2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWho are the Democratic Super Delegates?
Most people have no idea, really. Let me see if I can explain the process a little bit. Delegates to the Democratic National Presidential Convention come in two varieties, Pledged and Unpledged. Most delegates are pledged delegates, who are committed to vote for a particular candidate in at least the first round of voting for who will become the nominee. These are generally elected at state conventions, based on the results of primary elections or caucus voting. For example, if a state sends 36 pledged delegates to the national convention, and the primary election or caucus is divided 66% and 33% between two candidates, the candidate with 66% of the vote will get 24 pledged delegates, while the other candidate will get 12.
Those are pledged delegates. At the convention, they are expected to vote according to the results in their state, at least for the first round of voting.
There are some other types of pledged delegates, including at-large delegates who are also elected at state conventions, as compared to district-level delegates.
Then, there are unpledged delegates, who are not required to vote based on primary or caucus votes. These are fewer in number than the pledged delegates, and are selected based on other criteria. For example, Democratic Members of Congress and Senators are automatically delegates to the national convention. Democratic Governors, too, are usually delegates. All of those are unpledged delegates and may vote as they choose, even on the first ballot. Another group of unpledged delegates are generally made up of a state's members of the Democratic National Committee. That number, like all of the delegates, is based on the state's population. There may be a few other unpledged delegates, as well, depending on the state.
Those unpledged delegates are what are popularly called "Super Delegates." Their votes for the nominee at the National Convention are not necessarily based on the primary votes in their state or their state's caucus results. They are independent of all that, and are automatically delegates to the National Convention.
That's why people are paying so much attention to endorsements in the primary campaign by Congress Members and Senators. Those people will all be Super Delegates at the convention. You may not know who your Democratic National Committee members are in your state, but you can look that up on your state's Democratic Party website. Their votes, too, are not dependent on election results, and some will endorse candidates and telegraph their vote before the convention.
For example, in Minnesota, which sends a total of 94 delegates to the convention, only 16 are Super Delegates, made up of the following:
16 Unpledged PLEO delegates:
7 Democratic National Committee members.
7 Members of Congress (2 Senators and 5 Representatives).
1 Governor.
1 Distinguished Party Leader (former Vice President Walter "Fritz" Mondale).
So, how important are these Super Delegates? Well, you need to know their numbers. There will be a total of 4483 voting delegates at the convention. Of those, only 714 will be unpledged PLEOs or Super Delegates. They have considerable influence, particularly if the other delegates are more or less equally divided. If there is much of a difference between the number of pledged delegates for the candidates, the Super Delegates have less impact.
Here's a cool website, where you can look up your own state and see how delegates are chosen and how many delegates your state sends to the convention:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D
The more you know, the more you understand.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Sadly, what one learns is that the system is rigged and inherently unfair.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I didn't invent it. The superdelegates make up less than 20% of the delegates. They are there to be a buffer at the convention, and most are elected Democrats holding office at this time.
You say it's rigged and unfair. I have no comment on that. That is the system that will be used, so it's important to understand it.
The Republicans have a similar system, although I don't know its details, due to lack of interest. Whether one does or doesn't like the system, it is how the nominee is selected. It's what we have to work with.
You want to change it? Become a member of the Democratic National Committee. They're the ones who created the system. Good luck with that. Seriously. It takes years of dedicated work within the Democratic Party to become a member. Amateurs need not apply.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And I never claimed you invented it. I simply claimed it is rigged and inherently unfair. It is.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)to make sure the establishment has a say in case the unwashed pick someone they don't like.
For instance, Bernie needs to be ahead by a lot of delegates going to the convention to overcome the Superdelegates who will just appear to vote against him.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We should thank heaven and earth that Trump's whim was to run for the GOP nomination, instead of ours -- a whim, and no doubt the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel vulnerability to manipulation of all those right-wing reactionaries.
If Trump ran and Bernie did not, a very large portion of Bernie's angry followers would have backed Trump (plus other angry protest voters who don't like Bernie).
Fortunately, the superdelegate system would probably have been able to prevent an unelectable Trump from becoming our nominee, no matter how irresponsible and resentful the mood. That's the good part of why professional party operatives are included. Completely "unrigged" is uncontrollable, and that can be dangerous to our national health.
The superdelegate system should be improved; but FWIW, as I pointed out on another thread, the superdelegate votes have so far gone along with the choices of the rest of the conventions.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)No falsehood beyond expression as certain fact to score cheap political points on the internet or to defend the indefensible.
TRUMP would be the candidate of Sanders supporters? Fucking extreme nonsense.
Perhaps projection from the Say Anything Gang of how they would have to consider The Donald if Clinton was unavailable or knocked out.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the support of many is based more on anger, and even "he'll get me mine," than true commitment to his principles. Or maybe you don't, but literally thousands of posts here make that clear to dispassionate views.
This is mirrored on the right, except that Trump has been tremendously successful without even bothering to espouse any principles.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)No, the reality is you are projecting, this comes from within you not honest observation.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)for the GOP label, not ours, so he's not our embarrassment and spoiler. And speculated about what would have happened if he were the ONLY protest candidate our antiestablishment barn-burners had available.
Bye.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)did you lose your way looking for the Repuke site?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Yes.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You want to change it? Become a member of the Democratic National Committee. They're the ones who created the system. Good luck with that. Seriously. It takes years of dedicated work within the Democratic Party to become a member. Amateurs need not apply.
Translation: You want to change it? Forget it, you can't.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)become a member of the DNC. Clearly, that can be done, since there are people who have done that. It has nothing to do with me. I'm just a precinct chair and delegate to district conventions. That's it. That's enough for me, really, and I have no aspirations beyond that in terms of Democratic Party activity.
If you want to change it, get involved and work your way up the ladder. That's how it works. I have nothing to do with that. I'm just providing information.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:05 PM - Edit history (3)
Also, fuck the DNC. It's clear that organization needs to be torched and rebuilt out of the ashes.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)What's your plan for replacing the DNC? Did you want somebody else to figure it out? You may not have time to build influence in the party. I'm 70 years old. I don't have time for anything. I'm telling you what the system IS. You figure out what to do about that. This could easily be my last election. Please don't tell me you don't have time to do anything. Thanks.
BernieFan57
(80 posts)I just learned how to do that.
Every post by this member is preachy and obvious and, well, laughable.
Lemme try: "How government works:" There are three branches of government, the executive, judicial, and legislative. It is important to know these things.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)few day's then, to discover what "every post by this member" were like. I suppose I should feel flattered that you went to so much trouble, but then you describe all of my posts as "preachy and obvious," not to mention "laughable."
Now, you may know how superdelegates are selected and what percentage of convention delegates are superdelegates. If so, congratulations on your knowledge. Others, however, do not know that information, so I wrote this OP for them.
I don't suppose you'll be seeing this, since you have trashed this thread. That's OK. It wasn't written for you, I guess.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)"After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.
Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs.[6] Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I had nothing to do wit setting up the system, nor do I have any way to change it. I'm simply describing the system that is in place. It is that system that will determine who will be on television ballot as the Democratic nominee.
I cannot change it neither can you. So we have to use it. The mechanisms for doing that are there. So, let's use them to move in the direction we want to go.
It's hard to believe that people don't understand the reality. Some even say they won't vote if things don't go their way. How stupid is that? Think about it.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Its the democratic party process, it favors democrats ***SHOCKER***!
If you don't like it, make your own party, which will favor your candidates so I can sit around on my couch and moan about how it is "rigged"!
LOL!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and helping your friends and family never comes up outside of political parties.
Anyone is free to join and change the process but if you expect to snap your fingers and make it happen this election cycle, you are late.
Where were the Bernie backers four years ago? Eight years ago?
Won't be any political revolutions lead by people sitting on their sofa watching the NFL all day LOL
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I have been working against it every election cycle. But, I really shouldn't have to. It never should have become this way.
I can't believe anyone has the audacity to defend a system that is inherently unfair and allows for candidates against the will of the people in the party.
Don't worry though, we are working hard against it this time just as we did last time. And the numbers will prevail in the end.
I think I will just start handing out some of these arrogant posts supporting thwarting the will of the people and handing them out to the people.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)What people are we talking about exactly?
I work for a living and I'm sad to report that almost all of my co-workers are faithful republican voters who regularly watch fox "news" listen to hate radio and hear the same hateful lies every Sunday from their dominunist prosperity preacher and they believe every lie they tell them!
I see people driving old worn out wrecks with pro republican, pro NRA, anti democratic garbage all over their bumpers all the damn time!
I'm afraid the "will of the people" is way farther to the right than you think!
You damn right I'm trying like hell to "thwart the will of the people" and I sure as **** ain't gonna throw away my vote on somebody like Bernie Sanders who ain't got a shot in hell of ever getting elected president but he can pave the way for a demagogue like Trump or Cruz to get elected!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Well I am damn determined to stop you in that quest.
After that is done, perhaps you will move to a country that doesn't use democracy to select its dictator and live happily ever after.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)voting for the nominee. To that extent, they are all equal. How they vote depends on whether they are pledged or unpledged delegates. Most delegates are pledge to vote according to the results of their state's primaries or caucuses, at least on the first round. The superdelegates are independent and may vote as they choose.
