Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:54 PM Jun 2016

The Congressional Black Caucus objects to eliminating super delegates. Why?

Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:31 AM - Edit history (5)

Here's at least part of the reason, from the listening I've been doing.

African Americans are already under-represented in Congress. There are only 43 House members and 2 Senators -- out of 435 total House members and 100 Senators.

African Americans comprise 12.5 of the US population -- and 22% of Democrats -- but only about 8% of Congress. To reflect the population, there would need to be 50% more.

In the Senate, instead of 10 or 12 black Senators, there are only two.

So already the influence of black people is not felt in Congress as much as the influence of whites.

So sending members of Congress to primary conventions as super-delegates is a way of ensuring that at least some black people -- the elected members of the House and Senate -- have a voice in the selection of the nominee. Otherwise, the members of the CBC have good reason to be skeptical that black people would play a significant role. And if they had to run as pledged delegates in their own districts, they would be competing against their own constituents.

The end result could be that the conventions would be even more dominated by white people than Congress is now.

Is that what any of us want?



So this system of super-delegates is an imprecise way of insuring at least a somewhat more diverse and representative convention.

86 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Congressional Black Caucus objects to eliminating super delegates. Why? (Original Post) pnwmom Jun 2016 OP
establishment creates the rules... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #1
I was addressing the specific concerns of the CBC. The sound on my computer pnwmom Jun 2016 #2
You've typed it CBO a couple of times ... it's CBC SFnomad Jun 2016 #11
Thanks! pnwmom Jun 2016 #16
establishment creates the rules... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #14
What's wrong with grassroots activists? ZombieHorde Jun 2016 #4
What's wrong with having a convention that reflects the diversity of America? pnwmom Jun 2016 #6
My question was about the video in the post ZombieHorde Jun 2016 #25
Couple things you're missing Scootaloo Jun 2016 #44
In my state of Washington, we had caucuses attended by 230K people, pnwmom Jun 2016 #47
I live in Washington Scootaloo Jun 2016 #49
I've been writing and calling ever since the democratic party decided pnwmom Jun 2016 #50
If the Washington SD's were proportionally split I might be inclined to agree Scootaloo Jun 2016 #51
But the caucus delegates went disproportionately to Bernie. pnwmom Jun 2016 #52
No, they went appropriately and proportionally to bernie. Scootaloo Jun 2016 #56
No, it wasn't appropriate. It wasn't appropriate for the party leaders pnwmom Jun 2016 #59
grassroots... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #12
No-they were created to prevent another 1972 from happening. MADem Jun 2016 #31
Here are the facts HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #36
I know that plenty of people weren't thrilled with Carter, but the SD idea MADem Jun 2016 #42
Superdelegates look less like "America" and more like a Beverly Hills / Hamptons mixer Scootaloo Jun 2016 #46
I think the CBC disagrees with you. nt MADem Jun 2016 #55
I think that the full list of superdelegates proves such disagreement quite meaningless Scootaloo Jun 2016 #57
'plenty of people'.... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #48
SDs have opinions, like we all do, and their minds CAN and are changed. MADem Jun 2016 #54
...deflection... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #58
It's not deflection.SD haven't overturned the will of the people. That is fact. MADem Jun 2016 #61
...deflection... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #65
The super delegates correctly predicted MyNameGoesHere Jun 2016 #71
...now the pivot... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #72
When a candidate is polling at 60 plus percent MyNameGoesHere Jun 2016 #76
This isn't addressing what the OP is asking. Raine1967 Jun 2016 #7
I'm giving a perspective and background... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #9
Does your video specifically address the concerns of the CBC -- or just of pnwmom Jun 2016 #18
it concerns the larger context of what the CBC is considered by many within DEM party... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #23
Interesting. Evergreen Emerald Jun 2016 #3
Trump IS a "cautionary tale" -- if you will. MADem Jun 2016 #27
Exactly. Watch the Repubs come up with a SD system after their epic Trump loses of 2016. FSogol Jun 2016 #80
This might help: Raine1967 Jun 2016 #5
Thank you -- yes, that passage addresses this directly. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #8
It was interesting to me reading that article. It reminded me of the Film on HBO: *All The Way* Raine1967 Jun 2016 #17
I'm sure the GOP wishes they had them! pnwmom Jun 2016 #20
I agree with them--I want them to weigh in. They deserve input. nt MADem Jun 2016 #28
I don't see how this would impact that percent of African Americans either way dsc Jun 2016 #10
This isn't true for the Senate, is it? How many black people come from a state pnwmom Jun 2016 #13
the Senate has one black Democrat and only three living former black Demcorats dsc Jun 2016 #15
Well, 1 is better than none. And adding the 43 ensures that there will be at least pnwmom Jun 2016 #22
But people are talking around the issue and using uncertain proxies. Igel Jun 2016 #78
Cory Booker is the only Dem incumbent. Mo Cowan was a temporary appointee, MADem Jun 2016 #29
as to women dsc Jun 2016 #19
That didn't happen at my caucus in WA. There was no concern as to gender. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #26
JOHN CONYERS is not--repeat NOT--a Senator. He's a Congressman. MADem Jun 2016 #21
Sorry! So it's Corey Booker, right? pnwmom Jun 2016 #24
Yes, for us! And the Republicans have Tim Scott. MADem Jun 2016 #30
Once again, you have it completely wrong Android3.14 Jun 2016 #32
You are overlooking the fact that black people comprise 22% of Democrats. pnwmom Jun 2016 #33
Your point, underlined in the OP, is incorrect Android3.14 Jun 2016 #67
Let's assume the #s are right. Igel Jun 2016 #79
They're not representing the entire country. They're representing Democrats. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #37
Not sure I understand your point - if the establishment is less diverse than the electorate, then Chathamization Jun 2016 #34
No. Eliminating the black super-delegates would make the overall body pnwmom Jun 2016 #35
"White men hold superdelegate power balance" - Politico, 2008 Chathamization Jun 2016 #38
You have more faith than I do in the process producing a more representative pnwmom Jun 2016 #40
If we had the electorate decide (no supers), we would have a more diverse and representative group Chathamization Jun 2016 #41
We have about 20% AA delegates now, compared to 22% of Dems -- INCLUDING super delegates. pnwmom Jun 2016 #43
Removing superdelegates means the electorate would make the decision. And 22% is higher than 20%. Chathamization Jun 2016 #45
The CBC is comprised of incumbents; superdelegates protect incumbents from grassroots activists. Vote2016 Jun 2016 #39
From a mathematical perspective it doesn't hold true PaulaFarrell Jun 2016 #53
That would only be true if pledged delegates were magically more diverse. pnwmom Jun 2016 #60
but they are more diverse PaulaFarrell Jun 2016 #69
Gee, the DNC has put some effort into increasing outreach to create more LGBT delegates because Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #81
I'm not sure that this system leads to greater representation for African Americans. David__77 Jun 2016 #62
That percent is a percent of the total, including superdelegates. pnwmom Jun 2016 #64
I think that African Americans might comprise <26% of senators/house members. David__77 Jun 2016 #66
Because super delegates are less diverse than the body of regular delegates TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #83
Yeah, no getting rid of SuperDs... Thank you, Cha Jun 2016 #63
I have less of a problem with superdelegates than I do with their vast number. John Poet Jun 2016 #68
If you're going to argue that SDs Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #70
More importantly they object to "open primaries." This is their main gripe with BS glennward Jun 2016 #73
Ironic in that the current rules were set up Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #74
The DNC was planning to make the nominating process less democratic Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #75
Posted to for later. 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #77
I would say that if Democratic Primary Voters actually want more Black representation.... Armstead Jun 2016 #82
I don't endorse the use of super delegates at all. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #84
The primary is frontloaded with southern "black belt" states. LeftyMom Jun 2016 #85
Because they are themselves super delegates AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #86

