional districts/state conventions "elect" their delegates.
Sorry, but voting for someone who votes for someone else, who can vote for whomever they like (especially if I couldn't vote in a closed party state) isn't my idea of representative democracy. :down:
That's because this isn't democracy, its party management.
Democracy is the vote that happens in November.
With our electoral, democracy isn't exactly how you would describe the November election. We could technically end up with a president that only wins 21.8% of the popular vote, even when there are only 2 candidates and even if everyone in the country voted. Its not likely to happen, but its possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That's about as absurd as Steely's imaginary constituencies the other day. What's the lowest share of the popular vote that a President has been elected on in a 2 candidate contest?
Depends on how strictly you're interpreting those parameters. The President who served with the least proportion of the popular vote who did not succeed to the position from being Vice President was John Quincy Adams in the 10th election back in 1824. He had 31 percent of the popular vote, while Andrew Jackson had 41 percent. Two other candidates each received about 10 percent of the popular vote. No one had a majority in the electoral college and so the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, as per the Article II rules and the 12 amendment to them in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Next up was Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. He lost the popular vote by a three-percent margin (had 47.9 overall*) but was elected in the Compromise of 1877, which awarded disputed electoral votes to him in exchange for a pledge from the Republican party to end Reconstruction. Note that The lowest share of the popular vote by a President who was elected normally was Benjamin Harrison in 1888. He lost the popular vote by a margin of .83 percent.
*note that there were good solid reasons for dispute. All kinds of shenanigans in this election in the disputed states. If you think it may be impossible to ever know whether Dubya really won Florida, you should take a close look at fraud in Florida back in 1876.
Oh, but all the party leaders say our delegate system is democracy -- the 'representative' kind where the parties control the process. You're right it's party management, but that's what people are complaining about! Even though we don't have a direct democracy (where the popular vote wins) maybe our voter participation rate stinks is because people don't feel their vote matters?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Example: I live in PA, which has a closed process. That means you either have to register as a (R) or (D) to vote in their primary. If you're a new voter the deadline to register was March 30, but if you're already a registered voter and wanted to change party affiliation the deadline was months ago. :rolleyes:
Our (R) party has 17 bound delegates (3 of whom are 'party officials' bound to the RNC) so that leaves 14 who will vote according to their congressional district outcome....and 54 unbound delegates who can do whatever they want at the state convention, even on the first ballot, regardless of how "the people" voted. And delegates can be swayed to vote a certain way, using all sorts of "perks", just not out-right cash bribes. :rolleyes:
All 50 states have two political parties making up their own rules....from voter registration requirements/deadlines to whether it's a caucus or primary process (or just a state convention where the only 'voting' is for delegates going to the national convention). Explain how that mess makes sense. :donkey:
It is a mess, but again, this is an internal party process. It is not really connected to your general elections, direct democracy, or whatever, except that it determines who runs in the general election. But not even exclusively, anyone can run then, this is just how the major parties determine who runs for them. If you don't like the candidates they put forward, vote for someone else. If you don't like how parties are run, join them, become active and try to change it. Or start/support a new party. If enough people actually cared about this that surely wouldn't be a problem, but until people do you might be sick with what you've got.
I wasn't thinking of your "elected by the House" alternative solution, since popular vote is entirely moot in that scenario and the election is thrown to a different set of votes; but since the election would then be decided by the votes for the House I can't foresee a party that had got very significantly below 21.8% of the popular vote holding a majority in the House in any realistic scenario. Similarly I think that winning a majority of the Electoral College on 21.8% is simply implausible in modern reality too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The two parties have monopolized things for so long it's practically impossible for "anyone" to run for office as a third party. And if they do it's after the (R) and (D) candidates already had televised debates, 'townhall meetings', interviews, and front page stories that dominated the news for months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
*I think you underestimate how powerful the two parties are in our government. That's probably why Ron Paul ran as a Republican (instead of a Libertarian), or why Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat (instead of a Democratic Socialist)....or why the Tea Party decided they'd have more clout/power by inserting themselves into the GOP rather than starting a new party.
And since the media pays more attention to (R) and (D) candidates than any "new" party/small party/third party, it becomes a vicious cycle. I wonder if that's why Donald Trump decided to run as a Republican, and why the GOP practically begged him not to run third party? It's a messed up system, and hoping it will be changed from within is something politicians have been promising for decades. :rolleyes:
It's called Duverger's Law. And we've had this system since 1789. :noob:
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be reformed or updated for the 21st century. You mentioned gerrymandering, which is a part of our system, too. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Good luck with that. I'm sure 2/3 of Republicans and Democrats in Congress will vote for an amendment that will weaken their duopoly.
Exactly. But that's also why so many Americans hate politicians, and party politics. Is it any wonder we have pathetic voter turnout rates? :(
Back to changing the system from within: perhaps that's why the Sanders campaign has been so popular, and enduring, even though Clinton is leading in number of votes and delegates? He started by calling for a political revolution, from the bottom up. He's even said the movement is more than just Bernie Sanders the candidate, getting the nomination, or winning the Presidency....but it's more about mobilizing people to get involved, engaged, and voting. He's right that when voter turn-out is low, Republicans win (because their activists are more active); but when voter turn-out is high, Democrats win (because they reflect majority views).
He's already successful, as a candidate, because he's caused Clinton to change some of her talking points and policy positions, in response to his. ie, millions of voters are telling Clinton what they want, not the other way around. When she said she was running to be the first woman President, that wasn't enough. When she said she was going to continue Obama's policies, that wasn't enough either.
If nothing else, Bernie has forced Hillary to become a broader candidate for a general election, not just a legacy/establishment Democrat. And if Sanders gets enough delegates (using this crappy system), that can have a real influence in creating the official Democratic platform.
The Republican Party has used that strategy too, when the Tea Party or Christian Evangelicals (Moral Majority throwbacks) were the groups influencing the RNC platform. But that didn't work out so well for their party on a national level. And while 'conventional wisdom' says all politics is local....the new truth is that all politics is also national, even global.