Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote this astounding blurb, which was picked up by Common Dreams. It was called, The Tyranny of Super-Delegates, and is short and sweet enough to reproduce here.
Its message is that Obama did not win in Iowa!.
Barack 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.
<a href="LINK
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation and often appears on national forums as a liberal commentator.
Anyone care to expound on this “revolting development,” to quote William Bendix.
Shergald, I enjoy your diaries. May I suggest you embed your links to avoid text overflow into ads. See helpful FAQs, here.
The Super-delegates Issue:
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.
MSNBC article – “What role for Democratic Super-delegates? – had this
So, Clinton beware!
She lost. badly. in the ABC New Hampshire debates. My thoughts confirmed.
Takeaways from the debate:
Josh Marshall TPM, here
Fox News Focus group video via Andrew Sullivan
Those looks indicate Queen of Mean mantle has been inherited.
Why has there been NO talk of this by the MSM talking heads?
Because the horse-race narrative is compelling & simple?
The superdelegates turned away from Dean as they are now turning away from Obama and Edwards.
What’s to stop them?
cause they will want to back the winner.
today former senator Bill Bradley endorses Obama.
Have superdelegates have never swung a race against the candidate chosen by the people? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
Superdelegates are party insiders, and the one thing they want most is to associate themself with the party’s winner. I think that’s why this is a non-story – the superdelegates don’t represent the voters, and in the end, will side with the voters.
Lisa-
I kind of agree with you but there’s a fallacy in your argument.
If the superdelegates find themselves in a position to decide the winner, then they will be on the side of the winner no matter what they do. If it had been Dean vs. Kerry, they would have voted for Kerry, even if Dean had more delegates overall.
Thanks for the tip. Fixed.
This information definitely adds weight to the perception that the fix is in.
Play the game by the rules that are written. Super delegates have been part of the system ever since the 1974 mid-term Democratic Convention.
Iowa was just one contest, now there will be others. Whoever wins the popular vote, either primary or caucus, will be the nominee.
Other states will have a chance to vote, let’s see what they decide.
No one would like to see a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, where the popular vote favored the candidates who lost. It is as if the majority Democratic voters will only elect their candidate, if the superdelegates agree to it. What if the race is too tight to call to the end? These unelected minorities can then make the difference.
at a brokered convention, the Edwards and Obama delegates will eventually flow one way or the other. Don’t worry.
The nominees in 2000 and 2004 were the winners of the popular vote in their nomination fights.
It is not credible that the super delegates, who have to live with their constituencies, will defy the voters at the national convention. Whoever gets the most votes will win the nomination.
Lets give other states a chance to speak. Even if Obama wins NH, and he may not, Clinton could win some states on Feb 5. Those Democrats have a right to have their voices heard.
I don’t see how Edwards can recover, but as an Edward’s supporter, I think it is folly to think that he cannot just because I can’t come up with a scenario where he wins.
Let’s give the voters a chance and stop being know it alls.
.
(NYT/CBS News) Nov. 8, 2007 – In an early indication of where Democratic Party leaders are leaning, a survey of the party’s superdelegates — elected officials and other leaders who vote at the party’s convention but are not selected in primaries — found they are favoring Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Created by the Democratic Party in 1984, superdelegates include members of Congress, governors, former presidents, Democratic National Committee members and other party leaders. There are 850 of them, which comprises nearly one-fifth of the overall delegate count. They can back any candidate they want and change their mind as often as they want.
… more than a third of the party’s 850 superdelegates said they were undecided.
New York Times/CBS News PollThe superdelegates are in no way bound by their stated preferences and dynamics in the race are likely to change.
Democrats’ Superdelegates Unswayed
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Let’s look at it from the perspective of a tight race. These tallies of unelected delegates makes me wonder whether there can be a democratic process at all. Thanks for opening this reality up, because like untutored self, I was not aware of the undemocratic process that underlies what is a supposedly democratic one. Why would anyone caucus or brave the cold in NH if they knew that their votes may count for nought in the end?
election!
….and what they did to Dean.