Those of you who followed the previous incarnation of this blog during the primaries will remember that I was livid over the role of superdelegates in the Democratic presidential nominating process. As things stand now, one third of all voting delegates are superdelegates, Democratic political hacks. They are Representatives in the US House, US Senators, Governors and members of the DNC. They have no obligation to vote for the same candidate the voters in their constituencies select at the polls. Since Clinton had a commanding lead in superdelegates early on, shy might well have been nominated against the stated will of the voters had the polling been just a little closer. The DNC may change that.
This seems like a significant change of rules for the DNC nominating process. If adopted, the superdelegates would remain with the status of being a delegate (there is not a decrease in number), but they would no longer be able to decide who to vote for based on their own, but instead rely upon the contests in their states.
The reform would increase the amount of delegates to the winning candidate in the contest. This is much needed. It was not a good system that produced results like the NV caucus, where the candidate who had the most popular votes did not also lead in the delegates. It's also a fault of the nominating system, that a candidate can win a contest by a good margin 5-10% margin, but not gain much in the way of delegate advantage from winning.
The winner-take-all system, as was California in the disaster of '72 for Democrats, and still is that way in many Republican states (they await their disaster in '12 imo), gave way to the proportional system, but adding back the superdelegates from their states to a winner-take-all scenario strikes a nice balance.
The only question I have about it though is the preponderance of superdelegates from nearby DC states (MD & VA) and DC itself. I don't know the exact numbers, but its a lot. Is DC going to become a megastate because of its bulk of superdelegates?
I don't expect the Rules committee to take this recommendation without some resistance. It's a committee that's packed with people that like to exert influence, and this will take away their being able to play phone tag with the Presidential candidates in the future. Hopefully, that's a moot point because Kaine and Obama are on board… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>
My problem was not that Clinton might be nominated, per se. My demand was that the voters’ choice needs to become the party nominee, and party insiders ought not have the ability to override the party members’ will, regardless of the candidates involved. Not only is it anti-democratic, but also, it opens the door for corruption. I agree that the number of superdelegates from the DC area need to be reduced. Otherwise I fully support this proposal.