Question about superdelegates

[Whoosh]

I feel like I should know this and I just don't.  I have googled and read some stuff, but I am feeling no less clueless than I was before.  Can anyone explain (or does anyone know of one of those awesome videos that explains) superdelegates - what are they and why it is fair to have them?

I just was looking at the current standings for the Democrats and it seems to me from a quick look that Clinton and Sanders have both won about 50 delegates between Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.  However, when I look at the overall chart of delegates won, Clinton has 502 (so about 450 superdelegates) and Sanders has about 70 (so about 20 superdelegates).  So, it is seeming like there are just tons of delegates out there (from what I read a candidate needs 2,383 delegates to secure the Nomination).  It also seems like those roughly 470 superdelegates, while in no way decisive of who wins, would be a pretty nice thing to have in your back pocket when running for president.

I am just wondering if anyone knows exactly how all that works.  I would prefer more generalized answers rather than answers specific to these two candidates, but if it makes most sense to say "Clinton deserves them because...", that's all good too.  Any help is much appreciated.

[Trynn]

I'm curious about this too. No one has been able to explain to me exactly what a super delegate is.

[2manyKidzzz]

I asked my husband who has  worked in politics. In a past Dem convention they invented this. And party big shots and such have the influcence. No matter  how  you explain  it to me, I do not  find it fair or worthy of a place in our democracy. My personal opinion. I'll ask my husband more tonight. I mean, how  can it be fair, I say angrily!!!!

[louisa05]

An overview from wikipedia including an explanation of why the Dems adopted a system that has more than the GOP (GOP has some, contrary to recent reports I have seen). 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[2manyKidzzz]

I have to say I don't have the patience to read the whole wiki article. to me, the basic premise is not democratic. Of course, they aren't asking me, fancy that. 

[mamallama]

I wonder if Republican leaders will be wishing they had more superdelegates when they realize they're stuck with Trump.

 

[purple_summer]

OK I'll try to explain what I know. 

As some of you know I currently work in politics. Each state political party has x number of delegates to send to the national convention. The national convention is where the candidates are actually selected. Each state has it's own process for selecting delegates but it generally follows the same pattern. Any citizen who is eligible to vote can register to run for delegate. Generally you would apply with the state board of elections and you would select which candidate you support. You can also register as an undecided delegate. Once you decide to run you want to increase your name recognition with the camaign of the candidate you support.  Each campaign will then select who they want to put on the ballot in the primary.  When you vote for a candidate you're essentially voting for their pool of delegates. 

Superdelegates are generally party officials or other high ranking members of the party. They can vote for whoever they want but they generally vote with the majority. Many commit to a candidate quite early in the race but it is their decision. 

For the record, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, purple_summer said:

 

For the record, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

Up voted for this. 

It is also notable that the current primary system did not develop until the 20th Century and was not as significant to the choice of nominee until after 1968.

And the system itself is not all that democratic because of the primaries being so staggered and because delegates are proportional to population. Example of this: only the most die hard political junkies outside the state are aware that Nebraska's delegates for the Democratic race will be determined by a March 5 caucus. We have a comparatively small number of delegates and the use of a caucus here only dates to 2008, so it is not well known nor is does it garner significant media coverage or much attention from candidates (we have had a visit from Chelsea Clinton and Hillary's campaign has opened a few offices in the state in recent weeks--Sanders has one office and a few people on the ground but so far no visits planned by himself or surrogates). Another example of how undemocratic the system is from Nebraska: The GOP primary here is not until May 10. By that late date, the nominee may have been decided already (or presumed even if the candidate has not clinched in delegate numbers) which means that Nebraska GOP voters have no voice. This is the reason the state's Democratic party switched to an earlier caucus format--to ensure that voters in the state have some voice in the process. 

As for super delegates, it is not unusual for them to declare for a candidate then fall in line behind the nominee chosen in the primaries/caucuses by convention time. 

I still think that both parties need to advocate for a national primary day with closed primaries in every state. It is possible that we'd see fewer candidates on each side if that were the case. 

[OnceUponATime]

On 23/02/2016 at 5:03 AM, louisa05 said:

As for super delegates, it is not unusual for them to declare for a candidate then fall in line behind the nominee chosen in the primaries/caucuses by convention time. 

I just want to see if I'm understanding this correctly.

Am I correct in thinking that at any time the superdelegates could change their declared person?

Current stand of superdelegates declaration (or this is what the nytimes website told me):

Clinton: 461 (total delegates: 1,221)

Sanders: 25  (total delegates: 571)

If 400 of current Clinton superdelegates moved at one time to Sanders, that would change the standings to:

Clinton 61 (821)

Sanders 425 (971)

Theoretically this is possible right?

 

Is there a reason why superdelegates are allowed to publicly declare for candidates from the start? Wouldn't that sway how other people vote (which in a 3+ people race could weigh through heavier than now)?

[louisa05]

9 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

I just want to see if I'm understanding this correctly.

Am I correct in thinking that at any time the superdelegates could change their declared person?