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
2. I was addressing the specific concerns of the CBC. The sound on my computer
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:00 PM
Jun 2016

is funky, so I can't watch that right now -- but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with why the CBC is strongly objecting to the proposal to eliminate super-delegates.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
11. You've typed it CBO a couple of times ... it's CBC
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:15 PM
Jun 2016

Each time I see CBO I think, why does the Congressional Budget Office have anything to do with this?

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
14. establishment creates the rules...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jun 2016

perspective, would you consider that group or any group within the DEM party establishment or no?

if they fall into the former category then what DWS stated on that vid holds...

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
6. What's wrong with having a convention that reflects the diversity of America?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:05 PM
Jun 2016

Including a proportionate number (approximately) of black people.

That's not happening in the Senate, especially. Why do we think it would happen in the primary conventions? Would all the problems of gerrymandering that reduces the influence of the AA vote simply go away?

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
25. My question was about the video in the post
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:24 PM
Jun 2016

I replied to.

I don't think the current caucus system reflects the diversity of America, so I have a hard time answering your questions.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
44. Couple things you're missing
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:37 AM
Jun 2016

Primarily, becoming a delegate - as opposed to a superdelegate - is something one volunteers to do. You step up, you file your paperwork, and then you go around to convince people in your district that you'd be a good delegate for whatever candidate you're looking to be pledged for. There's some state-by-state variations on this, but it's still pretty similar across the board.

If there are a lack of black delegates at the convention, then either this is due to a lack of interest in becoming delegates, or maybe you're trying to say that the Democratic party systemically avoids awarding black delegates in the allocation process. Which I don't think you're saying, but hey, you've said some odd stuff recently so I dunno.

The CBC is trying to paint a lacquer of righteousness onto the reality - they oppose abolishing superdelegates because they are superdelegates. They enjoy having the clout to shut out hundreds of thousands of voters just like their white counterparts do.

And before you pretend to be completely clueless about what I'm talking about, I invite you to look at Oregon. Oregon has 61 pledged delegates, and 13 superdelegates. After the Oregon Primary, Sanders won, coming away with 36 of those 61 pledged Delegates, leaving clinton with 25. But. All but two of those Superdelegates have pledged support for clinton, meaning that Oregon, despite favoring Sanders by 12% in one of the nation's cleanest, most inclusive primaries, will be a tie at the convention.

That's what Superdelegates do. That's their whole purpose, to nullify voters.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
47. In my state of Washington, we had caucuses attended by 230K people,
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:47 AM
Jun 2016

which assigned all the delegates -- most to Bernie.

Then more than 800K voted in the primary -- which Hillary won --but their votes won't count at all.

At least our super delegates will be able to reflect the will of the people, even if the pledged delegates won't.

(And don't bother arguing that Bernie supporters were too smart to vote in the primary. More Bernie voters participated in the primary than in the caucuses. And the supers had already said they were going to be considering the results of the primary in making their decision, so that should have been a motivation to participate in the very simple mail-in primary -- for everyone.)

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
49. I live in Washington
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:03 AM
Jun 2016

Funny thing is, the state party could decide to take the primary results over the caucus results. They've decided to stick with caucus results. As they've done for years. As voters know they've done for years. If that upsets you I suggest you write an angry letter to 615 2nd St Suite 580, Seattle, WA 98104. It'll be more productive than yelling at me on DU. In the meantime, the superdelegates are thus still operating to disenfranchise people who voted within the system that Washington uses.

Now, how about addressing the points I brought up?

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
50. I've been writing and calling ever since the democratic party decided
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:10 AM
Jun 2016

to go to court to sue to overturn the voter-approved referendum that set up the primary. The Dem party argued that it should be able to ignore the will of the voters and choose delegates in the caucuses instead -- the caucuses we voted to get rid of.

So the people of the state are being disenfranchised by the party's decision to ignore the results of the primary. The super delegates are giving us our voice back -- at least in part.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
51. If the Washington SD's were proportionally split I might be inclined to agree
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:28 AM
Jun 2016

Might.

But no, they're not split. They're wholly clinton. They were wholly Clinton before a single ballot was deposited. For you to claim they're "giving our voices back" is pretty laughable, when what they are actually doing is drowning out people's voices, nullifying people who stood up to become delegates, whose communities voted in as delegates. They're shutting out people who took the state's election system in good faith, and who are now being told, "you voted wrong, so we're going to erase you."

Superdelegates exist purely to subsume the will of voters. DWS points this out. Elsewhere in this thread MADem outlines it. That they happen to favor your candidate does not change this function. Superdelegates exist to override pledged delegates in favor of what the party heads prefer.

Also? Can't help but notice that not a single one of the Washington Superdelegates are black. There's one Native American woman (Lona Wilbur) and two Latinos (Juanita Ruiz and Rion Ramirez.) Soooo. Yeah.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
52. But the caucus delegates went disproportionately to Bernie.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:50 AM
Jun 2016

For those of us believe the primary reflects the true will of the people, then even with the super delegates included, Bernie got more WA delegates than he deserved.

The super delegates here were NOT wholly committed to Hillary. That's why they said they were waiting to decide based on the primary results. Well, they got them. And using the caucus results meant that Bernie was getting a lot more WA delegates than he would have under the more representative primary system -- the system the voters had chosen.

The supers couldn't rectify the situation all on their own. Bernie still got more delegates overall in this state even though Hillary clearly won the primary. But with all the supers voting for Hillary, they partially made up for the unfair caucus system.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
56. No, they went appropriately and proportionally to bernie.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:20 AM
Jun 2016

Because, as I have covered, the caucus is what Washington uses to decide Delegate allocation. It has done so for quite a while, and I think it's safe to assume that people who are interested in the outcome of Washington elections understand this.

So when Washingtonians show up to caucus, they do so understanding that their endeavor will be what makes the decision. They learn the rules, they follow the system, and they expect that the outcome will reflect their decision, whatever it might be. This is all in good faith. We abide by our part, with our understanding of how things work., and we count on the party to respect that.

Unfortunately, the Superdelegates of Washington had already decided they were supporting clinton. Before the Caucus. Certainly before the primary. This has the net effect of telling the men and women who participated in Washington's election that their votes would not count. That it didn't matter what the people who participated in Washington's method of allocating delegates, because oh, we voted wrong.

That is what superdelegates do. That is their function. To "correct" voters when voters "vote wrong." See here. See here, as well.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
59. No, it wasn't appropriate. It wasn't appropriate for the party leaders
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:14 AM
Jun 2016

to go to court in 1988, in defiance of the will of the voters, to overturn the referendum we worked to pass, which was supposed to replace the caucuses with the primary. You're worried about disenfranchising voters -- this is exactly what happened when they overruled the voters on having a primary. They disenfranchised the state's voters and replaced the will of the voters with their own.

I don't care how long the party has used caucuses instead-- it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Many people can't get to the caucuses for one reason or another and they are closed out of the system. Others want a secret ballot and not to have to sit for hours arguing issues with their neighbors. The system is unrepresentative, not inclusive, and unfair.

So, knowing this, the super delegates chose to side with the voters who participated in the primaries -- three times as many as those who went to the caucuses. And good for them. Thanks to the supers, a state whose primary voters chose Hillary has a less lopsided delegate count for Bernie than it otherwise would.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
12. grassroots...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:16 PM
Jun 2016

scare the beejezus outta the establishment... peruse any and all engaged citizenry when protesting for reforms

this is why SDs were created, to create a 'firewall' to prevent actual grassroots from 'winning'

DWS spoke the actual truth on that vid I linked

MADem

(135,425 posts)
31. No-they were created to prevent another 1972 from happening.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:42 PM
Jun 2016

When those "grassroots" picked a candidate who got his clocked cleaned in the general.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
36. Here are the facts
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:55 PM
Jun 2016

"After the 1968 convention in Chicago highlighted the problems inherent in the Democrats’ tradition of nomination by party bosses, the Dems experimented briefly with making the process more democratic.

It was during that experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders. High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their party’s duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later. The Republican party, by the way, has no superdelegates.

Office-holding superdelegates (most of whom are democratically elected to represent their constituents) are not obligated to support the candidate of their constituents’ choice. A 1988 study confirmed that superdelegates are more likely than regular delegates to vote for candidates with Washington experience."

http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections

BTW.. this guy is an SD: Rajiv Fernando

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624


Does there need to be some reform to SD if not outright stripping them from the process entirely?

FACTS, facts would point you in a direction that 'YES" would be the appropriate answer

MADem

(135,425 posts)
42. I know that plenty of people weren't thrilled with Carter, but the SD idea
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:15 AM
Jun 2016

came OUT of 68 and, most significantly, 72. Those were the years we had our behinds handed to us.

I don't agree at all with this writer's thesis that the Carter election in 76 was the sole impetus--after all, he, unlike the last two "picks" actually WON. He brought in all the constituencies that were traditionally Democratic, and he brought us back into the South, as well. Carter only became a scapegoat after his SECOND election--the one he lost to Reagan, helped along by both Ted Kennedy (who primaried him and trashed him up and down the northeast--not Ted's finest hour by a long shot) and the Ayatullah Khomeini.

I don't think any SDs would overturn the wishes of the majority of Dems, and I do believe that thesis is just not supportable or proven. What they DO do, though, is serve as that "cooling saucer" Washington ostensibly mentioned to Jefferson. For this reason, and the reason that supers ensure very disparate representation in terms of race/ethnicity/religious (or not) affiliation/orientation/gender identity, etc.--things we can't always trust state parties to get right--we need supers to make sure our conventions LOOK LIKE AMERICA. And Supers do that better than voters do--otherwise, we wouldn't have so few women and only one black Democratic politician in the Senate.

Never has a crew of superdelegates voted for a candidate who got FEWER pledged delegate votes, OR fewer votes from the citizenry.

There's absolutely no need to fix what ain't broke.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
57. I think that the full list of superdelegates proves such disagreement quite meaningless
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:26 AM
Jun 2016

Overwhelmingly white, and not a single poor person in the whole lot.

Any whiter and it'd look more like Monaco, frankly.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
48. 'plenty of people'....
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:49 AM
Jun 2016

your 'plenty of people' are establishment DEMs

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/history-of-superdelegates

OR this one

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/04/democratic-superdelegates-how-the-party-learned-to-start-worrying-and-fear-its-voters.html

That puts the SDs in the proper context if you do not like the other link I replied with

Consider this... why did SDs pledge BEFORE a single primary vote was cast? that goes directly against your premise here: 'I don't think any SDs would overturn the wishes of the majority of Dems'

It's 'broke' and it does need to be 'fixed'

MADem

(135,425 posts)
54. SDs have opinions, like we all do, and their minds CAN and are changed.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:14 AM
Jun 2016

Ask President Obama about that. He managed to convince many super delegates, by the enthusiasm of his campaign and the reaction by the voters, to flip.

Sanders did not have that ability--his campaign did not resonate like Obama's did. He ended up behind by millions of votes.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. I stand with the CBC on this issue--I prefer a convention that looks somewhat like America, and if we left it up to state parties, we'd have a very homogeneous group at our convention.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
58. ...deflection...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:12 AM
Jun 2016

you stated 'I don't think any SDs would overturn the wishes of the majority of Dems' but I factually pointed out that SDs pledged BEFORE a single primary vote was cast...

Then you replied with 'by the enthusiasm of his campaign and the reaction by the voters, to flip.' again the SDs already 'flipped' before a single vote was cast

How could have 'Sanders did not have that ability' affect a situation that occurred before a single primary vote was cast and counters your replies?

the SDs and the process needs to be reformed, this much is clear

'I prefer a convention that looks somewhat like America'... one that doesn't follows the rules after those said rules are created to favor establishment?

you're entitled to your own perception but not to your own facts

MADem

(135,425 posts)
61. It's not deflection.SD haven't overturned the will of the people. That is fact.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:35 AM
Jun 2016

I understand that you dislike the system, but I disagree with your opinion on that score. I've explained why. And noted the salient fact that the SDs have never, not once in the history of the SD system, banded together to contravene or thwart the voting public's decision.

The one with the most votes from the citizenry IS the one who goes on to be the nominee in every instance.

And you, too, are entitled to your own perception--but not your own facts, either. I'll stand with the CBC.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
65. ...deflection...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:35 AM
Jun 2016

yet you continue to avoid the point that SDs pledged before a single vote was cast in primary... where's 'the will of the people' in that?

those are the facts, and they match perfectly to the perception I've presented


 

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)
71. The super delegates correctly predicted
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:58 AM
Jun 2016

that Sanders would be handedly defeated in the primaries. I can understand why they were committed to Clinton, she was the one that in their minds was going to win. They predicted correctly.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
72. ...now the pivot...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:08 AM
Jun 2016

but that wasn't the premise, first deflection, now a pivot? the premise was SDs follow the 'the wishes of the majority of Dems'

now you're making the claim 'correctly predicted'? How does that work within the context of 'FOLLOWING the wishes of the majority'??

I get that you'll most likely not answer this directly but surprises do occur...

 

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)
76. When a candidate is polling at 60 plus percent
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:49 AM
Jun 2016

it isn't rocket science or a pivot. It's common sense. When the candidate blew away the opponent on several super Tuesdays it's the writing on the wall. The opponent admitted he was a long shot, not exactly a way to instill confidence in supers. None of this is a pivot or deflection, these are facts that you are having trouble digesting.

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
9. I'm giving a perspective and background...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:13 PM
Jun 2016

so I AM addressing what the OP is asking 'why'...

If you have an issue with my facts or perspective then address that

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
23. it concerns the larger context of what the CBC is considered by many within DEM party...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:23 PM
Jun 2016

... and that is ESTABLISHMENT

that vid clearly clarifies the WHY of SDs and their function as stated by the CHAIR of DNC...

Evergreen Emerald

(13,069 posts)
3. Interesting.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:01 PM
Jun 2016

I think it is important to have that insurance. Also, we only need to look at Trump to see that the party needs a safety net--just in case the voters go off the deep end.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. Trump IS a "cautionary tale" -- if you will.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:29 PM
Jun 2016

And all you have to do is look at the elections results of 1972 to see what happens when dreams overtake common sense. We got crushed that year. Of course, part of the problem was the everyone regarded McGovern as an aging hippie peacenik. He refused to let people understand that he had some serious street cred when it came to the war business. He should have exploited his own rather heroic WW2 service record; it might have changed a few minds.

I hope the map looks like Losing in 1972 for the GOP this time around.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
5. This might help:
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:04 PM
Jun 2016
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502#ixzz4C4MEuhAS
this is the KEY paragraph:
"We passed a resolution in our caucus that we would vehemently oppose any change in the superdelegate system because members of the CBC might want to participate in the Democratic convention as delegates but if we would have to run for the delegate slot at the county level or state level or district level, we would be running against our constituents and we're not going to do that,” said Butterfield. “But we want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents."



Good post, btw, I think it is fair to highlight this issue.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
17. It was interesting to me reading that article. It reminded me of the Film on HBO: *All The Way*
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:20 PM
Jun 2016

One scene in particular and I don't think there is a youtube of it out there.

I did find this from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Freedom_Democratic_Party -- The scene I recall is about this issue.

I personally am quite fine with super delegates -- I don't want them removed.

To be really honest, I have a feeling that the GOP wishes they has some Super delegates right about now.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
10. I don't see how this would impact that percent of African Americans either way
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:13 PM
Jun 2016

nearly all of the districts they come from are rather overwhelmingly African Americans and thus would quite likely select African American delegates. I do get their point about not wanting to take slots from their constituents but the fix for that is to let them go and write the rules, and platform but not have a vote on the candidate. If they want to be able to vote for a candidate then they should take one of the slots that are regular delegates. Now on open primaries they are absolutly correct and they should be consulted before any changes are made.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
13. This isn't true for the Senate, is it? How many black people come from a state
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:17 PM
Jun 2016

that has ever elected a black Senator?

Where I live, black people are less concentrated in certain precincts than they may be in the east. Seattle had a popular black mayor even though blacks were a minority of the population. So I don't think your point holds for many parts of the country.

And it certainly doesn't hold for women, who are grossly underrepresented in Congress.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
15. the Senate has one black Democrat and only three living former black Demcorats
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jun 2016

and one of those three is Obama. I can't see how four people could possibly make that ratio better.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
22. Well, 1 is better than none. And adding the 43 ensures that there will be at least
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:23 PM
Jun 2016

some black voices at the convention, who don't have to compete with white people to get there.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
78. But people are talking around the issue and using uncertain proxies.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:38 AM
Jun 2016

It's the convention delegates that matter, and how they're chosen is unlikely to be consistent across states.

However, where I live the delegates go by *district.* If you live in a mostly black district, the delegates to the local convention will pretty much have to be black. They send a smaller number to the state convention, but I'd have to assume a lot of those would be necessarily black. Then the state convention sends people to the national convention.

Now, things may alter the ethnic/racial balance of that representation. Perhaps the local convention doesn't send blacks to state. Perhaps since mostly black areas are poor and the state doesn't, to my knowledge, pay their way to the state convention only more prosperous local delegates volunteer. Or perhaps it's a matter of transportation or getting time off from work or away from families (where two-parent families would have an advantage). And perhaps the same kind of apparently-racial but actually-financial filter applies as we transition from state to national conventions. Dunno. But we make the assumption that since blacks aren't proportionally represented in the Senate, where senators are chosen by a state-wide poll, that convention delegates are chosen the same way. They're not.

But since most nominees are selected on the first vote, and the delegates are bound for the first vote, it's not like a black is any more free to have a say based on race than a white would be to have a say based on race. What's left is looking at the tv screen and proudly saying, "He looks like me!"

And, of course, blacks are demographic minority #3, after Latinos. And this fall the number of eligible Latino voters will be just barely less than the number of eligible black voters. (Largely because undocumented, non-naturalized immigrants can't vote. The 2020 election cycle should see Latinos push black voters into #3 status, as well. But still, the country is fixed on binary oppositions.)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
29. Cory Booker is the only Dem incumbent. Mo Cowan was a temporary appointee,
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:37 PM
Jun 2016

he really just warmed the seat for Markey, and then there's Carol Moseley Braun, Barack Obama, and Roland Burris, who was ALSO a seat warmer--selected, not elected, to fill out a term (Barack's, in fact).


Tim Scott hangs his head in shame over on the GOP side of the chamber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott

The Senate is a national embarrassment. We could and should do better.



dsc

(52,130 posts)
19. as to women
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:21 PM
Jun 2016

supers definately make it worse. For several conventions there has been a quota where half the elected delegates have to be women, no way the Senate helps with that.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
21. JOHN CONYERS is not--repeat NOT--a Senator. He's a Congressman.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:23 PM
Jun 2016

The Senate is a pretty white outfit. They're not overflowing with women, either, though they're better than they used to be.

I mean, there's no way to parse it--the Senate does not represent America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_United_States_Senators

As of November 2015, there have been 1,963 members of the United States Senate,[6] but only nine have been black.[7][8] While 58 nationwide organizations exist to elect women to the United States Congress, including EMILY's List and the Susan B. Anthony List, no organization has been formed to elect African Americans to the United States Congress.[9]

MADem

(135,425 posts)
30. Yes, for us! And the Republicans have Tim Scott.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:38 PM
Jun 2016

I can't imagine how that poor guy gets along at GOP meetings.

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
32. Once again, you have it completely wrong
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:45 PM
Jun 2016

"First, let me point out that 12.3% (the percentage of African Americans in the U.S.) of them would be 304. But as it stands the RNC plans to invite just 18 or 0.7% of all delegates. The Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently had more than 20%; well over what would be fair based on the country’s demographics."
From here

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
33. You are overlooking the fact that black people comprise 22% of Democrats.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:51 PM
Jun 2016

And that the 20% you mentioned INCLUDED super-delegates. So including them in as super delegates helps ensure their numbers are representative.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
67. Your point, underlined in the OP, is incorrect
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:06 AM
Jun 2016

You wrote "So sending members of Congress to primary conventions as super-delegates is a way of ensuring that at least some black people -- the elected members of the House and Senate -- have a voice in the selection of the nominee."

You based your conclusion on incorrect assumptions that blacks are under represented at the convention.

The existence of super delegates is for a reason other than giving black people an equal convention voice. They already have a voice that is close to the racial diversity of the country.

Therefore super delegates are unnecessary to give POCs a representative voice and the reason the CBC wants super delegates resides elsewhere, probably in the same reasoning as other incumbents, removing political influence from the people they represent.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
79. Let's assume the #s are right.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:44 AM
Jun 2016

20% of the delegates to the DNC are black. Should be 22%. Let's just stipulate that.

The superdelegates include whites, blacks, and everything else but Greens.

The Congressional representation, the OP points out, is around 8% black. That means it's *less* representative than the delegates at large would be. When you include those in the mix, it drags *down* the proportion of blacks at the DNC. You'd need an additional 60 or so black Congressional superdelegates just to leave the black/white percentages at the DNC uncharged. Suddenly race/ethnic proportionality is an argument against superdelegates, at least Congress-based superdelegates.

The argument really rests on the composition of the superdelegate list as a whole. I'm going to guess that it's not much different from how Congress is weighted, but it's a guess. No numbers, can't crunch them.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
37. They're not representing the entire country. They're representing Democrats.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:00 AM
Jun 2016

They are the party's delegates, after all.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
34. Not sure I understand your point - if the establishment is less diverse than the electorate, then
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:51 PM
Jun 2016

how does increasing the power of the establishment promote diversity? If anything, this seems like a good reason to eliminate superdelegates - all of the power would be coming from the more diverse electorate, with less power coming from the whiter establishment.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
35. No. Eliminating the black super-delegates would make the overall body
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:54 PM
Jun 2016

less reflective of the proportion of African Americans in the party.

Eliminating the black members of the "establishment" wouldn't magically mean more black activists would be chosen. It would probably lead to more white activists taking their places -- simply because white people are a larger fraction of the population.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
38. "White men hold superdelegate power balance" - Politico, 2008
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:01 AM
Jun 2016

No one is talking about only eliminating the black super-delegates. Eliminating all super-delegates would probably mean that African Americans and women would have a greater voice, if the current group of super-delegates is anything like the group in 2008:

The exact percentage of white males varies slightly depending on whether the penalized Michigan and Florida delegation superdelegates are counted, but the overall percentage is at least 46 percent. Overall, men of all races represent 64 percent of the party’s superdelegates.

...

The percentage of white male superdelegates is disproportionate to the share of white males who make up the overall Democratic electorate. According to a January 2008 national poll by Zogby International, 28 percent of Democratic voters are white men. Women account for 55 percent of Democratic voters.

But superdelegates have never reflected the diversity of the Democratic party as a whole, nor were they designed to. They represent the party insiders, a group that white men still dominate.


I haven't been able to find the demographics for the 2016 super-delegates though; if you have, feel free to share them.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
40. You have more faith than I do in the process producing a more representative
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:03 AM
Jun 2016

primary convention than we have in Congress.

According to this, Democrats have about 20% black people as delegates -- including super delegates. (Similar to the 22% of Democrats that are black.) So I don't see how eliminating super delegates would improve the representation for black people. Not unless you think black people have a greater chance than whites of getting chosen as pledged delegates.


http://winningdemocrats.com/guess-how-many-of-the-2472-republican-delegates-are-black/

So how many of the 2,472 Republican delegates are going to be African American? First, let me point out that 12.3% (the percentage of African Americans in the U.S.) of them would be 304. But as it stands the RNC plans to invite just 18 or 0.7% of all delegates. The Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently had more than 20%; well over what would be fair based on the country’s demographics. The numbers are not in yet for 2016 but last year they came very close to doubling that figure. The Republicans on the other hand dropped from a mildly respectable 6.7% in 2004 to a beyond pathetic 2.1% in 2012. It wouldn’t be so sad if they hadn’t congratulated themselves so heartily for it 12 years ago. Regardless, if they don’t do something fast that number is going to be cut by two thirds at this convention.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
41. If we had the electorate decide (no supers), we would have a more diverse and representative group
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:14 AM
Jun 2016

deciding who would be president. And that's what eliminating super-delegates would mean.

I'm also not sure there's any reason to think that "elected" pledged delegates would be any less diverse than superdelegates. In fact, we have reason to believe they would be more so - at least in terms of gender, I believe there needs to be an equal number, and the state parties are supposed to set goals for pledged delegate diversity I believe.

But if they are pledged delegates, then the power to decide who will be the presidential nominee is left up entirely to the electorate, which is more diverse than the superdelegates (going by the most recent demographic information I could find).

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
43. We have about 20% AA delegates now, compared to 22% of Dems -- INCLUDING super delegates.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:16 AM
Jun 2016

So why do you think that getting rid of the black super-delegates (of all super-delegates) is going to IMPROVE the proportion of black delegates -- who would be chosen out of our gerrymandered precincts?

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
45. Removing superdelegates means the electorate would make the decision. And 22% is higher than 20%.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:38 AM
Jun 2016

Pledged delegates will vote for the presidential nominee that the electorate voted for. The electorate is more diverse than the superdelegates. So removing the superdelegates would make the people who are choosing the president more diverse. The pledged delegates aren't going to be the ones making the decision (assuming things don't go to a second ballot, but that's a separate issue).

I also thin that 22% might be a bit low - that seems to be the number from 2012. 538 is estimating 24% of the Democratic vote in November will come from African Americans. If we assume the white proportion saw the same decline over the past 4 years that it did the 4 years before that, then the superdelegates are 5% whiter than the party. If there was no decline (I doubt that, but possible), then the superdelegates are 2% whiter. They're also 58% men. Not sure how their inclusion increases diversity in the decision making process.

2016 superdelegate demographics here

 

Vote2016

(1,198 posts)
39. The CBC is comprised of incumbents; superdelegates protect incumbents from grassroots activists.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:02 AM
Jun 2016

Superdelegates conservatively reinforce the status quo at the expense of liberal plasticity in the makeup of our government.

PaulaFarrell

(1,236 posts)
53. From a mathematical perspective it doesn't hold true
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:07 AM
Jun 2016

As blacks are underrepresented amongst superdelegates, then removing all superdelegates would actually make the whole delegate representation more diverse. I can't help but think, and this is not in reference to CBC specifically but to all superdelegates, that they like having that extra bit of power and don't want to gve it up.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
60. That would only be true if pledged delegates were magically more diverse.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:18 AM
Jun 2016

But there is no reason to think they would be, not with the gerrymandering we have now.

According to this, Democrats have about 20% black people as delegates -- including super delegates. (Similar to the 22% of Democrats that are black.) So I don't see how eliminating super delegates would improve the representation for black people. Not unless you think black people have a greater chance than whites of getting chosen as pledged delegates.


http://winningdemocrats.com/guess-how-many-of-the-2472-republican-delegates-are-black/

So how many of the 2,472 Republican delegates are going to be African American? First, let me point out that 12.3% (the percentage of African Americans in the U.S.) of them would be 304. But as it stands the RNC plans to invite just 18 or 0.7% of all delegates. The Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently had more than 20%; well over what would be fair based on the country’s demographics. The numbers are not in yet for 2016 but last year they came very close to doubling that figure. The Republicans on the other hand dropped from a mildly respectable 6.7% in 2004 to a beyond pathetic 2.1% in 2012. It wouldn’t be so sad if they hadn’t congratulated themselves so heartily for it 12 years ago. Regardless, if they don’t do something fast that number is going to be cut by two thirds at this convention.

PaulaFarrell

(1,236 posts)
69. but they are more diverse
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:43 AM
Jun 2016

At least according to the poster above, who seems to have researched the facts. The existing superdelegate makeup is less diverse than pledged delegates. Removing them would actually make delegate body more diverse as a whole. BTW I don't have a horse in this race so don't really care, just don't like to see math used badly.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
81. Gee, the DNC has put some effort into increasing outreach to create more LGBT delegates because
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:30 AM
Jun 2016

pledged delegates voluntarily stand to be delegates, meaning outreach can directly result in greater diversity.
I could go into much detail about which individuals in the DNC resisted the idea of seeking to increase diversity among the delegates when the focus was on LGBT. There are quotes that might make some seem wildly hypocritical.
2006
New party rule aims to increase LGBT delegates
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories06/september/0901062.htm

2008
Latest Dean Deposition Addresses DNC’s Internal Gay Delegate Feud
http://www.queerty.com/latest-dean-deposition-addresses-dncs-internal-gay-delegate-feud-20080728


Super Delegates do nothing at all to increase nor to protect diversity in the overall delegation. Supers protect supers and that's that. It's incumbent powers and those powers are all straight, mostly male and largely white.

David__77

(23,214 posts)
62. I'm not sure that this system leads to greater representation for African Americans.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:51 AM
Jun 2016

It might - I'm not sure. According to this, African Americans comprised 26% of delegates to the Democratic convention in 2012:

http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/Blacks%20and%20the%202012%20Democratic%20National%20Convention.pdf (see page 15)

It seems to me that the African American representation among Democratic senators and house members is a bit less than that percentage. If so, then eliminating those superdelegates in 2012 may have boosted the share of African American delegates, all else held constant.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
64. That percent is a percent of the total, including superdelegates.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:35 AM
Jun 2016

So why are you saying that eliminating the superdelegates may have boosted the share of AA delegates?

David__77

(23,214 posts)
66. I think that African Americans might comprise <26% of senators/house members.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:43 AM
Jun 2016

If in 2012 African Americans comprised 26% of total delegates, including superdelegates, and if African Americans comprised <26% of superdelegates, then removing superdelegates would have boosted the percentage of African Americans among the remaining delegates.

TheKentuckian

(24,942 posts)
83. Because super delegates are less diverse than the body of regular delegates
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:53 AM
Jun 2016

meaning that you are arguing for an uptick in raw numbers in exchange for actually reducing the ratio further because you are adding more whites than blacks to the over all number.

 

John Poet

(2,510 posts)
68. I have less of a problem with superdelegates than I do with their vast number.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:23 AM
Jun 2016

The Democrats only have 240 members of congress, but there are 718 superdelegates-- 437 of those from the DNC.... and making up something like 20 percent of the total delegate number.

Get rid of the DNC superdelegates, and the superdelegates will probably be less white than before, if that's their concern.





Eric J in MN

(35,619 posts)
70. If you're going to argue that SDs
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:46 AM
Jun 2016

...increase the percentage of black delegates at the convention, then you need the percentage of PDs who are black and the percentage of SDs who are black. The OP has neither.

 

glennward

(989 posts)
73. More importantly they object to "open primaries." This is their main gripe with BS
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:08 AM
Jun 2016

and supporters. Open Primaries would seriously dilute the vote of minorities within the party. Super delegates are favored by more than just the CBC to prevent just what is happening in the GOP primary.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
74. Ironic in that the current rules were set up
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:35 AM
Jun 2016

because Jessie Jackson, the last serious left populist contender, was getting too close for comfort.

Eric J in MN

(35,619 posts)
75. The DNC was planning to make the nominating process less democratic
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:40 AM
Jun 2016

...since McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972.

In 1982, the DNC came up with Super Delegates for presidential primaries.

Jesse Jackson ran for president in 1984 and 1988.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
82. I would say that if Democratic Primary Voters actually want more Black representation....
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:39 AM
Jun 2016

they should vote in ways that advance that.

The Superdelegate system might achieve the objective you mention -- but it also ensures that White Insiders also have a disproportionate influence in the selection of candidates and results of primaries, and dilutes the impact of primary voters.

So -- as has often been said to Sanders supporters -- if they want the power they have to work for it at all levels.

 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
84. I don't endorse the use of super delegates at all.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:44 PM
Jun 2016

I think the practice is an undermining of democracy and of the electoral process.

One person, one vote” is a core principle of the Constitution. Super delegates subvert this principle.





LeftyMom

(49,212 posts)
85. The primary is frontloaded with southern "black belt" states.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:45 PM
Jun 2016

Also the argument you're making is 'black votes are undervalued so we need to include superdelegates from a body that is disproportionately white' which makes absolutely no sense.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Congressional Black C...