Mar 5 2008

I don't pretended to understand Democratic politics nor do I ponder very often what the reasons behind the actions are, but I do have a question.

How could someone win a majority of the "pledge" delegates and not receive the nomination of the party?

I would appreciate a local perspective.


For the same reasons a

For the same reasons a person could win the majority of popolar votes for President and not become President...rules designed to thwart the will of the people. That's why we have the Electoral College and why the Dems adopted these superdelegate rules.


That's why we have the Electoral College and why the Dems adopted these superdelegate rules.

So, is it intended that the superdelegate is supposed to go with the majority of the popular vote, pledge delegate vote, or just a decision of the superdelegate who has won/appointed that position?

Thanks again for the explanation.

This is only my cynical

This is only my cynical opinion, which is that it was intended to be your option #3. We just can't have the riff-raff free to decide things without adult "guidance."

Congressman John Lewis and some others have rejected that model and decided to support the candidate that his constituents chose, who was someone other than who he was supporting.

At least the Dems do not have "winner take all," the ultimate in undemocracy.

In the Democratic primary

In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held. Nevertheless, John Kerry defeated Dean in a succession of primaries and caucuses and won the nomination.

This theoretically shows the system can work even with "super delegates". However, I suppose the "scream" also helped Dean lose the Democratic nomination. I personally think he would have been a better candidate in the general election than Kerry.

Oxy Clinton

It seems to me that the role

It seems to me that the role of the superdelegate is to sort of take a more objective and broader view of the party's situation and cast his or her vote accordingly. For instance, the superdelegate, in addition to aligning with a candidate on the basis of ideology and positions, should also be attuned to things like a candidate's electability and whether supporting a certain candidate will facilitate the retention of a majority in Congress, that sort of thing. These are, in theory, the political pros and their view of the national political scene should be focused both wider and further down the road than the average street-level political operative. Thus, it could make perfect sense to support a candidate other than the one who won a party primary or caucus in a superdelegate's home region. Superdelegates are not necessarily representing a constituency the way elected officials do.

Check the first entry at this address: (link...)


This whole Über-Delegate issue is poised to divide the Democratic Party, for the young folks who are voting this time around, will become completely disillusioned and probably stay home if Hillary uses the Überdelegates to steal victory. Why does the Democratic party always wind up trying to Grab Defeat from the Jaws of Victory? If McCain takes the Nation, due to Democratic Party In-Fighting, then I'm tempted to learn Spanish as quick as I can, for I'm not ready to live in a 3rd World Nation, just yet.

viva Evo Morales

I think one idea behind

I think one idea behind superdelegates was to be a "safety valve" in case Democrats did something "stupid" (according to the DNC) like vote for Kucinich in the primaries.

Republicans have them, too, however. They get three per state, plus bonus superdelegates based on GOP turnout, carrying the state in the last Republican presidential election, electing GOP representatives and senators, governors, and/or some other such formula.

I think the whole presidential system is screwed up and needs to be fixed.

I haven't thought it all the way through, but I'm wondering if primaries shouldn't all be held on the same day, maybe in April, and the nominee should be whoever gets the most votes. (No caucuses, no delegates, no superdelegates, etc.) Then we should do away with the electoral college and elect the president based on popular vote so that every vote counts.

Ha, ha! Except for every

Ha, ha! Except for every 20-30 years or so no one even knows what delegates are much less "pledged" delegates.

Electoral College Degree...

When you vote for a presidential candidate you are really voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the state's electors.

The Electoral College system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.

Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states.

Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them 270 votes are required to be elected.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports