Superdelegates and representative democracy

[TwilightZone]

I wrote this as a response in another thread, but I think it works as a new thread, as well. Some people seem to be confused about who superdelegates are and why they are part of the democratic process.

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to a direct democracy where the people decide on issues directly.

We are the former. We have never been the latter at the presidential level. One person, one vote has never applied, and this was intentional. The framers quite literally didn't trust the populace to make informed decisions. Hence, representation. They even wanted Senators chosen solely by the legislature to isolate them from "pressure from the populace". We didn't vote on Senators directly until 1913.*

As applied to the party nomination process, those elected officials include members of Congress; Democratic governors; elected members of the DNC; elected officials of related groups like Young Democrats and the National Federation of Democratic women; national committee-persons elected to represent their states; and former presidents, VPs, Congressional leaders, and so on.

What do all of those people have in common? They are all elected officials chosen to represent groups of people in their elected roles and as representatives of their organizations and the Democratic party at the convention. In the latter role, they are, you guessed it, superdelegates.

Welcome to representative democracy.


*https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

Note: if you think things are nutty now, read about the events that happened prior to the 1913 change in the link above.

[rzemanfl]

1. K&R. n/t

[stopbush]

2. The process of selecting the candidates to run as the representative of a political party

is and always has been a political process. Unlike general elections, it is not a democratic process.

The SCOTUS ruled (California v Jones) that political parties have a wide berth in determining how the choose their candidates. Basically, they can do whatever they want, from the power brokers meeting in smoke-filled rooms to our present system where a veneer of democracy is slapped on the primary process (and where, it should be noted, no candidates are elected to anything. Primary voters simply express the preference for a candidate, no more, no less).

According to the SCOTUS, political parties can change their rules whenever they want. That includes changing them at a convention, or even after a convention. Were the Ds to decide that they could not back a Sanders candidacy, they could change their rules to keep him from being the nominee. The Rs could have done this with tRump in 2016. They didn’t.

There are no legal hurdles to changing the rules. The only price to be paid is political, as in people would leave a party in droves or refuse to ever vote for their candidates if they felt the party was being criminally unfair in changing their rules, etc. 80% of primary voters could vote for Sanders, and the power brokers in the D Party could simply ignore that fact and nominate someone else. Again, not wise, but not illegal.

[TwilightZone]

5. "There are no legal hurdles to changing the rules."

That's generally, though not entirely true. Some changes, like switching from caucuses to primaries, for example, are governed by state law in some states. If the legislature and/or governorship is held by the other party, they're not going to allow the change if it benefits them.

[stopbush]

6. Of course. But state law is not subject to the whim of political parties when it comes to primaries.

Political parties are free to hold their own primaries without using the state-run mechanism. But they tend to use the state-run process because they (the political parties) don’t have to pay for it, as they would were they to run their own primaries.

That’s why both Ds and Rs have to caucus in states that use caucuses.

[Mme. Defarge]

3. Merci!

This inquiring mind anted to know.

[brooklynite]

4. Just a reminder: Party Primaries are not a component of government

It is a unique facet of American POLITICS (not government) that all eligible citizens can participate in the selection of candidates. Many Parties in other nations limit the choice to Party activists (some requiring payment of membership fees) or leadership.

[TwilightZone]

7. Primaries are usually run by state governments.

They also set the rules for issues like open vs. closed primaries, setting the dates, method of voting, types of ID, etc.

Caucuses are run by the parties.

The federal government would be involved with things like voter-ID laws, the Voting Rights Act, etc., but they're not actually running the primaries, of course.

[brooklynite]

10. Yes, they are RUN by State Governments, but they can't be IMPOSED on State Parties

Case in point: in 2016 Washington State had a Caucus (Sanders won) and a Primary (Clinton won). The Caucus governed the delegate selection process.

[DanTex]

8. Might be the strangest excuse for superdelegates I have ever come across.

It's plainly obvious, to everyone, that having party insiders override the will of the Democratic electorate is undemocratic. It's not "representative democracy", it's smoke-filled rooms.

[ehrnst]

11. What if they weren't smoking?

What if, hypothetically, a former superdelgate tries to pressure other superdelegates into taking the nomination away from the candidate who has the most pledged delegates by a large margin over everyone else, and bestow it on another candidate instead?

Does that count as "undemocratic" even if none of them are smokers?

[Cha]

23. ..

TY

[TomSlick]

15. The days of smoke-filled rooms are long past.

If no candidate has a majority in the first convention vote, the process will go forward on the floor of the convention with the TV cameras catching every moment. All subsequent convention votes will occur under rules written to appease Sen. Sanders after the last convention.

Whether in a direct democracy or a representative democracy, the standard is always majority rule. In a direct democracy, a majority of the voters is required to take action. In a representative democracy, a majority of the representatives is required. In neither system is a plurality sufficient.

If on a second ballot, the newly released delegates and super delegates decide to vote for a plurality leader, so be it. Similarly, if on a second ballot, the newly released delegates and super delegates decide to vote for any one else, so be it. Either result is consistent with the rules.

[Cha]

24. Thank you for your post, Tom.

[William769]

45. He knows this he's just being argumentative to be argumentative.

He knows Sanders doesn't have a chance to be the nominee and is lashing out be cause he doesn't like our rules.

[TomSlick]

47. Perhaps.

I worry that Sanders is stoking the idea that "the Democratic establishment" will somehow steal the nomination. The more avid Sanders supporters accept his every word as received truth and therefore believe in the existence of smoke-filed rooms.

[ehrnst]

25. Crickets....

[Squinch]

28. Yes, we know you don't like the process, but this IS the process. If you do not like to live

in a representative democracy, you have two choices: leave it, or work within it to change its rules.

One candidate and his followers saying, "I demand rule changes at the eleventh hour every time I run so I have a better chance of winning," is the undemocratic, cronyish attitude at work here. The representative democracy part is not.

[DanTex]

32. Nobody wants to change the rules. What?

What people want is for the superdelegates to respect the will of the voters. Why is this so complicated?

Not only is it the right thing to do, and the democratic thing to do, but it's also the only way to avoid fracturing the party and re-electing Trump.

[Squinch]

35. Their purpose IS to respect the will of the voters. Their purpose is NOT to rubberstamp

the choice of the minority when that is the last choice for the majority.

Hence the process, which uncovers the ranking of choice of the majority.

[DanTex]

36. Well, then they will go with the candidate who gets the most votes.

I'm glad we agree on that!

[Squinch]

37. If that candidate has a majority, certainly. If not, then it is their job to determine which

candidate rates highest in the overall preferences of the majority.

This argument does prove one thing, though: you guys are fully aware that BS is not as popular as you insist he is. If you did believe he was that popular, you would have no worries about a contested convention.

[TexasTowelie]

46. Well, who do you want for the superdelegates to represent?

Let's say that Bernie somehow manages to sweep all of the delegates from California; meanwhile, Biden closes that margin significantly by obtaining pledged delegates from other states. Should the superdelegates side with Bernie because he won one state by a huge margin, or should the superdelegates side with Biden because he won their respective home states?

I don't see where the superdelegates should vote for the overall pledged delegate leader if that candidate is not popular in their home state. That is the issue that I've had with your posts the past few days, because superdelegates pledging support to the national leader in pledged delegates would counter the will of the voters in their own states and it would not be the democratic thing to do.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. When I vote for Sanders, I am, in principle, voting for him as the nominee.

In technicality, am I voting for a delegate? Yes. But is that in keeping with the spirit of the primary process? Absolutely not.

Delegates should be bound to represent a proportion of the popular vote.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

[Malmsy]

12. Yes!!! (eom)

[former9thward]

13. Which is why we have the electoral college.

Which many denounce as being "undemocratic". Yes, it is. And was intended to be. As is a "representative democracy" or actually a representative republic which is what we really are.

[Nanjeanne]

14. If we are going to have ranked choice voting - let's make all the Dem primaries ranked choice voting

At least then the choice would still be in the hands of the electorate - not the party leaders with the super powers.

[CrawlingChaos]

16. So our votes don't mean a goddamn thing..

..and we should just leave it all to the elites? Let's see where that leads for the Democratic Party, shall we..

No wonder we are on the brink of revolution.

[TwilightZone]

17. They mean the same thing that they would have meant if candidates dropped out during the race.

This really isn't complicated. If Klobuchar drops out tomorrow, all of her supporters aren't going to flock to Sanders. They're going to split up between the various candidates, choosing their second options.

Why would you expect it to be any different at the convention? You think her supporters - in this case, delegates - should be forced to select Sanders as their second and only option, even if he's not their second choice?

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You guys keep talking about how undemocratic the process is. You want to talk about undemocratic? Tell people who have a vote that they only get one option. That is the very definition of undemocratic.

[CrawlingChaos]

19. Actually it is very simple

If Bernie has the most votes at the end and the nomination goes to someone else, then it is undemocratic.

And Bernie IS going to have the most votes.

[Jakes Progress]

20. Wasn't how Bernie felt in 2016.

Bernie mostly wrote the rules that we are using.

Aside from that, please read the OP again. If you are right, then America has never been a democratic nation. History is. It just is.

Try the history of how candidates have been chosen to represent the parties as candidates. The Democratic Party selection process is more transparent and representative than it has been ever been. A primary is only a method to choose a candidate. It is not the general election.

Then look at ideology. The Bernie side of the party doesn't have a plurality of the votes. The "moderate" side of the party has a clear majority.

I'm a ravening progressive socialist. Have been for half a century. But if Bernie is our candidate, we will never get a chance to implement even a portion of the agenda he espouses. Trump will place at least two more judges on the SC, rubber stamp rampant gerry-mandering that guarantees his lackeys run the House and Senate for decades. We won't get M4A. We won't even have Obamacare. Kiss SS and Medicaid goodbye. I don't care how many of your buddies in your crowd love Bernie, they are not representative of the large majority of the country. But if taking away women's rights, ending DACA, imprisoning children, and doing away with the LBGTQ agenda is not as important as getting back at the "moderate establishment", then go ahead. But first get out into the country a little. Meet some people that aren't exactly like you.

[CrawlingChaos]

21. I could not disagree with you more

Bernie did NOT write the rules being used. That is just wrong.

Bernie is incredibly popular and has a massive movement behind him ready to push for his agenda. He has the power of the people behind him and that can move mountains.

Moderates have fared poorly in presidential races. Bernie is the only one of these candidates who will beat Trump.

A brokered convention means a sure win for Trump, not to mention the irreparable damage it will do to the party.

The only way to get rid of Trump is to unify behind the frontrunner, Bernie Sanders.

This is supported by every available metric - Bernie will crush Trump. And momentum keeps building and building.

I have BEEN out in the country and Bernie is going to win.

[Squinch]

31. If BS is so popular, he will win the required delegates and you have nothing to worry about.

If he does not win the required delegates, then that is proof that you are wrong. He is NOT incredibly popular enough to win a majority, and he DOES NOT have a massive movement behind him.

The 2018 election is proof that the country DOES NOT WANT what BS is selling. His candidates and his revolution got clobbered.

Moderates have won two of the last three presidential races. Bernie is not doing as well as Biden in the swing states, where it matters, against Filthy Donnie.

And what the hell is "I've been out in the country" supposed to mean? Do you think we are all in outer Mongolia? We've all BEEN out in the same country you have.

[Jakes Progress]

44. To each his fantasy.

And the Bernie party people did indeed have major input for the rules. Try actually reading what happened instead of just what you "feel" like happened. Actually look at the history of super delegates and how Bernie appealed to them in 2016 before attacking their use this year.

Moderates are the only Democrats who have won presidential races. The last even mildly liberal candidate was George McGovern. Just google that election. Bernie is the one candidate that trump most wants to run against. A Bernie ticket would give trump such relief.

Look up the word brokered. I know it gets used a lot. But the party (particularly members of Bernie's team) set up rules. Now some want to ignore the rules and demand that delegates do so. Please look up the words "plurality" and "majority".

Bernie is not the front runner. He does not have a majority of support. Most Democrats are voting for someone else. There are two factions working in the party right now - Progressive and UltraProgressive. If you lump all of the UltraProgressive votes (Sanders and Warren) and lump all of the Progressive votes (all of the other candidates) you find that the UltraProgressives run under 40%. How can a candidate that cannot gather a majority of Democratic voters hope to gather a majority of all voters.

Your position only supported by metrics you like, as you ignore all others.

I will gladly support Bernie if he is the candidate. I support and encourage all of his positions (except for his gun manufacturer love). I always have, from years before his campaign. I also supported other losing Democratic candidates.

Will you enthusiastically support the nominee of the Democratic Party? Even if it isn't your chosen candidate?

[Squinch]

29. You really aren't hearing this. My first choice is Biden. My second choice is anyone but Bernie.

If Biden drops out, my vote goes for someone else. NOT BERNIE.

Under your proposed rules where my vote HAS to go to BS, where are MY democratic rights?

I get that you only want rules that benefit BS, but if you are going to take that position, please don't expect us to believe you are arguing for a more democratic process. We aren't that dumb.

[Cha]

18. Thank you!

[Cha]

22. Thank you for explaining this so well, TwilightZone..

the Elected Officials could counteract the RF by the repubs to get the candidate they want.

[Wabbajack_]

26. Wild idea, be DEMOCRATIC, Voters should decide, period

Can't complain about the electoral college when we have this shit going on for the Democratic primary.

[Walleye]

27. Can't pretend the Electoral College doesn't exist.

Let’s say Bernie gets less than a majority and the convention gives him the nomination. Then in the GE gets the most votes, but loses the EC. Then what?

[brutus smith]

33. "then what"?

Then I would blame the decision makers in the Democratic party. I would say the elitists, but some people have a hard time comprehending that. We already ran a moderate, Hillary, who got the most votes and lost. If that were to happen again, it would signal that we are doing something wrong. Howard Dean had it right back when he was chair of the DNC with the 50 state strategy where we won the elections in 2006 and 2008. But he was pushed out of that job by the elitists because they didn't like his progressive agenda.

[Walleye]

34. And we would have 4 more years of trump?

[brutus smith]

38. Joe doesn't have a chance in the general election. At least Bernie would have a chance.

People don't want same old same old Joe.

[Walleye]

39. A lot of people love Joe.

[brutus smith]

40. I agree. I like Joe, he's a likable guy. But can he win the GE? No!

People don't want the same old thing.

[Walleye]

41. I don't get it

[brutus smith]

42. Just because I like someone doesn't mean that I think he'd make the best Prez now.

Joe's window was in 2016.

[ehrnst]

43. So was Bernie's.

Last edited Sat Feb 29, 2020, 03:30 PM - Edit history (2)

But Joe, at least, is likeable.

[Squinch]

30. Yes. Voters should decide. I don't want my vote to go to Bernie if my candidate drops out.

I want it to go to another candidate. So yes, let the voters decide. That is why we have the process we have.

So that a minority number's choice does not steamroll the rest of the party into the last choice of the majority.