Korean Job Discussion Forums

[stillnotking]

Then:

[Czarjorge]

I wish the parties would just accept that they can't represent everyone anymore and split. Clinton and the elitist pseudo-liberals can start a left of center party. Obama can have a left party. The Reps can fish up someone for a right party and McCain can head a right of center party. It's about time we became more pluralistic.

[Kuros]

If a candidate wins a clear majority, the Superdelegates do not matter. So if a candidate wins 60% of the vote versus two candidates who each win 20% of the vote, the Superdelegates' votes are largely irrelevant.

However, if there are three candidates, A, B, & C, and each wins a minority of the vote, A, 40%, B, 33%, and C, 27%, the voters have not extended much of a mandate. The candidates go to the convention, and there is a gridlock. But B & C collude, and C decides to take the Vice-Presidency while B is at the top of the ticket. For some reason, the Superdelegates think candidate A is stronger, and unite together to block the B-C collusion. Everyone sits down, and an accomodation is worked out. A gets the nomination, C gets the Vice-Presidency, and B gets a lot of his platform adopted by A.

The Superdelegates are the gatekeepers of the Democratic process whom prevent candidate collusion. This is easier to envision when there are multiple candidates in a close field.

There are other reasons for Superdelegates. Lets say Republicans and Independents swamp the party for one candidate, and the Superdelegates decide the platform of that candidate is not a Democratic one. Or, perhaps a candidate has done really well in some states, but has poor support in swing states like Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and Virginia, while the other candidate is more likely to win each of them. The Superdelegates can mandate that candidate.

[stillnotking]

Those are all fascinating scenarios, and all have equal relevance to this year (i.e. zero).

A majority is a majority. If Obama has a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote, it would be antidemocratic of the super delegates to pick Clinton. No spin can get around that simple fact.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Kuros]

[stillnotking]

[stillnotking]

[Kuros]

[stillnotking]

[cbclark4]

For those not able to understand the Democratic convention and it's ways,
take a look at history. (Okay, now to the wayback machine)

The Democratic party has tried to reform several times it's primary and
convention rules with success until someone figures out how it works
and works around the process, then they change again. Thus they are
the party of change. Change, rapid and frequent are the cornerstone of a
liberal political party.

The GOP has changed the primary and convention process very little
over the years, resulting in early selection and unanimous conventions
most of the time. It's an old party steeped in tradition for reason.
Tradition and steadfastness are the cornerstone of a Conservative party.

I give you the 1968 Democratic Convention.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

[cbclark4]

Oh and by the way the Parties, Primaries and Conventions are not ruled
by the constitution.

If you are looking for a constitutional analogy to the primary process,
the Republican process more closely resembles the (electoral college)
constitutional model.

The Democratic model reflects more closely the committee model with
huge apportionment by populace with inclusions and oversight, this is
significantly different from 1968 and the smoke filled rooms and back
dealings.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Milwaukiedave]

NK,

It's all moot point because according to some people, no matter what lead Obama has in delegates or the states he's won, the superdelegates are going to come in and give it to Clinton.

[Kuros]