Who are these Super Delegates who are Fixing the US Elections?

@petebaja (516)
Mexico
February 12, 2008 10:24am CST
Who are these Super Delegates? Who appoints them? How long do they serve? I hear some of them are pledged. Why are they pledged and how, by a bribe? by a promise of a job in the next administration? I hear Bill Clinton is a super delegate. We know who he's voting for. That doesn't sound very democratic or fair, does it? So why do we bother with primaries and elections if super delegates decide the part nominees and then the general elections are decided by electoral votes that have nothing to do with the real count - the popular vote? Or worse, a general election decided by 9 people behind the closed doors of the Supreme Court!!
3 people like this
4 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Feb 08
Here's a good source for an explanation of Super Delegates: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm Here is part of what's included there: Who Are Super-Delegates? Super-delegates (approximately 850 in 2008) include the following: * Elected members of the Democratic National Committee (~450) * Democratic Governors * Democratic US Senators and US Representatives (including non-voting delegates) * Distinguished party leaders (current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents; former Democratic leaders of the Senate and House; former DNC chairmen) * Unpledged "add-on's" chosen by the DNC I hope that helps a little! This is something they came up with in 1980, I believe, after Jimmy Carter's defeat was blamed in part on the division within the party because of Carter and Ted Kennedy's intense rivalry for the Democratic nomination. I have a feeling there will be some changes made after this election because it's never come into play the way it might this year. Annie
2 people like this
@petebaja (516)
• Mexico
13 Feb 08
Thank you, I'll check out that website. I wonder if you know anything about pledged delegates and who obliges them? It seems silly that before the primaries are done among the states that there are already "pledged" delegates. That seems to counter the meaning of democracy, don't you think?
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Feb 08
The way I understand it, event those who are pledged to a candidate aren't bound by it. They have the option of changing their mind. Annie
• United States
12 Feb 08
As I understand it, Super Delegates are just something the 2 major political parties choose to use to help select their nominees. Each political party is pretty much free to select a candidate any way they want. We as voters during the primary process are allowed to have input as the political parties allow. Heck, it seems that the Democrats and Republicans can choose to ignore all the primary results and choose another candidate. The Democrats and Republicans each run things as they want. The USA has evolved to a 2 party system, with very little voice from candidates outside those 2 parties.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
Only the Democratics have Super Delegates. The delegates are governed by state law. In the case of Gov. Romney he did not drop out of the race so his delegates are still pledged to him and in most states must vote(unless it is a unanimous ballot) for him on the first ballot. Some states require voting for the candidate that won the state primary on the first and second ballot. You saw in past conventions some states will ask for the nomination to be unanimous and that will release all the delegates to show party unity.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
Every democratic congressman, senator, governor and former Presidents along with the state and national party leaders - one estimate is 40% of the delegates. Some people say this is a control to prevent someone who does not support the party ideals from getting the nomination. Others say that it is a way to insure that if a person took more delegates but not the popular vote the super delegates could swing the nomination to the will of the voters. In this years primaries’ the Super delegates are very important because it appears that they could be the deciding factor. You can be sure the super delegates are going to be heavily courted for their support. The hope is to get their vote and maybe they can change some of the elected delegates. Most delegates are committed to vote on the first ballot for the person who won their state. After the first ballot they are free to vote how they wish. If the super delegates could prevent a nomination on the first ballot it becomes an open convention where anyone could become the nominee. Senators Clinton and Obama could be out and an unknown could be the party candidate. That is politics. The Republicans do not have super delegates but similar to the democratic the delegates are committed for the first ballot and in some cased the first two ballots and then they are free to vote how they choose.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Feb 08
I was reading your link LATE and used the wrong numbers. You are right Super Delegates make up about 20%. If there is a fight at the convention I could see Al Gore coming to the rescue of the party. He has not supported either candidate and has already suggested that he could be a peace broker between Obama and Clinton. He can point to the 2000 election and say that he has the backing of the people.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Feb 08
The Super Delegates comprise about 20% of the total delegates this election. I can't imagine a scenario where Clinton and Obama are both out and an unknown would become the nominee. I don't think the elected delegates can change their vote unless they're released by the candidate. It can get quite confusing since the rules vary from state to state. I know there are those who disagree with this and maybe they have some good reason I'm unaware of but I'd like to see a uniform national primary election. It sure would make things much easier. Annie
@petebaja (516)
• Mexico
14 Feb 08
Al Gore is not going to be a peace broker. If he even appears in the convention, it is to accept the nomination, which is highly unlikely. I don't think national politics interest him anymore. I think he's keeping his eye on the bigger picture of world diplomacy (and saving the world from melting away). After winning the nobel prize and the adulation of the international community, why would he stoop down to the dirty in-fighting of politics. Party politics seem so petty compared to his new-found responsibilities.
@Celanith (2327)
• United States
13 Feb 08
I think we the people should start demanding they eliminate the electorial college and also the primaries, Let there be just one General election. Think how many BILLIONS of dollars wasted on all this campaigning that could go to help pay for social programs, health care, education. They say we are broke why not put that money to better using stablizing the economy with good paying jobs. In other words take your campaign contributions and put your money where your mouth is. Stop all the glitz, blitz, debates and show we the people your sincere. Primaries, Caucuses, Electorial College should all be eliminted and banned.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Feb 08
I agree totally with eliminating the Electoral Colleg, but the primaries? It would be rather difficult to hold a general election with about 20 candidates, which is what we had to start with this election. Also, without debates how are we to know who stands for what? Campaign finance definitely needs to be changed but not quite that drastically. Actually, the only tax dollars for campaigns are the matching the funds the candidates that opt for them receive. I must say, though, I have a problem with the corporations such as the insurance and pharmaceutical companies giving billions to political campaigns to ensure that they can continue to gouge the consumers with their outrageous prices. Annie