I'm not sure it's about equality. It's just the system that's in place. But every delegate has one vote. That's it.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)....again to congratulate you on your efforts to bring some logic, and common sense to this site, even if it is not well received by some here. Correction. Make that many. I for one, appreciate it. Thanks MM.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I can't see how that can be mistaken for anything else in this thread.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)It baffles me that seemingly intelligent people mistake your efforts for some sort of hidden agenda over information that can be attained by anyone willing to look for it. It's neither pro or con anything. Just information.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)This is why people think their votes don't matter. The whole system is rigged.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Is it rigged? We all still vote and our votes get counted and are part of the process, as I described above. You want a voice? Show up at your primary election or caucus. Don't show up, and you have no voice. It's really up to you, isn't it?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)There has to be a mechanism in place when none of the candidates have a majority of delegates.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)The convention would vote until someone got a majority.
Sometime it took a compromise candidate to work it out.
A deadlocked convention would sure be exciting, but I think the establishment would stop it from happening.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Even in 84 when Hart had roughly the same amount of votes and delegates as Mondale.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)In 1924 it went over 100 ballots and 16 days before both contenders dropped out and Democrats chose compromise candidate John Davis.
In 1860, the convention broke up and ended up nominating two candidates, a northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, and a Southern Democrat, John Breckinridge. That split led to Lincoln's election with less than 40 %.
Douglas died soon after. Breckinridge went south and became a Confederate general.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Great history lesson though.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)there is a majority. Candidates below a certain percentage of votes are no longer on the ballot. When there are just two, there will be a majority fir one of them.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)It failed and even if they were released they would have voted for the candidate they were already pledged to (Carter) because they are chosen for their loyalty.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)He is a caring human being. We need more such.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)He ran well to Carter's left. He supported national health care and wage and price controls to curb inflation.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It did not end well, at all.
Because in the end, your vote means diddly. Literally. Super delegates, the electoral college, all that crap, it all has to go and until it does, we'll be owned by money and the uber rich whose votes matter more than anybody else's. You want equality? Let's talk about it in our electoral cycle.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I would have no problem in eliminating the Electoral College as long there is a run off if no candidate garners a majority of the votes, ditto for super delegates.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Is that your sage advice?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Even better, bring others to vote with you. GET OUT THE VOTE!
How hard is that to understand? For Pete's sake...
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)to admonish DUers to vote. It goes without saying.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm encouraging them to get out the vote, also. That's what I do. I believe that GOTV activism is the most important thing any of us can do. You might disagree with that, but I've seen what happens when Democratic turnout is low. We get Nixons and Reagans and Bushes. That hasn't worked out very well at all.
So, every election, you'll find me posting GOTV OPs on DU. 2016 won't be any different. I'll post such things many times in 2016, for the primaries and for the general election. While they may fall on deaf ears in some cases, they'll also encourage some DUers to double down on their efforts to increase turnout. That's my goal.
And then there are those DUers, always in a minority, who don't vote at all, or who throw away their votes on third party candidates who cannot possibly win. I'll be posting about that, too, next year. You can count on it.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... maybe the Hillary folks are right... endorsements DO matter.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And yes, they can change their minds like Hillary and some of her supporters constantly do..
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Anyone actually in real-life politics recognizes that. They matter very much.
mcar
(42,210 posts)It's why candidates track such endorsements. People can diss or ignore them all they want but they still matter.
mcar
(42,210 posts)Thanks MM.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)All these political doings are fascinating to me
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)In my lifetime, I've learned more about how we elect people than I can relate on DU. It's a complex process, and one that most people have no clue about. That's something else I've learned.
We need to know more about how things work, because that can help us make them work the way we want. That's why I'm active in my local Democratic Party organization. I get to participate in every stage of the election process. I find that rewarding, personally.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)as the process moves forward, especially the convention.
I would like to understand whats going on there from start to finish.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)As we move into primary election season, I'll have more to say about how our nominee selection process actually works. The information is out there, but most people don't have the time to go dig it out, and the news media doesn't cover the actual process as thoroughly as they used to, sadly.
I remember watching presidential nominating conventions on TV over the years. There's far less coverage than there used to be, but I remember people explaining how the political conventions worked from the time I was very young. As an adult, I've been to many district and state conventions as a delegate, and the process is pretty much the same at all of them.
What's really interesting is that becoming a delegate at those more local conventions is pretty easy. I recommend it to everyone who is interested.
djean111
(14,255 posts)then I, and my family, are outta here. And, I believe, a lot of other people will just say fuck it, what's the point.
I am not voting for that.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I heartily agree.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)If you understand how this works, you'll see how very unlikely that is. All 50 states send delegates, including red states. New Hampshire and Iowa do not a primary season make. All states select delegates in their primaries or caucuses. Look at all states, not just the ones favorable to your favorite candidate.
That link in the OP will show you every state and its delegate count. It will also tell you when primaries are held. Go do the math. Look at polling in all states and the numbers. I can assure you that the campaigns are doing that.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)I have the handout from the Texas State Democratic Party that is consistent with this article.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)Despite the rudeness of what is supposed to be a Dem-friendly site.