A Superdelegate Pre-Convention Convention?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Super Delegates!!!From former governor of Tennessee Philip Bredesen comes this intriguing idea for superdelegates like himself:
Here’s what our party should do: schedule a superdelegate primary. In early June, after the final primaries, the Democratic National Committee should call together our superdelegates in a public caucus.Of the 795 superdelegates, over 40 percent have not announced which candidate they are supporting; I’m one of them. While it would be comfortable for me to delay making a decision until the convention, the reality is that I’ll have all the information I reasonably need in June, and so will my colleagues across the country.
This is not a proposal for a mini-convention with all the attendant hoopla and sideshows. It is a call for a tight, two-day business-like gathering, whose rules would be devised by the national committee, of the leaders of our party from all over America to resolve a serious problem. There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote.
This is our electoral process at work in a way the founders would be proud of.
Well, I don’t know that the founders would be proud of the idea of superdelegates in general, but making sure that the superdelegates don’t hijack the will of the people? Sure, I’ll buy that.
Ultimately, I don’t think this is going to fly, but at least one Hillary supporter is voicing concern…
“If we continue down the path we are on, we might as well hand the keys of the White House to John McCain,” said U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City.
I think a lot of Hillary’s superdelegates share this concern, understand it’s virtually impossible for her to catch up and wonder when she might bow out gracefully. Well, let me answer that question: when you all start telling her to give it up. Seriously, now is the time to apply the pressure because if you don’t, well, she’s going to keep on going.
We shall see…
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Super Delegates!!!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Bredesen isn’t a former governor… he’s still serving and is in his 2nd term.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
It is indeed vitally important that the superdelegates follow the “will of the people”.
First step - is to make sure that the superdelegates take into consideration the “will of the people” in Michigan and Florida, who have been disenfranchised by the shenanigans of the Obama campaign -having blocked every attempt at a redo so the will of those people could be heard. Or do I understand Justin, that we just are not as concerned about the “will of the people” in Michigan and Florida?
Second The superdelegates need to reassert the “will of the people” in Texas - who spoke loud and clear in their preference for Clinton, but had their will perverted by a caucus process that gave more anti-democratic pledged delegates to Obama. Or Justin - do I understand that we do not care as much about the “will of the people” in Texas?
Third - Superdelegates need to take into consideration the anti-democratic nature of caucuses in general, as they disenfranchise voters who do not have time to spend 4-8 hours or more in a byzantine process just to express their preference and their will. Or Justin - do we just not care that much about the “will of the people” with jobs and/or kids?
It does not matter to me if the superdelegates get together in Denver to make their decision or in an earlier meeting in June. Just as long as they understand that their job is to represent the “will of the people” and not necessarily the undemocratically selected pledged delegates.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Well, I don’t know that the founders would be proud of the idea of superdelegates in general,
Actually, the Founding Fathers probably wouldn’t have an issue with it. After all they only wanted white property owners voting in the first place, plus they wanted the chief executive chosen by the legislature. They were perfectly happy having only the House of Representatives being particularly democratic as such. You’d probably have to go to Jackson before you get someone who would have a big issue with it.
We simply have different sensibilities. I’m not sure the Founding Fathers wuld know what to make of any of us.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Rich,
Excellent point. I find this whole notion baffling, as there never been a single political party presidential nominee, for any political party, ever in the history of the United States, that has been selected solely on the basis of some national “will of the people” selection process. Never. Not even once. Yet somehow, some would say it is now vitally important that Obama be nominated on that basis, and even worse, using the wildly undemocratic pledged delegates as some some sort of proxy for “the will of the people”.
The pledged delegates are not the “will of the people”. Not even close. At the very best, you can say that some of the pledged delegates do represent the will of some of the people. Specifically the pledged delegates determined by primaries. In some cases (like Texas) we know for a fact that the pledged delegates actually represent the exact opposite of the “will of the people”. I find the arguments conflating “pledged delegates” with “the will of the people” on a par with arguments equating “Intelligent Design” and Evolution.