U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 07, 2008 09:19 PM UTC

A Short-Term Solution to the Potential Superdelegate Problem

  • 35 Comments
  • by: davidsirota

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

There’s a lot of legitimate concern out there about so-called superdelegates deciding who receives the Democratic presidential nomination. Superdelegates, as a refresher, are delegates (mostly elected officials) who are free floaters – they can decide who to support for the nomination without any regard to the outcomes of primaries or caucuses. Your state voted for Obama? Sorry, your state’s superdelegates are fully allowed to cast their nominating votes for Clinton. Same thing the other way around – it’s just straight up undemocratic.

As I discuss more fully in my upcoming book, The Uprising, superdelegate system was created to make sure the party Establishment – not rank-and-file voters – gets control over the nomination. And if such superdelegates make up the margin of victory for the nominee this year, then it means the Establishment will have control over who the nominee is – not us the voters.

So how do we prevent the Democratic nomination from becoming a smoky backroom deal? The Chairman of the Maine Democratic Party provides a model.

Here’s a press release that just came over the transom:

Party Chairman John Knutson Announces his Choice for President

AUGUSTA- This Sunday, Democrats all over Maine will participate in the Maine Democratic Party Caucus and choose who they want to nominate as this year’s Democratic presidential candidate.  The results of the caucus will determine how Maine’s 24 Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are allocated. Above and beyond the state delegates, who are allocated through the caucus and State   Convention, Maine also has 10 unpledged delegates, called “Super-Delegates,” who are able to support any candidate they choose.

These “Super-Delegates” are made up of elected officials like our Governor and two Congressmen, as well as party leaders like John Knutson, who is Chair of the Maine Democratic Party.  

On Thursday, Knutson announced that he will support the candidate who wins the majority of the vote in Maine.  “For all intents and purposes, Maine now has 25 delegates up for grabs since I will be embracing the candidate who wins Maine’s caucuses,” said Knutson. As a Super-Delegate, Knutson will represent this winning candidate at the Democratic National Convention.

Knutson continued, “I see this as a way to further empower Democrats across the state of Maine and make the results of our caucus more influential. It is clear that this Presidential campaign will come  down to a race for delegates, and I believe that by pledging to support the winner of Maine’s caucuses, I will help to increase Maine’s importance in the nomination process.”

This is a smart and moral move by Knutson – and one we should start encouraging everywhere. We’re not going to be able to reform the superdelegate system before this year’s convention, so the best we can hope for is pressure on existing superdelegates to simply represent how their states voted. This is a short-term solution and in no way would substitute for longer-term reform of the nominating process. But within the confines of this specific election, this solution is critically important.

Find out who the superdelegates are in your state, and then start putting pressure on them to do what Knutson did. We’ve got to get ahead of this thing before the horse-trading and backroom dealing starts.

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on “A Short-Term Solution to the Potential Superdelegate Problem”

  2. The super-delegates were created for a reason – to give a strong voice to those that have run as, won as, and goverened as Democrats. And there is a lot of value in this.

    Is the present system perfect? No. And should we look at changes next time? Sure. But this is the system as we set it up for this election and changing it now would be as bad as seating MI or FL at the convention.

    By definition the super delegates only matter if we have a close race like we presently have. It’s fine if a super delegate decides on their own to follow the majority in their state – but that’s an individual’s decision.

    1. It is hard to argue that Ken Salazar, Bill Ritter, etc., being super-delegates are anti-democratic.  They are, after all, democratically elected by the people of this state.

      Having said that, I don’t see how our party can disenfranchise two of the largest electoral college states from our convention (especially Florida with its recent history).  Something has to be worked out so that they have delegates seated.  

      1. they broke the rules, added additional chaos to an already hectic primary calendar, and added significantly to the front-loading problem this year. I applaud the DNC for being bold and resolute in punishing their transgressions.

