Superdelegates

[Aimless]

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?

[GGT]

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.....

[Nessus]

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?

[GGT]

Another amazing thing is that American history is often known better by foreigners.

[LittleFuzzy]

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?

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.

[Flixy]

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[Flixy]

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[Flixy]

Of course in that scenario a third party candidate would stand a decent chance.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[Aimless]

Of course in that scenario a third party candidate would stand a decent chance.

Is that true even with the system used in the US?

[Nessus]

Is that true even with the system used in the US?

Since Roosevelt, Ross Perot holds the record and he got less than 20% of the vote.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

[Wraith]

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

"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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[Flixy]

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

[Nessus]

Regular delegates are also only pledged for the first ballot, right?

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.

[wiggin]

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.

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

but I find it hard to imagine Sanders is going to surprise us.

you mean like in Michigan?

[wiggin]

you mean like in Michigan?

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

you mean like in Michigan?

I don't think Michigan is particularly representative of the entire US.

You have key failed, bankrupt cities like Detroit - not exactly the same all over your country.

[Aimless]

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?

[LittleFuzzy]

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"?

[GGT]

"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.

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?

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.

[GGT]

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.

[RandBlade]

That's because this isn't democracy, its party management.

Democracy is the vote that happens in November.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.