Clinton’s Super Delegates Refuse To Back “Popular” Vote
Posted on February 27, 2008
Recently I wrote a piece at Digital Journal that explained what a superdelegate is and gave the quick recap of them and their purpose, to which the bottom line was as follows:
Bottom line here, a super delegate is “check” against the “we the people” voters. Giving the party elites a chance to change the outcome for their party, should they not agree with the “peoples’ choice” if a race is close.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, told reporters before the House went on their Presidents Day recess: “I don’t think it was ever intended that superdelegates would overturn the verdict.â€
Today we see that Clinton backers that spoke to The Hill, backers that represent districts that have already voted for Barack Obama, are rejecting that advice from Pelosi and are saying they are “not likely” to change their mind nor their vote should it come down to the 796 superdelegates being the determining factor.
One example named was Representative Diane Watson, a Democrat from California that states, “I am a delegate, I’m a supporter of Hillary, I’m supporting who I’m supporting.”
She says this despite the fact that 62 percent of the Democratic voters, in her district, voted for Barack Obama.
Party officials are expressing concern about the excitement shown in record turnouts could “fizzle” if the voters feel their votes won’t count.
The Hill reports that almost every Clinton supporter with superdelegate status echoes the attitude of the ones they quote, such as, Representative Shelley Berkley, a Democrat from Nevada who says, “Superdelegates are separate and apart and have minds of their own. I don’t see them as one and the same, so I think they should vote their conscience and if they think one candidate is better than the other they have just as much right [as a regular citizen] to cast their vote.”
Despite the claim that Representative Berkley makes in that statement, that superdelegates are not any different that a regular citizen, the truth is they are.
“Regular citizens vote in the primaries and a state has a certain number of delegates that get split up between the candidates according to the Democratic party rules.
Superdelegates are not part of that process and they have a delegate vote of their own, making their vote, not like an ordinary citizen’s vote, but far more powerful.
As The Hill explains it:
In many instances, one superdelegate’s vote is equal to the influence of an entire congressional district. For example, Obama won Connecticut’s 3rd district with 52 percent of the vote but captured only one delegate from the victory. Ten-point wins in Wisconsin’s 5th and 6th districts gave Obama only two more delegates than Clinton.
Because of these Clinton superdelegate’s insistence on backing Clinton no matter who the voters in their district gave the popular vote to, thereby in some cases negating the voters almost entirely, the party has started discussing reforming the nominating process and perhaps getting rid of superdelegates altogether.
Although the majority of Clinton backers were determined to stand behind her no matter who the people of their district voted for, there were a few that stated that they would represent their constituents no matter what their personal preference was, The Hill reports.
One of which is Representative Ron Kind, a Democrat from Wisconsin who feels “compelled to go along with the majority of his Democratic constituents in the wake of last week’s Wisconsin primary.”
If Barack Obama win in Ohio,Texas and Pennsylvania, the superdelegate vote might not end up being the determining factor since Obama has nearly 150 more pledged delegates than Clinton.
But if Clinton wins in Ohio,Texas or Pennsylvania, the superdelegates may just take on the role of “super citizens” in their districts, and have the ability to thwart the will of those that voted them into their respective positions.
If it comes down to a brokered convention, which is when there are not enough delegates obtained during the presidential primary and caucus process for a single candidate to obtain a majority for the presidential nominating convention, then many Democratic voters will be disenfranchised.
Since no candidate will receive enough votes on the first ballot to win the nomination, the convention is brokered through political horse-trading and/or multiple ballots.
Political horse-trading is often called “A Smoke Filled Room”, and it is controversial because what happens when a convention is brokered is that there is a secret political gathering or decision-making process to which powerful or well-connected individuals meet privately to nominate a candidate or make some other decision without regard for the will of the public.
The last brokered convention to yield a nominee that went on to win the general election was the Democratic convention in 1932 that nominated Franklin Roosevelt.
In the meantime, Clinton’s desperation shows.
Cross posted from Wake up America
» Filed Under Elections, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Clinton’s Super Delegates Refuse To Back “Popular” Vote”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The system is set up so that the superdelegates are to cast their vote using their independent judgment. That is why they don’t need to wait to the completion of the all ‘the people’s vote. If they are required to vote for the popular choice then why bother having this system and they should not be allowed to endorse anybody until all votes are counted.
The facts that the superdelegates are threatened and pressured to change their votes are just shameful behavior and I am disappointed in the Democrat party leaders and Obama’s team to continue to pressure the superdelegates to support the popular vote.
I respect those who would stand by their candidate because it means that their words mean something. To jump ship and go with the latest fad is easy and has no core values or ethics.
Mr. Lewis switches his vote from Clinton to Obama has given me the impetus to leave the democratic party for the first time. His vote tells me that this election is now officially a race issue. He changes his vote mainly because he wants to vote a Black man, and then hide behind the comment about ‘need to listen to his people’. Then he should never endorse anybody until all of his district votes are counted. On top of that, for a civil right leader to stomp on a minority candidate, in this case, a white woman, is just shameful.
It is also shameful that the media and the DNC leaders continue to reward those who has no honor and punish those who has integrity.
What’s most irritating about these superdelegate statements such as: “…so I think they should vote their conscience and if they think one candidate is better than the other they have just as much right [as a regular citizen] to cast their vote.â€
What’s wrong with this statement is that these folks DO have their vote as a citizen to cast their vote the same day as their state’s primary/caucus. This ‘extra’ vote somehow gives them special power that they feel they should be using based on their own ‘feelings.’
The origin of such a system was for extreme circumstances. Take the 2002 elections in France. Because the left was so split and couldn’t muster enough votes, the top 2 candidates during their ‘first run’ election ended up being Chirac and Le Pen. Le Pen is an extreme xenophobe right radical. Had there been such a case with the US Democrats, these superdelegates could ‘veto’ the will of the people. However, we see by nearly every report, that Hill and Barack have very similar stands on most issues. This means that Barack isn’t some radical who threatens the Democratic Party Platform.
I say let these superdelegates go against their electors and then let their constituents be the judge the next time he/she is up for election. I would hope he/she would be thrown out of office to never have a superdelegate vote again as punishment.
Super delegates are elected officials. their time will come around again when they will have to answer to their constituency. Let them go against the voters and witness what happens next. Are we ready for another republican in the white house?