Delegates, Superdelegates, and Superduperdelegates
So, are you as confused as I am about Delegates and Superdelegates in the Democratic primaries? With a little help from CNN, here is a quick primer:
There are 4,049 delegates who select the Democratic nominee for president. However, this number can change if delegates quit, miss the convention, or leave the party. If the total number doesn't change, 2,025 delegates are required for a candidate to win the party nomination.
Of that number, 3,253 are considered "pledged delegates" and the other 796 are Superdelegates.
Pledged delegates are selected at the state or local level based on the caucuses or primaries. The Democrats assign delegates based on the percentage of the primary or caucus votes that each candidate receives--a candidate who wins 50% of the primary or caucus should be assigned 50% of the state's delegates. (The one caveat to that rule is that a candidate must receive 15% of the votes in a caucus or primary to get any delegates.)
Pledged delegates themselves are chosen based on their intention to vote for a particular candidate, but they can change their vote if they want to. In fact, candidates are permitted to review lists of their pledged delegates and bounce any they are concerned may switch their vote. (What a weird system, huh?)
Superdelegates are Democratic members of congress, governors, and party leaders. They are not required to indicate a preference for any candidate, nor can they be bounced off any lists. They get to come to the convention and cast their vote as they wish.
So, where are the Democratic candidates following yesterday's Super Tuesday primary? Split. Hillary won important states (California and New York) and has an edge with an estimated 783 delegates (590 pledged and 193 superdelegates). Obama won more states yesterday, including one considered a national bellwether, Missouri. He trails with 709 delegates (603 pledges and 106 superdelegates.)
Hillary has an edge, but the pundits still consider it a wide open race, which means the two candidates will be duking it out for the remaining states. Obama seems to have momentum and he's got more money to spend. Hillary, to counter Obama's money advantage, is asking for weekly debates (which helps her get unpaid exposure) (but also means she's got to out-debate Obama or the tactic will backfire.)
Who needs sports when election season is this interesting?
6 comments:
SO apparently candidates can DO ANYTHING to win the vote of a superdelegate---that in the case of Hilary means sleeping with them. Does that include lying and cheating? What a shame that once again the system can prove to the American voters to be wrong and the one we actually CHOOSE by POPULAR vote will lose.
GO OBAMA. I hope some of those SD's come to their senses and realize the days of the Clinton bandwagon are gone and in the words of my 10th grader...you can't spell Hilary without L I A R
This system only makes sense when you apply it to the 18th century. Locals hold an election and 'vote' for one person to 'pledge' that they will vote for a candidate. Then that person gets on their horse, rides to the national convention and there's a big party where a smaller, more concentrated ballot casting process goes on. The whole 'winning over the delegate' thing seems like just a by-product of this process. This makes sense logistically for the 18th century, because it would be tough to organize and validate a national popular vote w/o delegates and the electoral college.
But it turns out, we have progressed a tad since then so there is no longer any logistical argument here. The only reason this bs remains in place is the shear momentum of crushing the little guys as early as possible in the election.
I have a question I can't find an answer to anywhere. Well actually two questions. The first being what happens to the delegates that are pledged to candidates that subsequently drop out of the race?
My second question is, WHY are people still able to vote for a candidate that is no longer in the race? That seems like a complete waste of taking the time to go vote.
Question: Why did California only provide 99 delegates (64 to Clinton and 35 to Obama) while Illinois, a smaller state, gave 129 delegates?
Anon #2 (18th century). Nice analogy, but I think the system is set up to mirror the electoral college, that is, to place an administrative buffer between common person and the elected/nominated candidate. And of course, the superdelegates were developed to reinforce the establishment candidate and prevent Chicago-style (circa 1968) mutinies.
Anon #3 (what happens to delegates who's candidates drop out). Delegates are not actually required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, although they rarely deviate. Candidates who drop out normally direct their delegates to vote for a specific remaining candidate, but those delegates are even less likely to listen. In effect, the Edwards delegates are essentially functioning as superdelegates. Why would anyone vote for a dropped candidate? Some are probably absentees filed in advance. The rest -- hey, the candidate is on the ballot.
Anon #4 (# of CA delegates): it looks like the process of actually assigning delegates does not happen automatically with the election. Presumably, the actual delegate is contacted and confirmed, although I'd guess it varies from state. The California counts have been going up all day.
Anonymous,
I can answer your questions:
- What happens to the delegates that are pledged to a candidate who drops out of the race?
They can basically vote for whomever they prefer. Some will still cast their convention ballots for the dropped candidate for the first round of balloting before switching to another candidate. Others will follow the recommendation of the former candidate, should he or she endorse someone. But, just liked pledged candidates who can switch their allegiance if they choose to (although they rarely do for the first ballot at a convention), these delegates are not bound to cast their ballot for the candidate endorsed by the man or woman who dropped out of the race.
(While all this sounds weird, I guess the idea of switching candidates makes sense if you think about it. After all, if neither Barack nor Hillary win a majority prior to the convention--which seems likely--then the delegates will have to switch their ballots or else a stalemate can never be resolved.)
- Why are people still able to vote for a candidate that is no longer in the race?
That's easy--people can cast their primary votes for whomever they want, even write-in candidates. Also, since the ballots themselves are set months in advance, the names of dropped candidates still appear.
People may cast their votes for a dropped candidate because they want to send a message ("I still wish this person was running and I prefer his or her platform to those of the candidates who are still in the race").
Or, they may not be informed enough to know the candidate dropped. (In my home state of Wisconsin, some people showed up to vote yesterday even though our primary is still two weeks away, which goes to show you how informed some folks are.)
In some cases, voting for a dropped candidate may give him or her some power at the convention by furnishing more pledged delegates as a bargaining chip. Since a candidate needs to get 15% of the primary vote in a state to earn any delegates, this seems like a long shot. (This sort of bargaining is certainly possible for the Democrats this year. Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone yet, so it's possible he may want to offer his endorsement and his 26 delegates to whichever candidate agrees to name him as a vice presidential candidate or perhaps to change a plank in the platform to suit Edward's desires.)
In California yesterday, over a quarter of a million people voted for two candidates (one Democrat and one Republican) who've already dropped out of the race. Neither received enough votes to earn any additional delegates, so I fail to see the reason for casting a vote in this manner, but some people believe in following their heart rather then worrying that their vote "counts" (which explains the votes Nader's misguided presidential campaign received in 2000).
Post a Comment