And this without a mention of gerrymandering.... corrupt election officials, 6 hour lines only in areas with majority democratic voters, dirty electronic voting machines, the NYTimes and msm flagrant negativity towards one very principaled democratic candidate.... what's a democratic voter to do. Even the whole electoral college thing stinks.
We need a national week of voting, with all eligible adults automatically registered, and then maybe we can call ourselves a democracy.
We need a national week of voting, with all eligible adults automatically registered, and then maybe we can call ourselves a democracy.
43
Let's keep in mind that through the first 12 primaries just 11.7% of Democratic voters, according to Pew, have participated. So that means a tiny percentage coupled with those super-delegates are deciding who will be the eventual nominee.
Something tells me that's not about caucuses or having limited access to polling.
Something tells me that's not about caucuses or having limited access to polling.
27
The party can make it's own rules. End of story. And, I can make my rules. From now on, whenever they call and ask me for money, I will tell them NO. I'll donated to specific candidates.
14
Seeing the results of the "democratic" process this year, namely, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, I can't possibly Imagine how anyone could still be arguing that giving all power to the people is a good idea. The framers of the Constitution certainly knew better; that's why they invented the electoral college, the Supreme Court, and also gave each state equal representation in the Senate. Call them "the establishment" if you wish, but I think we'd all be happier if the Republicans had some superdelegates too.
9
Let's see. Bernie Sanders has never declared himself to be a Democrat, yet he decided to run as the nominee for president of the Democratic Party. He's lucky to have ANY superdelegate votes.
37
Just proves how rigged the system truly is. Get rid of these supposed "super delegates" once and for all. And also the electoral college which doesn't have a purpose anymore and is also rigged, there is no such thing as one person one vote.
20
I find it odd that caucuses favor Sanders as it would appear the the Clinton supporters would tend to have the time on their hands to participate.
And, please, once more, stop talking about winning/losing. It is all about the number of delegates, not winning two more delegates than the other guy, as happened in Iowa.
And, please, once more, stop talking about winning/losing. It is all about the number of delegates, not winning two more delegates than the other guy, as happened in Iowa.
7
Thank you for exposing these aspects of a rigged political process that allows establishment elites to unfairly and undemocraticly control the primary election process. Voters aware of these inequities should ask which candidates would like to eliminate these inequities, and then support them. What ever happened to the sense of fairness we used to pride ourselves as having in this great democracy?
10
If you think that's un-democratic look at what they do in Great Britain. The people vote for a mp and then mp's get to vote for who's to run for Prime Minister. Would it be better to have an election between Ryan and Pelosi? Aren't we we lucky to be choosing between Trump and Bernie.
5
Instead of complaining about "super delegates" which should be brought up at the convention not now. Instead ask Senator Sanders how will he get his policies enacted. The Senator keeps talking about a revolution? Unfortunately not in our lifetime. President Obama was elected on a platform filled with hope and promises, but what America got was almost eight years of the republican party deciding to not pass anything that the current President wanted done. The leader of the Senate decided his only job was to make Obama a one term president. Even after the American people told McConnell he was wrong by electing Obama for a second term, the majority leader tried to stop any legislation the president wanted to enacted along with more filibusters in the history of US. Over a hundred judges and department agency heads were left languishing . So how's a socialist Jew going to get anything done? That's the question Mr. Blow you should be asking. Ms. Clinton is aware that in today's political climate baby steps if your lucky might sneak through A revolution has as much chance as Trump becoming the best president we ever had.
12
If you are going to castigate the superdelegates, etc., you just as well throw mud at the entire primary procedure. The fact is that even in the highest turnout years, only a small fraction of eligible voters go to the polls on primary day. Multiply that by several factors for caucuses. This doesn't even count as a large sample poll because primary and caucus voters tend to be the most ideologically driven and thus have helped to skew our politics into polarized heaps since the smoke was cleared out of the back rooms full of pols ("the establishment") who knew that candidates who steered closer to the middle and thus lost primaries tended to win general elections. This is behind the superdelegate scheme. Almost all of them have been elected by voters to an office so it is the vox populi that made them part of the "establishment." And presumably they understand how small-turnout primaries can fail to genuinely reflect the will of the entire party which they will try to do. Is it a perfect system? Hardly. But the fact is there is no perfect system. The GOP tinkered with their's to avoid a divisive drawn-out primary fight, to ensure that the choice would be made early, going to the people's choice. That worked out well...
9
In strict sense, America does not have democracy. Democracy means 'one person one vote' . But we have electoral system which can elect a president who even he or she gets less popular votes. In Bush V Gore, we found that the Supreme court selected our president. You mention about Jimmy Carter who lost in 1980, only because of Ted Kennedy who divided the Democratic party. I love Bernie Sanders but I strongly feel that this is the best time to quit (looking at the Math) otherwise he will be another spoiler . Primary elections voters are super activists with extreme polarizing views. Then we start with extreme conservative states like New Hampshire and Iowa every year which should be changed to rotating. Why California , Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York are the last in primary election? You need to raise ONE BILLION DOLLAR to run for White House. The rich people, super pack, corporations , lobbyists have unparalleled influence in the system. Can we conclude that the whole election system is undemocratic or at least imperfect where ordinary citizens are left out.
6
The radical left, which represents today's Democratic party, is not interested in democracy or equality. It is interested only in its own beliefs and world-view - and damn the facts or reality if they stand in the way. It is no surprise that the non-Demoncratic party came up with the system of delegates. What is surprising is that minorities, especially Blacks, continue to turn to a party that has systematically taken them for granted, and continues to ignore their problems and miseries. Blacks and minorities and people who care about freedom and equality need to vote Republican.
2
Both Caucuses and Superdelegates are designed to diffuse pure democracy and protect pre-ordained candidates within the power structure. Clinton used the superdelegate system to lock up advanced party support. Harry Reed gamed the caucus in Nevada to rescue Clinton. The inconvenient truth for the democratic establishment is that it is the overwhelming enthusiasm of Sanders supporters has overwhelmed the party insiders' ability to control the outcomes in other caucuses, and has even led to the reversal of Clnton's advantage in Nevada. I agree, both systems need to go - both features are designed to protect pre-ordained candidates.
11
Mr. Blow:
next time,
you might consider including details about which of the states that hold "primaries" are 'open' and which are 'closed' as well as a discourse about the "election-date-order" among the various electoral locales---why one is 'first' and another is 'last' - - - enough early "victories" will void the need to conduct successive votes.
our evolving 'democratic-republic' is moving closer to resembling a sausage factory...with very similar results.
it may well be,
in the darkness cast by Citizens United,
that the National Parties will ultimately decline in the whole process of producing nominees - - - the Super Pacs will make the 'choices' without any affiliation except to themselves.
13
As wonderful as democracy is, our nation's founders avoided setting up a purely democratic system for fear of a tyranny of the majority and the power of a demagogue to deceive and mislead the public. Today we can see that there may be a frightening disconnection between a candidate's ability to 1) win a primary, 2) win a general election and 3) actually govern in the voters' interest. From this perspective, as odious as it may be to equate the voice of one superdelegate to the voice of thousands of voters, there's something to be said for a delegate who has a broad, experienced perspective. And I hope the superdelegates see the wisdom of supporting Bernie if we're to have a system that serves the public interest!
4
What a blatant false equivalency. Yes, there are problems with the caucus system, but it is no where near as undemocratic as the shameful superdelegates. It is impossible for he NY Times to write anything remotely unfavorable about Sec. Clinton without creating some false equivalency that also disparages Sen Sanders.
21
Many have listed the egregious violations of the principle of "one man, one vote". The list includes caucuses which average less than 10% voter participation, super delegates, unfriendly voting dates, and voter suppression at the polling place. One of the most insidious anti-democracy schemes, REDMAP, was launched after the 2008 election by the Republicans under the leadership of Karl Rove. The plan involves systematic capture of state legislatures and governorship financed by Citizen's United dark money for the sole purpose of sophisticated computer-driven gerrymandering that suppresses voting by likely Democrats.
REDMAP has been supremely successful and has given the GOP a lock on Congress that will be very difficult to overcome despite today's Supreme Court ruling about redistricting based on numerical population.
America has a huge task in front of it if it wishes to be called a democracy in more thsn name only.
REDMAP has been supremely successful and has given the GOP a lock on Congress that will be very difficult to overcome despite today's Supreme Court ruling about redistricting based on numerical population.
America has a huge task in front of it if it wishes to be called a democracy in more thsn name only.
7
As far as I know the super delegates have never decided the outcome. In 2008 if Clinton had won big among the supers (may of whom had declared their support for her early) she could have been the nominee but that didn't happen because most of the supers respected the will of the primary voters. But first they probably vetted Obama, making sure he was up to snuff.
It's all very well to call the supers an elite, but they're an elite that earned their status: they got elected as governors, legislators etc, as Democratic governors etc, elected by ...voters. They're there to prevent disaster, like Hillary getting indicted, say. In this particular scenario they would all flock to Bernie and he'd be the nominee. Even though Hillary had gotten more actual votes from actual voters!
What's being selected is the standard bearer of the Democratic party. Not some supposed savior. I'm happy (& sometimes even proud) to be a Democrat. I don't distrust our supers -- if I thought that most of our Democratic governors, senators etc were evil then I wouldn't be a Democrat. Of course Senator Sanders & many of his supporters are not really Democrats and they do think that most Democrats in office are knaves. I think they're rather naive about politics -- if you're looking for moral purity you should steer clear of politics. Even FDR had many critics on the left!
It's all very well to call the supers an elite, but they're an elite that earned their status: they got elected as governors, legislators etc, as Democratic governors etc, elected by ...voters. They're there to prevent disaster, like Hillary getting indicted, say. In this particular scenario they would all flock to Bernie and he'd be the nominee. Even though Hillary had gotten more actual votes from actual voters!
What's being selected is the standard bearer of the Democratic party. Not some supposed savior. I'm happy (& sometimes even proud) to be a Democrat. I don't distrust our supers -- if I thought that most of our Democratic governors, senators etc were evil then I wouldn't be a Democrat. Of course Senator Sanders & many of his supporters are not really Democrats and they do think that most Democrats in office are knaves. I think they're rather naive about politics -- if you're looking for moral purity you should steer clear of politics. Even FDR had many critics on the left!
12
Wow, this is quite a clever hit-piece on Sanders, even by Charles's standards.
11
There are so many non-democratic elements in our election process and the caucuses and super delegates are the least of them. The electoral college is fundamentally non-democratic. Gerrymandering! Voter suppression! We need lots of reform.
The party primaries may be the easiest to reform.
1. Get rid of caucases! They are exclusionary and dominated by the most aggressive participants.
2. Get rid of "winner take all" primaries. Strictly proportional allocation.
We can go farther.
3. Get rid of super delegates.
4. Get rid of open primaries where anybody can vote in either parties primary. Only registered partisans can vote in the primary.
I believe the last two will result in a situation where the parties will be dominated by the most extreme elements of their "base". Super delegates are meant to ensure the party nominates a candidates that can appeal to the middle and win elections with a mandate so they can effectively govern. Without super delegates what mechanism keeps the parties from gravitating to the extremes of their base? The Republican party is already dominated by the extreme right. They are ineffective at governing and they are limited to being obstructionists.
Although I don't like the non-democratic selection of super delegates, if they play to role of ensuring that their party's nominee has the best chance of winning and consequently the broadest possible appeal that seems to me to serve the democratic process well. What's the alternative?
The party primaries may be the easiest to reform.
1. Get rid of caucases! They are exclusionary and dominated by the most aggressive participants.
2. Get rid of "winner take all" primaries. Strictly proportional allocation.
We can go farther.
3. Get rid of super delegates.
4. Get rid of open primaries where anybody can vote in either parties primary. Only registered partisans can vote in the primary.
I believe the last two will result in a situation where the parties will be dominated by the most extreme elements of their "base". Super delegates are meant to ensure the party nominates a candidates that can appeal to the middle and win elections with a mandate so they can effectively govern. Without super delegates what mechanism keeps the parties from gravitating to the extremes of their base? The Republican party is already dominated by the extreme right. They are ineffective at governing and they are limited to being obstructionists.
Although I don't like the non-democratic selection of super delegates, if they play to role of ensuring that their party's nominee has the best chance of winning and consequently the broadest possible appeal that seems to me to serve the democratic process well. What's the alternative?
3
The backlash against superdelegates seems overblown.
A) Superdelegates declaring their allegiance early in the process is hardly different from public officials endorsing candidates.
B) Superdelegates have experience campaigning and governing, and may be better equipped than voters to judge electability and ability to govern. Their input on those fronts seems valuable.
C) A case in which superdelegates unite to deny the candidate with the most delegates the nomination seems farfetched. Most superdelegates are elected officials and would face backlash.
D) Superdelegates seem a preferable alternative to the mess on the Republican side, where anyone from Trump to Paul Ryan could emerge the nominee at a contested convention. At least with superdelegates, there is some accountability.
A) Superdelegates declaring their allegiance early in the process is hardly different from public officials endorsing candidates.
B) Superdelegates have experience campaigning and governing, and may be better equipped than voters to judge electability and ability to govern. Their input on those fronts seems valuable.
C) A case in which superdelegates unite to deny the candidate with the most delegates the nomination seems farfetched. Most superdelegates are elected officials and would face backlash.
D) Superdelegates seem a preferable alternative to the mess on the Republican side, where anyone from Trump to Paul Ryan could emerge the nominee at a contested convention. At least with superdelegates, there is some accountability.
16
The problem with Charles' analysis is that primaries are fundamentally different from the actual election. Political parties have no obligation to be democratic - they are simply trying to select a candidate they prefer. In some ways, the primaries can be viewed as a huge test run for the candidates. But they are not an actual election for office - that's the general election. While the primaries are a useful tool for the parties to see which candidates have popular support, they are not necessary for a democratic election to take place.
7
right you are: "It’s no surprise that superdelegates were created by establishment elites to increase their own power."
now then, slowly...e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g the establishment, (the co-opters/owners of the american enterprise) does, everything, anything, is to increase its power (control!)...the most damaging of all, more so than the corruption of political and media institutions, is the denaturing of the vote, the mark of democracy, and the cause for which so many have given their lives...the blunt efforts to obstruct the vote at the polls, the chicanery of the devices for controlling (read nullifying) the vote, after the fact, such as convention rules, superdelegates, etc., have no other purpose than to disqualify the vote, the will of the people...the lack of outrage here, never mind the media compliance, is the saddest of all our failures as citizens.
now then, slowly...e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g the establishment, (the co-opters/owners of the american enterprise) does, everything, anything, is to increase its power (control!)...the most damaging of all, more so than the corruption of political and media institutions, is the denaturing of the vote, the mark of democracy, and the cause for which so many have given their lives...the blunt efforts to obstruct the vote at the polls, the chicanery of the devices for controlling (read nullifying) the vote, after the fact, such as convention rules, superdelegates, etc., have no other purpose than to disqualify the vote, the will of the people...the lack of outrage here, never mind the media compliance, is the saddest of all our failures as citizens.
11
I caucused for the first time in Seattle this year. I liked being able to meet my neighbors and talk about local and state issues, as well as the presidential candidates. However, what struck me was that despite living in a very diverse area, everyone in my group was white, around my age (30) and there were only one or two people with children. I realize this is just my experience, and other caucuses in Seattle may have been completely different, but I definitely didn't feel that it was representative of my community at large. I would not feel comfortable at all if the Democratic nominee was chosen only by caucus. It seems that more states should switch to primaries.
20
There is nothing democratic about the super delegate system. Further, that in this primary cycle the super delegate system benefits Hillary. I am in complete agreement. I accept the premise held out by Mr. Blow that the caucus format places segment of the voting population at a disadvantage, and therefore could be considered un-democratic. But, the population that are described as being put at a disadvantage fit the profile of Bernie supporters rather than Hillary supporters. I would argue that Bernie would have fared even better in caucus states were they held as primaries. It seems to me that Hillary, and only Hillary, has benefited from the un-democratic structures imposed on the voters by the big party machine.
4
Let's remember that Bernie Sanders is not even a registered Democrat but is still being allowed to run in the Democratic primary. Whatever faults the party may have, you'd have to admit that not being "inclusive" isn't really one of them when you understand how such a thing would never be allowed to happen in the Republican's primary.
10
True, the nominating process is neither fair nor inclusive, but voting theory has much more complexity than is included in this rather superficial analysis. One problem with voting is that a vote by someone who really doesn't care too much about the choices offered counts the same weight as that of someone intensely concerned about the outcome. Is this more fair than a caucus system where those with the greater interest weigh more heavily?
There is also more than one side to the superdelegate issue. First of all, many, perhaps most of the superdelegates are elected officials, already chosen by the voters in elections usually having more turnout than the primaries. Other superdelegates have worked their way up the party structure. The claim that superdelegates increase rather the subtract from the fairness of the process cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It is a problem that gaming whatever voting system is in place is fair in the sense that all is fair in love and war. The Clinton campaign has worked for years to take control of the levers of power within the Democratic Party nomination process. Sanders supporters know this and it leaves them very dissatisfied with the process. This is what is dangerously undermining the party right now.
Electoral reform is needed. It starts with two things: getting out the big money, and stopping the vote suppression that is going on around the country. But the devil is also in the details, and there are no easy answers.
There is also more than one side to the superdelegate issue. First of all, many, perhaps most of the superdelegates are elected officials, already chosen by the voters in elections usually having more turnout than the primaries. Other superdelegates have worked their way up the party structure. The claim that superdelegates increase rather the subtract from the fairness of the process cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It is a problem that gaming whatever voting system is in place is fair in the sense that all is fair in love and war. The Clinton campaign has worked for years to take control of the levers of power within the Democratic Party nomination process. Sanders supporters know this and it leaves them very dissatisfied with the process. This is what is dangerously undermining the party right now.
Electoral reform is needed. It starts with two things: getting out the big money, and stopping the vote suppression that is going on around the country. But the devil is also in the details, and there are no easy answers.
2
The rules hardly rigged the game- The Republicans changed theirs and got Trump! Far from establishment... but very close to where the Republicans really are.. the establishment uses code words and dog whistles for what Trump says out loud. And they hate him for hit but it is what they created. Superdelegates in a Republican setting would have chosen a Rubio or Kasich and kept the party from being blatantly lunatic- maintaining the veneer of civility
The Democrats superdelegates can and should prevent a takeover of the party by someone NOT within the Dem paradigm. That's what 3rd parties are for.
The Democrats superdelegates can and should prevent a takeover of the party by someone NOT within the Dem paradigm. That's what 3rd parties are for.
6
Yeah, let's fix it so intelligent, moral, peace-loving candidates like Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Bernie Sanders don't get a chance to run. Let's make sure we only get the greedy, sleazy, war mongers like LBJ, Clinton, W., Romney, Trump and Cruz because that's who the party (the Lee Atwaters and Karl Roves of the world) knows can be elected. Obama was the exception and we won't see anyone like him for a looong time.
7
Lest we forget, the parties are not public entities, and the Constitution says nothing about them. They can choose their candidates any way they want to. They can make their own rules, and then change them whenever they want. They can be democratic, or not. They can allow non-members to help them choose their candidates, restrict the nomination to paying members, or restrict the nomination to a few chosen elites. Maybe Mr. Blow and the rest of us won't like it, and maybe one set of rules will help or hurt a party, but it's not for us to decide.
9
All political parties are unfair in treatment of candidates and delegates, with Trump being treated most unfairly of all!
4
The system avoids the bizarre turmoil of the current Republican Party. Anyway, Bernie Sanders if he had any integrity should have run as a Socialist, a label he claimed for many decades. He only became a registered Democrat last November, simply to take advantage of the Democratic Party's system, and he still identifies himself as an independent sometimes. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sande... Usually the Democratic Party represents far more minorities and different groups than actually support the Sanders' candidacy.
Kind of odd to complain about the rules now, isn't it?
Kind of odd to complain about the rules now, isn't it?
14
I think I've heard enough whining about the superdelegates.
First of all, if someone doesn't like how a political party operates, they can always start their own political party. THAT'S DEMOCRACY. But more importantly, Clinton has the most delegates right now because she has the most support among Democrats. If the superdelegates side with her, they're siding with the majority. What is so offensive about that?
Bernie Sanders is a great guy and if he's nominated I'll vote for him. But his most loyal followers act like petulant little brats. To them, everything is a conspiracy against them. They just can't grasp the obvious: they are not the majority. That's why they're losing. They need to grow up and accept it.
First of all, if someone doesn't like how a political party operates, they can always start their own political party. THAT'S DEMOCRACY. But more importantly, Clinton has the most delegates right now because she has the most support among Democrats. If the superdelegates side with her, they're siding with the majority. What is so offensive about that?
Bernie Sanders is a great guy and if he's nominated I'll vote for him. But his most loyal followers act like petulant little brats. To them, everything is a conspiracy against them. They just can't grasp the obvious: they are not the majority. That's why they're losing. They need to grow up and accept it.
20
The entire nomination process is irrational. All states should have primaries, they should be done on a rolling regional basis, and the campaign season should be dramatically compressed. Super delegates are anti-democratic and caucuses are absurd. But we let the parties make the rules and they predictably want to limit public involvement.
6
Yes Charles, welcome to the party of "choice". While the Republican party started with a slate that included two Hispanics, one African American, one Indian, a female and a few of non-career politicians. Your party provided vanilla and vanilla, two old, white, rich, career politicians. And even worse, you really don't have a choice between the two. Hillary was chosen and will be the candidate.....if she doesn't end up indicted. Hurts, doesn't it? The Democratic party keeps pandering to minorities with promises to protect them because they can't protect themselves. Then they offer them the same old non-diverse candidates and none of the promises come true. They just get trotted out as red meat for the next election. On the other side, you have a diverse list of candidates who care about you as a human rather than the color of your skin or that you have a uterus. If that were not true, why would they have all of those special interest groups the Democrats pander to as Republican candidates instead of as members of the Democratic Party. I'm glad you are seeing the light Charles. Your party is not a party of choice. Step out of the darkness and into the light. I did. I promise it doesn't hurt.
2
yes, indeed, in the end who decides.
Who at the NYT decided that todays front page news was a critical story about Sanders supposed early primary missteps--a compilation of opinions as news? A hindsight bias hit job?
Really, again?
Shame on you NYT and 'opinion' writers for erasing the lines between news, journalism, and opinion to address a biased agenda. Either you do this knowingly or blindly, regardless you are becoming more like Fox News and that's sad state of affairs.
Who at the NYT decided that todays front page news was a critical story about Sanders supposed early primary missteps--a compilation of opinions as news? A hindsight bias hit job?
Really, again?
Shame on you NYT and 'opinion' writers for erasing the lines between news, journalism, and opinion to address a biased agenda. Either you do this knowingly or blindly, regardless you are becoming more like Fox News and that's sad state of affairs.
16
A controversial reform/suggestion that would benefit our political system is that participation in both the caucuses and the primaries be restricted to party members. This would mean that only party members would have a say in who the party nominees would be. Political parties, after all, are formed around some core beliefs (ideologies) and particular programs that party members believe would benefit the country. People have a right, and are free, to join the party that best aligns with their beliefs, hopes and aspirations for the country. It’s thus unfair to party members that non-party members would take part in choosing who should represent a party in an election, no matter for what office. After party members of the various parties have chosen their nominees for general election, ALL citizens - party members and non-party members alike – would then choose which candidates’ programs would benefit the constituents better. This would be fairness to all, and to whichever level of government is in play in the election.
3
Being a moderate, intelligent conservative, RARELY do I agree with Charles Blow, but I found his commentary on super delegates, caucuses etc. very
informative, and I agree that the Republican Party is in the same fix ... or
will be soon!
informative, and I agree that the Republican Party is in the same fix ... or
will be soon!
4
Mr. Blow, I couldn't disagree with you more. The Super Delgates are what the Republicans wish they had. This primary process is a joke on both sides of the aisle. Less than 500 people voted in the Alaska Democratic Caucus, in the entire State, is that Democracy? Caucuses are a joke, as is the Primary system. In both parties the nominating system has been taken over by the fringe electorate, the Tea Party on the Right, and the 'Progressives' on the left. Do you remember George McGovern? We should do away with caucuses and not count a primary election unless 40% of the registered electorate votes. In today's system of tight scrutiny do you think FDR could have been nominated, I don't? Nomination by the Party Elders was not such a bad thing.
7
Not that voters in Oregon or Wisconsin give a rip what the NY Times thinks, but its Jan. 31 editorial favoring Hilary Clinton might speak more loudly to super delegates than to the populace. Editorials typically emerge from the hubristic view that those who create the news know more than those who read it. Waiting for a campaign to clarify the assorted policy arguments serves no purpose in shaping an editorial view, when that view is meant to applaud a pre-ordained outcome.
21
Ya think there is room for a fix, huh? Ya think?
3
Quick Fact Check: 714/4765 is 15%
4
Let's be real--this is the Democratic PARTY's nominating convention. These are not general elections. It seems reasonale--in fact necessary-- to allow the party to nominate a candidate who not only has the support of the DEMOCRATIC party voters, but who is the best positioned to help the party generally in down-ballot races. We have a leadership for a reason. Superdelegates are NOT the problem. Caucuses are. Here is a structure that works against working moms, people who do night shifts, people who have trouble getting out in snow storms, etc. In addition, in open caucuses, people can vote across party lines to sabotage a candidate. Fewer that 60,000 people TOTAL showed up for the last 3 Democratic caucuses. How is that helpful? How is that democratic?
15
Dear Mr. Blow,
There is another undemocratic problem in the Democratic Party.I am curious as to why, the Black & Hispanic Vote went overwhelmingly for Clinton, when Sanders & his Socialist Platform would have benefitted these groups in particular.I suspect it may have something to do with their Anti Israeli position & carried over to Sanders who is for a two State solution & is against Netanyahu & the Settlements.I would hate to think it's a anti Jewish vote.
There is another undemocratic problem in the Democratic Party.I am curious as to why, the Black & Hispanic Vote went overwhelmingly for Clinton, when Sanders & his Socialist Platform would have benefitted these groups in particular.I suspect it may have something to do with their Anti Israeli position & carried over to Sanders who is for a two State solution & is against Netanyahu & the Settlements.I would hate to think it's a anti Jewish vote.
4
The problem with Blow's analysis is that Sanders is not a Democrat. He is an Independent and a self described democratic socialist. He has run against Democrats (and Republicans). He has no relationship with the DNC, the DSCC, etc. Calling him an "insurgent" does not change this. At the very least, the super-delegates have a responsibility to make sure that the nominee of the Democratic Party is a Democrat!
19
Even well-read, intelligent people like Mr. Blow seem to pretend that political parties are these self-less organizations with no other goal than to ensure a fair implementation of the political/electoral process define by the Constitution. It is worth remembering, that there is NOTHING in the Constitution which legitimizes the all-powerful political parties which have developed in the US. Like any and all large organizations, political parties are there to ensure the continued power of their own members, and especially their leadership.
Political parties, without any Constitutional authority, have usurped for themselves almost complete control over how candidates for political office are selected, and thus who gets to run for political office - Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are out-layers.
Political parties, without any Constitutional authority, have usurped for themselves almost complete control over how candidates for political office are selected, and thus who gets to run for political office - Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are out-layers.
23
It looks like the NYT, the Bastion of Liberal Democrat journalistic support, is finally starting to figure out that Democratic Party is not now and has no intention of ever being democratic.
17
The Democratic Party is a private organization that can make its own rules. Voters can vote in the Democratic primary if they are Democrats. Complaining about the process is all well and good but both Sanders and Clinton knew the rules going in. Maybe Sanders would have more supers if he had been a loyal Democrat like Hillary and maybe Hillary would win more caucuses if the demographics were more favorable. Feh! The winner will prevail. You fight the war you're in not the one you wish you were in.
28
I am so tired of hearing the primary process described as an election. It is not. A primary/caucus process is simply the function of a political party - in essence a very large non-profit organization - wherein the decide whom they will promote (e.g. spend a TON of money, time and influence on) in the actual election which is held on one day only in November.
Yes the caucuses are inherently silly when compared with a much more inclusive primary, but they too are PARTY FUNCTIONS and NOT elections.
What is unfair is NOT the role superdelegates. Why shouldn't the leaders of an organization have a say as to whom they wish to support? The unfairness are the open primaries whereby people who are committed NON MEMBERS of said organization have any say at all.
Anyone can run for president by fulfilling the legal obligations to have one's name on the ballot in November. The primary season is simply part of the process of large, wealthy and very influential organizations in deciding to whom they will throw their support in November.
There is absolutely nothing unfair about a private organization tilting its own scale however it wishes.
Yes the caucuses are inherently silly when compared with a much more inclusive primary, but they too are PARTY FUNCTIONS and NOT elections.
What is unfair is NOT the role superdelegates. Why shouldn't the leaders of an organization have a say as to whom they wish to support? The unfairness are the open primaries whereby people who are committed NON MEMBERS of said organization have any say at all.
Anyone can run for president by fulfilling the legal obligations to have one's name on the ballot in November. The primary season is simply part of the process of large, wealthy and very influential organizations in deciding to whom they will throw their support in November.
There is absolutely nothing unfair about a private organization tilting its own scale however it wishes.
30
thank you for this article, I think people miss the point that the caccus system is only for those that have the time. If you have a job or kids you can't vote!
11
The Democratic Party is a political party -- not a government institution. The so-called superdelegates are PARTY ACTIVISTS. There is nothing whatsoever undemocratic about the activists in a political party having a direct say in nominating a candidate for the party to which they devote their effort. Those who vote in primaries and caucuses include many who are simply inactive Democrats most of the time (including midterm elections!) and who depend on the activists for maintaining the party -- or who, like Bernie Sanders himself, are not even Democrats. As a renowned political theorist once said, "democratic power is the power of the ACTIVE demos."
21
This is hilarious.
The same Charles M. Blow who attacked Bernie Sanders in this column as a racist because a few thugs from Black Lives Matter interrupted a Sanders rally, (not realizing that Bernie was PART of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s) and has served as one of the NYT's Hillary apologists is now trying to ingratiate himself to Sanders supporters by complaining about superdelegates.
Miley Cyrus is jealous of how quickly Mr. Blow can do a makeover.
The same Charles M. Blow who attacked Bernie Sanders in this column as a racist because a few thugs from Black Lives Matter interrupted a Sanders rally, (not realizing that Bernie was PART of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s) and has served as one of the NYT's Hillary apologists is now trying to ingratiate himself to Sanders supporters by complaining about superdelegates.
Miley Cyrus is jealous of how quickly Mr. Blow can do a makeover.
9
That's a fascinating interpretation of this column. Entirely incorrect but still fascinating. Can I ask how you came to the conclusion that he is trying to ingratiate himself with Sanders' supporters?
And yes, Sanders was part of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. After the late 60's not so much.
And yes, Sanders was part of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. After the late 60's not so much.
2
Activists, not thugs —
1
Now for Bernie after all the Trump apologetics? Interesting!
I have no problem doing away with the Super Delegates BUT you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Mr. Sanders knew those rules when he made the decision to run as a Democrat in that party's primary. And to scream about it every day now - implying that this is a dastardly deed personally done by HRC - is unconsciousnable. Mr.Sanders is, himself, a Super Delegate and his campaign manager Tad Devine helped craft that system in the first place.
Suck it up boys - and in 2017 get it together to change the rules for 2020. It's as simple as that. Oh, and while you're at it, get rid of caucuses (open and closed!).
Suck it up boys - and in 2017 get it together to change the rules for 2020. It's as simple as that. Oh, and while you're at it, get rid of caucuses (open and closed!).
25
I attended an Idaho Falls caucus for Bernie Sanders and I've vowed to never attend another caucus! It was in the evening and dark when it was over and snowing besides! I would not have gone alone, but a younger friend picked me up! How in the world can young people with little children attend, not to mention senior citizens, or people with disabilities! Outrageous!
I wrote to the Idaho Dem committee about it!
I wrote to the Idaho Dem committee about it!
19
And, we hold our country up as the model of democracy to the rest of the world, smh...
9
The disgusting part is that Bernie should have one more Caucus under his belt: IOWA!
Who can believe those SIX coin tosses in her favor now!?!? What a sham.
Who can believe those SIX coin tosses in her favor now!?!? What a sham.
5
Actually there were well more than 6 coin tosses. It was something along the lines of 11 with Sanders winning 5. More to the point, these were coin tosses only in locations where there was a tie and an odd number of delegates. Also, these were not delegates to the convention but delegates to the state convention which then picks the delegates to the national convention. So winning half of a state delegate here and there didn't fundamentally change the result.
2
Why is the primary process so discombobulated? Super delegates, caucuses, bound delegates, unbound delegates, what a mindless hodgepodge. Both parties should adhere to a basic, sensible tenet: KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.
4
Heavens Mr. Blow. Next thing you know you will be railing against the electoral college.
8
Agee with Mr. Blow's analysis.
The core question worth pondering is:
Does the Democratic Party want a Democratic nominating process ?
The core question worth pondering is:
Does the Democratic Party want a Democratic nominating process ?
9
The top Hilla-Shill from the Hillary Herald thinks caucuses are undemocratic. The same paper that claimed that 4 million from fossil fuel companies didn't matter because it was outweighed by the larger sums given her by other companies...
Well, guess what - without those caucuses in "overwhelmingly white, liberal states" like Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, etc. the votes of Democrats in New York and California would have been an afterthought.
Chuck, here's a topic for your next hard-hitting piece on democracy in the year 2016 - follow the dollars from the Clinton Foundation to the African-American churches and pastors in places like North Carolina, Mississippi, and Michigan. Tell us what's up with that.
Well, guess what - without those caucuses in "overwhelmingly white, liberal states" like Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, etc. the votes of Democrats in New York and California would have been an afterthought.
Chuck, here's a topic for your next hard-hitting piece on democracy in the year 2016 - follow the dollars from the Clinton Foundation to the African-American churches and pastors in places like North Carolina, Mississippi, and Michigan. Tell us what's up with that.
9
NYT liberal readers being shocked that the Democrat party is corrupt is hilarious.
10
You shouldn't minimize the widespread support for Sanders just because he seems to be more adept at exploiting an imperfect system (caucuses). Something about, oh, thousands - tens of thousands, in some cases - of ENTHUSIASTIC supporters showing up to hear him / see him speak. Try getting Clinton to bring that much enthusiasm. Oh, that's right: she can't. But yet, the DNC is only interested in propping her up, all the while stifling Sanders, to the detriment of this country. The dems are starting to look more and more like the "party over country" republican crowd.
9
Blow is being used as an apologist for the Times's faulty endorsement of Clinton.
6
I feel sorry for people who think we live in a democracy. The oligarchy has all the power -- and The New York Times is a part of maintaining that power.
I will vote for Bernie Sanders but I will not vote for Queen Hillary. Nor will anyone else in my family. And you can't shake your finger, scold, threaten or scare me.
Give me a candidate who is FOR me and mine, I'll vote. Otherwise, I'll stay home.
I will vote for Bernie Sanders but I will not vote for Queen Hillary. Nor will anyone else in my family. And you can't shake your finger, scold, threaten or scare me.
Give me a candidate who is FOR me and mine, I'll vote. Otherwise, I'll stay home.
13
And if enough people follow your lead, we will end up with President Trump or President Cruz. Let us know how that works out for you.
2
So you can have Cruz or Trump or that crafty ultraconservative Kasich who is just as extreme - just hides it better. Just be one the Naderites brought us the "Shrub" GWB.
Staying home gives your vote to Mr. Trump. Does that really make sense? Elections are always about the lesser of evils. And no matter her faults, Hillary is a far lesser evil than Trump or Cruz.
Did we not learn anything from 1968 when McCarthy supporters stayed home and didn't vote for Hubert Humphrey and we got Richard Nixon? And compared to Trump and Cruz, Nixon was a genius and ethical statesman.
Did we not learn anything from 1968 when McCarthy supporters stayed home and didn't vote for Hubert Humphrey and we got Richard Nixon? And compared to Trump and Cruz, Nixon was a genius and ethical statesman.
You can't have EVERYTHING guys. What about the fact that in most states the Democratic Party holds - OPEN primaries? That is, one need have no long term commitment to party to enter into voting in the Party's primary. Well, what then would it mean to be a 'party' that differentiates it from a populist cult if we further did away with so-called superdelegates? In the end, it is PARTIES that govern - that is groups of officials in relationship to each other, not individual executives - and it is very appropriate that there be a balance between popular (even populist) sentiment and judgment of senior officials who actually shape party agenda and coordination on a day-to-day basis at local and national levels, while most of us go about our business. Bernie Saunders himself had not even been a party member until such time as he supposed that he should be its nominee. Fair enough that he should have that opportunity, but also very fair enough that he should be judged, in part, upon his ability and willingness to indeed be part of a PARTY and not just a lone voice howling in the wind. the presence of superdelegates means precisely a healthy BALANCE must be struck between garnering popular support, even of those who have scant history of interest in party politics, and those that have been heavily invested in keeping the machinery of actual governing running as well as can be hoped. One who would run for President SHOULD have to appeal to both strongly to be nominated!
9
another braying octagenarian patrician pushing the swill that the proles need to told by their "betters" who to vote for.
This is the real DNC, , no different from the RNC
If nothing else, I hope more Americans will realize that the election process is rigged: you can vote for whomever you want as long as it's who the Establishment wants as well.
This is the real DNC, , no different from the RNC
If nothing else, I hope more Americans will realize that the election process is rigged: you can vote for whomever you want as long as it's who the Establishment wants as well.
1
Thank you, Mr. Blow, for being the one lone voice at the NYT who will shout out that our Democratic empress-anointee has no clothes.
5
That's actually not at all the implication of this. In fact your candidate (I presume based on your name calling) would be even deeper in the hole without the equally undemocratic caucuses. But that is turning into how the Sanders people play: my way or the highway.
1
Absolutely! The existence of 'Super-Delegates' reinforces the party-image of a super-elite 'old-boys-club' in which a small group of 'insiders' can step-in, when things do not appear to be 'going the right way' and simply dictate outcomes they support. The Democratic Party has been like that for as long as I can remember (which may very well be the reason why so many democrat-voters have simply stopped voting) Republicans, OTOH, have simply perfected the 'arts of the Gerrymander' and decennial redistricting to assure the predetermination of electoral outcomes BEFORE voting-day, and now are on the brink of achieving the 'One-Party-State' for which they have lusted for so terribly long.
All the while, both parties appear to have forgotten what history has taught us about the evils of such One-Party states: (the Bolsheviks, the National Socialists, the Fascists, etc). And, indeed, America appears resolutely to be headed in that direction, with 'winners' and 'losers' already lining-up and girding for a fight that nobody is gonna like!.
Its pathetic.
All the while, both parties appear to have forgotten what history has taught us about the evils of such One-Party states: (the Bolsheviks, the National Socialists, the Fascists, etc). And, indeed, America appears resolutely to be headed in that direction, with 'winners' and 'losers' already lining-up and girding for a fight that nobody is gonna like!.
Its pathetic.
5
Oh no!!!!!, The Democratic Party is no different the the GOP! Dear Mr. Blow, welcome to the 21st century, where in the hell have you been? Mrs. Clinton acts as if it her right to be the Democratic nominee let alone the next President of the U.S. Get a grip.
9
She has 2.5 million more votes than Bernie so far. And her big states, primaries, are yet to come.Why do Bernie supporters ignore this and call her self entitled, queen, etc.? She's winning, even before the supers kick in, which is their right.
6
The Democratic Party....wants to win the POTUS and wants to win more
seats in the US Congress...
and
The Democratic Party wants to be ....represented by the most popular
candidate....
so far....the people....have found Bernie Sanders as the most established
and trustworthy candidate...and ....I think HONESTY....that being a virtue
counts....so Bernie...is the best bet for the Democratic Party.
seats in the US Congress...
and
The Democratic Party wants to be ....represented by the most popular
candidate....
so far....the people....have found Bernie Sanders as the most established
and trustworthy candidate...and ....I think HONESTY....that being a virtue
counts....so Bernie...is the best bet for the Democratic Party.
4
Would you people please count votes. Stop this most popular stuff and add up all the people who got off their butts (ie didn't pick up a phone call) and voted. That is what popularity in an election means. Bernie would have SMALLER, not bigger margins if your caucus states went to regular elections.
3
A little late, Blow. Were you waiting to make sure Hillary had it in the bag? Kind of like the NYT editorial scolding Hillary for lying about Sanders record. They waited until the Southern states, AKA the Black vote, was over. Nothing new. Anyone remember the '08 primaries when the NYT sat on the John Edwards' out of wedlock baby story? This allowed the NYT choice of Obama to surge ahead as Clinton and Edwards split their votes.
10
Interesting Mr.Blow. The media and liberals double standards know no boundaries.
Where were you on 2008 to do this confession? Anybody who followed closely the Democratic primaries as I did, KNOWS WELL, that that was how Obama won...with superdelegates.
I'm not Clinton fan today, although I was willing to vote for her in 2008. I also know she won every single major election, not caucuses. She won by lots and all biggest contests (NY, FL,MA TX CA, etc), and even if neither of them (she or Obama) ever got to the magic number, she was way ahead in the popular vote. Still the nomination went to Obama thanks to superdelegates. How about that for un-Democratic?
That's where the "affirmative action president" meme came from, because of that push. So now, because Sanders is giving Hillary a run for her money, is time to reevaluate the process. Seems to me, it didn't bother you when it favored Obama. You people!
Where were you on 2008 to do this confession? Anybody who followed closely the Democratic primaries as I did, KNOWS WELL, that that was how Obama won...with superdelegates.
I'm not Clinton fan today, although I was willing to vote for her in 2008. I also know she won every single major election, not caucuses. She won by lots and all biggest contests (NY, FL,MA TX CA, etc), and even if neither of them (she or Obama) ever got to the magic number, she was way ahead in the popular vote. Still the nomination went to Obama thanks to superdelegates. How about that for un-Democratic?
That's where the "affirmative action president" meme came from, because of that push. So now, because Sanders is giving Hillary a run for her money, is time to reevaluate the process. Seems to me, it didn't bother you when it favored Obama. You people!
9
Actually with almost all of Sanders' support white, then in most respects Hillary Clinton does have large minority support in addition to women. "You people?"
7
Not even a mention of voter suppression / electoral fraud in Arizona.
5
It's funny how Bernie Sanders, champion of the people, claims democracy is on his side with all his caucus wins and is now arguing that that same democracy would be best served if the superdelegates heeded random polls (one respondent = 1 million votes) and switched allegiance to him. I'm a flat out Clinton supporter and resent the holier-than-thou Sanders commentariat. Nonetheless elections cost money and the question should be did the caucus results vary that much from polling results. If yes, then a fairer method needs to be found, if no, then surely in making PARTY, as opposed to GOVERNMENTAL decisions, costs should be allowed as an element.
14
Tab Devine helped CREATE this system.
Yes, that is Bernie's man.
The Super Delegates will go with the will of the people, as they always have..
Can we please stop complaining about a system, that would help to stop somebody like Trump, if needed.
If Bernie wins, he will get the Delegates.. Of course as of now, they like Hillary, she has UNSELFISHLY HELPED them, by fund-raising for Down Ticket Democrats, UNLIKE Bernie, who on the Rachel Maddow Show, refused to even commit to helping down ticket Democrats raise any money.
Hillary works hard for ALL Democrats... maybe that is why they are LOYAL to her.. Bernie was never a Democrat, until he needed the money and the press...
Yes, we reward Party Loyalty... or at the very least reward people who don't constantly rally against the Democrats, by saying they are the same as Republicans..
maybe in the future, if Bernie wants to join a party... He could TRY to be a TEAM Player.
Yes, that is Bernie's man.
The Super Delegates will go with the will of the people, as they always have..
Can we please stop complaining about a system, that would help to stop somebody like Trump, if needed.
If Bernie wins, he will get the Delegates.. Of course as of now, they like Hillary, she has UNSELFISHLY HELPED them, by fund-raising for Down Ticket Democrats, UNLIKE Bernie, who on the Rachel Maddow Show, refused to even commit to helping down ticket Democrats raise any money.
Hillary works hard for ALL Democrats... maybe that is why they are LOYAL to her.. Bernie was never a Democrat, until he needed the money and the press...
Yes, we reward Party Loyalty... or at the very least reward people who don't constantly rally against the Democrats, by saying they are the same as Republicans..
maybe in the future, if Bernie wants to join a party... He could TRY to be a TEAM Player.
24
The party is definitely rigged. If the news can't report polling until after the polls close then why are the super delegates allowed to?
And the down vote is making it impossible for anybody else to get to the top as this npr story illustrates the mastery behind the new soft money tactics of the rich and Clinton.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-...
And the down vote is making it impossible for anybody else to get to the top as this npr story illustrates the mastery behind the new soft money tactics of the rich and Clinton.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-...
1
The Democrats count Pledged Delegates to award a winner. You are misinformed. Go read the Cook Political Report who keep a chart of their Pledged Delegates, won after each contest. They are split proportionally, based on the size of the win.
People keep lying about the Super Delegates, but they have never been used in a contest. They are obviously not counting Pledged Delegates, which is how Obama won and they will be used this time. Hillary is around 220 Pledged Delegates ahead of Bernie. The news media gets this wrong daily. Go to Cook Political,Report,who have a chart,
People keep lying about the Super Delegates, but they have never been used in a contest. They are obviously not counting Pledged Delegates, which is how Obama won and they will be used this time. Hillary is around 220 Pledged Delegates ahead of Bernie. The news media gets this wrong daily. Go to Cook Political,Report,who have a chart,
4
How about having a national primary election with all states voting on the same day, and instant runoff voting? Do you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz would support this idea?
2
Whether the august chairperson did or did not think of the idea really would not matter. You'd have to ask the state legislators in Iowa, New Hampshire and some other states. The Constitution does not support it. States make their own rules. As a matter of fact the late Justice Scalia probably could have written an opinion finding the entire framework of caucuses, primaries and conventions unconstitutional.
In the beginning there was nothing so unseemly as letting voters chose the candidates, I mean electors, whom they would vote for in a general election. We are still - sort of - working our way out of that muddle.
In the beginning there was nothing so unseemly as letting voters chose the candidates, I mean electors, whom they would vote for in a general election. We are still - sort of - working our way out of that muddle.
Mr. Blow, you state correctly that "the establishment puts its thumb on the scale and signals its approval and disapproval ahead of Democratic voters". In addition, you might have added that media outlets like the NYT also put not just their thumbs on the scale, but both hands. At every step of this election process the NYT was eager to point out the inevitability of HRC, despite of what the voters in the Democratic primaries expressed.
7
Agreed!!
2
" .... voters who aren’t physically able to sit in a school gymnasium and debate the merits of their candidate with their neighbors get shut out ... "
In fact, that problem is easily remedied by using the web to create virtual caucuses.
I, for one, would prefer decision to be made by people who care enough to "debate the merits of their candidate with their neighbors" than those who vote on the basis of news sound bites.
In fact, that problem is easily remedied by using the web to create virtual caucuses.
I, for one, would prefer decision to be made by people who care enough to "debate the merits of their candidate with their neighbors" than those who vote on the basis of news sound bites.
2
Our caucus was a ridiculous mess. No one supposedly in charge knew what was going on- we kept getting shuffled from room to room as people outgrew the space. Finally it was obvious you had to have hours to spare. We left.
I hope Colorado returns to a primary system. This was not democracy and private voting, this was windy people preaching to the choir.
I hope Colorado returns to a primary system. This was not democracy and private voting, this was windy people preaching to the choir.
11
As an older person, I'm glad to see this surge in interest in politics, policy, world affairs, and so on. We can thank the Internet and Cable TV for that. It's only going to get better and better. The powers-that-be must be shaking in their boots.
Do we need to be protected from the people choosing a candidate who is not likely to succeed? That is the question. Witness the trumpster and the GOP chaos. Becuase of the influence of money PAC's, 24/7 uncensored unfettered media, it is even more important than ever to have some sort of brake. Besides, all democracies eventually destroy themselves
2
Be careful of how much democracy you ask for - you may get it.
America is not a pure democracy, it is a representative democracy. We do not vote on laws, we elect representatives who do. We do not decide court cases, appointed or elected judges do. We do not run the army, we elect the Pres as C. in C. This idea that decision making by representatives is (Un-)Democratic is thus off-base.
Still, parties did not come into power since the 1800 election to allow the people to decide who would lead. That is pure pretense. Parties, loathed by G. Washington, seized our political process with the view that small groups of the enlightened few knew better than the rabble how to govern. Parties have since been codified at every level of government and are taught in schools as the way America works. By some magic Two is chosen as the right number of major parties. Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, yet they control our national fate.
Now one party has a system with more delegates elected, yet the result has been that the two most extreme candidates now lead. Meanwhile, the other struggles with the embarrassment of a system that pre-decides the anointed one before the primaries. We have moved from the 'smoke filled room' of 1920 to this morass of primaries, caucuses, and superdooperdelegates.
And the Republicans may be headed back to the smoke-filled room. What goes around ...
Parties no not empower the people, they take power from the people.
America is not a pure democracy, it is a representative democracy. We do not vote on laws, we elect representatives who do. We do not decide court cases, appointed or elected judges do. We do not run the army, we elect the Pres as C. in C. This idea that decision making by representatives is (Un-)Democratic is thus off-base.
Still, parties did not come into power since the 1800 election to allow the people to decide who would lead. That is pure pretense. Parties, loathed by G. Washington, seized our political process with the view that small groups of the enlightened few knew better than the rabble how to govern. Parties have since been codified at every level of government and are taught in schools as the way America works. By some magic Two is chosen as the right number of major parties. Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, yet they control our national fate.
Now one party has a system with more delegates elected, yet the result has been that the two most extreme candidates now lead. Meanwhile, the other struggles with the embarrassment of a system that pre-decides the anointed one before the primaries. We have moved from the 'smoke filled room' of 1920 to this morass of primaries, caucuses, and superdooperdelegates.
And the Republicans may be headed back to the smoke-filled room. What goes around ...
Parties no not empower the people, they take power from the people.
7
Math! Super delegates make up nearly 1/6 not 1/3 of all delegates. Grade school math New York Times!
8
Good catch!
Three lessons to learn from this Presidential election process.
Accept that we do not live in perfected Democracy. Posess up to date information & knowledge of policy, procedure & practices before making the decision to enter the arena. Once entering the arena, become engaged in the competition, then cry foul because you did not understand, do not agree and/or find yourself in a disacvantged position. When you show up be well prepared, you are interviewing for the most powerful position on this planet & there will be challengers other than the ones in debates. Understand this reality, America is in a structural Constitutional crisis which has impaired the functionality of governance. The entire shameful masquerade that T.V. media has perpetrated upon the public is nothing but trickology, in order to distract from the fact that there is only one functioning political party, the Democrat Party. The GOP has devolved into dysfunctional factions. The House & Senate are dysfunctional entities to the point that the stay in recess more than they actually performed productive work for this country and its citizens. The Senate is corrupting SCOTUS decision making outcomes. Citizenry have very high degrees of emotionalism, brains flooded with all types of internal & external intoxicating substances within the Democrats & Republicans mesmerized by promises of Senator Sanders & Donald Trump. INTERVENTIONISTS are required to return to homeostatsis; interventions are rarely democratic
Accept that we do not live in perfected Democracy. Posess up to date information & knowledge of policy, procedure & practices before making the decision to enter the arena. Once entering the arena, become engaged in the competition, then cry foul because you did not understand, do not agree and/or find yourself in a disacvantged position. When you show up be well prepared, you are interviewing for the most powerful position on this planet & there will be challengers other than the ones in debates. Understand this reality, America is in a structural Constitutional crisis which has impaired the functionality of governance. The entire shameful masquerade that T.V. media has perpetrated upon the public is nothing but trickology, in order to distract from the fact that there is only one functioning political party, the Democrat Party. The GOP has devolved into dysfunctional factions. The House & Senate are dysfunctional entities to the point that the stay in recess more than they actually performed productive work for this country and its citizens. The Senate is corrupting SCOTUS decision making outcomes. Citizenry have very high degrees of emotionalism, brains flooded with all types of internal & external intoxicating substances within the Democrats & Republicans mesmerized by promises of Senator Sanders & Donald Trump. INTERVENTIONISTS are required to return to homeostatsis; interventions are rarely democratic
3
I voted for Bernie and I like him, or should I say, I dislike Ms. Clinton's war mongering. Having said that, Senator Sanders is not even a member of the Democratic Party, so a column about how unfair the Democrats are is a bit of a stretch.
9
Robert Reich's People's Party prediction might just be a reality. http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/robert_reich_this_is_a_working_class_rev...
2
3rd graf:"Superdelegates...make up nearly a third of *all* delegates" (my emphasis). You meant, I'm sure, one-third of the delegate majority, not of all delegates.
2
Mr. Blow, you need to clarify that Superdelegates are 1/6 of the total delegates and 1/3 of the total to win the nomination.
12
Falsi Narrative:It was the same in 2008. The Democratic Party wants winners. We've had far too many losses in the Presidential elections. Superdelegates can and do change sides with the popular vote and regular delegate count. That's not undemocratic.
8
Hate to say it but it seems to me that having Superdelegates is a good idea. People chafe at the idea of "smoke-filled back rooms" choosing candidates but the truth is that smoke-filled back rooms would not give us candidates like Trump and Cruz. Sometimes "the people" are not very good at picking reasonable people. People "in the know" about how Washington works are more likely to pick someone who can get things done. The people are more likely to pick someone who gives good speeches. That is sad but true. At times I think we would be better off with a king/queen to be the face of the country and a prime minister to do the work. We want our president to do both.
2
After forty years an Independent democratic socialist, all of a sudden, out of the blue, suddenly had a change of heart. He joined the Democratic party. Integrity? Honesty? You must be joking.
Sanders became a Democrat for only one reason: for the sole purpose of attaching himself to the nationwide reach and rich resources of the DNC. Political opportunism personified.
Forget Trump running as a Republican. Sanders' blatant hypocrisy is astounding. He took advantage of his year-old membership in the DNC to lash out and bash the very establishment he joined. What unmitigated gall.
Sanders has morphed into Dem parasite. He sucks off the DNC while claiming to be a maverick, now from Brooklyn. Give me a break. If you buy that malarkey, perhaps you'd be interested in declaring your ownership in a bridge here in Brooklyn Sanders says belongs to us all.
Yeah, kids, he's cool alright. He's your grumpy old grandpa you get a kick out of listening to, always complaining about this and that, but not doing much except harrumphing. Sorry to spoil their idealistic bubble, but Bern Feelers are in for a rude awakening. Welcome to the real world, where nothing is for free, including your vote.
DD
Manhattan
Sanders became a Democrat for only one reason: for the sole purpose of attaching himself to the nationwide reach and rich resources of the DNC. Political opportunism personified.
Forget Trump running as a Republican. Sanders' blatant hypocrisy is astounding. He took advantage of his year-old membership in the DNC to lash out and bash the very establishment he joined. What unmitigated gall.
Sanders has morphed into Dem parasite. He sucks off the DNC while claiming to be a maverick, now from Brooklyn. Give me a break. If you buy that malarkey, perhaps you'd be interested in declaring your ownership in a bridge here in Brooklyn Sanders says belongs to us all.
Yeah, kids, he's cool alright. He's your grumpy old grandpa you get a kick out of listening to, always complaining about this and that, but not doing much except harrumphing. Sorry to spoil their idealistic bubble, but Bern Feelers are in for a rude awakening. Welcome to the real world, where nothing is for free, including your vote.
DD
Manhattan
22
DNC doesn't give Bernie squat.
1
During Washington state's caucus I voted for the winner,Bernie.All the pledged delegates awarded to him will come from the caucus,even though in 1989 we approved a ballot measure creating a Presidential primary (May 24 this year ). I like the interaction with other voters caucuses afford.But I think for the benefit of the vast majority of Democratic voters who couldn't attend,especially it having been the day before Easter,half the delegates should be picked in that primary.Unfortunately DNC rules prohibited such a split by a state's party.So it's clear to me that after the election big changes in the people on the DNC are needed.
2
Arithmetic error by Blow: "Superdelegates... make up nearly a third of all delegates." Nope. As the quote he cites from the NYT (and his own sidebar) makes clear, the actual number is 30% of the total "needed to win the nomination." So superdelegates are about 15% of the total delegates. Of course, all his arguments may still apply to this smaller number.
5
Caucuses are extremely undemocratic. How much of the electorate vote in those? You don't see long lines in front of those polling places.
Where is the outrage?
Where is the outrage?
7
Mr. Blow writes: “Superdelegates are party bigwigs — 712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors and the like. They can vote for any candidate at the nominating convention, regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote. These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination, and could thus make all the difference.”
I would be willing to place an even bet that this "Democratic Party Superdelegates" provision in the party’s presidential nominee process is the procedural example that the ruling military junta in Myanmar used to grant "democracy" there. I believe that the Myanmar military keeps 40% of the seats in Parliament and inserted a special clause in the country's constitution to keep Aung San Suu Kyi from ever becoming President.
Mr. Blow concludes: "Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates. That, on its face, is outrageous."
I agree.
Mr. Blow, why don't you get a direct response on this issue from the Democratic Party "establishment elites" and print it in your column in the New York Times? This issue might well become very important at the end of the “ordinary” voter process for determining the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for president in the 2016.
I would be willing to place an even bet that this "Democratic Party Superdelegates" provision in the party’s presidential nominee process is the procedural example that the ruling military junta in Myanmar used to grant "democracy" there. I believe that the Myanmar military keeps 40% of the seats in Parliament and inserted a special clause in the country's constitution to keep Aung San Suu Kyi from ever becoming President.
Mr. Blow concludes: "Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates. That, on its face, is outrageous."
I agree.
Mr. Blow, why don't you get a direct response on this issue from the Democratic Party "establishment elites" and print it in your column in the New York Times? This issue might well become very important at the end of the “ordinary” voter process for determining the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for president in the 2016.
4
This op-ed is too late at this time Establishment in both parties rig the rules for the candidates of their choice. What is astounding is some of the comments attacking editorials or posts not favoring your favorite by some people who otherwise are pretty intelligent. For several weeks the Democratic nomination battle has been very clear. For example No matter what happens in New York Sanders is not likely to close much gap. Similar math applies in other remaining contests Nate Silver posted very detailed analysis few days back giving generous victory to Sanders showing the improbable math he faces. I am done with my state's primary so my opinion is just opinion. An money being wasted by St. Bernie is outrageous and Clinton like a traditional Democrate will snatch defeat from a quite possible victory. So rather than accusing people of all kind ridiculous motive just think pragmatically and put your donation for future projects where it would help.
1
I'm not concerned so much about what one social club or another does to choose the presidential candidate it supports. I'm still gravely concerned about why certain social clubs are the ones who get to choose our presidential candidates and why they have the names of their social clubs on the ballots and why I to some degree or another have to help pay for there decision making process.
3
I think the party's elected officials should be superdelegates, but not 721 and they should be barred from endorsing or speaking publicly about their preference. The caucus has merit too, the notion of neighbors convincing each other, but this method may be antiquated, and too quaint, in the era of modern campaigning and TV ads. As for peer pressure and lack of privacy, have you ever sat on a jury? Peer pressure and lack of privacy are instrumental in obtaining a verdict.
Really, though, the whole nominating process needs reform. Take $$ out of it. No more billionaire sugar daddies. no more super PAC's. Rotate the schedule, and truncate it. No more candidates moving to Iowa a year before they vote. End all this polling which unduly influences voters and media coverage, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I wish there was a way to make this happen, but this country can't always be in campaign mode (it's the primary reason the Senate won't consider a SCOTUS nominee. How more insulated could the Senate be, and yet members still feel so much pressure?). There must be a time to govern, a time for the public's ears not to bleed. However, I wonder whether the permanent campaign is done on purpose: to create gridlock and sow voter disaffection. It would seem to dovetail with the Republican modus operandi.
Really, though, the whole nominating process needs reform. Take $$ out of it. No more billionaire sugar daddies. no more super PAC's. Rotate the schedule, and truncate it. No more candidates moving to Iowa a year before they vote. End all this polling which unduly influences voters and media coverage, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I wish there was a way to make this happen, but this country can't always be in campaign mode (it's the primary reason the Senate won't consider a SCOTUS nominee. How more insulated could the Senate be, and yet members still feel so much pressure?). There must be a time to govern, a time for the public's ears not to bleed. However, I wonder whether the permanent campaign is done on purpose: to create gridlock and sow voter disaffection. It would seem to dovetail with the Republican modus operandi.
5
A cogent argument here, Mr. Blow, but while I agree that caucuses should go, I think the super-delegates should remain.
To be sure, caucuses do have an elite sensibility, they also have a tendency populate with "true-believers" rather than moderates, and they represent only a small sampling of the population at large most likely committed to a particular candidate, and more ideological than the population at large. It is not ironic that Mr. Sanders' message-in-a-box resonates with these voters, who appear to have too much time on their hands and tend to see issues in monochrome.
Caucuses should go. And, in this case, Mr. Sanders is not even a Democrat.
Primary elections are good, and I think. The idea of super-delegates fits rather historically into the guarded philosophy of the founders as a check upon the sometimes scary passions of the masses. Sounds elitist. Maybe so. Yet the propensity for evolution rather than bloody Revolution is written into our Constitution, which also speaks to the wisdom of the founders.
In any case, we are surely at an inflection point in our democracy, between two radical visions of change, particularly if the election turns on the choice between a nascent fascist, and a socialist.
To be sure, caucuses do have an elite sensibility, they also have a tendency populate with "true-believers" rather than moderates, and they represent only a small sampling of the population at large most likely committed to a particular candidate, and more ideological than the population at large. It is not ironic that Mr. Sanders' message-in-a-box resonates with these voters, who appear to have too much time on their hands and tend to see issues in monochrome.
Caucuses should go. And, in this case, Mr. Sanders is not even a Democrat.
Primary elections are good, and I think. The idea of super-delegates fits rather historically into the guarded philosophy of the founders as a check upon the sometimes scary passions of the masses. Sounds elitist. Maybe so. Yet the propensity for evolution rather than bloody Revolution is written into our Constitution, which also speaks to the wisdom of the founders.
In any case, we are surely at an inflection point in our democracy, between two radical visions of change, particularly if the election turns on the choice between a nascent fascist, and a socialist.
7
Two things:
Any NYT OpEd that's not about Trump is welcome reading.
I don't like caucuses either, but if it means Bernie isntead of Hillary, I'll sit in a school gym till the polling booths open.
Any NYT OpEd that's not about Trump is welcome reading.
I don't like caucuses either, but if it means Bernie isntead of Hillary, I'll sit in a school gym till the polling booths open.
7
I've been reading about Washington state bigwig superdelegates (both Senators, the Governor, etc.) are stating their firm commitment to Mrs. Clinton even though Bernie Sanders won the state by 72%...if I lived there, for sure I'd be signing petitions to get them to change their minds....the whole process, including papers of "record" crowning Mrs. Clinton prematurely and slanting their coverage in her favor makes me want to move to a country with a real democracy, move away from a country in which my right to have a role in its governance appears increasingly fragile.
4
Caucuses are a joke, and Bernie Sanders would be the next George McGovern. A 75 year old, Democratic Socialist will not be elected in a country that is center-right.
1
Jimmy Carter was a good President. How should the capture of the Iran prisoners been handled differently?
5
Jimmy Carter was a good President.
==============
He was a good president if you like high unemployment, double digit inflation, gasoline rationing, and being lectured on how you should snap out of your "malaise"
==============
He was a good president if you like high unemployment, double digit inflation, gasoline rationing, and being lectured on how you should snap out of your "malaise"
1
Bernie Sanders would put a stop to this as President.
4
The crowning of Hillary! occurred a long time ago. The primaries and caucuses are the necessary dog and pony shows. The process is all but over and it's only now that you're complaining?
5
All good points but what I think is most undemocratic about the Democratic caucus is that it isn't a secret ballot. Not only do you have to have the time go spend your whole evening or afternoon (the schedule's choice of which, not yours) but you have to stand with your group and by doing so announce who you are choosing. Depending on who else shows up, that may include your neighbor. Your co-worker. Your boss. Etc. Why is the principle of the secret ballot so disposable?
6
Yes the Democrats have a messed up un-democratic un-fair nominating process. But the whole thing on both sides is corrupt and slanted. All the establishment is against Sanders and now also Trump. But at least they promoted Trump over and over, now they are scared and want to tear him down. Sanders on the other hand has been short changed & put in a negative light right from the start. Again and again we are told how he can't win by all the media, esp this paper. Today the featured front page story is 'Missteps By Sanders... This at a crucial time leading up to Wisconsin, New York & California.
The Democratic Party leader Wasserman-Scultz, The Times, CNN all in the bag for Clinton. We have voter corruption in Arizona, suppression and funny business all over in both parties. To anyone with an objective mind or looking from afar, it's become a big joke, third world. Except for the money being spent, which in itself is absolutely ridiculous.
Sanders should start a third party. I know he won't because at this point it would ensure a Rep. win.... Super Delegates.. blatant disregard for true Democracy. Really the whole election process, the primaries and general should be revamped and done anew.
The Democratic Party leader Wasserman-Scultz, The Times, CNN all in the bag for Clinton. We have voter corruption in Arizona, suppression and funny business all over in both parties. To anyone with an objective mind or looking from afar, it's become a big joke, third world. Except for the money being spent, which in itself is absolutely ridiculous.
Sanders should start a third party. I know he won't because at this point it would ensure a Rep. win.... Super Delegates.. blatant disregard for true Democracy. Really the whole election process, the primaries and general should be revamped and done anew.
9
One other factor that should be noted: many of Clinton's wins have come in States like Mississippi and Texas that are solid red and will not yield a single electoral vote for any Democrat.
8
So have many of Bernies!
Mr. Blow's "Doing the Math" graph to the left of his opinion article on The Un)Democratic Party, shows clearly that, "A picture, may indeed, be worth a thousand words" !
Let's change the opinion of the self-appointed "cognoscenti" among us Democrats, that their vote saves the poor "low information voters" from themselves.
Let's change the opinion of the self-appointed "cognoscenti" among us Democrats, that their vote saves the poor "low information voters" from themselves.
2
Bernie Sanders got 73% of the caucus votes and delegates in the Washington State caucuses and 80% in Alaska. Does any reasonable person believe Sanders would have had those huge margins in primary elections where everyone got to vote. People with families and especially moms get shortchanged by this caucus chicanery, which favors the aggressive and intimidating Sanders fanatics.
12
I agree, caucuses are a joke, in Alaska, a grand total of 500 people voted in the entire state. So much for Democracy.
1
Even the Founding Fathers didn't trust true democracy as they created the Electoral College to do that actual voting for President. The Super Delegates are such check on the votes of the masses, many of whom are easily swayed by the cult of celebrity.
After this election, if Trump wins the nomination and loses the general, the GOP will institute a similar process.
After this election, if Trump wins the nomination and loses the general, the GOP will institute a similar process.
Yet another premature column about the dreaded, undemocratic superdelegates. In 2008, Mrs. Clinton had an early advantage over Barack Obama in superdelegates who then switched over as he won more contests. Not only that, but the Clinton campaign seemed stunned by the Obama campaign who had done their homework and organized in caucus states to win lots of delegates there. Am I the only one who remembers the same sort of talk about how unfair caucuses were from 2008 Clinton supporters?
This year, in my own state of Washington, with about 3.8 million registered voters, Mr. Sanders "trounced" Mrs. Clinton, as one newspaper put it, 72.7% to 27.1%. Sounds "huge" until you see Mr. Sanders received 19,159 votes to Mrs. Clinton's 7,140 votes. I haven't heard any Sanders supporters complain about Mr. Sanders receiving 25 delegates to Mrs. Clinton's 9 in the state.
Sorry folks, but the rules of the game have been clear to all candidates and campaigns the whole time. People only complain about the the parts of the process that don't go their way.
This year, in my own state of Washington, with about 3.8 million registered voters, Mr. Sanders "trounced" Mrs. Clinton, as one newspaper put it, 72.7% to 27.1%. Sounds "huge" until you see Mr. Sanders received 19,159 votes to Mrs. Clinton's 7,140 votes. I haven't heard any Sanders supporters complain about Mr. Sanders receiving 25 delegates to Mrs. Clinton's 9 in the state.
Sorry folks, but the rules of the game have been clear to all candidates and campaigns the whole time. People only complain about the the parts of the process that don't go their way.
7
This is the usual elitism view of the nominating process. The goal of the process it to pick someone who both represents a political party and can win. Elected officials and party functionaries may have a greater interest in who represents the party than any caucus goer or primary voter. There was a period time when there were no super delegates and Democratic voters kept nominating candidates who could not win in November.
3
Democratic institutions rely on the appearance of legitimacy in order to validate their place in a voting republic. However, the elites like to be able to channel those votes towards candidates that represent the establishment and, through the establishment, themselves. That is the sole purpose for allocating 30% of the delegates to those outside of the voting process, no matter what the Party's elites have to say.
If this election is about anything, it is about the legitimacy of the political elite, on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats have, so far, been able to preserve the establishment candidate, but not without a serious challenge from those who do not think the Democratic establishment represents them. The Republicans are suffering through an outright revolt, to the point where a terrified Republican elite is entertaining ways in which to insert an establishment candidate by fiat, which will surely end in disaster.
On either side, the question remains as to whose Party it is: The Party of the People, or the Party of the Establishment. The Republican Party may very well go down in flames as a Party of the People, but only because the Republican elite can no longer maintain the veneer of legitimacy. The Democratic elite would be well advised to learn from this lesson, lest the bell soon toll for it, too.
If this election is about anything, it is about the legitimacy of the political elite, on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats have, so far, been able to preserve the establishment candidate, but not without a serious challenge from those who do not think the Democratic establishment represents them. The Republicans are suffering through an outright revolt, to the point where a terrified Republican elite is entertaining ways in which to insert an establishment candidate by fiat, which will surely end in disaster.
On either side, the question remains as to whose Party it is: The Party of the People, or the Party of the Establishment. The Republican Party may very well go down in flames as a Party of the People, but only because the Republican elite can no longer maintain the veneer of legitimacy. The Democratic elite would be well advised to learn from this lesson, lest the bell soon toll for it, too.
6
Who is an elite? You view our elected officials, put in office by voters to use their judgement on the behalf of voters, as somehow illegitimate to use their wisdom to weigh in on the nominee. How do you view the group of people who attend caucuses? I've been to three of them and one county convention over the last decade and a more accurate portrayal that they are an elite themselves. We would get a much larger turnout and a much more representative vote of the party, as opposed to a highly ideological elite, if we had a mail in ballot instead.
1
The super delegate selection process is just one of a number of obstacles and qualifications that keep our country from being governed in a truly democratic spirit. After all, the Constitution was deliberately written in its original form to keep democracy from running amok, so that the privileges and, more particularly, the property of the elites who actually wrote the document were protected from mob rule. And all you have to do is look at the Senate and House membership vs. the actual national vote totals for both parties to see how successfully that objective is still being achieved.
The democratic solution to the super delegate problem is to have one national primary run for both political parties on the same day, with independents either excluded from the voting or allowed to vote for just one party’s candidate. But I doubt this will ever happen.
The democratic solution to the super delegate problem is to have one national primary run for both political parties on the same day, with independents either excluded from the voting or allowed to vote for just one party’s candidate. But I doubt this will ever happen.
4
This is just nonsense. Political parties were never meant to merely represent the passions of the masses; at their best they have helped to dampen them. As such, they are wholly consistent with the intent of the nation's founders even though the founders did not prescribe them in the Constitution.
The founders deliberately chose to create a republic, not a direct democracy. They feared that ill-informed masses would make disastrous decisions. To the extent we have headed toward closer to direct democracy, the founders fears have been proven correct. A major part of what is wrong with our political system is that the power of parties has been eroded. Interests groups with extreme views hold too much sway with policymakers. And states in which there is an initiative process have passed numerous idiotic laws.
Of course political parties have to heed the will of the public. But when they operate at their best they leaven the those views We need stronger parties, not weaker ones.
The founders deliberately chose to create a republic, not a direct democracy. They feared that ill-informed masses would make disastrous decisions. To the extent we have headed toward closer to direct democracy, the founders fears have been proven correct. A major part of what is wrong with our political system is that the power of parties has been eroded. Interests groups with extreme views hold too much sway with policymakers. And states in which there is an initiative process have passed numerous idiotic laws.
Of course political parties have to heed the will of the public. But when they operate at their best they leaven the those views We need stronger parties, not weaker ones.
2
What is just as unDemocratic is the fact that Clinton decided she is to be the first woman president. The Democratic Party has supported her and ONLY her goal since the 90's.
2
Other than in 2008
2
You are right.
And who in the world still calls the Democratic Party democratic?
And who thinks the USA are a democracy with real elections?
And who in the world still calls the Democratic Party democratic?
And who thinks the USA are a democracy with real elections?
4
Funny, I did not hear Mr Blow and others complain when in 2008 Mr Obama used both the superdelegates and the caucuses to defeat Mrs Clinton. Surely Mr Sanders knew the rules before he decided to run as a democrat. You don't change rules in the middle of the game.
10
The political parties are ALL ABOUT kingmakers. They are not "of the people", they are idealogical groups that aggregate fundraising and funnel the money to the candidates. There is no limit to the number of parties - other than the fact that the two major parties have a stranglehold on the fundraising and have structured the rules for ballot inclusion to favor themselves.
If you don't like the parties, don't fund them.