Current stand of superdelegates declaration (or this is what the nytimes website told me):

Clinton: 461 (total delegates: 1,221)

Sanders: 25  (total delegates: 571)

If 400 of current Clinton superdelegates moved at one time to Sanders, that would change the standings to:

Clinton 61 (821)

Sanders 425 (971)

Theoretically this is possible right?

 

Is there a reason why superdelegates are allowed to publicly declare for candidates from the start? Wouldn't that sway how other people vote (which in a 3+ people race could weigh through heavier than now)?

I don't know of anyone who is swayed by it. 

Typically, by the time of the conventions, a nominee has clearly emerged from primary voting for both parties. Once that has happened, opposing candidates will "release" the delegates they have won and Super Delegates will fall in line and the candidate will be nominated unanimously when the roll call of the states occurs on the convention floor. I do not know of any convention where this did not ultimately happen since 1968. For either party. Super Delegates are not going to get up tomorrow morning and flip to Bernie. However, if Bernie were to suddenly start winning big (and he has to win big, wins like Michigan are pretty useless when Clinton already has the lead in voted delegates because Democratic primaries are all proportional delegate allocation) and accumulating enough delegates via voting to win the nomination, then the Super Delegates who publicly committed to Hillary will fall in line at convention time. 

Basically, right now, it is all talk. It likely is an attempt to sway voters in their state, particularly for those who are members of Congress (who are automatic super delegates for their state for the Dems). But I doubt it has much impact as far as that goes. No delegate vote counts until the convention anyway. And note that many Super Delegates do not commit until their state votes. Three in my state committed after caucus results were announced Saturday, not prior to it. So their committment was not an attempt to sway votes. 

 

 

[OnceUponATime]

2 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Super Delegates are not going to get up tomorrow morning and flip to Bernie.

I figured that, which is why I defined the first question as theoretical I just thought it was interesting that purely by switching a hug number of superdelegates, it turns the tide.

 

Random question about the republican delegates:

What happened to all of the delegates I'm assuming got picked up every now and then by the guys who dropped out? Do they just go missing from the count or are they redistributed each time someone drops out?

 

[louisa05]

1 minute ago, OnceUponATime said:

I figured that, which is why I defined the first question as theoretical I just thought it was interesting that purely by switching a hug number of superdelegates, it turns the tide.

 

Random question about the republican delegates:

What happened to all of the delegates I'm assuming got picked up every now and then by the guys who dropped out? Do they just go missing from the count or are they redistributed each time someone drops out?

 

The candidates hold the delegates or release them to another candidate. Drop out speeches usually are accompanied by declarations of giving delegates to another contender. I'm not sure the drop outs at this point had any to give. But voted delegates are committed to a candidate until that candidate releases them. Mind you, most states have not selected delegates for the conventions and will not until summer state party conventions. But those numbers are committed to candidates until released. 

I am wondering if the party is not quietly encouraging anyone who drops out to hold their delegates in an attempt to stop Trump by brokering the convention. 

[bashfulpixie]

The Republican convention is going to be a complete shit show I have a feeling.

[OnceUponATime]

Maybe Trumps end game isn't president but to choose who the Republican candidate will be. I mean, if he stays in the race a bit longer and then releases his candidates to someone they will be over the threshold right

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

Maybe Trumps end game isn't president but to choose who the Republican candidate will be. I mean, if he stays in the race a bit longer and then releases his candidates to someone they will be over the threshold right

Thanks everyone who is posting in this thread.  I still can't pretend that I understand the superdelegate system or why it would be seen as a good thing, but I feel more informed than I did before I asked the question.   

ETA early analysis said that Trump would lead but as people dropped out and supporters shifted Rubio would come out on top.  I think that is getting harder and harder for me to see actually happening, but IDK...

[OnceUponATime]

Does that idea not give you hope @Whoosh It could be the only way Kasich gets the nomination

I hope everyone knows I'm just making up shit I know nearly nothing about when I'm suggesting that.

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

Does that idea not give you hope @Whoosh It could be the only way Kasich gets the nomination

I hope everyone knows I'm just making up shit I know nearly nothing about when I'm suggesting that.

- I think your theory is interesting.  I can't decide if I view this admittedly random idea of yours with disgust (cause that is a total manipulation of the system and the people) or with a kind of wide-eyed, impressed yet slightly horrified fascination (cause if this is how Trump/the Koch brothers/whoever decided to get their way - wowzers, right?).

It's gonna be a long and bizarre road to November, that much I know.  I can honestly say that I will cling to entertaining any random theory that seems to have some possibility of being true before I try to make myself comfortable with the idea that a man like Trump could be this strong a contender for presidency of the United States of America.

[louisa05]

22 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Thanks everyone who is posting in this thread.  I still can't pretend that I understand the superdelegate system or why it would be seen as a good thing, but I feel more informed than I did before I asked the question.   

ETA early analysis said that Drumpf would lead but as people dropped out and supporters shifted Rubio would come out on top.  I think that is getting harder and harder for me to see actually happening, but IDK...

I think it is important to understand that the primary/caucus system and nominating convention rules are made by the parties. They are not technically part of our system of government. Our Constitution and the presidential election process created in it was not written with any anticipation of the emergence of a strong two party system of politics. The means of choosing nominees were, thus, developed by the parties themselves and evolved over time.

