Be the Spark!

contribute now

SHARE THIS SHOW:

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

Suggest a Topic

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

  • A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.

TAGS:

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's a... Secretary of State?

AIR DATE: Friday, February 15th 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.
Should superdelegates decide the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee?

Six short weeks ago journalists at OPB looked at the primary calendar and thought: with Oregon's presidential primaries not happening until May 20, is there any chance that the state will matter at all? Most of us figured the answer was an obvious, "No way."

But here we are in mid-February and the Democratic candidates are running so close that many project neither candidate will get the 2025 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination before the Party Convention in August.

Which brings up a few questions. First, what will happen with Michigan and Florida? And second, will superdelegates -- who have received so much press lately -- end up being the super-deciders come August?

But before we get to the rest of the questions (and there are many), lets roll out a couple of numbers, with a hat-tip to CNN's delegate counts:

  • 2025: The Magic Number of delegates a Democratic candidate needs to get the nomination
  • 1253: Pledged and superdelegates for Obama (incl. 157 superdelegates)
  • 1211: Pledged and superdelegates for Clinton (incl. 234 superdelegates)
  • 796: Total number of superdelegates (that's about 20% of all delegates)
  • 405: Unpledged superdelegates
  • 53: Pledged delegates at stake in Oregon's Democratic primary
  • 12: Superdelegates in Oregon (1 for Obama; 2 for Clinton; 9 undecided)

And, as we have all heard, Obama won Washington State with 68% of the Democratic votes, but among their 17 superdelegates only 3 are for Obama, 5 are for Clinton, and the rest remain undecided.

So just how super are superdelegates, in your estimation? Do you favor the arguments that elected officials and high-ranking party members should be granted a special status in acknowledgement of their experience and expertise? Or would you abolish the whole two-tiered system?

If the final decision is left to the superdelegates -- including Oregon's Secretary of State Bill Bradbury -- how should they vote? According to their conscience or the will of their respective states? (And a bonus question, if your head isn't spinning yet: what should happen with Florida and Michigan?)

Photo credit: Jeremy Brooks / Flickr / Creative Commons

GUESTS:

Tagged as: 2008 primary · democrats · superdelegate

It wasn't long ago that I thought there was no way the Republicans could possibly retain the White House. I never should have underestimated the Democrats. A Hillary Clinton crowned the Democratic nominee by a non-democratic process of back room wheeling-dealing and old political debts called in, or, better yet, with the help of a lawsuit involving votes from Florida, could definitely lose to John McCain. All the swing voters attracted to Obama because of the hope of moving beyond the Bush/Clinton decades will be all the more disgusted, myself included.

Superdelegates should have the courage and honesty to recognize that the system that gives them this power represents so much of what is wrong with our elections. Those superdelegates who vote with the will of those who elected them represent the present; those who vote their "conscience" represent the past. And the future ought to be represented by those who declare that their part of the system is flawed, and refuse to vote at all.
josephsharpe —
I would assume that when the superdelegate system was implemented the thinking was to trust the opinions of the party leadership - meaning vote your conscience.

However, in my opinion the differences between the two major parties have become very small over time - making 'third party' candidates look much more attractive. I would advise strong looks at parties such as the Green & Libertarian parties. The concept of voting for "the lesser of two evils" should be abandoned.
Chad Balcom —
Good point. Leaving the decision to the "party leadership" is especially ominous this time around. I see a huge disconnect between our "leaders" and the people who voted them into power in 2006.

The Democrats didn't end the occupation in Iraq, they continued to fund it. Oregon's own Rep. Hooley said with regard to impeachment that "it's up to the leadership." Hats off off to Rep. DeFazio who this week signed on to Wexler's initiative to proceed with impeachment hearings against the Vice President. It is very disheartening that my own Representative (Blumenauer) won't support these efforts to hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable.
EastbankThom —
You're right, East, the Democratic Party LIED to us to win Congress back in the last election and did NOT deliver on promises to remove troops from Iraq, impeach Bush, etc. It was "inconvenient" for the House Speaker to keep political promises that she made to Americans. Having pointed out this lie, I am really worried that the party will be dishonest to America again by allowing Superdelegates not the members of the Democratic Party choose the candidate for the party.
mydogatemyemail —
In so many ways it seems ironic that in a state with so many "nonaffiliated" voters who are not allowed to vote in the primaries, that party questions are so dominate yet again. That said, I think that superdelegates have the right to vote their conscious, just as much as anyone else entering the voting booth does.

If we as a population want superdelegates who will vote in accordance with the state voting percentages, then we need to make it a litmus test in our voting. What is this candidates stand on superdelegate voting? Did any one of Oregon's superdelegates get asked that when they were running for office? There are many things that come up during a public servant's term that were not covered during their campaigning, or that no one anticipated when they started their time in a particular position. If we can't trush them to make a good decision, with or without polling or voting information from their constituency, then maybe we need to elect someone else. We are after all a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

I think that the two party system with "winner take all" has made us focus on winning, rather than the people we are electing. So, if you care about how Oregon's superdelegates may vote next time this happens, then make sure to ask them when they are campaigning for your vote.
JuliaMJK —
The superdelegate discussion is interesting, but premature. The reason so many are now hedging their bets and waiting to see what develops in the race--including Oregon's delegation--is because they want to see if either candidate can build a sizeable lead. If one does, they are apparently prepared to support that candidate.

Which candidate will it be? Thanks to proportional delegates, Obama has the big advantage. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, he'll be somewhere in the +135 pledged delegate range after next Tuesday's Washington and Hawaii primaries. Using your formula, he's ahead 120 pledged delegates already (others have it slightly lower or higher). He'll increase his lead thanks to the homestate of Hawaii and leads in Wisconsin that appear to be widening (see pollster.com).

So when we get to Texas and Ohio, proportionality makes it far more difficult for Clinton to win back large blocs of delegates. Ohio and Texas have a combined 334 pledged delegates at stake. A win of even 65% to 35% in those two states wouldn't catch her up--and no one believes she'll come close to that margin. If she wins by margins polls now suggest, it will be modestly--say 55-45%. But that only makes up 34 of the delegates, and leaves her trailing by 100.

Of course, I thought Clinton would win easily. Then Iowa happened, and then New Hampshire, and ....
Jeff Alworth —
My other question in all of this is what happens with the delegates that Edwards won?
JuliaMJK —
From what I understand, they are now free to vote for / support any other candidate of their choosing.
mydogatemyemail —
Why do we have to rely on a process of "super" delegates hedging their bets? Gronke pointed out the process of going simply by the popular vote and the problematic that in some states, that includes Independents and even Republicans in open primaries. I myself was a Pacific Green who re-re-registered Dem in order to have a voice in nominating someone for our general election. There's an odd disconnect between states who allow non Democrats to participate in the selection of delegates to the Democratic convention, but in the end really don't want to count their votes. I thought that's how the Republicans worked?
EastbankThom —
Frankly, I'm nonplussed by the manner in which this issue has been framed. Years ago, both parties declared war on open selection of partisan candidates by successfully destroying Washington's Blanket Primary under the legal argument that private groups have the right to select their own officials. Fine. This means that the creation of super delegates belongs to the internal conversations of party members. It's their business, not the business of the general public.

Oh yes, the juxtaposition of the electoral college ( a very different beast) with super delegates merely disguises this fact.

A more appropriate conversation for a general public news station would be whether states should create a two-phase selection process (primary and general elections) that IGNORE party affiliation and merely select the top "n" of general election candidate wannabees.

I miss the Blanket Primary, but consider it the only justification for public financing of a private organization's official selection process. In other words, the parties are presently leaching off the public when they choose a primary process over the working alternative, a caucus.

AnthonyZ —
You know, you don't agree to appear on a radio interview program in an election year to discuss superdelegates then say that you refuse to discuss the politics behind YOUR vote as a superdelegate. The fact that OPB let the congressman get away with this arrogance today is very disappointing. The show host should have removed him from the discussion.
mydogatemyemail —
The Democratic superdelegates have the opportunity to exercise Democracy. If anyone other than the most popular candidate becomes the nominee, as determined by the voters in the primaries, then the entire system will be shown to have been a farce.
EastbankThom —
Yup, and voters here in Oregon will definitely remember the Superdelegates from our state such as Kulongoski, who swing their votes AGAINST the public vote in the state. Every poll taken in Oregon shows Clinton in third place with Edwards more popular than her, yet she has Kulongoski's Superdelegate vote. I don't think Oregon voters will be very forgiving of this.
mydogatemyemail —
Well, keep in mind that with proportional delegation, Clinton should win SOME of the Superdelegates. Or do you argue that none of the superdelegates should represent the Clinton voters--which her pledged delegates represent.
Jeff Alworth —
I would agree with the state's Superdelegates being apportioned out according to the state's popular vote for candidates.
mydogatemyemail —
There's an expression in German that roughly translates: "Why do things the simple way, when the complicated way works as well?" (Yes, the Germans do have humor, usually in the form of sarcasm.)

State parties can determine participation in their own primaries or caucuses. And then let the votes fall where they may. They the Leaders don't seem to trust We the People...
EastbankThom —
All of the major news outlets from CNN to Fox News have reported that the Superdelegate system was started NOT to improve the candidate selection process. The Superdelegates were invented because top leadership in the Democratic Party were no longer attending the convention because the candidate was being chosen by primary elections. The lack of big names at the convention was causing the party to LOOSE MONEY on the convention. This decision to create Superdelegates is all about money not improved politics.
mydogatemyemail —
Listening to Darlene Hooley's response on this question the other day, I was struck by her statement that she would stick with her support of Sen. Clinton unless she was "released" by her to vote otherwise. Does Rep. Blumenauer see this as representative of how the superdelegates feel they must act-- at the behest of the person they have endorsed?
coastalview —
I thought that was interesting too. Funny, I thought that Darlene Hooley was responsible to the voters of Oregon not to a national candidate living in New York. I guess I was wrong.
mydogatemyemail —
Our election process is not dynamic. It is convoluted and not accurate with respect to the popular vote. Much like the tax code, leave it up to Americans to come up with this confusing and inefficient system. And that's not even getting into how this system reinforces disenfranchising certain groups of our society.
CasandraMShannon —
We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic and the super-delegates and electoral college are perfect examples of what that means in action. The founders of this nation set us up that and there has been very little done to change this.

Originally, this was due to the difficulty of spreading information to the population of disconnected states. In this day and age of instantaneous news coverage from all types of media, we can inform the public of political views and issues, but do not seem to take any steps closer to becoming a true democracy.
justin.timmons@gmail.com —
Very true, Justin, the question today, however, is with an educated public and up to the second news available, should such a system continue to remain in place?
mydogatemyemail —
Your utopian idea of what a democracy is, is exactly that - just an idea. If the process was entirely democractic and objective it wouldn't make a bit of difference or result in better choices. Information doesn't create intelligence.
scottmil —
In essence, I would agree with you. There is a big difference between a wealth of information and true education. The biggest problem with the American electoral progress is apathy from voters who don't vote out of frustration with the system and arrogant entrenched politicians who answer to big business instead of the voters in their districts.
mydogatemyemail —
The process wasn't created because people were stupid though, just uninformed (or at least that was the cover story). The part that is scary is that people truly believe in 1 person = 1 vote. The political machine propagates that idea since it makes us feel warm and cozy and in control. Just as information doesn't create intelligence, intelligence doesn't always create good decision making. We have a lot of very intelligent leaders that are also very self interested
justin.timmons@gmail.com —
I'm personally in favor of a true democracy for the election of congressional seats as well as the president. Unfortunately the system is set up to keep the status quo. I don't think there is any way to change the current structure since it would be likely to unseat many of the people that would be required to put forth such a change in the legislature.
justin.timmons@gmail.com —
A true democracy lets HUMMERS ride all over the hillsides - worships Britney Spears. What the majority of people want, what the majority of people decide is often not the best decision!!!
scottmil —
No way...big business makes that happen...we don't have a true democracy, so we can't say what it would be like. We're not even a true democratic republic since we refuse to allow more than 2 parties have any say in how the country operates. I believe we would see a completely different process if we even allowed 1 additional party to have influence in the political arena.
justin.timmons@gmail.com —
Oh how I wish I could believe that, its way too easy to blame all the evils of the world on Big Business. I hate big business, but big businesses are owned by shareholders - hence people. This idea that if everything was truly democratic everything would just be so much better, I really can't believe, nothing seems to support it. Just look at religion, the biggest swindle ever and the majority of the world are still believers. So the majority opinion, which results in votes in a democracy doesn't guarantee a good outcome.

Basically this argument of Big Business is like asking me to believe in the devil, that there is this one evil force out there responsible for it all. Sorry but we all have our hands dirty.
scottmil —
Nothing is fair or objective about the entire nominating process. It isn't fair that Florida doesn't count. It isn't fair that some states are clearly more important because they hold primaries earlier and shape the race. So to now decide after the process has begun that a part of it isn't fair is ridiculous. If you decide to change the process after it has begun to suit your preference that is hardly democratic and invalidates the whole system already underway.

THE BIGGER PICTURE: even if the process is objective and entirely democratic, it doesn't mean the results will be. It is clear that voters don't have the intelligence to think objectively - if their minds are so easily swayed, then their decisions are utterly superficial and subjective. Its sad - but its reality. A democratic choice is a shot in the dark - when voters are not skilled enough or informed enough to make the best decision. I don't know why people never seem to accept this. You only have to watch TV to see it in action - the average choice, the average taste - is just that: average.

If super-delegates want to decide - I could care less - maybe their preference will be slightly more informed then the mediocrity of the primary voters.
scottmil —
It is amazing to see this spin that the head of the Oregon Democratic Party put on the issue of Superdelegate selections. These Superdelegates were NOT elected as Superdelegates. They were elected to other offices, but they were NOT elected as Superdelegates. Furthermore, I've read in the news about some of the Superdelegates are as young as 21 and appointed to that role by state party officials. I can't believe that the host let this woman get away with this FALSE SPIN.
mydogatemyemail —
So, the guest says parties are a Private Club... In that case, why are we, the public, footing the millions of dollars per state bill for their primary nominating process? The Democrats and Republicans want us to pay for their primary elections with public funds, but when the public criticizes their nominating process we're told to go sit in the corner and shut up. You can't have it both ways.
mydogatemyemail —
Are any of these Democratic officials worried about what would happen to the party if superdelegates chose a nominee that did not receive the majority of the popular vote? It might cause a great deal of consternation among the voters, possibly even a revolt of sorts. The party might lose a bunch of people to other parties or Independent status.
rebecca.t —
I always thought that would happen if the presidential election went that way, but it didn't. I was sure people would be outraged that the president elected by the majority of the population was snubbed by the electoral college (and courts). No outrage. No change.
justin.timmons@gmail.com —
This is a great opportunity to educate about precinct committee people. Get active.
Tell the Chair to talk about this.

Also, interesting that MoveOn has endoresed but has asked super delegates not to.

bbernstein —
The entire election process is too long, costly and distracting in the States. In England it is the political party that elects the leader and the entire populous vote is only held for the general election. This would be similar to selecting the candidate at the conference itself. If people feel very strongly about getting engaged in this process of selecting candidates they should join the party.
MattBromley —
You are right, Matt. It is costly. I think the parties should have to pay for their own primary elections from party funds instead of using public funds. I think this would help to streamline the process.
mydogatemyemail —
Hello,

I think there's a lack of understanding out there about how the two party system really works. We like to think that we all participate in a democracy. In our system, though, the two parties have a lock on the system and can organize it how they see fit. Remember, the DNC and RNC are not governmental organizations and are therefore not bound by the rules set out for governmental election procedures.

Thanks!
Humble —
If there's one thing I've learned from looking on message boards and blogs around the web, it's that politics is much more complicated than most people realze. I was told that we have superdelegates to pick who has the best chances of winning - and that is in the best interest of our party.

Personally, I think the most qualified canidate should win, and I think that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

Barack's numbers against McCain may be higher now, but they won't be once the Republican 527s get done with their psychologically manipulative ads that will exploit his lack of experience and "weak" positions on national defense. Then there will be many swing voters who will prefer McCain's "knowns" to Obama's "unknowns," and we will lose. Sad thing is, on the big election day, most people react to fear, much more than they trust "hope."

People want the most qualified leader to help our country and the economy, and in the debates with McCain, more people will see how Hillary is truly the most knowledgeable, qualified, and competent canidate we have. Her numbers will only go up, Barack's will most likely go down.
Trueblue —
Sorry for my typos - I type & post too fast!
Trueblue —
Delegates? Superdelegates? What happened to "Majority Rule"? One person/one vote? We are approaching rule by an elite group. This is frightening.
Jill Merritt —

Like some have said, Caucuses aren't really democratic, either.

They are more like: "Democracy by selected Mob Mentality."
Trueblue —
The problem is obvious. Our party has been hijacked by an oligarchy prepared to short-circuit true democracy. The Chairman's blithe response that the people need to "get involved" to influence the election is a farce. I am involved, idiot. I VOTE. Don't try to evade the truth. Super-Delegates are Stalinistic.
Citizen Too —
Not to mention the medias role and the poles. Then we have African Americans voting for an African American, Latinos voting for Hillary because she isn't African American. Great democracy in action! Why exactly this isn't called racism I don't know. Oh I forgot minorities are allowed a free get out and bigot card. Let the people decide, because they repeatedly make such good choices - like Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks, what good choices!!! At least Clay Aiken didn't get first place. Way to go popular vote.
scottmil —
I have issues with several aspects of the primary process including the super delegates. Congressman Blumenaur explained the super delegate process as a patch that can smooth things out. Instead of patching the system why don't we reavamp it? The system of delagates, stagering the primary process across the country, and dividing the states into districts is out dated. I can see how it made sense when communication was limited to the pony express. With internet and network television, why can't we change the process.

I propose a national primary, where all the states vote on the same day and no results are publisized until the last booth is closed. Canidates should be elected by the popular vote and not by delegates or electorates. There needs to be a grass routes process to qualify serious canidates. For example gathering 50,000 signatures from your party. After a cut off date for qualifying. All qualifying canidates should be aloted an equal amount of air time on network television to give speeches and spread there message. All canidates should be allowed to participate in a nationaly broadcast debate. Then allow people time to research canidates through the internet or by requesting information by mail on canidates they are interested in. All canidates political, criminal, and employment history should be made public and accessable. The entire process needs to be well publisized. Then the entire nation will be able to vote for the canidate they support and the process will be affordable to the average canidate. As opposed to now where canidates drop out, rather than continue to spend time and money. Leaving us oregonions with no say, or if we"re extreemly lucky maybe a choice of two canidates.
jdfredrickso —
I understand that systems are sometimes complex out of necessity, but I don't think I see that in this case. Why should the Democratic nominee for Oregon be anything other than the person who majority of registered Democrats want? For that matter, why should there not be a national primary election? We rely on it to choose the president in November, why not the nominees, too? Sure, Iowa and New Hampshire voters get a great close look, but if they were perfectly representative of America then they could be the only primaries there are. The more convoluted the system, the more detached the individual voter feels about it. It may sound simplistic, but "one voter, one vote" brings more benefits in voter-connection than it brings harm in the loss of political subtleties.
josephsharpe —
So if the "superdelegates" are here to smooth out imbalances in the majority vote verses the delegate vote, then more power to them. What I want to know, however, is how can we (the American people) be assured that the superdelegate vote is secure from corrupt persuation of one form or another?
Yonaitis —
I work as staff for Congressman Blumenauer and want to explain what happened yesterday when he could not talk about his endorsement of Barack Obama. It was not because he didn?t want to, but because he was told a matter of minutes before going on air that he could not answer questions about Obama from the location of a taxpayer-funded recording studio. In short, law requires that no campaign work be done from federal property.

It was frustrating behind the scenes, as Congressman Blumenauer believes in his endorsement and wanted to speak openly and publicly about it with his constituents. He obviously wants to comply with the law, and with too little time to confirm whether discussing his endorsement of Obama would violate federal law, he erred on the side of caution.

There was too little time to switch to a new studio, which is why he tried to step around the more political questions. I hope this sheds some light on what must have seemed confusing on air. The next time the Congressman visits OPB, he would be happy to discuss any topic ? including his endorsement of the Senator from Illinois.
erinal —
I am embarrassingly behind the times. I thought Florida seceded from the nation, shortly after the other Bush led his home state of Texas to declare an independent constitution, beginning: ?We the People, who count?? I recall Gov. Jeb following suit, with the minor edit to Florida?s preamble ?We the People, who can?t count??that leaves 48 states. If I?m confused, please educate me, and be patient, I?m recovering from nearly eight years of Republican induced trauma, I am truly Bushed, be gentle?.
asdfasdf —
I would like someone to ask Barak Obama why he won't pledge aleigence to the United States flag, why he is affiliated with a church whose aligence is to Africa and will he send troups to Africa if he is elected? Also how many years has it been since he was a committed muslim and why did he change faiths?
nutritionistanne —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics