Staunch Defenders of Democracy
January 21st, 2008 | by Craig |Since the sinestra here in Montana are very concerned about the Republicans having a caucus instead of a primary, I wonder what they think of this. (I’ve quoted most of the article, but it’s too good to pass up.)
Former President Bill Clinton may play a bigger role in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for president than many people realize. The former president is a “super delegate” to the nominating convention in Denver in August.
Clinton is joined by Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, many state governors, members of Congress, retired congressional leaders and all of the national committee members for the Democrats. Each member of the super delegate group, which consists of about 850 people, exercises more power in the nominating process than other delegates. The Republican Party does not use the same system.
[...]
Super delegates can vote for any candidate in the Democratic nominating process. They are not tied to a candidate based on voter preferences in any state. Super delegates may also announce their support for any candidate prior to an election. But because they are “unpledged” delegates to the convention, they may shift their support to another candidate at any time.
The 1972 Democratic National Convention produced George McGovern as the Democratic presidential nominee. Although he won the nomination by a wide margin, he lost the presidency in a landslide to Richard Nixon, winning only one state and 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Because of this, the Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process. Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.
(H/T: Right Voices.)
20 Responses to “Staunch Defenders of Democracy”
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
No, its true. First though, let me clear up my problems with the caucus in Montana. I could care less if they caucus, primary or mambo, as long as everybody gets a say. I have no problems with caucuses when they are open to the public, instead of just a bunch of party insiders.
So, that is my problem with these super delegates. If it were up to me, it would be by popular vote.
By Dave Budge on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Let me clear up my problem with Democrats complaining about the GOP caucus…
…It’s not their party.
By Wulfgar on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Let me clear up my problem with Dave’s problem (and presumably Iverson’s). In Montana, The only opportunity or necessity for declaring a party affiliation is in primary balloting. The MTGOP caucus enforces a cheap partisanship that Montanans in general have long rejected. In other words, unless your willing to kiss the MTGOP’s ass, it’s not your party either.
By Dave Budge on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Funny, seems to me the Mt GOP will have a primary. It just won’t include the presidential contenders.
It also seems to me that the GOP tried to get the primaries moved up.
And let’s be clear. They’re not my party either but I think it’s raw nonsense that this years decision defines the party.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Dave, I support Democrats currently, but show me where I signed a piece of paper claiming any sort of allegiance to them. Show me.
Show me a single law, regulation or statute on the book that says ANY VOTER in the state can not vote in the Democratic primaries. I can show you where ALMOST EVERY VOTER in the state cant vote in the Republican caucus.
Another thing, show me one place where it is written that I may not speak out against issues which you don’t see me as having a stake in. Just show me.
I don’t think I’ll let you define what I can or can not speak out about.
By JP on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Shane, unless I’m mistaken, the Republicans are still having a primary in June, and nothing prevents you from voting in it.
By Steve T. on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Someone should show me what legitimate role Montana plays in the selection of delegates for the Democrats for me to care what the Republicans are doing.
Also… ever hear of Michigan? Florida? They had the audacity to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire’s ridiculously prominent role in the selection of the Democratic Party’s nominee… The result? They now get no say at all.
Yep! That’s the Democrats for ya. The party of Democracy.
By Craig on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
I confess I’m getting to the point that all elections to me sound like the end of “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
“Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
My give-a-shit meter looks something like this.
By carol on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
We’re intalling the last bunch of GOP Insiders tomorrow night. Part of the ritual of course is to indoctrinate them with the Official Party Line and teach them the Secret Party Handshake.
So many new Insiders are expected that it’s possible they won’t fit inside the Montana Club banquet room.
By Dave Budge on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Shane, nice argument. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you say or where. You’ll just have to show me why I should give a shit.
I don’t think I’ll let you define me as someone who A) what’s to stifle speech or B) Thinks that what the GOP is doing in Montana is anymore partisan hackery that what Craig points out in you lovable party’s Super Delegates.
But I have a question. If you’re so outraged at the Montana GOP’s “undemocratic” process why aren’t you yelling from the rafters about Craig’s point where, in a party you endorse, you’re being schtupped by the party establishment.
Oh, I get it. You really don’t give a shit about “fairness” as much as you give a shit about bashing the GOP.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
JP, as I said:
Dave:
No one ever accused you of caring what anyone except Dave had to say, but I am pretty sure that you started this all off by commenting on what I had to say about the caucus, and you still go on about it.
Not the party Dave, the candidates.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
There.
Shouted. Rafters. Yay.
By JP on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
So you’re comparing a primary to a caucus then - wouldn’t that be more like an apples to oranges comparison? Especially since it has no material impact on the Republican primaries?
Eh, I suppose three votes is three votes, but I just can’t seem to get too worked up in either direction about this.
Thanks anyway Shane - I just bored myself. Heh.
By Dave Budge on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
Shane, you accused me of trying to define what you speak about. I never did such a thing.
I just love it when people like you come back at criticism with the idea that someone is trying to stifle speech. It is deeply unserious.
By Dave Budge on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
One more point here, Shane. It seems to me that you can vote in the general for any “candidate” you like by write-in. From the standpoint of your voice being heard there is nothing stopping you by either party. And if people like you would do it more often the major parties might start to pay attention to the great “democracy” plea.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
No Dave, it would have zero effect. The new Republican rules bind the delegates to vote for the person selected at the caucus made up only by people chosen by the Republican party. Even if 98% of the Republican voters in Montana chose candidate A, the delegates are bound to abide by caucus choice. So, pissing the candidates name into the snow would have the same effect as a write in.
JP,
How do you figure? How does the common Montanan get to speak their mind in the party’s selection? Not at the primaries, and that is a material impact. They could apply to caucus and they might even get accepted, but the choice of who is accepted is up to someone that is not the person applying.
My point is that for democracy to work correctly, everyone has to be able to take part. Even though I generally support Democrats, I believe that Republican’s need to be active participants for it to work right. I think that this has been taken away for the presidential candidate selection process.
By Dave Budge on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
Everyone? Prove it. I double dog dare ya.
Secondly, I was referring to the general election where delegates don’t matter.
By JP on Jan 22, 2008 | Reply
Shane, I guess I’m just thinking beyond the Presidential primary vote. To me, it is something that we really have no voice in anyways (in my opinion) regardless of primary or caucus.
However, we have legislative races, Senate, Governor, all VERY important to our state and what happens - and that will be decided in June for both D and R, caucus notwithstanding.
Now, the candidates for President will be on the ballot as well, and the vote you cast for President in the primaries will be exactly as binding this time as it always has been on delegates, again, regardless of caucus.
It seems to me that if our primary vote has never been binding on delegates, and we still get to mark a box in June, then nothing has changed other than to remove the illusion of ‘having a say’ in the selection of our next Presidential candidate.
Maybe I’m just a bitter and disenfranchised political hack who would rather play with my boys than give one damn about ‘Survivor:Washington DC 2008′.
Maybe I just need a nap. heh.
By Shane C. Mason on Jan 24, 2008 | Reply
No. Not if I want to vote in the Republican primary.
Yeah. I hear you buddy.