        On the super-delegates, it’s not as if the game isn’t already rigged and votes are made meaningless anyways under the current situation, so what’s the big deal? Just because the party nominee is blatantly out of our hands makes it worse than when we think we have some voice in the matter? Additionally, I would think (and hope) that this party aristocracy has a better grasp of politics and the state of affairs than the general populace anyways, so again, what’s the big deal?

        1. No matter what system is used I think people will be saying, “The nomination is out of our hands its all decided by the party bigwigs.”  

          If we had a direct national primary the groaners would say, “It’s all in the hands of the big donors and party insiders.  The little guy can’t get his voice out enough to be heard in this national poll.”  “Little places don’t get attention, only big metro areas with lots of votes.”  Or even, “There’s too much uninformed voting, we aren’t getting good choices.”

          I cannot think of any sort of system that would not be called corrupt, rigged, and run by the insiders.

    2. The voice given in this case is a relative thing.

      A stronger voice for some means a weaker voice for others.

      There are close to 900k Democrats in Colorado

      Dan Slater is a great guy, but should his voice really be 17,000 times louder than average?

      All the Democrats in Wheatridge vs. Dan Slater… Dan Slater wins in a landslide!

      Is that the right balance?

      1. Obama is where he is because he is an incredibly talented speaker along with being a really good politician. So he has a much stronger voice than say Russ Feingold who has done a great job in the Senate – but does not have that extra whatever.

        Mark Udall, Ken Salazar, etc all ran and were elected by us to represent us in Washington. So yes, every day in writing laws, voting, etc they have a much stronger voice than any of us does.

        I like the super-delegate concept because these are the people that have successfully gotten elected. Their jobs depend on getting the best candidate nominated. And they know better than us what is required both to win and to govern.

        I’m not sure they should be such a high percentage of the delegates, but if the elected delegates are tied – I do think our elected representatives are a very good means of breaking the tie.

      1. The effect would ripple through America and the world as one of the most negative and racist moves in history.  Can you imagine that on the eve of electing America’s first Black Democratic nominee for President, the good ole boy network decides what is best for all of us?  Wow!  I can’t imagine anything more un-American!

        I can not visualize what the uprising would look like, but I guarantee it would be ugly and more frightful than any of us could foresee.  And even more worrisome – it would happen right here in Denver. The 2008 convention would make the 1968 convention look like a happy party.

        DavidTHI, you could not be more wrong.  Because you are elected does not mean you have more voice than the people, especially in electing the most powerful person in the world.  That is a direct slap in the face to Democracy.  Diana DeGette, Howard Dean or Jessie Jackson should never have more say than the rest of us.

        This is severe, but if Hillary won the nomination in that way, I would never again support the Democratic Party.

        1. you are incorrect when you assert:   “Because you are elected does not mean you have more voice than the people, especially in electing the most powerful person in the world.”

          We elect members of the Electoral College who are pledged, but not bound, to the candidate we have elected them to vote for.  Those individuals have, technically, much more of a voice than do we as individual voters in electing the most powerful person in the world…in our Democratic Republic.

          Having said that, I sincerely hope that it does not come down to a selection of our nominee by the Superdelegates.  I like both candidates (although I supported Hillary at my caucus) and would strongly support (both financially as well as with my vote) either of them in November.

          But I wonder why since you are open to using the race issue, you are not open to using the gender issue.  You do realize that a sizable majority of the superdelegates are, in fact, male.  Could it not be argued that they have sided with the man instead of the woman to lead the party?  

          Further, as of this moment, Hillary has received more votes than has Obama.  If going into the convention, Hillary still has received more votes than Obama, should she not be nominated—even if it is by the superdelegates?  I would argue that if as of the convention, Obama has more votes cast for him, the superdelegates should go his way.

          1. I should have been clearer in my post, I am obviously an Obama supporter and I do believe that Hillary is more of the insider with the Super Delegates and that is my point.  If she wins in number of Delegates, before the SD vote, then I am thrilled to back the first female President.

            I feel very strongly about the power of Super Delegates.  I think it is wrong for any one “group” of people to be able to change the voice (vote) of the American people. To me, it felt the same way to have the Supreme Court decide who would occupy the White House.

            I am passionate about an Obama Presidency, but as a woman I am perfectly OK with a Hillary Presidency, as long as it is done fairly, without bias and is what the American people want and not what a bunch of political insiders decide is best for all of us.

            1. I’m pleged to Obama but apparently here in Colorado that is merely the word of the delegate – there is no legal requirement to stick with it.

              In my case I hope to get elected to the national convention. And if I am not elected, I will only vote for a delegate who promises to support Obama.

              But others pledged to Obama, and Clinton, may operate differently.

        2. Keep in mind, all of these super-delegates are either running for election now or in 2 or 4 years for some Senators. Or they are in charge of getting Dems elected.

          The absolute last thing any of them are going to do is piss off half the electorate. And I think the reason people like the chair in Maine are saying they will follow their state is that they are scared to death of exactly that – pissing off half the base.

          What we are facing is Obama & Clinton going to the convention essentially tied in pleged delegates. And if they are basically tied, then it is up to the super delegates.

          But if one of them has a reasonable lead, sy 10% or more, then I think the majority of delegates will vote with that lead.

          1. Suoer delegates include people like Maria Handley and manny rodriguez here in colorado aren’t running for anything and were never elected to anything.

            2. Mannie Rodriguez was elected as a DNC Member by the Colorado Democratic Convention in 2004, and has to run for re-election again at the state convention in May.  (But note that if he isn’t re-elected, his term does not end until, literally, the day after the adjournment of the national convention.)

              1. Thanks for correcting me.

                I was actually speaking more to direct representative democracy, not voting for county delegates, who vote for multi county delegates, who vote for state delegates, who then vote on DNC members.

        3. If it comes down to the “super-delegates” electing Hillary Clinton or Obama for the nomination (against the results of the voter awarded delegates) I would leave as well.

          As far as I am concerned the super-dels should vote with the winner of the elected delegates.  If not, it will be clear that the Dem party really needs to be completely changed, and that all of the hard work that so many voters put into this campaign meant nothing.

    3. They don’t have to stay pledged.  They can change their minds.  I know the super delegates are supposed to put the breaks on a choice by the base that is too extreme to have a good chance. In this election year, though, if one candidate gets a clear majority, the super delegates ought to think twice about looking like they are thwarting the will of the ordinary voters after our recent history with elections.  

      Confidence that our votes count has been eroding. Young voters especially might decide that all their passion and effort were for nothing if it looks to them as if their choice is being taken away by the insiders anyway so why bother? It would cause a very damaging up-roar.  

      The supers staying neutral for now are going to be in the best position to make the best decision in the end without looking like back-stabbers.

  4. Superdelegates ought to vote in proportion to the vote in their states, not in a winner-takes-all format.  So since Colorado went 70-30 for Obama if we had (for sake of argument)10 superdelegates, they should split 7-3. My guess is, that as the convention approaches, superdelegates from every state will be under immense pressure to do just that.

    Also, Democrats my be eccentric, but they’re not crazy.  If either Obama or Clinton have substantial delegate leads, absent superdelegate commitments, the PLEOs (party leaders and elected officials) who are superdelegates (i.e., nearly all of them)won’t split the party in two and do what the Supreme Court did for George W.  That’d simply guarantee a GOP victory. I’m for Obama, but if Hillary wins fair & swuare, I’ll support her enthusiastically.  If not, I’ll stay home & sulk-maybe call up Dr. Dobson and invite him over for a beer.

