Okay, so SuperDelgates continue to bubble up in news articles as soon as there is a lull between primary races, but I want to take a stand, once and for all, on how I feel about them.
I think they're fine.
That's right, I think they're just fine, and there is nothing wrong with having them. It's been said that they chip away at the purity of the democratic process, and that these people could be responsible for inducing apathy party-wide. It's been said that they are in cahoots with party bosses and sit in smoke-filled rooms to hand-pick the candidate who will continue the status quo. These people are in place to produce the candidate that the party wants, not that the people want.
If we have that little faith in the democratic process, then why are we partaking in the primary process, nevertheless covering it so fervently? A vast majority of these people are elected officials, and the rest are respected members of the party or people chosen at the caucus. Moreover, they're all very politically savvy, more than savvy enough to realize when their vote would lead to the destruction of their own party. Elected official or not, the person wants to see the democratic candidate win, and they're not going to be so thoughtless to just throw the hopes of the voters in the garbage in order to vote "with the party."
Here's the problem I've tried to address over and over. The SuperDelegates don't actually vote until the convention. The reason the numbers are different from station to station is because these are "promises" that are given to each media outlet, and apparently are not stable or else everyone would have the same number. If we don't want to give them power, we should stop talking about them. If we never included SuperDelegates in our counts, Hillary and Barack would have been tied after Super Tuesday. Barack would have pulled a significant lead shortly after the massive day, and Hillary would have lost any fragment of momentum. I'm not saying one candidate is superior over another, what I'm saying is that Hillary's continued momentum is mainly due to SuperDelegates who haven't actually voted yet. The media mentions this caveat, and yet continues to act as if Hillary has got these votes in her pocket.
If we're going to blame anyone for the skewing of results, it should be the media. If just one respected outlet (I'm looking at you, Associated Press) would have just stood up and demanded that we only count what's actually there, then we wouldn't worry about how much the SuperDelegates were going to effect the outcome. In the end, if the populous was still honestly tied by a couple dozen delegates, then it would make sense to ask our elected officials and longtime party members to weigh in, and few of us would complain.
Showing posts with label superdelegates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label superdelegates. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Superdelegates give Hillary the lead on Super Tuesday.
As the delegate count from SDTT (Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday) continues to settle, the democrats are realizing that they could face a particularly touchy subject come the Democratic National Convention. Ever since Al Gore took the popular vote but lost due to a technicality back in 2000, the Democratic Party has been acutely aware of how painful it is to be told that, when put to the test, each vote actually doesn’t matter.
What the party could face on August 28 in Denver, Colorado is an internal version of that struggle that could potentially disillusion massive numbers of voters. Right now, Barack is only down by .5% (7,347,971 v 7,294,851) according to the vote count, however he’s down 5% (1045 v 960) according to the delegate count. This goes back to the superdelegates. Although the states split their democratic delegates proportionate to the voters demands, the superdelegates can do what they see fit. Since Hillary has been wooing them for quite some time, they’ve found it appropriate to support her.
Many consider unfair and ridiculous that the democratic party even has superdelegates, but it's certainly not without rationale. The Republican primaries often send all of a states’ delegates to the candidate who can achieve a simple majority. This often creates a large enough disparity to anoint a clear winner of the party nomination, even if the momentum that high delegate counts can create isn’t always fair.
The democrats, to avoid this issue, reflect voter patterns when they distribute delegates, but they also don’t want a completely split party when the convention arrives. Part of the primaries is to find the best candidate, the other part is to galvanize support around them. The superdelegates are supposed to heighten that momentum, and in the end shouldn’t end up making that much a difference. If, however, the popular vote says that Obama should be their candidate, but the superdelegates swing the nomination over to Hillary solely based on their desires, then I could see some serious tension arising.
To sum it up: I’ve said before that if it comes to a 50/50 split on the nomination, I’d rather have people well connected to politics, such as the superdelegates, strike the final blow on the nomination. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if the superdelegates are the one to tip the balance, better them than a bunch of people who are making up their minds a day or two before the election based on a handful of commercials. The problem is that we would make people apathetic at the party level. It’s one thing to be apathetic about politics and have that belief confirmed at the national level. It’s wholly another to be excited enough about politics to vote in the primaries, only to have your own party deny the wishes of their constituents and nominate who they want.
Here's my favorite part about these delegate counts, however. "The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences." That means that Hillary's 85 delegate lead is mainly imagined. Their not-so-super delegate count is almost equal. To avoid pandemonium, the superdelegates are likely to simply vote for the candidate in the lead at the convention. The current lead is almost entirely speculation.
What the party could face on August 28 in Denver, Colorado is an internal version of that struggle that could potentially disillusion massive numbers of voters. Right now, Barack is only down by .5% (7,347,971 v 7,294,851) according to the vote count, however he’s down 5% (1045 v 960) according to the delegate count. This goes back to the superdelegates. Although the states split their democratic delegates proportionate to the voters demands, the superdelegates can do what they see fit. Since Hillary has been wooing them for quite some time, they’ve found it appropriate to support her.
Many consider unfair and ridiculous that the democratic party even has superdelegates, but it's certainly not without rationale. The Republican primaries often send all of a states’ delegates to the candidate who can achieve a simple majority. This often creates a large enough disparity to anoint a clear winner of the party nomination, even if the momentum that high delegate counts can create isn’t always fair.
The democrats, to avoid this issue, reflect voter patterns when they distribute delegates, but they also don’t want a completely split party when the convention arrives. Part of the primaries is to find the best candidate, the other part is to galvanize support around them. The superdelegates are supposed to heighten that momentum, and in the end shouldn’t end up making that much a difference. If, however, the popular vote says that Obama should be their candidate, but the superdelegates swing the nomination over to Hillary solely based on their desires, then I could see some serious tension arising.
To sum it up: I’ve said before that if it comes to a 50/50 split on the nomination, I’d rather have people well connected to politics, such as the superdelegates, strike the final blow on the nomination. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if the superdelegates are the one to tip the balance, better them than a bunch of people who are making up their minds a day or two before the election based on a handful of commercials. The problem is that we would make people apathetic at the party level. It’s one thing to be apathetic about politics and have that belief confirmed at the national level. It’s wholly another to be excited enough about politics to vote in the primaries, only to have your own party deny the wishes of their constituents and nominate who they want.
Here's my favorite part about these delegate counts, however. "The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences." That means that Hillary's 85 delegate lead is mainly imagined. Their not-so-super delegate count is almost equal. To avoid pandemonium, the superdelegates are likely to simply vote for the candidate in the lead at the convention. The current lead is almost entirely speculation.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
What Does A Close Race Do For Democracy?
With no definitive leader coming into the Nevada and South Carolina primaries, it almost brings a tear to the eye of we lovers of democracy. Citizens are more mobilized than ever, and people are getting out there and rocking the vote. Many experts are saying that this race could not only go through Tsunami Tuesday (formerly known as Super Duper Tuesday {formerly known as Tuesday}), but even all the way up to the last states to cast their vote (this could be your year, South Dakota!). These displays of passion and strongly held opinions are strengthening our decrepit system, awakening the apathetic, and providing meaning and legitimacy for the candidate who prevails.
On the other hand, do close races not dilute the effects of democracy? Since we have a winner takes all system, would we not prefer a leader who is able to rouse the vast majority of our spirits? The national elections have been decided by a few percentage points on either side for years now. 50.7% of voters stated their collective desire, and so their choice gets to rule over the remaining 49.3%. There are more fluctuating probabilities in a coin toss competition. I would actually be willing to bet that if everyone who voted also flipped a coin and wrote down that result on their ballot, the results of Senator Heads versus ex-Governor Tails would be more decisive.
Taken back a level, if we have two primary candidates, and one of them takes the sponsored candidacy by getting 51% of the registered democratic votes, and then goes on to take the national vote by 51%, then we've elected the first choice of no more than 25% of our people. Add on to that the fact that only about 50-60% of potential voters actually will roll out of bed and make it to the polls, we're left with a commander in chief who was preferred by about 15% of the population.
What's nice about the primaries is that it's not terribly likely to happen in that way. Since factors like momentum and a perceived ability to win it all play such a big role, it's expected that the final choice will have pulled away from their next closest competitor by a respectable margin. This is made even more likely when you consider the role of SuperDelegates. These mere mortals endowed with demi-god powers are a group of people whose opinion is counted as the equivalent of hundreds of people. They are given this awesome power by being heavily involved with the election process well before it got cool, and therefore they are believed to know what the candidates were like before they got all famous and sold out. Each state has a certain number of delegates to hand out based on population (rather than turnout), but the vote of each of these SuperDelegates is equivalent to one of the delegates. Since they are presumably less swayed by the ever-changing political winds when the primaries fan is on high, their steadfast vote based on sound evidence will often nudge one candidate to their cushioned victory.
To sum it up: The current symmetrical divide in this country that rears it's head once every four years seems to lead to a result that, were it a poll, would be considered statistically insignificant. We have figured out a way in our primaries to lessen the chance of having to blindfold ourselves and pin a tail on one of the donkeys, so how can we apply this lesson to the national election? After all, almost every state considers the number the delegates and SuperDelegates (it can differ for republican and democratic primaries) so why not apply this method to the national election?
Having a national pool of 'trusted experts' who could have a heavy say in the result of a national election may sound like a plea for corruption, however, if we choose respected community leaders, elected officials, and intellectual giants, then we might be able to actually do something good with this. They wouldn't be in charge of the entire vote, but when there is a statistical tie, wouldn't we prefer to have the final push for a solresult be decided by people who know what they are talking about? Too many of us admit that we aren't fully educated about all or even our preferred candidate, so why not leave the tie-breaker to the people who make it their job to know what these people are about? Let's make a deal, if we all shout it out and still can't come up with something better than 50/50, we'll call the revered professors, the respected journalists, and the people who know a thing or two about these people on the stage, into the room and let their votes weigh a little heavier. If it's still a near-even split, then it won't matter which one we choose so we might as well choose the one who got a little more rather than a little less.
On the other hand, do close races not dilute the effects of democracy? Since we have a winner takes all system, would we not prefer a leader who is able to rouse the vast majority of our spirits? The national elections have been decided by a few percentage points on either side for years now. 50.7% of voters stated their collective desire, and so their choice gets to rule over the remaining 49.3%. There are more fluctuating probabilities in a coin toss competition. I would actually be willing to bet that if everyone who voted also flipped a coin and wrote down that result on their ballot, the results of Senator Heads versus ex-Governor Tails would be more decisive.
Taken back a level, if we have two primary candidates, and one of them takes the sponsored candidacy by getting 51% of the registered democratic votes, and then goes on to take the national vote by 51%, then we've elected the first choice of no more than 25% of our people. Add on to that the fact that only about 50-60% of potential voters actually will roll out of bed and make it to the polls, we're left with a commander in chief who was preferred by about 15% of the population.
What's nice about the primaries is that it's not terribly likely to happen in that way. Since factors like momentum and a perceived ability to win it all play such a big role, it's expected that the final choice will have pulled away from their next closest competitor by a respectable margin. This is made even more likely when you consider the role of SuperDelegates. These mere mortals endowed with demi-god powers are a group of people whose opinion is counted as the equivalent of hundreds of people. They are given this awesome power by being heavily involved with the election process well before it got cool, and therefore they are believed to know what the candidates were like before they got all famous and sold out. Each state has a certain number of delegates to hand out based on population (rather than turnout), but the vote of each of these SuperDelegates is equivalent to one of the delegates. Since they are presumably less swayed by the ever-changing political winds when the primaries fan is on high, their steadfast vote based on sound evidence will often nudge one candidate to their cushioned victory.
To sum it up: The current symmetrical divide in this country that rears it's head once every four years seems to lead to a result that, were it a poll, would be considered statistically insignificant. We have figured out a way in our primaries to lessen the chance of having to blindfold ourselves and pin a tail on one of the donkeys, so how can we apply this lesson to the national election? After all, almost every state considers the number the delegates and SuperDelegates (it can differ for republican and democratic primaries) so why not apply this method to the national election?
Having a national pool of 'trusted experts' who could have a heavy say in the result of a national election may sound like a plea for corruption, however, if we choose respected community leaders, elected officials, and intellectual giants, then we might be able to actually do something good with this. They wouldn't be in charge of the entire vote, but when there is a statistical tie, wouldn't we prefer to have the final push for a solresult be decided by people who know what they are talking about? Too many of us admit that we aren't fully educated about all or even our preferred candidate, so why not leave the tie-breaker to the people who make it their job to know what these people are about? Let's make a deal, if we all shout it out and still can't come up with something better than 50/50, we'll call the revered professors, the respected journalists, and the people who know a thing or two about these people on the stage, into the room and let their votes weigh a little heavier. If it's still a near-even split, then it won't matter which one we choose so we might as well choose the one who got a little more rather than a little less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
