Democrats May Eliminate Superdelegates in 2012

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/06/27/democrats_may_eliminate_superdelegates_in_2012.html

Democrats May Eliminate Superdelegates in 2012


"One year after the country got an in-depth lesson on 'superdelegates,' the Democratic Party may consider doing away with them in the future," ABC News reports.

"The lengthy, expensive, and often divisive 2008 Democratic nominating process caused the launch of a Democratic National Committee review of how to tweak the primary and caucus process to avoid some of the pitfalls exposed in the Obama vs. Clinton battle royale last year."

**********************************************

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/democrats-work-to-avoid-2008-primary-strife.html

Democrats Work To Avoid 2008 Primary Strife

June 27, 2009 12:09 PM

snip//

At the beginning of today's meeting, the co-chair of the Change Commission Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., described the group's mission as focused on "changing the window of time in which primaries and caucuses may be held, reducing the number of superdelegates, and improving the caucus system."

The Change Commission spent its first gathering on a fact-finding mission hearing presentations from various experts and scholars on the nomination process.

Touching on what may prove to be one of the more contentious issues considered by the DNC, one presenter, Democratic Party activist and Harvard University lecturer and former superdelegate Elaine Kamarck, suggested that it may be time to completely eliminate superdelegates since most of those party leaders clearly determined their role in 2008 to be one of ratifying the decision made by voters in primaries and caucuses.

"We can probably let go of the superdelegates," said Kamarck.

"Their deliberative role," she added, "has in fact been supplanted by a very very public process."

In addition to the future of superdelegates, the quadrennial turf war over which states get to go first in the nomination season will be up for discussion with Iowa and New Hampshire once again posed to defend their influential role in selecting presidential nominees. Iowa's role in launching the Obama candidacy will likely go a long way in protecting its status.

Ms. Kamarck warned the commission about engaging "in an endless fight in who goes first" and suggested instead that the members change their thinking and focus on how to "equalize the importance of other voters in other states down the line."

The thirty-seven member commission made up of many Obama campaign organizers, state party chairs, representatives of labor, elected officials, and Democratic Party activists must finish its work by the end of the year when it will issue its recommendations to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

[sisters6]

1. Glad to see they are talking of the inclusion of ALL states in the

primary. Having the long primary was and IS good for all citizens. But -long--could be shortened in terms of months. By long I mean making sure sure all citizens have the opportunity to nominate the next President.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Good. It was a stupid idea in the first place. nt

[blue_onyx]

3. The party made them useless in 2008 anyway.

If the job of a superdelegate is to vote for the winner of the popular vote then there's no point to having superdelegates.

[WeDidIt]

9. If they were to vote for the winner of the popular vote, They'd all have voted Obama

But you knew that.

[blue_onyx]

10. Many of the superdelegates

remained uncommitted until there was an official winner. Hillary could have won if she had won most of the remaining superdelegates but most people argued it would be wrong for superdelegrates to decide the primary. This caused most of the remaining superdelegates to simply support the candidate who had won the most pledged delegates (Obama). Therefore, superdelegates became pointless and should be eliminated.

[AllentownJake]

17. Well that would have been a perfect way to throw away a sure fire democratic party win

and split the party forever. Overturn the first African American candidate for President of a national party in favor of the first woman running for President of a national party.

John McCain would be President and Michael Steele would be VP right now.

[blue_onyx]

19. I doubt McCain would've won

The primary system is in need of reforms. The party wants superdelegates but doesn't want the superdelegates to actually vote. If all superdelegates do is reaffirm the winner of the most pledge delegates, then they are useless. It's best if the party relies on the voters of primaries/caucuses and eliminates the pointless superdelegates.

[AllentownJake]

20. Condensed schedule and rotating primary dates

are more important to me.

I didn't vote till April 22nd. Normally I don't have a say in the nominee.

Let NH and Iowa be first the rest follow a rotating schedule based on population.

California should have its own day as well as TX.

PA should go with NY.

Have as close to as the equal number of delegates up for grabs on the same Tuesday.

[blue_onyx]

21. I agree, except for....

the letting NH and Iowa go first part. There's no reason that those two states should have an undemocratic advantage over the rest of the states. I would like to see some sort of rotating schedule too.

[aaaaaa5a]

23. I would love to see a primary system

that guarantees all 50 states get a legit chance to decide the nominee. The long primary fight greatly benefited our nominee. Had Hillary left the race early, Obama would not have beaten McCain in IN or NC. And PA and OH would have been much closer contests.


However, I would like to see the delegate system change. I still think it's MUCH better than a winner take all system. But Primary Victories in PA and NJ should yield more delegates than a victory in Idaho. In 2008 that was not the case.

[notesdev]

4. The existence of superdelegates

would seem to contradict the point of having a "Democratic" party.

[FreakinDJ]

5. What no Hilary Factor ????

I shudder to think of it

[aaaaaa5a]

6. The idea of super-delegates was to prevent a sure loser

from gaining the nomination for President. I believe the process was created after 1972 when the party nominated George McGovern. Everyone knew McGovern was going to lose. Therefore it made sense to have a "higher power" who could "right the wrong" of the voters to keep the party competitive.



The problem is the process overturns the will of the voters.



Secondly, who can define a sure loser? Dukakis led Bush by 17 points over the summer of 1988 but lost. Mondale led Reagan by 4 after the Democratic convention in 1984 and got blown out. Conversely, Clinton trailed Bush AND THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE Ross Perot in the early summer of 1992, yet was elected President twice.



Even in 2008, the Clinton camp was quietly telling super-delegates Obama couldn't win....... OH WELL!



It's time for the super-delegates to go.

[aaaaaa5a]

7. The idea of super-delegates was to prevent a sure loser

from gaining the nomination for President. I believe the process was created after 1972 when the party nominated George McGovern. Everyone knew McGovern was going to lose. Therefore it made sense to have a "higher power" who could "right the wrong" of the voters to keep the party competitive.



The problem is the process overturns the will of the voters.



Secondly, who can define a sure loser? Dukakis led Bush by 17 points over the summer of 1988 but lost. Mondale led Reagan by 4 after the Democratic convention in 1984 and got blown out. Conversely, Clinton trailed Bush AND THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE Ross Perot in the early summer of 1992, yet was elected President twice.



Even in 2008, the Clinton camp was quietly telling super-delegates Obama couldn't win....... OH WELL!



It's time for the super-delegates to go.

[Oak2004]

13. I think it was as much to keep the DLC-types in control of the party

I find it interesting that McGovern is seen as the quintessential "loser", yet he was A) running against a somewhat-popular incumbent, which almost always results in a loss, and B) there have been worse blowouts in recent history.

Superdelegates exist to keep corporatists and party insiders in power, not to keep "sure losers" out.

[depakid]

16. The superdelegates role in Mondale getting the nomination blew that theory all to hell

back in 1984.

[aaaaaa5a]

22. My point exactly, that's why the idea of the super-delegates is useless.

You really can't tell a sure fire winner or loser in early summer when the election isn't until November. Plus, like in every Presidential year,the super-delegates did nothing but "certify" the candidate who already had the most delegates anyway.

[davsand]

8. The whole concept was just too "back room"

While I get the original intent behind it, that whole concept of a group of delegates that could potentially overturn the will of the Primary voters really just is too close to the whole "back room" politics image that politics carries.

Super Delegates were made up of the party elite--the office holders and the party insiders--from any given state and it can be subject to manipulation in the right scenario. This last go round with the Obama -v- Clinton Primary kind of hammered it home for people, I think. There was still a lot of distrust for the Clintons even inside the Dem party at that time and I think people were still worried about the Clintons' ability to influence votes. (Please note--I am not saying that perception was necessarily accurate--only that it existed.)

Maybe I'm a little more sensitive to that whole meme with Illinois being the kind of state that it is, and with the whole specter of the Chicago (read as Daley) machine controlling everything in the state that hangs over our politics here. It seriously creeps downstate Illinois voters out sometimes, but our Illinois Dem party manages to keep it somewhat controlled most of the time. At a national level, I'm not sure it could have been controlled had the Super Delegates ever overturned an election or caucus outcome.

I'm glad to hear this Super Delegate thing may be going away. Might make it easier to keep voters invested if they think their vote will actually be honored even IF the fat cats disagree.


Laura

[backscatter712]

11. Works for me!!!

I'm all for making the Democratic party more democratic.

[dsc]

12. Given the Edwards fiasco it might not be the best idea

Imagine if the race had been between Edwards and either Clinton or Obama with Edwards barely winning and the story came out at the same time it did, we would have been able to give the nomination to Clinton or Obama instead of Edwards and saved ourselves.

[Oak2004]

14. It's always possible, presented with a crisis, to find enough unfaithful delegates to pick a better

candidate.

[AllentownJake]

18. delegates are usually loyalist

a hard to imagine scenario.

[ccharles000]

15. good