proportional allocation and the super delegates
Here's is an idea to address some of the proportionality problems and the possible negative impact of superdelegates (where they choose the lesser candidate coming out of the primaries/caucuses)
(1) If a candidate wins a primary or caucus by a majority of votes cast (more than 50%) then it should be winner-take-all. If the winner is by plurality, only then should the delegates be allocated proportionally.
(2) Superdelegates should be obligated to cast their vote for the candidate who won their state primary or caucus by a majority, if the win was by plurality or if the candidate is no longer in race, only then should the superdelegates be free to cast their vote as they wish.
Seems a reasonable way of addressing this onrushing problem the Dems have...
Just some food for thought - comments?
- Login or register to post comments
- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
You're addressing the problem but missing the point
First off, nothing's going to be done retroactively for this primary season, period.
Second, the real issue here is that all the Pledged Delegates will be won following the Puerto Rico primary on June 7th. Neither Obama or Clinton will have anywhere near enough Pledged Delegates (2,025) to claim the nomination. So then we embark on a 79-day odyssey of back-room deals, salacious news reports, and total uncertainty about the nomination until the Convention on August 25-29. Then the election is only 67 days away.
This whole Superdelegate thing should not be the deciding factor.
I would suggest that we stop attempting to change the ...
course of the river after the water has begun to flow. Prime examples of this nonsense are Michigan and Florida. Rules were drawn up and everyone(states)agreed to them.
We cannot change the course of the river once things are in motion. Any desired changes must not apply to this ongoing election process but would apply to future contests.
It also seems that another desirable change would be to eliminate the caucus as a means of candidate selection. Another change might be to make all Dem primaries closed. That would eliminate the crossover votes from Repugs, independents, and other troublemakers.
As to the caucus system: It seems obvious to me that a very small percentage of the electorate participates in these affairs. Might also help to bring in a semblance of order about the 50 different state methods of holding elections...some uniformity might be helpful.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
author folllow-up to Proportional allocation and...
Regarding the above two comments:
I really wasn't intending to address the events of this election cycle. Although I didn't explicitly say that, I assumed that would be changing the rules after the game has started. So my suggestions were targeted more at 2012.
Grinch, I agree that primaries should be closed. Only active "card-carrying" party members should have a say in the candidate selection process. Yes I would like to see caucuses done away with, replaced by uniform closed primaries, all on one day, say in June or July of the election year, with the national convention in late August
Dem in SD, you say the superdelegates will all be "won" after the last primary. I think I understand what you mean, but the fact is that the superdelegates are not "won." They have a free choice and can change it at will, right up to the moment of casting their vote.
I think there is a proper role for superdelegates as they contribute to a strong party system, which this nation clearly needs. I just think the superdelecates should have -some- limitations on their choice when their state primary or caucus is decided clearly in favor one one candidate.
I said all "Pledged Delegates" will be won by June 7th,
not Superdelegates (they are actually referred to as Unpledged Delegates in the Convention Rules). Imagine a situation on June 7th where Obama has 1650 Pledged Delegates, and Clinton has 1603 Pledged Delegates. From then (June 7th) until the Presidential Ballot on August 28th, NO MORE Pledged Delegates are at stake. That is 79 days of wheeling and dealing for the support of the Unpledged Delegates, i.e. the Superdelegates.
The rules need to be changed to bind the requisite number of Superdelegaes to the winner of a majority of Pledged Delegates. See the reply to my own post above for the link to the online Petition.
what happened to change?
The Democrats have been pushing for change throughout the primaries. I assumed that change meant a move from old time politics to a more people friendly political system where the voice of the people are heard. What would really be a breath of fresh air would be a return to a Constitutional form of government.
What a novel idea..a government of the people..by the people and for the people..anyone remember that? Our current illegitamate regeme..which we lovingly call the Bush Administration..the one that stoled the last two elections in Florida and Ohio took that away. Now we have the Democrats response..the super delegate..what a crock. This leads back to the old smoke filled rooms, politicians, not the people choosing who our candidates going to be..more of the same old..same old.
Take a good look around you. Our jobs, I mean the ones that actually pay..are now overseas. We are now heading into both an inflationary period and a recession..no small feat by any means. We are fighting a war in the middle east, an area that has been at war for at least 2000 years and of course, we are going to put an end to this. We have homeless, unemployed people here that nobody cares about. Our health care system is at best third world quality..our educational system is quickly heading in that direction and the people responsible for that are going to pick our candidate? Maybe yours...not mine