Torricelli on Super Delegates

I have been bothered recently about the system in general (caucuses, which are ridiculous; open primaries; etc.); but super-delegates are one of the more troubling concepts.  This article not only did nothing to sell me on the idea, it drove me further to my conclusion.  This article is directed at Congress to tell them why the system is good because it allows them to correct the bothersome “will of the people”.  The primaries aren’t a spur-of –the-moment whim, but a long process where we take all into account and select our favorite candidate (even if it we didn’t, so what; it’s our choice).  That the Hunt Commission was in agreement is a silly suporting fact, as it was a self-serving decision.   

If anyone were thinking of trying to change the super-delegate system, I would save this article and use it in support of changing it. 

So when the "ill-informed media and the idiot pundits" report that the superdelegates have annointed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee despite her not getting a majority of primary election votes and pledged delegates, we should all relax about it, having been illuminated by the Torch?

Nice try, but I always thought that subverting the will of the people was not what Democracy was all about.  Guess I was wrong all these years.

This is a party process.

The Democratic National Committee has an obligation to include, not exclude the leadership (ie, elected officials and party leaders) to have a say in who is the nominee as painful as that may sound to the politically ignorant and naive.

In 1944 the Democratic Party realized they had a practicing socialist in Henry Wallace as Vice-president with FDR terminally ill. The party, wisely removed this appeaser of Stalin from the ticket and replaced him with a gy by the name of Harry Shipp Truman.

Was that a bad idea?

In 1968 the primaries & delegates wanted to nominate Eugene McCarthy. The party stepped in and nominated Hubert Humphrey.

Was that not the right decision?

The notion of winning is what the party will consider in Denver. Who can win the general election must be in the end the paramount reason for nomination.

This is the function of the super delegate. That's why we have them.

They makeup less than 25% of all the delegates in attendance. It's time for the grown-ups to take hold of a process that could wind-up out-of-control and that might mean going to the bench and drafting a candidate on the second ballot when all the delegates will in fact be uncommitted.

In the primaries and the caucuses as well. The party selection process is more democratic than the general election where the person with the most votes can lose (Gore).

The point is that the Democratic Party has a very democratic selection process. To suggest super delegates shouldn't have a final say in this scenario where no candidate can reach the majic number on the first ballot is silly.

If it goes to a second ballot, you'll have a democratic free-for-all on television for three days six weeks before the general election. That needs to be avoided.

In the end, picking the candidate who can win needs to be the ultimate objective.

What is your point?

I'm discussing the very relevance of the super delegate. I'm well aware neither candidate can win with just pledged delegates.

Please.

why is this disgraced formed Senator taken seriously at this site?
Unless you are looking for advice on how to be a corrupt official, I'm thinking there are hundreds of politicos who have more credibilty.
I did think it was (unintentionally) funny that just under the "Toricelli on Superdelegates" headline is this one: "Keeping 'em Honest"

It is an ancient Mariner,
And he stoppeth one of three.
"By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,
Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?

"The Bridegroom's doors are opened wide,
And I am next of kin;
The guests are met, the feast is set:
May'st hear the merry din."

Its twenty years late to complain about the process or maybe just two on the current rules.

 If action was required why wasn't it proposed during the adoption process for rules for the 2008 convention?

It is was it is!

The guests are met and the feast is set.  

Play ball! 

First of all, Trochilus: Well put.

The other angle here that NOBODY ANYWHERE is talking about.......by letting Florida and/or Michigan re-vote, what does this say to any of the other 48 Democratic parties for 2012? This gives them pretty much a free-pass to move up their primary/caucus dates to just about any time they please. No consequences, right?

That is all........

I agree that for the party to function properly, elected leaders need to have input on the nomination process.  Too often recently, we've seen cases where the parties themselves have been defined by their candidates, rather than the other way around.  Still, we have to ask ourselves is using superdelegates to determine the nomination the best way to give the party input?

This is an age of mass democritization, people have more control from everything from their politicians, to their investment portfolios, to their religions.  We don't even allow elected officials to make laws anymore, instead we submit them through ballot initiatives.  When the superdelegates were created, the primary process was still relatively new.  Today, however, people are used to the primaries being the determining factor in the nomination race.  I'm afraid that any attempt to deviate from that standard will create quite a severe backlash.

Aren't there better ways for the party to extert its influence?  Could the party host pre-primary season debates where the leaders themselves would have a shot at defining their candidates, rather than allowing Tim Russert to do it?  Why can't we change campaign finance rules to allow parties to provide funds to candidates that have the support of the insiders?  How about taking the selection of running mate totally out of the hands of the candidate, and let the existing superdelegates determine that?

I've been using a Google spreadsheet to keep track of how the superdelegates have pledged, compared to the popular vote in their state or Congressional District.   So far, 47.7% of superdelegates from areas won by Senator Clinton have pledged to support her, compared with only 39.9% for Senator Obama.  I will update the spreadsheet regularly as pledge data and election results at Gawk Squawk.

To me it is disheartening that the Democratic Party uses the superdelegate system. The fact that Barack Obama, who has a majority of pledged votes, and a majority of state primaries won, could lose to Hillary Clinton, simply because the party elite favor her, is disgusting. The people vote one way, and the so called superdelegates vote another. The fact that in the end, many of our votes don't seem to matter further distances me from the process. Super delegates aren't about settling disputes, they are about the elite such as Mr. Torricelli wanting to make sure that they can keep their influence on what happens to the nomination.

The concept has been alluded to by others, but has yet to be said directly. If the Torch's suggestions are to become a reality, the Executive Branch will be co-opted by the super-delegates. For me, such a prospect is dangerous because it is contrary to the Democratic party's own democratic instincts.

Although we live in a Republic, it is generally held that our primary processes should be democratic in nature (i.e. picked by a majority of the people in each state). An appointing of the Democratic Party's nominee by super-delegates violates our nation's traditional notions of electoral democracy because it negates the results of the prior primaries and caucuses through which "the people" voted.

The Torch's logic also fails in separation of powers terms. The co-opting, or rather appointing, of the Democratic nominee by the super-delegates creates the prospect for a Federal government that exists in two branches instead of three (i.e. Executive plus Legislative, and Judiciary). I sincerely doubt that the Founders of this nation envisioned a form of government where only the leaders of each party got to choose their Executive representive. Instead, the Founders, in forming a nominee electing system, would have placed the power with the people of the States because to to do otherwise would dangerously concentrate power in a few individuals.

The Democrat's convention is not undemocratic just because there are super-delegates. In the U.S. their is a belief that a winner take all or popular vote is the ONLY form of democracy. However if you look towards our democratic allies all over the world, you will see that there are many different types of voting systems all slightly varied to make things more democratic than they otherwise would be with a winner take all/popular vote.

This being said let us take a look at the primaries and conventions. What Torch is saying is absolutely correct. We need our congressional leaders to be connected to and responsible and accountable to each other, the voters, and to whomever is elected president. Then we also need a system where we cannot be hopelessly deadlocked. The proportional representation among the states is needed to ensure that a minority in any set parameters of a population will have their votes be counted equally. Then we face the issue that if we had more than two candidates, there could be a deadlock. There can be a deadlock even with two, let us not forget jefferson and burr! 37 times there was a vote for president, and that was not even in the primaries. Ultimately the federalists were the ones that threw the presidency to jefferson. How would anybody like it if their will was subject to the decisions of a different party?!
The superdelegates are for the most part very respectable elected officials that we can trust to make a decision of their is a deadlock. If Hill wins the popular vote and Obama wins pledge delegates, or vice versa, who should win? We can trust our elected officials to act in our best interests in such a case, as is why we elected them in the first place!

I know at first glance the system seems flawed. But under closer inspection the system is one that works well and is democratic.