The use of Super Delegates was implemented by the Democrats after the mess of their 1968 convention in order to prevent a chaotic convention--as the images of that one were blamed for the party losing the White House that year.

Conventions also became a big marketing ploy for the fall campaigns with the advent of television and it became important for the nominating process at the convention to seem neat and easy. Super Delegates are intended to ensure that. There are enough that they can prevent the messiness of a brokered convention. Interestingly, they could also prevent a "Trump problem" by allowing the party to essentially stop a "rogue" nominee. But, again, the nomination process was never set out by our Constitution or any federal laws. Each party controls their own and voting on it in public elections was not the norm until the mid 20th Century. In our first 100+ years, nominations occurred at the national conventions and were settled in the fabled "smoke filled rooms" of party officials. 

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I think it is important to understand that the primary/caucus system and nominating convention rules are made by the parties. They are not technically part of our system of government. Our Constitution and the presidential election process created in it was not written with any anticipation of the emergence of a strong two party system of politics. The means of choosing nominees were, thus, developed by the parties themselves and evolved over time.

The use of Super Delegates was implemented by the Democrats after the mess of their 1968 convention in order to prevent a chaotic convention--as the images of that one were blamed for the party losing the White House that year.

Conventions also became a big marketing ploy for the fall campaigns with the advent of television and it became important for the nominating process at the convention to seem neat and easy. Super Delegates are intended to ensure that. There are enough that they can prevent the messiness of a brokered convention. Interestingly, they could also prevent a "Trump problem" by allowing the party to essentially stop a "rogue" nominee. But, again, the nomination process was never set out by our Constitution or any federal laws. Each party controls their own and voting on it in public elections was not the norm until the mid 20th Century. In our first 100+ years, nominations occurred at the national conventions and were settled in the fabled "smoke filled rooms" of party officials. 

Thank you.  I do understand all of this.  I am still not sure myself or many other Americans actually understand how the delegates really work, what influence they have overall, and if this system really makes good sense or was a good idea gone bad.  I absolutely know that nothing about superdelegates appears anywhere in the Constitution.  That is for sure.

I appreciate very much you sharing what you know about it all @louisa05

[louisa05]

I guess the best summary would be this--

The nominating processes are not a created system so much as a hodge podge of rules that evolved over time in a totally unplanned way. New Hampshire decided to have a presidential primary--the two parties then had to go along with it, for example. Super Delegates were stuck into the system for the Democrats to solve a problem that happened once--and added after the fact. They have never, since their implementation, served the purpose they were implemented for (to prevent a brokered convention) and have never super ceded  the will of the voters.  

The moaning about their existence being undemocratic also occurred in 2008 when several openly committed to Clinton early in the primary/caucus season. But in the end, the will of the voters was an Obama nomination and he was unanimously nominated at the Denver Convention that August. The same thing will happen this time. Sanders is not going to be denied a nomination by Super Delegates; if he is denied the nomination, it will be because he does not get the majority of voter determined delegates. 

[Whoosh]

11 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I guess the best summary would be this--

The nominating processes are not a created system so much as a hodge podge of rules that evolved over time in a totally unplanned way. New Hampshire decided to have a presidential primary--the two parties then had to go along with it, for example. Super Delegates were stuck into the system for the Democrats to solve a problem that happened once--and added after the fact. They have never, since their implementation, served the purpose they were implemented for (to prevent a brokered convention) and have never super ceded  the will of the voters.  

The moaning about their existence being undemocratic also occurred in 2008 when several openly committed to Clinton early in the primary/caucus season. But in the end, the will of the voters was an Obama nomination and he was unanimously nominated at the Denver Convention that August. The same thing will happen this time. Sanders is not going to be denied a nomination by Super Delegates; if he is denied the nomination, it will be because he does not get the majority of voter determined delegates. 

Thank you

[Sundaymorning]

I have another question, not about superdelegates, but about delegates in general:

Who decides how many delegates a state gets and what are the criterias?

Cause I've noticed that while the number delegates often represents somewhat the size of the population of said state, it's not always the case.

For example, Texas gets 222 "normal",  and 30 superdelegates. New York, where the population is roughly 7.5 millions smaller, gets 247 "normal", and 44 superdelegates. California, which is only about 1.4 times the sizes of Texas popluation-wise, gets about 2 times a many delegates.

Now, of course, you could argue that Texas is a lost cause for the Democrats anyway, so they just don't give it as much power in the primary. But the delegates allocation isn't always proportional in other places too. Florida, which is an important swing-state, gets only 214 "normal" and 32 superdelegates, despite having about 0.5 million more inhabitants than New York.

[louisa05]

Here is a summary of how delegates were allocated per state by each party in 2000. I assume that the formula is similar now. Note that total numbers and methods of allocation are different for each party. Again, each party is free to determine their own rules for the nominating process. 

https://www.gwu.edu/~action/delallocat.html

[ShepherdontheRock]

This is obviously a month out of date, but I think really interesting and enlightening to understand how superdelegates work.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/