Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa was also a good night for our democracy. The turnout broke records and young people – who were mobilized and organized – participated in unprecedented numbers. And now that Iowans have spoken – the first citizens in the nation to do so – here's the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
"Huh?" you say. "vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo."
In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 "super-delegates" – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.
In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word "change" is being bandied about, isn't it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I'm been to these Democratic caucuses - called DFL in Minnesota. At the caucus, they are packed. All the "people" there elect leftish persons. Then they pass leftish resolutions. Much excitement. Then the delegates and resolutions are passed up the food chain. By the time of the state convention, what do you have? Superdelegates, missing resolutions, and the same hacks running the show.
It is why wanting a 'change' through the Democratic party is a misnomer. No real change has come through that party for many years. Even at the time of Roosevelt, Huey Long was showing Roosevelt a thing or two.
Posted by ElyDog at 01/04/2008 @ 4:27pm
I'm curious, the dems still think they need a "saftey valve"?
Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 4:29pm
It would seem to be, now, more of a super self destruct system. And as good place as any, better than most in fact, for the voters, the people, to begin to push back.
Posted by V at 01/04/2008 @ 4:31pm
KVH, are you implying that no matter who wins the primaries, HRC could wind up with the nod anyway? If that's the case why caucus?
Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by ELYDOG 01/04/2008 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person
So, the remedy you propose is perchance, what?
Posted by V at 01/04/2008 @ 4:33pm
Exactly why I take all this starry-eyed "hope" bullshit with a grain of salt...or two.
Posted by MATTMAN at 01/04/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/04/2008 @ 4:32pm
She's not...
Ms vanden Heuvel, when in the last 36 years since McGovern, have the "super-delegates" chosen the nominee and not the caucus/primary process?
You REALLY think that there's going to be some scenario where Obama wins the plurality of the primaries, Hillary picks up a minority of them...and it goes to Convention and the "SDs" are going to out-vote the Obama delegates and nominate Her Nibs...
thus KILLING their chances in 2008, by simple virtue of the fact that (as you said) the Democratic Party would no longer be "democratic"?
This is no "potential crises"...so why crises monger about it?
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 4:37pm
Man, this is totally out there. No wonder the loss in Iowa hasn't effected her, she knows she's got most of the delegates lock up and her "campaigning" is just ruse. All the while slick Willy is going around the country cashing in his favors.
Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 4:40pm
Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 4:37pm
Down MASK! Down!!
Dude, I can see the hairs on the back of your neck rising... :-)
Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/04/2008 @ 4:44pm
More silliness and I find silliness tiring.
No super-delegate "tyranny" imposed Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. And they never will.
It's a "honorarium" if you like, for the pols and party heads...but it's NEVER going to turn into some "back room means of shutting down the rights of Democratic Party primary voters" and to claim its even THREATENING that is just trying to pick a fight where none exists.
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 4:48pm
BTW, if Ms vanden Heuvel wants to discuss something serious..(or partially so)...
have her go over to new "TN" blogger Jessica Valenti's thread and explain why she (Ms vH) continues to appear on "Hardball" with the lecherous Chris Matthews, who Ms Valenti rightfully went after as a quasi-misogynistic jerk.
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 4:50pm
Be gentle now. You know she has to do one of her impersonations of Mr. Nichols...(hehehe)
Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 4:58pm
This post crystalized something that at first I was of a mind to do later, but now as events are wont to do, caused to be of a mind to do sooner: I am thinking of a website, well, of a couple of things, actually. First, how can a person sitting at, in front of, their computer, be engaged as an activist? I came up with a couple of things, one of which, was visit a website. And another, was write an @mail ...
Which brings me back to the website I was thinking of, it would have a certain point of view, that a person would know of before they so choose to do so, visited. And a visit would in fact be like a vote, considered a vote, after a fashion. In that distinct, web impressions would be tallied. Then be used as an indicator of people in sympathy with the views so expressed.
So if you would help me, I would very much, appreciate it, for starters check this out;
If a democratic member of congress, governor, state legislator, mayor, or city council, does not:
1) Vote to repeal the super majority, they will be voted out of office. That we will, you will, vote democratic, but, for an individual who will return power to the people, which means by definition, not for them, ever, for anything, period.
2) Suggestions ... ?
3) Suggestions ... ?
Any suggestions? Or, what pisses(d) you off most about the democratic party, that you would like to see added to the above list?
Each numbered suggestion will have "That I will, vote democratic, but, for an individual who will return power to the people, which means by definition, not for you, ever, for anything, period" ... What is, was, their most egregious act, vote bill etc. in your humble opinion? Rate it with 0 being no big deal to 10, if you will and I'll collate them and then add them to the list.
Once the list is published, just get your democratic friends, associates, colleagues, whatever, to visit the site. There will also be a pledge that you when you talk to aforementioned democrats, about politics, you will ask them to visit the site. And that's all, I am not asking anyone to go "Amway" on their friends and relatives, just to get the democratic party to take us internet and us "net-revo's" seriously. In this case opinions are welcome.
Thanks ...
Posted by V at 01/04/2008 @ 6:13pm
Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person
Then they shouldn't mind killing it. They should do something first, before they have the privilege of honoraria.
Posted by V at 01/04/2008 @ 6:18pm
More silliness and I find silliness tiring.
No super-delegate "tyranny" imposed Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. And they never will....
Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 4:48pm
You are right historically speaking, but this year??? Could it be the arrival of "never"?? You BET! If the primary/caucus delegate count at the end is something like the Iowa ratio w/no one over 50%...heck, if 3 remains to the end, if no one is over 40%!
To beat the conventional odds, as I do in the financial markets regularly--yes, 2007 also--one can't be conventional most of the times!
HRC ran an expected, conventional campaign based on `experience' and guess what, didn't work......I thought/hoped so, so far!
Posted by Happy at 01/04/2008 @ 6:47pm
Yuck. Clinton's ass-kissing of the Party last night after losing is calculated. She doesn't need the People...she needs the Party. What a Couuntry! Clinton has the audacity today to start fear mongering, claiming she is going to tell young voters all she has done for them, claiming she is going to start answering questions specifically...blah..blah...blah. We badly need an alternative party structure in this Country.
Posted by OneVote at 01/04/2008 @ 6:58pm
If Hillary wins the nomination by securing the super-delegate count, even after losing the popular vote of most Democrats, so you think Democratic voters will be motivated to vote for her in November?
I think the party establishment should chew on that because the last thing we need is an "illegitimate" candidate, like George Bush in 2000, as the Democratic party nominee.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/04/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/04/2008 @ 6:47pm
It would be the Republicans' one salvation for the Democratic Party to slit its own throat in a blatent act like that.
My theory?...Ms vanden Heuvel just needed something to write about "elitism" and "anti-democracy" to pad her next book.
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 8:07pm
...slit its own throat in a blatent act like that.
Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 8:07pm
IF the Primaries end with, say 38%/32%/30%, who says those party delegates must vote in the same proportions? They are the `establishment' (read: seasoned and well-connected) of the Dem Party and any objective person can't fault them for voting according to their own calculations! Just as the youth votes goes heavily to Obama, one can reasonably expect party delegates to vote either Clinton or Edwards.
After all the pissing-in-their-pants, the Dems will still unite....I just don't believe too many `principled' Obama or Edwards (assuming HRC wins via super delegates) voters will boycott come November. Just for entertainment sake, I'd love to see it happen and see you folks go nuts over it...and then settle down two weeks after the Convention.
Posted by Happy at 01/04/2008 @ 9:51pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/04/2008 @ 9:51pm
HAPPY, are you serious?
You think the Party who (99% atleast) SCREAMED about "Florida 2000" and "selected not elected" for...well...seven years now...
is going to pull a stunt like giving the nomination to Hillary or Edwards with a minority of the vote, over Obama with a plurality?
You REALLY think they'd do that...kill ANY credibility they'd have for being "Democratic" and for their complaints about the 2000 election....for something that would result in an OBVIOUS Republican victory?
You REALLY think that could happen???
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 10:46pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/04/2008 @ 9:51pm
Actually, HAPP...maybe there's another explanation (if you're half-serious)...
are you WORRIED that this election is shaping up as a close-to slam dunk for the Dems, and you're hoping against hope that they "screw up a free lunch" and ruin it themselves, since none of the Repubs has a good chance...even against Obama?
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 10:49pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/04/2008 @ 11:05pm
Honestly, MAASCH...there IS a "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" (Same as there's a Bush one)...and Her Nibs seems to engender it even MORE.
She's not "all powerful" with machinations that make Machiavelli look like Harold Stassen. She LOST Iowa...third place.
You really think if she could pull off a "super-delegate selection nomination"...that she would have allowed Obama to beat her, much less let Obama AND Edwards beat her?
You're getting to be like HSUB and his "Gore's announcement is imminent" with your constant refrain that "She CANNOT be stopped!!!"
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 11:10pm
And now for something MUCH more serious! [pistolwimp.com]
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 11:29pm
HAPPY, are you serious?
....You REALLY think that could happen???
Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 10:46pm
I was NOT THAT serious....I just knee-jerked to someone supposedly ?a poli-sci hotshot? saying "never"!
But it definitely "could happen"....and the Clinton machine is the most logical to make that "could", into something more. LOL!
Now, one of the ways I could see a Dem "slam dunk" is a Clinton/Obama ticket coupled with a Repub candidate other than McCain or Rudy.
Generally speaking, the Dems appear way over-confident....based on conventional metrics. A recession is brewing.....a needed cyclical one.....and let's see how the country react to a Party's message based on increasing taxes go down!
Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 12:51am
Excellent post, Kay Vee!
After all... isn't it a representative government that we all seek? All this commandeering... it just isn't satisfying for anyone, really. Let's conjure up some good listeners... Politicians that will 'go to bat' for Americans in America. And if what you are pointing out is even remotely possible, it's a 'now or never' proposition, and Americans need to be heard today. Heard over the voting machines... heard over the redistricting... heard over those who worship the chimera of 'influencing' the free press...
Eternal vigilance... now more than ever.
Mask... uh... just what is it about your 'thing' with KVH? I mean... well... at least you're consistent... But really... you blog and blog and blog and blog... and so much of it seems to be all but hopeless... mean, actually. If you hate what she does SO much, why do you line up so anxiously for her next piece? Do me a favor, would you 'old boy'? For one entire post, list some things you like about someone, anyone... without any pejoratives... and without the sly (tly pathetic) snicker. Give it a go, wouldja dude?
Thanks, and may God bless you.
ttr
Posted by ttr at 01/05/2008 @ 04:05am
Posted by TTR 01/05/2008 @ 04:05am |
Okay, how about a PETER ROTHBERG column? He seems to be about the best on this site. Optimistic and overly faithful to "activism", but rarely silly or making bad analysis.
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 11:22am
Good point re super delegates & it prompts at least 2 Qs:
1) how many super delegates are now pledged to Obama? to Edwards?
2) how is a super delegate appointed, strictly by virtue of holding a political office? other?
Posted by Lit at 01/05/2008 @ 11:35am
Happy-If Hillary gets the nomination then many of us will stay home because we will assume that the Democrats want to lose and we will be more than happy to help them achieve that goal.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/05/2008 @ 11:53am
If Hillary gets the nomination then many of us will stay home because we will assume that the Democrats want to lose...
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/05/2008 @ 11:53am
Then, kindly explain the preponderance of Dem (over) confidence in taking the WH irregardless of who the Repubs put up.....when HRC was, and may still is, THE (pre-ordained) CANDIDATE?
sorry, don't buy it.......a few will boycott....not enough to register....like Dennis' numbers!
Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 1:54pm
Happy-Both sides are overconfident and it doesn't take very many to boycott or to cast protest votes in order to effect the outcome as the elections in 2000 and 2004 clearly show.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/05/2008 @ 2:03pm
Happy-If it's between Hillary and Rudy then I think we can expect low voter turn out.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/05/2008 @ 2:07pm
Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing answers to Lit's queries also.
And, V, your ideas about harnessing the internet or phone lines or whatever other technologies to foster more DIRECT democracy, as opposed to the oligarchic/representative democracy we have now, are supported here; with, of course, transparency to avoid frauds as blackboxvoting.com(?) has exposed for almost a decade already.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 4:17pm
If it's between Hillary and Rudy then I think we can expect low voter turn out.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/05/2008 @ 2:07pm
If it's between Hillary and Rudy then I think we can expect the sixth angel to pour out his vial upon the great river Euphrates;
and the water thereof will be dried up, that the way of the kings of the east may be prepared.
And we will see three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon,
and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
For they are the spirits of devils,
working miracles,
which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world,
to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
or maybe they'll be low voter turnout.
but i bet they'll be busy at the mall. (what say you, bernancke?!?)
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2008 @ 5:13pm
Both sides are overconfident....
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/05/2008 @ 2:03pm
For the GOP, there is a tendency to be "overconfident", BUT, BUT, BUT,....this would only be limited to going up against HRC! I'm guilty of that....I think I posted a 60% WIN probability yesterday.
However, the Dem Party and a very large part of its constituent parts, are across-the-board "overconfident" against ANY Repub candidate.
BIG Difference!
Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 5:38pm
Actually there are some good rationales for the super-delegates. First, they represent members of the party who will be running on the same ticket as the presidential nominee and could be helped or harmed by the quality of that nominee. Second, many of them are elected officials who will have to work with the nominee should that person become President. Third, the reaction to the McGovern nomination would seem to have as much to do with the result he had in the general election as with being averse to a fully democratic candidate selection process.
Posted by brunowe at 01/06/2008 @ 05:21am
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but "superdelegates" are free to change their minds and support of a candidate. The "endorsements" Hillary is racking up come mainly from this group. But these delegates are fickle, and the moment it seems that Hillary's candidacy is swirling down the toilet, they will jump ship to the likely nominee.
On another topic, WHEN Katrina, WHEN? When will the Nation make its endorsement? On pins and needles.... owww ouch eech yeow... can't take it much longer...
Posted by jade7243 at 01/06/2008 @ 12:29pm
Back in 1968, the overwhelming majority of delegates to the DNC were party hacks, or what would today be called superdelegates. They were not chosen in presidential primaries or caucuses that year, and they were in the tank for Hubert Humphrey, who never entered a primary. Most Democrats were anti-war, but their candidates were either shot (RFK) or ignored (McCarthy and McGovern) in favor of the hawk establishment candidate.
As a result of this, a couple of commissions recommended changes, which resulted in the nomination, in 1972, of George McGovern and the ensuing electoral disaster.
As KVH says, the super-d's were put in so the grownups could make sure the kiddies didn't get carried away. Fortunately, they have always gone with, rather than against, the voters' consensus ever since, and I doubt that it will be any different this year. To do otherwise would be to hand the presidency to the GOP again.
True, nobody wants to relive 1972 again, but neither do we want to see another 1968.
Posted by henderstock at 01/06/2008 @ 4:53pm
Ok, I think I knew about the super delegates from past elections, but I'd forgotten about them. This sucks big time! Certainly if Obama scores big in the primaries, they wouldn't dare to override clear victories. If it's at all close, however, watch out! I think Ms. vanden Heuvel has brought a very important factor to light. We need to remember this and make sure the super delegates pass into history at our earliest opportunity.
Now I have to hope they don't wind up in a position to screw up this year's election. They still don't trust the peons. What a surprise. I'm going to keep my Obama bumper sticker regardless.
Posted by Donald Weed at 01/06/2008 @ 7:51pm
The remedy as I see it is to unite under the popular candidate, not the nominee. The delegate process appears to dilute and cheapen all our votes, especially when we are looking for change away from the established greedy rut.
Posted by buzzwaffle at 01/06/2008 @ 9:52pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 01/05/2008 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person
Thanks, every input helps, so do share your thoughts. People who don't provide input are subject to lose a certain amount of bitching rights, by the by ... Also let me add that it would be great for people to think of options to be added instead of negatives we would like to see taken away.
Posted by V at 01/06/2008 @ 11:17pm
If it weren't for the Super Delegate system, Gary Hart probably would have been the 1984 Democratic nominee, instead of Walter Mondale. Its not certain, but its very likely. I guess its a matter of opinion whether that would have been a better result (although I think it would have been).
Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 01/07/2008 @ 09:52am
KATRINA VAN DEE!
Excellant article, I agree wholeheartedly. If Obama's the choice, then it should be so, and the system should agree or be damned!
(Yes, thats right, folks, I agreed with KAT. Someone get a camera)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 12:35pm
BYW, thats "Excellent" sorry
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 12:36pm
It seems the article concentrated only on the issue of super-delegates. Here are the definitions of super-delegates (Democratic Party) and unpledged delegates (Republican Party):
Superdelegates in the Democratic Party are typically members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials like senators or governors, or party leaders. They do not have to indicate a candidate preference and do not have to compete for their position. There are currently 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, including 3,253 pledged delegates and 796 superdelegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025. 796/4049=19.66%*
Unpledged delegates in the Republican Party do not have to indicate a candidate preference, but a majority are elected just like pledged delegates. Of the 463 unpledged delegates, 123 are RNC members who become delegates automatically. There are currently 2,380 total delegates to the Republican National Convention, including 1,917 pledged delegates and 463 unpledged delegates. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 1,191. 463/2380=19.45%
It seems to me that the system is the same in BOTH parties, i.e. there are delegates who don't have to vote according to the poll results-- which is indeed a problem but not with just the Democratic party.
To show my point, here's the current delegate count (recall that Obama/Huckabee won in Iowa): Clinton: 169 Obama: 66 Edwards: 47
Romney: 26 Huckabee: 20 Thompson: 6
*Note: my source is http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D
Posted by cutrau at 01/07/2008 @ 12:45pm
Another way to see the power of the super-delegates and unpledged delegates is that the super-delegates represent 39.3% (796/2025) and the unpledged delegates 38.9% (463/1191) of the votes needed to win the party nomination.
Posted by cutrau at 01/07/2008 @ 12:57pm
Hey JOHN MAASCH
How are you. Good Christmas? Did you manage to get to the Great Wall?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 1:49pm
That is crazy. The people have virtually no say in who goes to the White House. One more reason the Democrats will not be getting my vote. Go Ron Paul!!
Posted by trainerlady88 at 01/10/2008 @ 07:07am