Decisions, Decisions
Who gets to make them?
So little time and energy seem to remain to me each day, and so a great many subjects go by the boards without even cursory comment.
With this year's primary elections becoming increasingly... interesting -- it feels bizarre to be this far into the process, especially after seeing Super Tuesday become Super Duper Tuesday, without nominees being all but anointed by their parties. We're finding ourselves being educated about odd little specifics and vagaries in the Primary process. Many have only recently had reason to learn that Republican delegates are assigned at the state level in a winner take all fashion (the way they are for everyone in the general election) while the Democratic delegates are assigned proportionately, which on the one hand certainly feels more democratic but also makes it likely that in such a divided race as we're seeing between Clinton and Obama this could go the distance, all the way to the Democratic Convention.
We've also been hearing, and for many it's a first, about an odd aspect to the Democratic nomination process: Superdelegates. The key paragraph in the piece I've linked to is this one:
While I'm wary of what may amount to back room deals for the 796 superdelegates, I'm hoping that both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's wariness of of a rough patch in the process and the voters themselves targeting their regional superdelegates and holding them accountable will help keep the process in line.
Want to try to track down who your regional superdelegates are and generally take a look at the complete delegate count to date? Here you go. You'll find appropriate links there to get you to the info you're looking for, including seeing who's thusfar unaffiliated and who's already thrown their promise of support behind a given candidate. Remember, nothing's set until the convention, so don't forget to contact local superdelegates to tell them what you think of their stated decision (if any) and let them know where you stand.
The most principled request, IMHO, is to demand they look at the way the general electorate voted and cast their votes accordingly. You can bet I'll be contacting Ed Rendell and Joe Sestak (who, I should note, has repeatedly been a disappointment to me since helping to elect him this past year Edit: Please see comment #3 below) at the very least when it comes to not throwing their special status as superdelegates behind Hillary Clinton before the Democratic voters of this state have spoken. I encourage you to look down the lists, see who's in your direct sphere of influence as a voter, and take the time to contact them with your interest in keeping the democratic process, well... as democratic as possible.
Who gets to make them?
So little time and energy seem to remain to me each day, and so a great many subjects go by the boards without even cursory comment.
With this year's primary elections becoming increasingly... interesting -- it feels bizarre to be this far into the process, especially after seeing Super Tuesday become Super Duper Tuesday, without nominees being all but anointed by their parties. We're finding ourselves being educated about odd little specifics and vagaries in the Primary process. Many have only recently had reason to learn that Republican delegates are assigned at the state level in a winner take all fashion (the way they are for everyone in the general election) while the Democratic delegates are assigned proportionately, which on the one hand certainly feels more democratic but also makes it likely that in such a divided race as we're seeing between Clinton and Obama this could go the distance, all the way to the Democratic Convention.
We've also been hearing, and for many it's a first, about an odd aspect to the Democratic nomination process: Superdelegates. The key paragraph in the piece I've linked to is this one:
Superdelegates are elected officials, such as Walz, and party leaders, including former presidents (such as Bill Clinton), former vice presidents (such as Al Gore) and members of the Democratic National Committee. They make up roughly 20 percent of the total delegates.Aside from that, the salient fact to keep in mind is that they're not directly beholden to any particular group of voters. To get at the reason why, we have to see how they came to be:
The Democratic Party devised the superdelegate system following the presidential election of 1972, when George McGovern lost to former President Richard Nixon in a landslide. Had party officials been more involved in choosing a nominee, perhaps they could have helped picked someone better-suited to win a national election, the logic goes. An exceptionally close primary is required, however, for this elite group's "super powers" to hold any sway.Well, if this isn't an exceptionally close primary I'm not sure what would qualify, and as one looks at some of the notables on that list of current superdelegates... we're seeing the potential for some seriously destructive (to both the party's chances of victory and to keeping voters involved in the process) in-fighting should the superdelegates decide to tip the nomination against the popular vote of standard, voter-driven delegates.
While I'm wary of what may amount to back room deals for the 796 superdelegates, I'm hoping that both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's wariness of of a rough patch in the process and the voters themselves targeting their regional superdelegates and holding them accountable will help keep the process in line.
Want to try to track down who your regional superdelegates are and generally take a look at the complete delegate count to date? Here you go. You'll find appropriate links there to get you to the info you're looking for, including seeing who's thusfar unaffiliated and who's already thrown their promise of support behind a given candidate. Remember, nothing's set until the convention, so don't forget to contact local superdelegates to tell them what you think of their stated decision (if any) and let them know where you stand.
The most principled request, IMHO, is to demand they look at the way the general electorate voted and cast their votes accordingly. You can bet I'll be contacting Ed Rendell and Joe Sestak (who, I should note, has repeatedly been a disappointment to me since helping to elect him this past year Edit: Please see comment #3 below) at the very least when it comes to not throwing their special status as superdelegates behind Hillary Clinton before the Democratic voters of this state have spoken. I encourage you to look down the lists, see who's in your direct sphere of influence as a voter, and take the time to contact them with your interest in keeping the democratic process, well... as democratic as possible.
.png)
Comments
Is the idea behind the question that if I didn't contribute money to the campaign or officially volunteered as a formal part of his campaign that I have no basis for complaint nor had any part in his election? If so, I reject it. I had contributed to the Democratic Party as a whole that year, which was about as far as I could manage, and as I look around at the average voter - much less the average citizen - I'm comfortable with saying that my overall course of action was far more active and responsible than that of the majority.