      1. So, the Colorado list is:

        DNC Pat Waak – CO Chair (CO)

        DNC Debbie Marquez (CO)

        DNC JW Postal (CO)

        DNC Roy Romer (CO)

        DNC Hon. Joan Fitz-Gerald (CO)

        DNC Dan Slater (CO)

        Manny Rodriguez (CO)

        Maria Handley (CO)

        Rep. Diane DeGette (CO)

        Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO)

        Rep. John Salazar (CO)

        Rep. Mark Udall (CO)

        Sen. Ken Salazar (CO)

        Gov. Bill Ritter (CO)  

  6. I predict that the Democrats will reduce the power of the Superdelegates and will look at a way to prevent a rehash of Michigan and Florida this year, probably with a radical overhaul of the primary/caucus calendar rules (perhaps to follow the GOP example of this year).

    The Republicans meanwhile, are going to look for a way to reduce the distorting effect of winner take all elections that allowed McCain, a moderate with support from maybe 30% of the rank and file of Republicans plus lots of independents to win pluralities that put him in a dominant position against a divided slate of conservatives, perhaps copying the proportional representation rules of the Democrats.

  8. As a first time Denver caucus attendee, I also saw some problems that could use fixing.  The disenfranchisement of the ill, disabled or elderly who could not physically get out in a snowstorm for example.  Another issue was the apparent ability of anyone not on the official list to walk in, sign a verification, influence the results, and walk out.  There does not seem to be an adequate method of addressing any inaccuracies from this method.  

    If the newly energized young turks (it’s not a racist term, look it up as I did) want to empower challenges to the “party establishment”, then perhaps they will want to support the right of state parties to challenge the national rules, and support Florida and Michigan?  

  9. The fundamental question here is this:  Should the selection of party presidential nominees be a democratic process?

    Historically, it was not.  The parties selected delegates (I’m guessing through the local party apparatus), and those delegates met and chose a presidential nominee.  If you wanted to be part of the selection process, you became active in the party.  Simply signing a line on the voter registration card didn’t matter.  Even after direct primaries came into use for other offices, the presidential primaries were “beauty contests”.

    At some point (1968 seems to have been critical for the Dems), the primaries and caucuses started to become binding on the national delegates, at least to some degree.  However, the old idea that the party leadership should have an influence on the selection of the nominee still held on.  I imagine this was especially true in caucuses.  Meanwhile, the parties (especially the Dems) have been letting people believe that the process is completely democratic.  However, the presence of the superdelegates tells us that it isn’t.

    If it becomes clear to people that the process is not truly democratic, for instance if the superdelegates throw the convention one way or the other, I believe that all of these young people that everyone is talking about will feel personally betrayed.  I made a post about this over on SqaureState.  Briefly, I think the party apparatchiks will be shocked at how quickly these young people will turn against the Democrats if they think one of the nominees (oh, lets say Obama) is denied the nomination by undemocratic means.  And they will feel lied to when they figure out that the process was undemocratic from the get-go.

    Lying to the electorate is not a way to build loyalty, in my opinion!

  10. If the voice of the caucuses is ignored by superdelegates such as Rep. Degette, the throngs that showed up on Tuesday night will become quickly disenchanted, and may just decide to stay home for the next round.

    Diana said that her loyalty lay with Hillary, but most in her district would argue otherwise.

    The hundreds of committed (and newly committed) that appeared at my caucus location were informed, engaged and energized… this is a party-building dynamic that can easily be quashed by the blithe disregard of the “supers”.

  11. They were fine with stopping a wingnut. And they loved being able to pledge early and get favors in return. But to be the deciding vote – that scares a lot of them for the reasons listed above.

    I think in this case, where it is dead even between two very compelling, moderate, electable candidates, that a lot of the super delegates are going to try to figure out what vote their constituents will be most ok with.

    And I think they are hoping either Clinton or Obama becomes a clear winner in elected delegates to make the final decision easier.

    Because, what if they end up tied? Then the superdelegates do need to decide it. And either way – half the base is going to be royally pissed off.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols