The Electoral College and DNC Superdelegates

[MtnBiker]

For any democrat who has expressed dissatisfaction with the Electoral College, they should be going ape shit over the DNC Superdelegates.

[JohnDoe]

Here's the thing though Mtn, those were the rules of the game when the game began....in fact they have been in the rules for around 35-40 years I think?

How I look at it is that "Super Delegates" were in the rules from the beginning....part of the game to win the Nomination. A Future President HAS to be able to woo Congressmen and foreign Diplomats and Senators and previous presidents and all kinds of people when then get in to office in order for things to get accomplished, so I am not so certain it is not a good thing to have Super delegates.....though i would be perfectly fine if they did not have them too....and that is not the point.

The point is, to "change" that now would be downright wrong. Every candidate that ran knew that there were the everyday citizens to win votes from ... counting for 83% of the delegate votes and Super Delegates to win support from... counting for 17% towards the nomination votes from the beginning of the Nomination process in the very least and they each worked on their strategies to win the nominations BASED ON THAT?

you just can't change that now imo, not without it being cheating or just downright unfair imho.

jd

[pegwinn]

Here's the thing though Mtn, those were the rules of the game when the game began....in fact they have been in the rules for around 35-40 years I think?

Kinda like the EC no? I think his point (correct me if I am mistaken) is that in Y2K folks screeched over the "stolen election" since Gore got the popular vote. Those same people, unless the screeching was simply hypocrisy, should be rioting in the streets of Denver at the convention.

[manu1959]

For any democrat who has expressed dissatisfaction with the Electoral College, they should be going ape shit over the DNC Superdelegates.

only those that don't want hillary...the rest will be just fine.....

one voice one vote....unless you don't vote the way dems think you should then the super delegates will vote the way you should have voted.....

mommy govt. knows best....

[manu1959]

Here's the thing though Mtn, those were the rules of the game when the game began....in fact they have been in the rules for around 35-40 years I think?

How I look at it is that "Super Delegates" were in the rules from the beginning....part of the game to win the Nomination. A Future President HAS to be able to woo Congressmen and foreign Diplomats and Senators and previous presidents and all kinds of people when then get in to office in order for things to get accomplished, so I am not so certain it is not a good thing to have Super delegates.....though i would be perfectly fine if they did not have them too....and that is not the point.

The point is, to "change" that now would be downright wrong. Every candidate that ran knew that there were the everyday citizens to win votes from ... counting for 83% of the delegate votes and Super Delegates to win support from... counting for 17% towards the nomination votes from the beginning of the Nomination process in the very least and they each worked on their strategies to win the nominations BASED ON THAT?

you just can't change that now imo, not without it being cheating or just downright unfair imho.

jd


super delegates were invented in the mondale years.....

[MtnBiker]

Here's the thing though Mtn, those were the rules of the game when the game began....in fact they have been in the rules for around 35-40 years I think?


I am not suggesting that the DNC change its rules about the super delegates this election. Pegwinn has it right in regards to my point.

An Op-ed on super delegates by Lanny Davis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-superdelegates-alw_b_86567.html

It seems the concept was created in 1982.

It could be interperated as the party leaders don't fully trust the voting public in the primaries and want the ability to sway the nomination if possible and needed.

[JohnDoe]

Kinda like the EC no? I think his point (correct me if I am mistaken) is that in Y2K folks screeched over the "stolen election" since Gore got the popular vote. Those same people, unless the screeching was simply hypocrisy, should be rioting in the streets of Denver at the convention.
Yes, I do understand that, and although I was not one of the ones that said Gore won because he won the popular vote, I do have problems with the presidential electoral college at this time in our country's history but never called for things to be changed with the 2000 election after the game began... (I thought Gore won the true votes of the people in Florida...thus winning the electoral votes from florida, thus the election) hahahahahaha! :laugh2::laugh2:

and yes, i think there are going to be some people pretty upset on either side of the party....it's just been a messed up primary process all around in my opinion....disenfranchising floridians and michiganians....

The thing is, Obama will not have enough delegates gathered from the citizen votes to win the nomination before the convention, and neither will Hillary so it is going to come down to the superdelegates at the convention...i think this might be the first time ever since the superdelegates were instituted that they may actually be the determining factor...it might be the second time?

jd

[MtnBiker]

The thing is, Obama will not have enough delegates gathered from the citizen votes to win the nomination before the convention, and neither will Hillary so it is going to come down to the superdelegates at the convention...i think this might be the first time ever since the superdelegates were instituted that they may actually be the determining factor...it might be the second time?




True enough, and again I'm not suggesting a change in the super delegates. However for arguments sake if there were not super delegates but rather regular delegates in each state one canidate would earn enough win the nomination.

[JohnDoe]

True enough, and again I'm not suggesting a change in the super delegates. However for arguments sake if there were not super delegates but rather regular delegates in each state one canidate would earn enough win the nomination.


And...true enough on that too!

EXCEPT, if the rules were different from the very beginning and it was only the vote of the people that was going to count with no delegates at all, all the candidates may have begun their campaign with a different strategy, or if all the candidates knew from the beginning that only delegates allocated from the vote of the citizens would count then they would have had a different approach and strategy on how to win the nomination...

Because this was not the way the primary was set up, each candidate went about their strategy knowing that superdelegates also counted in the game they were all trying to win.

In other words, if the rules were different, someone else could be in the lead right now with delegates from the votes of the citizens....shoot, edwards could still be in the game.... you'll just never know...because the game did not begin with those rules!

jd

[MtnBiker]

Well if it comes down to the super delegates deciding the canidate there could be alot of upset people.

[JohnDoe]

Well if it comes down to the super delegates deciding the canidate there could be alot of upset people.

If it comes down to that, then that means the vote of people is pretty much split, so one half of the democrats will be disappointed no matter what imo.

And i would not underestimate the Party....they know they will unite in the end, this election is too important not to unite in their heads, so it will be worked out, no matter who the final candidate is in my opinion...

that's just the way it is....at least the majority of primaries, all that i can remember on both sides of the aisle..... Though that ain't saying much because i never really paid that much attention to politics till after 9/11 so i could have missed alot of the "details"! :D

Just like the republicans will support McCain when the election gets around....for "fear" of the "other guy/gal from the other side of the aisle"! :laugh2: really though, pretty sad ....

jd

[JohnDoe]

Well if it comes down to the super delegates deciding the canidate there could be alot of upset people.Also, we need to note that this election is not won by the "vote of the people".....a majority of "people" have NEVER determined the candidate from either side of the aisle, it has been delegates that vote and make the selection, similar to the electoral college, where smaller states are weighted with more power (delegates) than their simple population demands.

Sooooo, we the people, RIGHT NOW do not have a system where one man one vote weighs equal with the next man's/woman's vote....even if only the delegates from the states counted and the super delegates were not counted.

jd

[Immanuel]

Update from Florida:

I heard this morning that Howard Dean is calling for a second running of the primaries in Florida and Michigan from which the delegates would be counted.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sound fair. No more so than giving Hillary the delegates out of those to states because she whined about it after the fact.

One more question... is the DNC going to pay for this election? Elections are not cheap... does he expect the citizens of Florida and Michigan to foot the bill for this?

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Update from Florida:

I heard this morning that Howard Dean is calling for a second running of the primaries in Florida and Michigan from which the delegates would be counted.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sound fair. No more so than giving Hillary the delegates out of those to states because she whined about it after the fact.

One more question... is the DNC going to pay for this election? Elections are not cheap... does he expect the citizens of Florida and Michigan to foot the bill for this?

Immie
yur gov said delegates should count for florida... same with michigan governor now too.....

15 million for a redo, i heard....put on to the dem party supposedly, unless negotiated?

--------------------------------

let me ask,

-did obama and hillary campaign there or keep their pledges?

-how did only hillary's name get on the ballot and not obama/edwards etc?

-was there a write in slot?

-what was the tally, including write ins by person running?

-how are your delegates delegated? ALL to one candidate, or nothing?


jd

[Immanuel]

yur gov said delegates should count for florida... same with michigan governor now too.....

15 million for a redo, i heard....put on to the dem party supposedly, unless negotiated?

--------------------------------

let me ask,

-did obama and hillary campaign there or keep their pledges?

-how did only hillary's name get on the ballot and not obama/edwards etc?

-was there a write in slot?

-what was the tally, including write ins by person running?

-how are your delegates delegated? ALL to one candidate, or nothing?


jd

To my knowledge neither one of them campaigned here. As for TV, I haven't been paying attention to it much lately so I can't say as I have seen any ads so I don't know on that. I don't remember having heard of an "agreement" not to campaign here from anywhere but this site. I do remember hearing that the DNC said they would punish any candidate campaigning here. I think Obama made a trip through the state shortly before the primary but couldn't swear on that.

I have seen on Hillary's site a plea to the voters of Florida to still get out and vote. This tells me that it was in her plans that if she won, she would be pushing this issue.

To my knowledge Hillary filed to get on the ballot and the other candidates did not although they could have if they had so desired.

Was there a write in slot? I don't know. I am registered No Party Affiliation. I was not allowed to vote for either parties candidates and with only one other issue on the ballot that I was kind of indifferent about, I didn't vote.

I believe but you can check just as easily as I can that Florida is a winner take all state.

Immie

[Classact]

If you look at the History section of this link the US constitution has a totally different idea of how candidates are chosen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Origin_of_name Scroll up a couple of paragraphs to start with History...

[JohnDoe]

If you look at the History section of this link the US constitution has a totally different idea of how candidates are chosen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Origin_of_name Scroll up a couple of paragraphs to start with History...

i read about this last week...had completely forgotten that this was the way it was...from your link:


[edit] Original plan
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

“ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. ”

It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

“ The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. ”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided for the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were to be chosen by the electors. The primary difference was that each elector voted for two Persons for President, rather than one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. After the choosing of the President, whoever had the most electoral votes, among the remaining candidates, would become the Vice President.

The emergence of political parties complicated matters in the elections of 1796 and 1800. In 1796, the winner of the election was John Adams, a member of the Federalist Party, and the runner up (and therefore the new Vice President) was Thomas Jefferson, a member of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1800, the candidates of the Democratic-Republican Party (Jefferson for President and Aaron Burr for Vice President) each tied for first place. However, since all electoral votes were for President, Burr's votes were technically for him being President even though he was his party's second choice. Jefferson was so hated by Federalists that the party members sitting in Congress tried to elect Burr. The Congress deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary vote of a majority (nine) of the state delegations in the House. Only after Federalist Party leader Alexander Hamilton—who disliked Burr—made known his preference for Jefferson was the issue resolved on the 36th ballot.

In response to those elections, the Congress proposed the Twelfth Amendment—with electors casting one vote for President and one vote for Vice President—to replace the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed in 1803 and was adopted in 1804.

[PostmodernProphet]

super delegates were invented in the mondale years.....

it's true....the party leadership was upset that the electorate kept choosing candidates that couldn't win general elections......

[JohnDoe]

it's true....the party leadership was upset that the electorate kept choosing candidates that couldn't win general elections......

good morning pmp
the goal is to win the presidency, right?

do you know if the superdelegates have really determine a winner that was not already the choice of the people since they instituted this?

jd

[Kathianne]

yur gov said delegates should count for florida... same with michigan governor now too.....

15 million for a redo, i heard....put on to the dem party supposedly, unless negotiated?

--------------------------------

let me ask,

-did obama and hillary campaign there or keep their pledges?

-how did only hillary's name get on the ballot and not obama/edwards etc?

-was there a write in slot?

-what was the tally, including write ins by person running?

-how are your delegates delegated? ALL to one candidate, or nothing?


jd

More like $25m, each:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080306/NEWS/80306011


Michigan and Florida Could Redo Primaries


March 06, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.

The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, is now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated...

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, told the Detroit Free Press that Clinton's victory in Ohio changes ``the landscape a bit.'' She said it could open the door to a caucus, if it can be privately funded and both candidates agree.

Granholm, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, issued a joint statement Wednesday demanding that their delegates be seated. ``We each will call upon our respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal selection of their parties' nominees,'' the statement said.

Crist told reporters at a news conference Tuesday that he does not support having another primary at taxpayer expense. He said he discussed the option with Sen. Bill Nelson, the state's senior Democrat. ``He said the only way to consider the possibility of that is to have the Democratic National Committee pay for it,'' Crist said. The Florida Democratic Party said the state estimates it would cost $25 million.

Getting funding from the national committee might be difficult when the party has a general election to wage. Last August, the DNC offered to spend $800,000 for a later caucus, but the Florida state party rejected the idea because the amount would have only been enough to set up 150 caucus sites for the state's 4.1 million Democrats. ``It wasn't a real offer. It just wasn't. It was not something anybody could agree to with a straight face,'' said state party spokesman Mark Bubriski.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement Wednesday that seemed to leave the matter for the states to resolve....

[MtnBiker]

good morning pmp
the goal is to win the presidency, right?

do you know if the superdelegates have really determine a winner that was not already the choice of the people since they instituted this?

jd

The Mondale - Hart race in 1984 was probably the closes to this situtation.

[PostmodernProphet]

good morning pmp
the goal is to win the presidency, right?

do you know if the superdelegates have really determine a winner that was not already the choice of the people since they instituted this?

jd

well, let's see....the only winner they have had since then was Bill Clinton and I don't think they needed the superdelegates to figure that nomination out....


After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

But some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. In 1982, a commission chaired by former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt created superdelegates. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented in 1984, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%. [5]

In the 1984 election, the major contenders for the Presidential nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each won some primaries and caucuses. Mondale was only slightly ahead of Hart in the total number of votes cast, but won the support of almost all superdelegates and became the nominee.[6]

In 1988, a study found that superdelegates and delegates selected through the primary and caucus process are not substantively different in terms of viewpoints on issues from each other. But it also found that superdelegates are more likely to prefer candidates with Washington experience than outsider candidates.[7]

The superdelegates have not always prevailed, however. In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held. Nevertheless, John Kerry defeated Dean in a succession of primaries and caucuses and won the nomination.

from wiki......

[pegwinn]

Update from Florida:

I heard this morning that Howard Dean is calling for a second running of the primaries in Florida and Michigan from which the delegates would be counted.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sound fair. No more so than giving Hillary the delegates out of those to states because she whined about it after the fact.

One more question... is the DNC going to pay for this election? Elections are not cheap... does he expect the citizens of Florida and Michigan to foot the bill for this?

Immie

Howard Dean is a pussy. He laid down the law and then MI and FL did what they did. Now, like an ineffective babysitter, he will go back on his original ultimatum.

I heard on the radio today that the cost was about $25M and that the states would be on the hook to pay.

So far it's the best TV on TV and the writers strike had no effect. Gotta love it.

Personally, I think the Dems (party bosses, DNC, Dean) want Hillary. I think they will support whatever it takes to get her the nod. Still good TV.