If you don't like the Electoral College, change the Constitution or get the Supreme Court to say that Article II of the Constitution really doesn't say what it says.
If you don't like the parties, don't fund them.
If you don't like the Electoral College, change the Constitution or get the Supreme Court to say that Article II of the Constitution really doesn't say what it says.
All voting should be regulated by a judicially-managed independent committee.
1
Thanks for this informative article. If kingmakers crown the king or queen before the general election, what real choice do the people have? No real choice at all, just what the elite establishment decides is palatable Superdelegates making up a third is obscene . Sounds like oligarchy. Who is whispering in the Superdelegates ear? Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street....no wonder Sanders does not win their favor. It's corrupt.
4
And those of us who think that Bernie is Trump in sheep's clothing are too buy working to feed, and then actually feeding our kids to go caucusing. Always seems like a way for people to coffee clatch when the sophomores are less pressured and the golf courses are closed.
4
I love how in an essay on Superdelegates, Mr. Blow just has to add "(Sanders is nothing if not an insurgent candidate.)" I think I'll send another check to the insurgent guy.
6
Make it big. Waste your money. Sanders is a grumpy typical old school candidate. Free stuf and to hell with who is going to pay for it.
7
We will get what we deserve.
1
Pretty unusual that I agree with anything that Blow writes, but this is one of those rare occasions. Got this one right. Maybe because it's not a rant about race.
3
Voting in Argentina is in a Sunday. Voting is mandatory and an ID is required. Sale of all alcohol is banned from midnight on Saturday units the polls close.
So it is great except look at their government, ugh.
So it is great except look at their government, ugh.
Our caucus was more like an endurance test than an election. Waiting in the freezing cold for well over three hours just to get in the building is not for the faint of heart, for people with small children, or for those with a job to do. We stuck it out, only to be told to fill out an absentee ballot; all the speeches had been completed so there was no community element at all, unless you count a community of sore feet and aching backs. If my state continues its caucus I will be staying home or voting absentee in the future.
5
The democratic party is not a government sponsored organization, but rather a political party that bestows their power (and money) on individuals wishing to run under their banner. Everything can not be "democratic". I tend to agree with Senator Sanders on a bunch of issues (more so than Ms. Clinton's), but commentators would be wise to remember that Mr Saunders wasn't even democrat until he began to run for the presidency. Why shouldn't the party support a candidate who has been a leading voice for the democratic party for the last 25 years? AND since Ms Clinton has surely recie4ved more actual votes than Mr Sanders, it is hard to claim that superdelegates voting for her are somehow anti democratic. Without superdelegates, the party risks a hostile takeover like what Trump is doing to the GOP. Why should a party be handed over to a non believer just because he wins a few more caucuses or primary votes? Isn't some allegiance to the party itself a minimal requirement to get support?
15
I agree. When my state held caucuses, I was far too sick to get out of bed, much less sit with my neighbors and argue. My state, which usually votes by mail, is known for its high voter participation, but the party isn't interested.
I said at the time that we should reject the parties. We should require that our presidential candidates participate in our top two primary system. That would mean that to be on the ballot in November, you would have to come in first or second in our primary in August. We should ignore the conventions and the party structure all together.
I said at the time that we should reject the parties. We should require that our presidential candidates participate in our top two primary system. That would mean that to be on the ballot in November, you would have to come in first or second in our primary in August. We should ignore the conventions and the party structure all together.
Glad you highlighted the flaws in this system – and are pretty fair in showing the advantages/disadvantages to each candidate.
That said, rarely mentioned are these three additional facts:
– The "big increase" in turnouts that Sanders' supporters selectively tout have almost all been in caucuses and represent a whopping 6% of voters actually participating.
– The caucus system particularly disenfranchises working class voters who are far less likely to be able to devote half a day to a political event while paying someone else to care for their children.
– The super delegate system certainly favors Hillary Clinton. But rarely mentioned is the reason she has a 10 to 1 advantage in their support: most are elected officials she has, at one time or another, helped elect. Almost no one in the Democratic Party got electoral support from Bernie Sanders during his three decade long congressional career. Who in office is going to enact his ambitious agenda?
That said, rarely mentioned are these three additional facts:
– The "big increase" in turnouts that Sanders' supporters selectively tout have almost all been in caucuses and represent a whopping 6% of voters actually participating.
– The caucus system particularly disenfranchises working class voters who are far less likely to be able to devote half a day to a political event while paying someone else to care for their children.
– The super delegate system certainly favors Hillary Clinton. But rarely mentioned is the reason she has a 10 to 1 advantage in their support: most are elected officials she has, at one time or another, helped elect. Almost no one in the Democratic Party got electoral support from Bernie Sanders during his three decade long congressional career. Who in office is going to enact his ambitious agenda?
14
I for one, am in favor of Super Delegates. First, there is no common process for the primary elections in individual states. Some are open. Some are not. Some have Caucuses Yes, I know they are not primaries ) some have early voting. some do not. My vote as a New Yorker already means less than Iowa and Nevada. My vote as a registered member of the Democratic Party means no more than someone who decided they wanted to vote in my parties primary nominating contest. Sorry, but as a registered Democrat, I want a Democrat to vote for. Super Delegates help assure that is the case.
We also seem to forget that Barack Obama was nominated with the support of Super Delegates. We did pretty well as he has been a great president. I will be very happy with whomever the Democratic Party Nominates based upon the rules that were put in place prior to the start of the electoral process. Anyone who wants to run as other than a Democrat can find another party to nominate them.
We also seem to forget that Barack Obama was nominated with the support of Super Delegates. We did pretty well as he has been a great president. I will be very happy with whomever the Democratic Party Nominates based upon the rules that were put in place prior to the start of the electoral process. Anyone who wants to run as other than a Democrat can find another party to nominate them.
8
The Founders did not want the new republic they were establishing to be a democracy, and rightly so. They limited the ability of the majority to prescribe free speech, take property, and impinge on other individual liberties. They wanted a system that was a little slow to bend to the popular will of the moment. They knew, based on the experience of "democracies" in the Italian city states and in Greece and Rome, that democracy could quickly descend into despotism. These fears are everywhere in evidence in the debates about the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers. Superdelegates are an effort to build into the system some of the influence of more experienced and cooler heads --- for the most part elected leaders now decried as the "establishment." The Founders understood human nature and tried to build a system to take human foibles and the quixotic demands of people in crowds into account. Not a bad idea.
6
I'm not taking sides, but the caucuses have favored Bernie. Yet, I don't hear any criticism of that unfairness from the Bernie people. Conversely, the Super Delegates have favored Hillary. Likewise, no critique of its undemocratic nature. Isn't it true that the high ground is the high ground no matter where you're standing?
4
While an original thought is not presented, Mr. Blow has written an informative column worth reading. Personally, I like a caucus primary for some states, but also see the downside for general use.
it appears that superdelegates exist to overrule caucuses.
3
Super delegates are intended to prevent Mondales and McGoverns, ie embarrassing landslides in favor of the opposition.
2
I guess the world has passed me by. It seems to me that the nominee of the Democrat Party should be a member of the Democrat Party. Where did I go wrong?
11
Great point. How much work has Sanders done for other Democratic candidates, zilch.
6
Last time I checked, BOTH parties held caucuses in caucus states. Now, personally, I think caucuses should have gone out with the Salem witch trials. But fair is fair---all the commenters here who are jumping on caucuses to say that the Democrats are the ones manipulating the election--without acknowledging the literal elephant in the room--are blatantly ignoring that fact to suit their agenda. Sound familiar?
1
OK Charles, you nailed it. Super-delagates and caucuses are definitely a problem for the Democrats. But if you want the 'people's' voice to be heard, guess what? On the Republican side, that means the 'majority' of voters said they like Trump. Uh oh, I don't like that either. However, the GOP has a serious problem here. If they deny Trump the nomination (and pick who instead?) those voters will essentially feel disenfranchised. I don't really see the connection between George McGovern and Jimmy Carter (I voted for both just to clarify). Let me explain. The Democratic 'elites' (in their 'wisdom') have selected Hillary Rodham Clinton this time around. And yes, I DO support her. Am I edgy about the insurgent? Possibly. I do 'feel the Bern' but unlike 1972 and 1980, the stakes couldn't be higher. And if we look at 1980 it shows what happens when the 'insurgent' (Ted Kennedy) attempted to take Carter out on the 'left'. Will this happen again? Plainly, Secretary Clinton has been pushed 'left' by Sanders. However, she has a clear, focused policy (both domestic and foreign). Perfect, no she is NOT. And she would be more than willing to acknowledge it. Is she better than the rest? Actually, the answer is YES.
131
The people like an authentic candidate:
There are only 2 authentic candidates:
For the Democratic Party...the ONLY authentic candidate is Bernie Sanders
Hillary is simply driven by ZEAL only NOT HONESTY...just opportunistic zeal
to become the first female President.
For the Republican Party....the ONLY authentic candidate is John Kasich.
...the other two candidates...are also driven only by ZEAL....and are just
as opportunistic and flagrant dissemblers ...
I would ...as an Independent Voter ...favor Sanders...or Kasich...
because they do not lie....nor are they twisted into persona that they
are NOT...but the greed of Media Pac Money advertising dollars and
ratings....
So let's talk about these two...since they are the best from either Political
Party....start now please...we are tired of the Trump et al plus Hillary Circus.
There are only 2 authentic candidates:
For the Democratic Party...the ONLY authentic candidate is Bernie Sanders
Hillary is simply driven by ZEAL only NOT HONESTY...just opportunistic zeal
to become the first female President.
For the Republican Party....the ONLY authentic candidate is John Kasich.
...the other two candidates...are also driven only by ZEAL....and are just
as opportunistic and flagrant dissemblers ...
I would ...as an Independent Voter ...favor Sanders...or Kasich...
because they do not lie....nor are they twisted into persona that they
are NOT...but the greed of Media Pac Money advertising dollars and
ratings....
So let's talk about these two...since they are the best from either Political
Party....start now please...we are tired of the Trump et al plus Hillary Circus.
No, not nearly a third of *all* delegates, as you say, but nearly a third of the number needed to make a majority. More like a sixth? Still not wonderful, but let's not get carried away.
7
The numbers not the wording chosen by Mr Blow shows superdelegates making up 15 percent of all delegates, not the 30 percent that some might find outrageous.
6
It's about time caucuses are being revealed for the sham that they are.
Next -- let's discuss why Democrats and Republicans hold open primaries that allow non-Democrats and non-Republicans to vote in them. The purpose of a primary is to have party members decide on who THEIR nominee will be. Allowing non-party members in to vote allows mischief at the very least, fraud at the worse.
No wonder that people are now openly despising the establishments of both parties. These liars are serving their own interests. They are not working toward the greater good.
Next -- let's discuss why Democrats and Republicans hold open primaries that allow non-Democrats and non-Republicans to vote in them. The purpose of a primary is to have party members decide on who THEIR nominee will be. Allowing non-party members in to vote allows mischief at the very least, fraud at the worse.
No wonder that people are now openly despising the establishments of both parties. These liars are serving their own interests. They are not working toward the greater good.
5
Bill Clinton cast his super delegate vote for Obama in 2008, even though Senator Clinton had won New York. So they are free and often do change to whomever has won the popular vote. If Sanders wins, we will see the same thing in 2016.
6
DEMOCRATIC VOTES? Both the Democrats and the GOP have set in place mechanisms by which the voice of the people will be silenced by the delegates to the conventions. Carter, while a magnificent former President, was, by his wife's account, not a politician. His statement, I'll Never Lie to You came back to haunt him. Carter never even invoked national security as a reason to explain the need for secrecy. But the Democrats wanted to prevent another GOP landslide. They may also prevent a Democrat landslide like that of 2004. With all of the voter disenfranchisement happening nationwide, you'd think that they'd want to fight the GOP on that issue, rather than silence the voices of the people in their party with delegates who can do whatever they please. Our system is broken in many ways; but decreasing the role of the voice of the people and access to the ballot box seem to be illegal, immoral and highly undemocratic (small d). Still, the article stopped short of mentioning the undemocractic effect of the electoral college. Since the GOP is blocking a judicial nominee to the Supreme Court, the chances of getting some bipartisan cooperation to cause election results reflect the voice of the people is nonexistent. Though in order to trump Trump, Still, the use of delegates in the nomination process is not without merit. They're between trumping Trump or cruising Cruz, a very rocky and hard place to be. Couldn't happen to nicer people. Chickens home to roost? Roast?
I sincerely hope the 2016 election foreshadows the demise of the party system.
1
I'm sure Paul Krugman-Clinton approves of this math. It will help his selection win the nomination.
2
Another skewing factor is open vs. closed primaries. Why should independents or members of another party help select one party's candidate?
7
The party in each state gets to decide whether to have an open or closed primary. Purists say an open primary allows people who are not among the faithful to decide the outcome. Pragmatists say it's an opportunity to attract independents and gain traction for the general election.
1
It seems to me that the Un-Democratic party right now is the GOP who is trying, by hook or crook and tons of money to sink their own front runner and apparently the winner of the most delegates thus far. That, to me, is a degradation of the democratic process, and whether or not you like the candidate, the people seem to want him. It is as bad as the GOP, now trying to manipulate the Supreme Court.
6
Once upon a time the Democratic Party was the party of misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Islamic, secession/nullification, corporate oligarch plutocracy, African enslavement and Jim Crow.
Until the ages of FDR, Truman and LBJ led to the ages of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan and the two political parties reversed their polarity.
Scheme Clinton is the epitome of the old Democratic Party. And I have no sympathy with the devil disguised as a saint.
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton is a war monger cynical corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare queen. Miss Hillary is a hoary horrid harridan hiding her illiberal undemocratic white privilege that is on the same coin of the royal realm carried by the hoary horrid harridan Donald John Trump.
Until the ages of FDR, Truman and LBJ led to the ages of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan and the two political parties reversed their polarity.
Scheme Clinton is the epitome of the old Democratic Party. And I have no sympathy with the devil disguised as a saint.
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton is a war monger cynical corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare queen. Miss Hillary is a hoary horrid harridan hiding her illiberal undemocratic white privilege that is on the same coin of the royal realm carried by the hoary horrid harridan Donald John Trump.
5
Oh stop kvetching.
It was never intended that a party nominee be determined directly by voters. Moreover, it's not only not illegal, it's also not immoral, wrong or, frankly, without some sense behind it. The party can set any rules it wants for determining the nominee. If registered Democrats are so outraged by the rules, then get other registered Democrats together and fire the party mucky-mucks who've made the decision that the best way to win (which, after all, is what it's all about) is through the process they've set up.
And, frankly (again), however much I admire Bernie and support much of what he proposes, a geriatric Jewish socialist from the Northeast has no chance of winning a general election. And anyone who relies on CURRENT polling showing Bernie's strength is simply ignorant as to what always happens when a candidate who has never been completely vetted (unlike Hillary) suddenly has the harsh lights of 24/7 attention focused on him/her.
We do not need another Mondale disaster.
It was never intended that a party nominee be determined directly by voters. Moreover, it's not only not illegal, it's also not immoral, wrong or, frankly, without some sense behind it. The party can set any rules it wants for determining the nominee. If registered Democrats are so outraged by the rules, then get other registered Democrats together and fire the party mucky-mucks who've made the decision that the best way to win (which, after all, is what it's all about) is through the process they've set up.
And, frankly (again), however much I admire Bernie and support much of what he proposes, a geriatric Jewish socialist from the Northeast has no chance of winning a general election. And anyone who relies on CURRENT polling showing Bernie's strength is simply ignorant as to what always happens when a candidate who has never been completely vetted (unlike Hillary) suddenly has the harsh lights of 24/7 attention focused on him/her.
We do not need another Mondale disaster.
14
Many of us are caught in an economic system that no matter how much we struggle, continues to depress our economic survival, and have no desire to elect someone dedicated to preserving it.
Nice that you're so well off it's not also a problem for you. We may lose, but to simply give in to the special interests is not an option. And some of us do not so easily give in to our fears. Sometimes the safe choice is not safe, merely tepid.
But that's what democracy are all about. Whether there are more of us, than of you.
Nice that you're so well off it's not also a problem for you. We may lose, but to simply give in to the special interests is not an option. And some of us do not so easily give in to our fears. Sometimes the safe choice is not safe, merely tepid.
But that's what democracy are all about. Whether there are more of us, than of you.
No, we don't need another Mondale disaster. We'll get the Hillary disaster. Because, as much as the rest of your post is right, Hillary has not been "completely" vetted. Let's see what the FBI comes up with.
2
And pray tell...why can't a a geriatric Jewish socialist from the Northeast win the general election? Let's think this through shall we..
Which Hillary voters won't support Sanders? Where are they going to go? To Trump? To Cruz? Stay home? No. They will vote for Sanders
On the other hand which Sanders voters won't vote for Hillary. Lots. Think of all those independents and millennials who will show up to tip battleground states to blue if Sanders is the party nominee but will stay home if Hillary is.
But Hillary is leading in delegates!!!! Yes...Hillary will draw all those votes in the red states which gave her the lead in delegates. Problem is...THEY ARE RED STATES.
I totally agree we do not need another Mondale disaster...but that is far more likely to happen with Hillary as the nominee than if Bernie is.
Which Hillary voters won't support Sanders? Where are they going to go? To Trump? To Cruz? Stay home? No. They will vote for Sanders
On the other hand which Sanders voters won't vote for Hillary. Lots. Think of all those independents and millennials who will show up to tip battleground states to blue if Sanders is the party nominee but will stay home if Hillary is.
But Hillary is leading in delegates!!!! Yes...Hillary will draw all those votes in the red states which gave her the lead in delegates. Problem is...THEY ARE RED STATES.
I totally agree we do not need another Mondale disaster...but that is far more likely to happen with Hillary as the nominee than if Bernie is.
1
What also makes no sense is the order of the Democratic primaries. Momentum is creating the South.. whose Democratic votes don't even matter because no Democratic wins there.
Why not rejig the primary calendar for the Democratic party so that you cover all the regions at the beginning...so not giving weight to one.. and have diverse states at the beginning. There has been some attempt at that with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado and Iowa at the start.. but why then have all the Southern States at the beginning, and most of the Western states at the end, when the Western states are much more progressive and democratic.
That states that typically carry the Democratic party candidate in the general election (such as New York and California) should be voting first.. not last.
Why not rejig the primary calendar for the Democratic party so that you cover all the regions at the beginning...so not giving weight to one.. and have diverse states at the beginning. There has been some attempt at that with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado and Iowa at the start.. but why then have all the Southern States at the beginning, and most of the Western states at the end, when the Western states are much more progressive and democratic.
That states that typically carry the Democratic party candidate in the general election (such as New York and California) should be voting first.. not last.
3
States choose their own primary dates. For example, California used to vote early, but changed its primary date to June to ensure its dominance, should circumstances arise such as this year's, when at least one nomination will be hanging in the balance.
The trouble with putting the largest states first is that it give the voters very little opportunity to get acquainted with or learn about the lesser known candidates. It was bad enough that, in the debates, candidates like O'Malley and Kasich tended to be ignored by the moderators or talked over by the more prominent or more loud-mouthed candidates. I agree with you about the southern states, though.
Here in America we put our index finger in the air and proclaim "We are No. 1" but we are too busy to vote.... we proudly proclaim our love for our Country (while hating our government and our neighbors).....we tsk tsk other Nations of the world for their corruption and send our ex-Presidents to oversee their elections, while we decrease the polling stations and put impediment after roadblock in front of some of our citizens' paths to voting.
We are really exceptional, aren't we.
We are really exceptional, aren't we.
6
Excellent and balanced commentary Mr. Blow. At Least the Democrats are open about the process where the Republicans reach the same end in an even more disingenuous fashion. While I am a registered Republican (for now) it is clear to me that the "privileged" or protected, however you wish to refer to them, will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo. Hopefully the anger felt by many voters from both parties will force change. I'm not optimistic.
2
Political parties can organize any way they choose.That is their right.Both parties ultimately represent primarily the interests of the rich.They just disagree on how best to serve those interests.The problem is most of us are not rich so the parties have to accommodate the rest of us while maintaining their position.America has no true democratic party.At least Sanders is trying to form one out of the one that calls itself the Democrats.
2
The leadership also has manipulated the debate schedule to favor HRC and in Arizona people who voted absentee had all their votes counted whereas people who arrived at overcrowded polling stations could not vote unless they had plenty of free time to spend waiting in line. The Arizona strategy favored older voters, and of course Sanders is wildly popular with young voters.
We're looking more and more like a Latin American country. Bill and Hillary spent the Obama years shaking down billionaires. Their plan since Bill left office was to bypass the constitutional limit to two four-year terms by running Hillary. They couldn't pull it off in 2008 but now it's looking like they're going to be successful in 2016.
Louis Brandeis' quote bears repeating: “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
We're looking more and more like a Latin American country. Bill and Hillary spent the Obama years shaking down billionaires. Their plan since Bill left office was to bypass the constitutional limit to two four-year terms by running Hillary. They couldn't pull it off in 2008 but now it's looking like they're going to be successful in 2016.
Louis Brandeis' quote bears repeating: “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
6
Please let them be successful. The alternative is unthinkable.
The irony is that Tad Devine, Bernie's campaign manager, is generally cited as having been instrumental in creating the superdelegate system after Carter lost to Reagan in 1980.
In any event, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Repubs institute a superdelegate system for 2020 to keep insurgents like Trump at bay.
In any event, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Repubs institute a superdelegate system for 2020 to keep insurgents like Trump at bay.
5
Actually, you don't need superdelegates. You need a party establishment that shows leadership.
1
The caucuses are the problem, not the super delegates. The caucuses exclude voters for many reasons--scheduling at work times, frailty, and unruly crowd behavior. In Texas in 2008, Clinton supporters were physically pushed around. The Sanders forces are now arguing that super delegates in caucus states should be required to become Sanders delegates. The effect would be to preempt the judgment of party and public officials, who know the candidates, by instating the views of the tiny numbers of "raucus caucus" kids and ideologues invading the Democratic party. Hillary lost the super delegates last time, and she is winning them this time. They arguably made the right call last time, and they doing it this time as well. HIllary accepted the result before, and Sanders needs to accept it now.
7
To the best of my knowledge, the US is the only "democracy" that even comes close (via the primary system) to having ordinary voters select candidates for office. In most western countries, a relatively small number of party members do that. Certainly that is the case here in Canada - and it works pretty well. One can debate the democratic principles involved, but one also has to take into account the degree of education and sophistication of those doing the selecting. is that "elitist"? Absolutely. Elites actually have their good points, and would not select a Trump or (sorry folks) a Sanders.
8
The superdelegate thing cuts at least two ways -- yes, if we think nominations should be decided by the rank and file, superdelegates are undemocratic. But the electorates in primaries, while larger than those for caucuses, are still small and unrepresentative. While I don't buy the notion that the Democratic and Republican "base" electorates are equally off-the-wall -- the GOP and its base are considerably further out on the extreme end of the curve than are their Democratic counterparts -- it's still true that a great deal of the hyper-partisanship and polarization we complain about today began to take shape during the 1970s and 1980s, as the nomination process shifted out of the so-called smoke-filled rooms and was handed over to primary and caucus electors.
In fact the Democrats' superdelegates were created in the hope of keeping the party a little closer to the center. Whether they should comprise a third of the convention is a good question -- probably that's too many. But if the GOP had superdelegates Donald Trump would be out of the race or, more likely, would not have entered. If the party had had superdelegates for several election cycles, we wouldn't see Ted Cruz as the GOP alternative to Trump, and would not have seen that depressing gang of Santorums and Huckabees playing the roles they have.
Fact is, there is no single neutral and unbiased way to nominate candiates. They all have their drawbacks...
In fact the Democrats' superdelegates were created in the hope of keeping the party a little closer to the center. Whether they should comprise a third of the convention is a good question -- probably that's too many. But if the GOP had superdelegates Donald Trump would be out of the race or, more likely, would not have entered. If the party had had superdelegates for several election cycles, we wouldn't see Ted Cruz as the GOP alternative to Trump, and would not have seen that depressing gang of Santorums and Huckabees playing the roles they have.
Fact is, there is no single neutral and unbiased way to nominate candiates. They all have their drawbacks...
3
Superdelagates comprise 15% not a third of the convention.
1
Thanks -- I went with Blow's figure, at least as I think I read it, but you're right. The fifteen per cent figure further weakens the argument that superdelegates are in and of themselves undemocratic --
1
Well said Mr. Blow and the problem, in different yet equally harmful ways applies to the GOP. This is not the democracy we have been brainwashed to believe it is. It never has been. Until we change we are a nation of hypocrites.
We need to establish a new competitive national party to erode or destroy the entrenched power of our current two parties and enable our government to more truly reflective of WE the People; not corporations, not the richest of the rich, not the left or right extremist minorities and not, for sure, the gutter dwellers of this year.
We need a party that serves the American People by requiring any candidate it nominates or supports to pledge by signed oath at the time he or she is nominated, to base all Executive and Congressional actions, when elected and serving, in terms of supporting and promoting the mandates of the Preamble of our Constitution. These public servants would also pledge to provide formal explanation each time they take action, create laws, pass a budget or issue an Executive Order how said action or whomever they appoint to whatever position, including the Supreme Court, supports and promotes any or all of the mandates in the Preamble to our Constitution.
Apply that litmus test to all issues. If they are in tune with the Preamble, they are good for the American People, from security and defense to education and healthcare along with transparency in government.
We need to do this before it is too late which it may already be
We need to establish a new competitive national party to erode or destroy the entrenched power of our current two parties and enable our government to more truly reflective of WE the People; not corporations, not the richest of the rich, not the left or right extremist minorities and not, for sure, the gutter dwellers of this year.
We need a party that serves the American People by requiring any candidate it nominates or supports to pledge by signed oath at the time he or she is nominated, to base all Executive and Congressional actions, when elected and serving, in terms of supporting and promoting the mandates of the Preamble of our Constitution. These public servants would also pledge to provide formal explanation each time they take action, create laws, pass a budget or issue an Executive Order how said action or whomever they appoint to whatever position, including the Supreme Court, supports and promotes any or all of the mandates in the Preamble to our Constitution.
Apply that litmus test to all issues. If they are in tune with the Preamble, they are good for the American People, from security and defense to education and healthcare along with transparency in government.
We need to do this before it is too late which it may already be
There wasn't even supposed to be a Democratic primary this year. The other "candidates" who briefly ran were only there as props - playing the Washington Generals to Hillary Clinton's Harlem Globetrotters. Bernie Sanders wasn't part of the act, but they allowed him to run because they figured that he didn't stand a chance anyway. The DNC were taken completely off guard by Bernie's popularity.
5
Although Mr. Blow's general point is well-taken, his grasp of the relevant arithmetic appears tenuous:
"Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates."
Actually, 712 / 4765 = 14.94%
So, superdelegates make up a little over a seventh of all delegates.
Mr. Blow's previous calculation is correct: "These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination..." That may be outrageous, or it may not. In any case, the successful candidate will have to gather at least 70% of her (or his) delegates through other means. If superdelegates truly comprised 30% of ALL convention votes (1429 delegates) , the requirement for additional delegates (2382 - 1429 = 953) would be only 40% of the total needed for nomination (953 / 2382 = 40%).
"Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates."
Actually, 712 / 4765 = 14.94%
So, superdelegates make up a little over a seventh of all delegates.
Mr. Blow's previous calculation is correct: "These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination..." That may be outrageous, or it may not. In any case, the successful candidate will have to gather at least 70% of her (or his) delegates through other means. If superdelegates truly comprised 30% of ALL convention votes (1429 delegates) , the requirement for additional delegates (2382 - 1429 = 953) would be only 40% of the total needed for nomination (953 / 2382 = 40%).
4
You need to read the article more closely:
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win..."
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win..."
The Democrat party is the party of central control so none of this is surprising.
1
No, they aren't nearly a third of all delegates. If a candidate is 712 delegates short of winning pledged delegates, and they all go got that candidate, they'd be a third of that candidate's delegates. That makes them less than a sixth of all delegates.
1
I would add that most super delegates are elected to do very important jobs, and part of that job responsibility in the Democratic Party is to help support people who will build the party. The party is more than one person running, Hillary knows this and is supporting the under ticket candidates; Bernie doesn't, and isn't. No wonder they support Hillary. They want a candidate they can run with, not away from.
9
Carrying Charles Blow's argument to its natural conclusion we note that the NYTs, its columnist and more than a few readers are doing all they can to put their thumb on the scales.
The NYTs could make a positive contribution to improving our democratic process by giving voting in general close scrutiny. We all know that come November their will be many problems with citizens trying to vote that could have easily been avoided but were not. One would think this is something our leading print news organization would be interested.
The NYTs could make a positive contribution to improving our democratic process by giving voting in general close scrutiny. We all know that come November their will be many problems with citizens trying to vote that could have easily been avoided but were not. One would think this is something our leading print news organization would be interested.
2
Check your math. Superdelegates are 30% of the delegates needed to win the nomination, which requires 50%+1 of the total delegates, meaning that superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates, not "nearly a third of all delegates." Easily confirmed by the numbers in the sidebar 712/4765 = 0.149 or 14.9%. Also regarding thesidebar, if the total number of delegates is 4765, 2383 would constitute the minimum winning majority.
5
Check the article more closely:
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win "
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win "
Ditto to you -- re-read the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted (which includes the quote I included in my original comment).
Doesn't change the point Mr. Blow makes one bit.
For the record, Blow is wrong when he says that the superdelegates make up nearly a third of all delegates. They make up nearly a third of the number needed for a majority. That would be a bit short of one-sixth of all delegates.
2
I find it incomprehensible, and frankly shocking, that Blow concludes that the main problem with superdelagates is that they express their undemocratic opinions too soon. So in your book, Blow, it's preferable that they wait to see how to their states vote and then wield their thousands of votes for the other guy?
1
I participated in the WA caucus for the first time, having recently moved. A corruptible and corrupted process. I think the Democratic Party here should be ashamed of itself for not being democratic.
WA reminded me of the 19th century of public voting, and of WVA in 1888 when more votes were cast than there were voters.
You failed to mention that some good folks refuse to attend (true in both parties) because of the nastiness that too often occurs.
In WA the winners have the audacity to claim that "the people" have spoken. Sigh.
WA reminded me of the 19th century of public voting, and of WVA in 1888 when more votes were cast than there were voters.
You failed to mention that some good folks refuse to attend (true in both parties) because of the nastiness that too often occurs.
In WA the winners have the audacity to claim that "the people" have spoken. Sigh.
7
I'm not a great fan of the aristocrat Plato, but we do live in a Platonic age and it was Plato that argued that dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy. Your column, Mr. Blow, argues that liberty should be 'unfettered,' at least with respect to the Democratic Party. You also argue that the super delegate mechanism has been instituted by the Democratic establishment to "increase its power," which, from another perspective might be seen as exercising its authority. Trying on that other perspective might be useful. I have no qualms with philosophical anarchy, I might add, but I do have qualms about political anarchy. That doesn't make me a Platonist any more than admitting that freedom needs to be fettered makes the Democratic Party undemocratic.
4
Bet the Republican Party wishes they had Superdelegates like the Democrats!
And what's happening with the GOP shows why they're needed -to protect against a suicidal choice in the name of ideological purity, the purity that can be very attractive to the unrepresentative segment of the population that votes in primaries.
And what's happening with the GOP shows why they're needed -to protect against a suicidal choice in the name of ideological purity, the purity that can be very attractive to the unrepresentative segment of the population that votes in primaries.
92
so your point is that we need a big brother political system to protect us from ourselves??????
2
I disagree strongly with this. Whomever gets the most votes in the primary process for a party should be the nominee. No party structure should gate-keep the peoples' choice.
Simple same day primaries all across the US and complete elimination of the Super delegates as well as the caucuses are,perhaps, best way to make the longest lasting democracy in the current world, still continue to shine and in doing do, help other countries to emulate in some way to suit their needs.
2
It would sure take a lot of the money out of it. Huge upsides. Downside is that it might not give the lesser known candidate(s) a chance to let the voters find out who they are and what they represent.
In Maine, the Democrats declared a record turnout with lines up to half a mile to participate in caucuses. The GOP had 22 caucus site for a state of 35,385 square miles --- or less than one caucus site per 1,000 sq miles.
6.5% of the voting age population voted.
6.5% of the voting age population voted.
3
I agree with Mr. Blow on the un-democratic character of caucuses. But the rationale behind super-delegates is for democratically elected (and accountable) public officials to pick a nominee who appeals to a majority of voters in the general election. I see that as an effort to broaden the popular base of the party, not to restrict it.
5
Hate to be such a cynic but to those who want to change the delegate and electoral college system these things were instituted by the founders and the elite because they did not trust the electorate and this is true today. Our voting system is so corrupt and byzantine that the powers that be control it almost absolutely. And are we ready for a true revolution? I would say go Bernie, but an even bigger revolution than he calls for is needed to get to the root of this antidemocratic system.
4
If the party only gave its full support to so-called insurgents -
beginning with Eugene McCarthy, thru Jimmy Carter to Senator Sanders - instead of squirming all way thru the nominating process before grudgingly conceding, or worse, pulling a "1968," the insurgents might be more electable. And once elected, might have a better shot at governing effectively.
Why does the will of working people, the elderly, families with children etc etc. count for less than the sentiments of lobbyists? It's long been known that the "Bigs" - Ag, Energy, Money, Pharma - back both sides, or back the likely winner. No wonder nothing ever changes.
PS - exactly why is it so "ironic" that the caucuses favor Sanders? Or are you just scrambling for some equivalency?
beginning with Eugene McCarthy, thru Jimmy Carter to Senator Sanders - instead of squirming all way thru the nominating process before grudgingly conceding, or worse, pulling a "1968," the insurgents might be more electable. And once elected, might have a better shot at governing effectively.
Why does the will of working people, the elderly, families with children etc etc. count for less than the sentiments of lobbyists? It's long been known that the "Bigs" - Ag, Energy, Money, Pharma - back both sides, or back the likely winner. No wonder nothing ever changes.
PS - exactly why is it so "ironic" that the caucuses favor Sanders? Or are you just scrambling for some equivalency?
4
I wish to offer two important points about Mr. Blow's charges against (un)Democratic Party. One point is contrary to Mr. Blow's arguments and the other supports his argument.
The first point -- a contrarian point -- concerns the shutting out of working people and shut-ins from participating in caucuses. This is not true in Washington. The Washington Democratic Party provided an opportunity for shut-ins and working people to cast their caucus ballots in absentia.
The second point -- a supporting point -- relates to superdelegates as an undemocratic form of selecting a presidential candidate. To understand why superdelegates are a bane on the democratic process, read this article about a potential Democratic Party superdelegate: http://tinyurl.com/the-Wall-Street-vote .
Just my two points.
The first point -- a contrarian point -- concerns the shutting out of working people and shut-ins from participating in caucuses. This is not true in Washington. The Washington Democratic Party provided an opportunity for shut-ins and working people to cast their caucus ballots in absentia.
The second point -- a supporting point -- relates to superdelegates as an undemocratic form of selecting a presidential candidate. To understand why superdelegates are a bane on the democratic process, read this article about a potential Democratic Party superdelegate: http://tinyurl.com/the-Wall-Street-vote .
Just my two points.
For any naturalized citizen as myself the American system of voting in the general election is archaic, to say the least.
It starts with the Electoral College, one that unheard of in other advance countries where a party with the majority vote automatically will appoint one of its own - known to the population at large beforehand - to become Prime Minister. Chancellor or President.
Furthermore, elections are on holidays, and no one has to go through the extra step of 'registering' in order to be allowed to vote. Ergo, if a country like that has a voter participation of less than 75%, they lament about 'low' voter turnout. And any election with less than 50% turnout has to be automatically repeated.
Especially in regard to the caucuses forcing people to show in public for whom they vote, they are the worst of the undemocratic system in the oldest democracy of modern times since Athens.
It starts with the Electoral College, one that unheard of in other advance countries where a party with the majority vote automatically will appoint one of its own - known to the population at large beforehand - to become Prime Minister. Chancellor or President.
Furthermore, elections are on holidays, and no one has to go through the extra step of 'registering' in order to be allowed to vote. Ergo, if a country like that has a voter participation of less than 75%, they lament about 'low' voter turnout. And any election with less than 50% turnout has to be automatically repeated.
Especially in regard to the caucuses forcing people to show in public for whom they vote, they are the worst of the undemocratic system in the oldest democracy of modern times since Athens.
4
The process is indeed full of holes, Mr. Blow, but it has to be born in mind that political parties have little to do with democracy per se. Traditionally, parties are groups of folks who band together because of common interests they wish to push forward into laws. The process by which a party chooses its candidate isn't governed by law; it's a private matter. There's nothing to prevent a party from choosing its candidate by a series of arm wrestling contests.
The "party elite" are in charge of the rule making process, as you observe. That's in the nature of things: leaders and everyone else. But as with all human associations, "heavy is the head that wears the crown". Revolution always lurks in the background.
What's to prevent a "revolution", a grass roots movement within the ranks of the Democratic party determined to make the process fully democratic? One man, one vote.
Nothing, except the will and the energy to act. Voter rolls - including party affiliation - are publicly available. In this age of the Internet, even the cost of pamphlets is avoided. If the DNC can obtain the email addresses of millions of registered Democrats, so can a "revolutionary" movement with the single goal of eliminating inequities in the candidate selection process.
"Heavy is the head...", and deluged with million-signature petitions, the party elite would have little choice but to act.
The "party elite" are in charge of the rule making process, as you observe. That's in the nature of things: leaders and everyone else. But as with all human associations, "heavy is the head that wears the crown". Revolution always lurks in the background.
What's to prevent a "revolution", a grass roots movement within the ranks of the Democratic party determined to make the process fully democratic? One man, one vote.
Nothing, except the will and the energy to act. Voter rolls - including party affiliation - are publicly available. In this age of the Internet, even the cost of pamphlets is avoided. If the DNC can obtain the email addresses of millions of registered Democrats, so can a "revolutionary" movement with the single goal of eliminating inequities in the candidate selection process.
"Heavy is the head...", and deluged with million-signature petitions, the party elite would have little choice but to act.
1
The system has been in place for a long time. Has it suddenly turned 'unjust' because it favors a female condidate? I've never hear this 'unjust' accusation before. Sanders is not even a Democrat. The Democratic Party owes him nothing.
11
National polling for some time now has shown Bernie Sanders to be the stronger candidate against all the Republicans. The super delegates alignment with Hillary Clinton seems to be at odds with the goal of choosing the candidate who can win.
4
It's a fair point that super delegates are anti-democratic, but let's at least get the math right: 712 out of 4765 is less than 15%, not "nearly a third of all delegates."
5
He does have the math right, as what is written in the article is:
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win "
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win "
What is outrageous is that someone who has not been a member of the Democratic Party, and not supported the party and its candidates and ideals, or raised money for the party is even within sniffing distance of the nomination. That is an outrage.
5
I am sure that Bernie will totally reform the DNC when he gets into office. Right now, it is a holy mess, not the least because of its Chairwoman, DWS, who is running for office after 10 years of "service" in the House and having never encountered a primary for her seat in all that time. Wow! So now she has Obama's endorsement, and all that seems to have done is raise more money for her competitor, Tim Ovuta. Under DWS, the state parties have been deprived of funds, ordered what to do as far as set dates for primaries and coached in how to make it more difficult for the disenfranchised to vote. It was Debbie herself that bribed the chairwoman of the Hawaii Democratic Party to change the caucus date to the Saturday before Easter and shorten the time limit for attending. She was promised 10 extra delegates. But Bernie Sanders won anyway; so Hawaii only got 3 of them. Caucuses or primaries, neither of them work if corruption is the name of the game.
1
Another thing: this morning, I'm seeing in these comments the sudden appearance of a new narrative, according to which Sanders' prospects in a general election are poor.
Maybe I've been reading the wrong polls, but every one I've seen so far shows Sanders faring significantly better than Clinton in a head-to-head match-up against Trump.
Maybe I've been reading the wrong polls, but every one I've seen so far shows Sanders faring significantly better than Clinton in a head-to-head match-up against Trump.
5
Agreed that the superdelegate and caucus processes are undemocratic but not sure I understand the one to one linkage between each and a candidate. They Superdelegate connection to Hillary is clear. They are party hacks and she is a party hack.
The Bernie to caucus connection...not clear at all. Yes he has won caucuses but he did not put them into place. He did not lobby to keep them in place. Just because Bernie won caucus states does not mean there is anything inherent in the caucus process that favors him. He just played by the rules ...undemocratic or not...of the Democratic party in each state.
I suppose that Mr. Blow prefer that Bernie refuse to participate in caucus states out of principle as by doing so Hillary would not have to deal with the threat of his candidacy...which those of us who have been reading Mr. Blow all along understand is his true agenda.
The Bernie to caucus connection...not clear at all. Yes he has won caucuses but he did not put them into place. He did not lobby to keep them in place. Just because Bernie won caucus states does not mean there is anything inherent in the caucus process that favors him. He just played by the rules ...undemocratic or not...of the Democratic party in each state.
I suppose that Mr. Blow prefer that Bernie refuse to participate in caucus states out of principle as by doing so Hillary would not have to deal with the threat of his candidacy...which those of us who have been reading Mr. Blow all along understand is his true agenda.
2
I am so sick of reading about and hearing about this election that I could puke. I wish someone would write about "election fatigue" and the millions that probably suffer from it. The best thing that this country could do for itself is shorten the presidential election period. Going through this ridiculousness every four years, reading about every little nuance of a candidate's personality, pundits screaming at each other on TV, newspapers analyzing every comment, political ads everywhere (even You Tube!) just wears everyone down. One year from the first TV ad to the election would do it. Otherwise, it's just all campaigning, all the time. It's torture.
219
but without the 'christmas' spending of the elections how would the media survive! cnn ratings are up 170% due to the trumpster.
1
@MsPea - elections are an industry in this country. There is a LOT of money to be made in all the ads, analysis, pundits screaming, and all that. Many people do make a very good living out of it, so it's very hard to say that it is all bad.
I also find this saturation style of advertising very annoying. But I think we're supposed to accept it as the price of capitalism. My personal annoyance is all those tv ads for prescription drugs. To me it is the height of marketing run amok.
I also find this saturation style of advertising very annoying. But I think we're supposed to accept it as the price of capitalism. My personal annoyance is all those tv ads for prescription drugs. To me it is the height of marketing run amok.
1
One year is still too long. I'd like to see July first as the kickoff.
1
Totally agree with you about caucuses Charles. I am a Democratic precinct captain and missed the Idaho caucuses because they schedule it over our school spring break, right in the middle of the week. My family vacation won out as it did for many other Democratic parents in Boise, by far the biggest pool of Democrats in the state.
6
Why not simply have a national plebiscite? We simply vote anytime there's a disagreement about anything. We don't need debates, we don't need experts, we don't need cooler heads, wise counsel, or experienced pols. We have ourselves! That's real democracy. And it's terrifying.
Democracy necessarily has buffers because most of us aren't as smart as we think we are. I know outrage is the flavor du jour, but I don't want a bunch of self-righteous kids hijacking my political party for someone who is not even a Democrat, nor no I want Republicans nominating a nut case just because their voters are really too stupid to know any better. Please: more buffers, not fewer.
Democracy necessarily has buffers because most of us aren't as smart as we think we are. I know outrage is the flavor du jour, but I don't want a bunch of self-righteous kids hijacking my political party for someone who is not even a Democrat, nor no I want Republicans nominating a nut case just because their voters are really too stupid to know any better. Please: more buffers, not fewer.
3
Mr. Hall, you sound like an angry junior college professor. During the last seven years, I've learned that arrogance is the dark half-brother of ignorance. Both lead you down the path to destruction. I'll take my chances with Mr. Trump, a man who has actually tried, failed, and succeeded in the real world.
Super delegates exist to ensure that the Democratic party does not nominate a Donald Trump. It's that simple. Right now the majority of Republican party members wish they had super delegates.
6
Superdelegates do not "make up nearly a third of all delegates" as the author suggests. There are 714 super delegates out of a total of 4051. That's 17.6%, not nearly a third.
So the third paragraph needs to be fixed.
But of course these kinds of simple numerical errors fill this kind of writing. If an author is trying to be outraged about numbers, it leads them to selective miscalculation. The New York Times should have a higher standard on its editorial page.
So the third paragraph needs to be fixed.
But of course these kinds of simple numerical errors fill this kind of writing. If an author is trying to be outraged about numbers, it leads them to selective miscalculation. The New York Times should have a higher standard on its editorial page.
2
Mr. Blow makes excellent observations about the shortcomings of caucuses. Here is another: Caucuses promote something akin to insurgency politics -- "packing" the meetings with one's own political bedfellows, controlling the proceedings, and attempting to work their will. It encourages political blitzkriegs rather than more sober democratic processes.
2
The caucus system especially in Colorado can easily fall into the hands of a small faction of voters. As you say the lack of flexible hours and privacy does not allow for a fair vote. If you are not loud and pushy your voice will not be heard. Voting should not be an arm wrestling match, but something within your own conscience. This was my first caucus experience and I left frustrated and disgusted by the partisanship and shouting match. The people who attended are my friends, but in that room politics brought out the worst in us especially in that caucus situation.
4
American governance is chock full of such undemocratic structures and procedures, of which the superdelegate system is only one. But 700 or so people who aren’t elected by anyone during the primary process and are free to vote any way they want at the convention. C'mon Man!
700 made up of members of Congress and members of the Democratic National Committee , which is made up of much of the establishment that Sen. Sanders is implicitly running against. C'mon Man! So, how likely is it that Ms. Clinton could lose the popular vote, but be nominated because the superdelegates threw the nomination to her? C'mon Man!
Does the Democratic party establishment want Chicago 1968, again? Power to the People!
700 made up of members of Congress and members of the Democratic National Committee , which is made up of much of the establishment that Sen. Sanders is implicitly running against. C'mon Man! So, how likely is it that Ms. Clinton could lose the popular vote, but be nominated because the superdelegates threw the nomination to her? C'mon Man!
Does the Democratic party establishment want Chicago 1968, again? Power to the People!
1
What really frosts me is the complicity of so much of the media in pushing the choice of the party elites. If you can find anything about Sanders at all in the daily media it is usually something negative. They obviously have received their marching orders. I guess by 2020 we won't even have primaries and the elites will just coronate whoever. Thank you for pointing out their heavy handedness.
Excellent article explaining the undemocratic Democratic primary process. Perhaps a solution would be get rid of the superdelegates and caucuses altogether, and just have open primaries in every state.
Tim,
I agree with you. Given I'm a severely disabled veteran living in a cottage setting at 7,560' above sea level (most of Colo. Springs sets at about 6,000) not far from Colorado Springs where heavy winter snows are a frequent threat to transportation the caucus system can be a pain-in-the-neck even when the weather is good
I agree with you. Given I'm a severely disabled veteran living in a cottage setting at 7,560' above sea level (most of Colo. Springs sets at about 6,000) not far from Colorado Springs where heavy winter snows are a frequent threat to transportation the caucus system can be a pain-in-the-neck even when the weather is good
The undemocratic party, making sure that someone who has taken tens of millions of dollars in what are surely bribes, the kind Congress wants more of, gets elected. As Mark Twain said, this is our only native criminal class.
Pace Blow, I'm not persuaded that the superdelegate idea is a bad one (initially my reaction to it was negative). The model this country was founded on was NOT a straight-up democracy, and the manner in which senators and presidents were elected gave primacy to the elite ("establishment") as a check to popular tempers. Witness what is happening in the GOP this very year: precisely what the Founding Fathers dreaded. Besides the superdelegate system doesn't nullify the popular vote. The popular vote is still 70% of the outcome. BUT I do think caucuses are for the birds and undemocratic: if primaries are to constitute the democratic element, then the vote should be straight up and down popular vote tallies, not recherché rituals dominated by insiders.
3
I'd simply point out that there's a tension between direct and representative democracy everywhere in our Constitution and the political systems derived from it.
One fundamental example: the Bill of Rights isn't up for a simple vote, and a darn good thing too. Moreover, it's protected by an unelected Court that was largely immunized from politics (or was spozed to be!), also a darn good thing.
There are endless examples of why direct democracy can be tyranny, from slavery and Jim Crow on down. And, there are endless examples of how representatives can simply ignore the majority of us: little things like gun control.
Personally, I think ignorance and laziness among voters are bigger threats. Don't like Congress? Get off the couch, show up and flipping vote. And don't just show once in a while: show up when it's inconvenient, show up for years, put up with the nonsense, work to get things changed.
And while you're at it, learn what you're talking about--but that takes work too, and judging by the ignorance of too many voters on too many subjects from vaccines to nuclear weapons...
One fundamental example: the Bill of Rights isn't up for a simple vote, and a darn good thing too. Moreover, it's protected by an unelected Court that was largely immunized from politics (or was spozed to be!), also a darn good thing.
There are endless examples of why direct democracy can be tyranny, from slavery and Jim Crow on down. And, there are endless examples of how representatives can simply ignore the majority of us: little things like gun control.
Personally, I think ignorance and laziness among voters are bigger threats. Don't like Congress? Get off the couch, show up and flipping vote. And don't just show once in a while: show up when it's inconvenient, show up for years, put up with the nonsense, work to get things changed.
And while you're at it, learn what you're talking about--but that takes work too, and judging by the ignorance of too many voters on too many subjects from vaccines to nuclear weapons...
6
I didn't read all the comments, so someone probably has already said this. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, they will change the rules so that in 2020, there will be 10,000 super delegates, and 1 regular delegate from each state.
2
I know it would never happen, but wouldn't it be interesting to hold a nationwide primary on the same day? We could make it a federal holiday to encourage turnout in early March. I agree that the superdelagate system is as rigged as it can get but I also feel the state by state system creates an equal amount of undemocratic problems.
2
I am a lot more worried about voter I.D. laws (whose clear purpose is to suppress the votes of the poor and minority voters), attacks on early voting, the lack of automatic voter registration systems, and the fact that we have no national holiday for voting than I am about caucuses.
People who are horrified at the idea that you can't hide in a voting booth "in privacy" to vote have obviously never been to an Iowa caucus, and have a very narrow idea of democracy. Caucuses should probably be phased out - but not because they lack "privacy." Caucus states preserve a tradition of neighbors talking to neighbors about important issues. And then, yes, they all go to the BBQ together the next weekend. Really, we do.
People who are horrified at the idea that you can't hide in a voting booth "in privacy" to vote have obviously never been to an Iowa caucus, and have a very narrow idea of democracy. Caucuses should probably be phased out - but not because they lack "privacy." Caucus states preserve a tradition of neighbors talking to neighbors about important issues. And then, yes, they all go to the BBQ together the next weekend. Really, we do.
1
Funny how avoiding another Jimmy Carter is what the Democratic party wants. That man was and is one of the few honest, forward thinking, humanitarians American politics has seen in a generation.
The Democratic big-wigs act just like all big money folk. They do not want to acknowledge the condition the world is really in as it would impede profits.
Had the Democrats been able to rally around Carter back in the 70's todays world would be a different world.
Carter asked us to put on sweaters instead of being the money bags for the Saudi's and OPEC.
Carter asked us to retain the mileage requirements for our automobile makers so OPEC would not be our puppet-master.
Both of those moves would have meant the Wahhabi sect of Islam practiced by the Saudi's would not have been funded with trillions of dollars allowing funding of the terrorist training camps and spread of radical extremist Madrassas. Americans would not be driving so many low mpg SUV's and worried about gas prices and the multi-national energy companies would not have been so enriched and be owners of legislators and government agencies.
Yes, Democrats, it is a good thing we will never have such a wise, compassionate, forward thinking candidate ever again.
The Democratic big-wigs act just like all big money folk. They do not want to acknowledge the condition the world is really in as it would impede profits.
Had the Democrats been able to rally around Carter back in the 70's todays world would be a different world.
Carter asked us to put on sweaters instead of being the money bags for the Saudi's and OPEC.
Carter asked us to retain the mileage requirements for our automobile makers so OPEC would not be our puppet-master.
Both of those moves would have meant the Wahhabi sect of Islam practiced by the Saudi's would not have been funded with trillions of dollars allowing funding of the terrorist training camps and spread of radical extremist Madrassas. Americans would not be driving so many low mpg SUV's and worried about gas prices and the multi-national energy companies would not have been so enriched and be owners of legislators and government agencies.
Yes, Democrats, it is a good thing we will never have such a wise, compassionate, forward thinking candidate ever again.
6
I like the idea of superdelegates as a potential control mechanism, but I agree that having them come out for a candidate prior to their state even voting is unfair. Ideally, they should not be involved until all states have voted, and then they should support candidates in alignment with the state votes. However, in 2008, many superdelegates pledged for Hillary, but changed sides when it was clear Obama would win. So it is unlikely that this was a factor in how people voted regarding Sanders. I think Hillary also learned from her campaign with Obama on the importance of racking up wins early on.
It should be noted that the first “establishment” ticket after the introduction of superdelegates was Mondale / Ferraro, which won a grand total of the State of Minnesota. Despite going down in flames prior to 1988, Gary Hart would have been the preferable candidate in 1984.
I’m sorry that Mr. Blow prefers coronations to actual debate on issues, but I argue that insurgent candidates prepare a candidate for the general election in a way that mass superdelegate approval does not.
I’m sorry that Mr. Blow prefers coronations to actual debate on issues, but I argue that insurgent candidates prepare a candidate for the general election in a way that mass superdelegate approval does not.
1
To find out the difference between primaries and caucus, check out the results from Texas. We have an unusual system of both primaries and caucuses - the delegates actually get selected during the caucuses! Clinton won the primaries by almost 460,000 votes, but ended up with far fewer pledged delegates at the end of the day. The caucuses were messy, long affairs well into the night - mostly populated by marginalized party insiders that backed Sanders just like they backed Nader in the past and gave the country Bush, Iraq, the great recession, Wall street etc.
5
Was it the caucus system that helped Senator Sanders, or was it, generally speaking, the vast support that Sanders had in states that used that system?
I'd appreciate it if the author could edit his article with that crucial bit of information. Ironically he did note what voters tend to be excluded by caucuses. Overall they looked likely to prefer Sanders, imo.
I'd appreciate it if the author could edit his article with that crucial bit of information. Ironically he did note what voters tend to be excluded by caucuses. Overall they looked likely to prefer Sanders, imo.
2
Anyone who has taken part in a caucus will realize the absurdity of this bending to the 'pressure of the community' comment — this last caucus I attended was messy and sprawling, yes, but people on both sides got in a room and expressed their opinions intelligently. Of course mail in ballots are more sensible and democratic (in Colorado we used to have this process before it was scotched by the Republican congress, supposedly to save money) but the implication that caucuses favor Bernie because his supporters are somehow pressuring their fellow citizens to vote for him? Give me a break. This is just another false equivalency column: super-delegates, good for Hillary, caucuses, good for Bernie. See, they're both wrong!
The paramount principle of any democracy is voting equality. The outrage, evident to all, is that the whole process is undemocratic.
Yet,almost nobody,in the media or the political class,dares to mention it because of the vested interest that this campaign,i.e.entertainment,
provides.
America,when compared with other countries,is an infant democracy. It relies on eighteen century's rules and principles that have no place in our times. Any adult can choose a candidate in, if not days, a few weeks. To hold an election during 20 months is frivolous and ridiculous. Unless you are in media or a political insider, in which case it is manna from heaven.
That this,or any other, election is rigged, is obvious. Yet, nobody is standing up to provide a solution. We are told that, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. So,stop telling us what we know. Have the courage to propose a democratic reform that will promote democratic equality.
Yet,almost nobody,in the media or the political class,dares to mention it because of the vested interest that this campaign,i.e.entertainment,
provides.
America,when compared with other countries,is an infant democracy. It relies on eighteen century's rules and principles that have no place in our times. Any adult can choose a candidate in, if not days, a few weeks. To hold an election during 20 months is frivolous and ridiculous. Unless you are in media or a political insider, in which case it is manna from heaven.
That this,or any other, election is rigged, is obvious. Yet, nobody is standing up to provide a solution. We are told that, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. So,stop telling us what we know. Have the courage to propose a democratic reform that will promote democratic equality.
1
I agree that the system is convoluted and largely undemocratic, however, Mr Blow is talking about the primaries, not the general election. The DNC is not a public organization. They make there own rules and can send who they want as a nominee. There is nothing wrong with that. People can choose to be a member of the democratic party or not. In one sense, the primay process is helpful in that it allows for trends to develop and for candidates to earn their worth throughout a long process. It gives guys like Bernie a chance.
What Mr. Blow and others at the NYT should be far more angry about is how undemocratic the election process as a whole has become. Not just because of Citizen's United, but because of how, since well before that unfortunate decision, large donors and corporations have bought and paid for politicians to do their bidding. This is what makes the system broken, not the primary process.
What Mr. Blow and others at the NYT should be far more angry about is how undemocratic the election process as a whole has become. Not just because of Citizen's United, but because of how, since well before that unfortunate decision, large donors and corporations have bought and paid for politicians to do their bidding. This is what makes the system broken, not the primary process.
1
The super delegate system needs to go. It is a system designed to be intentionally undemocratic. The party elites think they should have the right to control the process, just in case the "ignorant" electorate doesn't agree with them. Times have changed. There is more voter awareness as a result of a more expansive, immediate, and diversified media coverage. The same argument applies to the caucus system. This isn't needed anymore. I would be surprised if a lot of people didn't vote due to the time involved in an unnecessary process.
56
u too easily ignore the ignorance of the electorate, i.e. southern republicans consistently voting against their economic interests.
One of the issues this article does not address is the Debbie Wasserman Schultz's rigging of the campaign in HRC's favor, by limiting the number of debates and having the few debates at the outset of the campaign scheduled at times when voters are least likely to watch them. The adjective I hear most frequently from voters in conjunction with the DNC is "corrupt," and I have no argument against that. There is plenty of evidence that indicates if the DNC had scheduled the number of televised debates that had been scheduled in 2008, and at times when people would have been likely to watch, HRC would not have the kind of lead she now has over Sanders.
As for caucuses, we need to keep in mind that voting for a presidential candidate is one of several items on a caucus agenda. I love attending the caucuses in Minneapolis, because people talk about the issues that are really important to them. However, I am concerned about all those people who cannot attend because of work hours, children, or health issues, so I do favor primaries. It would be wonderful if somehow the primary and caucus systems could be combined.
As for caucuses, we need to keep in mind that voting for a presidential candidate is one of several items on a caucus agenda. I love attending the caucuses in Minneapolis, because people talk about the issues that are really important to them. However, I am concerned about all those people who cannot attend because of work hours, children, or health issues, so I do favor primaries. It would be wonderful if somehow the primary and caucus systems could be combined.
1
My thanks to Mr. Blow for addressing one of the greatest un-democratic issues facing the formerly (but no longer) progressive party: Super-Delegates. This is arguably the most un-democratic part of our election process, and the party who claims to represent working people should be ashamed and embarrassed about how this process has been rigged to support the incumbents and party chosen, regardless of the will and preferences of the voting public.
Caucuses have their own problems, but they pale in comparison to the blatantly unfair nature of Super Delegates. It is time for the party to either discontinue all of these anti-democratic processes, or die a painful death of their own making.
In any case, the people are waking up. Neither party actually cares at all about the concerns of most working Americans, which means the future will bring new parties and new candidates who actually care about all working Americans. This is already happening in 2016, but the newspaper of record doesn't really want this kind of change any more than the Democratic Leadership. Each coming election cycle will demonstrate greater evidence that the newly awakened voting population will no longer quietly support the plutocrats and oligarchs, currently represented by both the Democratic and GOP leadership.
Caucuses have their own problems, but they pale in comparison to the blatantly unfair nature of Super Delegates. It is time for the party to either discontinue all of these anti-democratic processes, or die a painful death of their own making.
In any case, the people are waking up. Neither party actually cares at all about the concerns of most working Americans, which means the future will bring new parties and new candidates who actually care about all working Americans. This is already happening in 2016, but the newspaper of record doesn't really want this kind of change any more than the Democratic Leadership. Each coming election cycle will demonstrate greater evidence that the newly awakened voting population will no longer quietly support the plutocrats and oligarchs, currently represented by both the Democratic and GOP leadership.
1
Parties are not governments. They are organizations. And while their electoral functions preclude them from denying the right to vote to people on certain bases (race, e.g.), they can be undemocratic in other ways: primaries vs. caucuses, open vs. closed party voting, awarding delegates proportionally vs. winner-take-all, having many vs few superdelegates, etc.
Superdelegates help prevent a party from nominating a candidate who is favored by a plurality or slim majority of a party's voters but by only a minority of the general electorate. And while Republicans in fact do have some superdelegates (though they are not called that), their party leaders undoubtedly wish they had far more of them.
Back in the day, when state party chairmen held great sway over how delegates voted, the question such chairmen asked was "Will this candidate help or hurt the party ticket in my state?" And while that approach could lead to parochial divisions at a convention, it also meant that demagogues (like Trump) or inflexible ideologues (like Cruz) would not have a ghost of a chance of being nominated.
The issue superdelegates at the Democratic convention have to decide (assuming Clinton does not have an outright majority of the pledged delegates), is which candidate is more likely to retain the presidency for the Democrats and has big enough coat tails to win control the Senate as well. That, to me, is a perfectly reasonable function.
Superdelegates help prevent a party from nominating a candidate who is favored by a plurality or slim majority of a party's voters but by only a minority of the general electorate. And while Republicans in fact do have some superdelegates (though they are not called that), their party leaders undoubtedly wish they had far more of them.
Back in the day, when state party chairmen held great sway over how delegates voted, the question such chairmen asked was "Will this candidate help or hurt the party ticket in my state?" And while that approach could lead to parochial divisions at a convention, it also meant that demagogues (like Trump) or inflexible ideologues (like Cruz) would not have a ghost of a chance of being nominated.
The issue superdelegates at the Democratic convention have to decide (assuming Clinton does not have an outright majority of the pledged delegates), is which candidate is more likely to retain the presidency for the Democrats and has big enough coat tails to win control the Senate as well. That, to me, is a perfectly reasonable function.
5
Correction in last paragraph: {assuming Clinton hasn't already clinched the nomination with pledged delegates alone)
Every now and then, Charles, the planets align and I am in complete agreement with you.
How anyone can talk about voting rights, and castigate the Republicans for trying to restrict voting and then be the beneficiary of the Superdelegate system boggles the mind. It also is part of the reason that Hillary has such an honesty problem.
How anyone can talk about voting rights, and castigate the Republicans for trying to restrict voting and then be the beneficiary of the Superdelegate system boggles the mind. It also is part of the reason that Hillary has such an honesty problem.
4
Superdelegates vs Causises whatever but what is important is to have a Democrat in the White house.
Bernie Sanders is a politicians and a very shrewd one and playing politics attacking Hillary Clinton with similar games that Republicans are notorious for.
Spread exaggerated and some manufactured stories on her which then the media circulates for ratings.
Bernie Sanders is a politicians and a very shrewd one and playing politics attacking Hillary Clinton with similar games that Republicans are notorious for.
Spread exaggerated and some manufactured stories on her which then the media circulates for ratings.
6
Superdelegates are an undemocratic tool to favor the "establishment" candidate - yes, certainly.
But why link Sanders to caucuses? They don't automatically favor any type of candidate, do they?
And, he has no special "back-room" connection to the folks who run the caucuses.
But why link Sanders to caucuses? They don't automatically favor any type of candidate, do they?
And, he has no special "back-room" connection to the folks who run the caucuses.
1
Hillary Clinton is an oligarch.
The Democratic Primary race has been a sham since her nomination was preordained.
She traded political favors for cash while Secretary of State violating all ethics but solidifying the power of her political machine.
The Democratic Primary race has been a sham since her nomination was preordained.
She traded political favors for cash while Secretary of State violating all ethics but solidifying the power of her political machine.
5
Mr. Blow, thank you very much for bringing this issue up. I plan on voting Democratic in November, for either Clinton or Sanders. I think they would both make good presidents. However, If Bernie Sanders wins the plurality of votes cast in the Democratic primaries, but loses the nomination because of how the superdelegates vote, I will not vote for Clinton. I hope she does not win the nomination this way.
Eric Schubert
Chattanooga, TN
Eric Schubert
Chattanooga, TN
133
Hillary Clinton did not personally craft the Super Delegate system. Mr. Sanders (who is, himself, a super delegate) knew the rules when he decided to run as a Democrat and not as an independent. And Tad Devine (Sander's campaign manager) was directly involved in setting up the SD system in the first place.
To suggest that you won't vote for Mrs, Clinton if she wins by the rules is not only silly, it's grossly unfair to her. She is not the devil here.
To suggest that you won't vote for Mrs, Clinton if she wins by the rules is not only silly, it's grossly unfair to her. She is not the devil here.
2
Let's just keep in mind that Clinton is also well ahead in PLEDGED delegates and the popular vote. The idea that Sanders would be the people's choice but the superdelegates would override their wishes has no factual basis thus far. Clinton has been the people's choice. This may be a hard fact for some people to stomach, but the idea that a Clinton nomination wouldn't represent the will of the people is absolute garbage and largely media spin.
4
So you would penalize the nation to express your dissatisfaction with the party? Nose, please depart from face.
3
As un-Democratic as the Electoral College. And as un-Democratic as the Constitution's 3/5th rule counting slaves as citizens for the the purposes of setting representation in the House of Representatives.
10
Every one always seems to forget that it was the abolitionists who insisted on the 3/5 rule to restrict the representation of the slave states in Congress. Slave owners wanted the slaves counted as a full person.
1
The 3/5 rules didn't count slaves as citizens only as counted in the census as residing in a district. That's one of the reasons for the 14th amendment, to make sure that they and the native peoples were counted as citizens.
The electoral college serves a purpose. It ensures that candidates show some attention to states other than California, New York, Ohio and Florida.
The electoral college serves a purpose. It ensures that candidates show some attention to states other than California, New York, Ohio and Florida.
While the latter sin against democracy ended with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865, the former is still with us. The best chance to end the impact of the Electoral College can be found in the National Popular Vote movement. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
"People should be free to vote with their conscience — and in private! — and feel no pressure whatsoever to bend to the consensus of the community." But I get daily FB requests and emails from the Democratic Party asking me to declare myself NOW very publicly. I suppose it's no more a permanent commitment than the endorsements of super-candidates, but it feels like a violation of the concept of the secret ballot. I wish they'd stop.
41
There's a little button at the bottom of the email that says "unsubscribe". Click it.
2
Finally a Blow column I can agree with completely and it's past April 1.
Clearly caucuses favor the committed and the available, so zealots can effectively engineer wins for the insurgent candidate. In my view both parties should do away with them. However, elections require poll workers and locao government participation, so I expect that caucuses, run by volunteers, are less expensive.
The superdelegate question is a conundrum. If the Republicans had the same system then the danger of a Trump nomination would likely be avoided more easily.
Clearly caucuses favor the committed and the available, so zealots can effectively engineer wins for the insurgent candidate. In my view both parties should do away with them. However, elections require poll workers and locao government participation, so I expect that caucuses, run by volunteers, are less expensive.
The superdelegate question is a conundrum. If the Republicans had the same system then the danger of a Trump nomination would likely be avoided more easily.
7
At the start of the campaign season, I would have argued that the rules allowing superdelegates should be changed at the convention. (I’m not big on changing the rules in the middle of the game.) But now I’m thinking that the GOP would give its eye teeth to have superdelegates to prevent the hijacking and/or potential destruction of their party by The Donald. Also, as others have pointed out, this is about political parties nominating a standard bearer to represent them in the general election. From that perspective it makes some sense to have party leaders (senators, representatives, governors, etc) have some additional weight in the outcome. That said, I understand a small minority of the SDs are lobbyists. The rules should definitely be changed to toss them.
I absolutely agree about the undemocratic nature of the caucuses! The rules committee should require those states to transition to a regular primary vote by a date certain.
Finally Charles didn’t mention this, but I’d really like to see the primaries be closed. Again, this is a political party’s nominating process. Why should independents have a say in who will be the party’s nominee, or worse yet be given an opportunity to engage in “strategic voting”?
I absolutely agree about the undemocratic nature of the caucuses! The rules committee should require those states to transition to a regular primary vote by a date certain.
Finally Charles didn’t mention this, but I’d really like to see the primaries be closed. Again, this is a political party’s nominating process. Why should independents have a say in who will be the party’s nominee, or worse yet be given an opportunity to engage in “strategic voting”?
10
"It’s the height of irony that the caucuses have favored Sanders, the candidate promising to decrease income inequality and fight for higher wages."
Ironic, sure. But you could also read that as a sign that the Democratic voters - even those who have the luxury of taking a day from work to participate in the political process - really do care about the disadvantaged. Can anyone imagine anything like this happening in the Republican process? I can't.
Ironic, sure. But you could also read that as a sign that the Democratic voters - even those who have the luxury of taking a day from work to participate in the political process - really do care about the disadvantaged. Can anyone imagine anything like this happening in the Republican process? I can't.
2
Super delegates are largely elected officials. That means they have faced the will of the voters in their states or districts, often multiple times. A delegate chosen by a single day of voting in a primary or caucus is not inherently a more democratic selection than a delegate who has been elected to political office, often by millions more voters than participate in a primary—or especially, for the reasons Blow notes, in a caucus.
117
When I vote for, say, a congressman, it is not my intention to have that person speak for me on who should be the party's presidential candidate.
1
Well, we used to let the State's legislators choose Senators, using that admittedly logical line of reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#History
"Before the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures. Problems with repeated vacant seats due to the inability of a legislature to elect senators, intrastate political struggles, and even bribery and intimidation had gradually led to a growing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators."
Bribery and intimidation, huh, wonder what it feels like to be a superdelegate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#History
"Before the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures. Problems with repeated vacant seats due to the inability of a legislature to elect senators, intrastate political struggles, and even bribery and intimidation had gradually led to a growing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators."
Bribery and intimidation, huh, wonder what it feels like to be a superdelegate?
To understand this, I guess I'll try to think of political parties to be similar to workers' unions: organizing to create a powerful and cohesive group. I can see the value in the latter--with a union, i don't have to understand and confront every issue, and common interests are fought for.
With politics, shouldn't the same be true? But because we vote for individuals instead of policies, issues quickly become personalities, soundbites...electability. I guess I think the problem is deeper than how party politics is fought, and in our election process as well as our (increasingly) all or nothing policy building.
With politics, shouldn't the same be true? But because we vote for individuals instead of policies, issues quickly become personalities, soundbites...electability. I guess I think the problem is deeper than how party politics is fought, and in our election process as well as our (increasingly) all or nothing policy building.
1
Bad math, Mr. Blow.
30% of the delegates needed to win the nomination is 15% of total delegates, not 1/3. A candidate with all of the superdelegates in their corner would still need to win 41% of elected delegates to get the nomination.
If it were truly 1/3 of the delegates as you state then a candidate would only need to win 25% of the elected delegates, very different.
If the Democrats were facing what the Republicans are right now, except with good candidates fighting a maniac insurgent, I would be thankful for the superdelegates who could diffuse a candidate with a 35% plurality that caps out at 40% against anyone else.
30% of the delegates needed to win the nomination is 15% of total delegates, not 1/3. A candidate with all of the superdelegates in their corner would still need to win 41% of elected delegates to get the nomination.
If it were truly 1/3 of the delegates as you state then a candidate would only need to win 25% of the elected delegates, very different.
If the Democrats were facing what the Republicans are right now, except with good candidates fighting a maniac insurgent, I would be thankful for the superdelegates who could diffuse a candidate with a 35% plurality that caps out at 40% against anyone else.
6
Charles, I agree we should switch to primaries -- toss in automatic registration and expanded ID-less voting hours and I'll be happy. As for Superdelegates, I like them. I find nothing wrong with the Party having a strong say in choosing a candidate - if Donald Trump's rise doesn't prove that, I don't know what will. I also appreciate the early declarations from the Superdelegates: those less informed about the candidates might very well benefit from the Party's pick. Nothing wrong with that.
6
Caucuses are silly and totally unnecessary. Like so many other unnecessary hurdles in the American system they make it more difficult to vote than it needs to be. Make voting digital, give people a broad space of time in which to vote, get rid of the electoral college and delegates of all kinds. Whomever receives the most votes wins. It doesn't have to be that complicated!
2
Charles your column and whatever pressure you and the press want to bring on our election system is best served when there are no elections.
You failed to mention that Tad Devine, Sanders campaign manager, was one of the architects of the super delegate system. You can't change the rules mid game because you are not ahead in the game. Foul.
Personally I would like winner takes all and whomever gets the most votes is the winner. That is not the system we have and now is not the time to change the rules of the game. By all means let Democrats put pressure on the party to change the system after this election cycle. I am deeply concerned that people who oppose Hillary deliberately smear her with trying to rig the election because of the super delegates. They didn't help her in 2008 and may not necessarily help her this election.
Sanders chose to run as a Democrat knowing the rules because he thought he would have a better chance running as a Democrat than an Independent. Fine. He is just an opportunist as others have accused Clinton of being but he doesn't get labeled as an opportunist. His supporters boasts about all the caucus states he won and because he won see nothing wrong in the system. Go figure.
You failed to mention that Tad Devine, Sanders campaign manager, was one of the architects of the super delegate system. You can't change the rules mid game because you are not ahead in the game. Foul.
Personally I would like winner takes all and whomever gets the most votes is the winner. That is not the system we have and now is not the time to change the rules of the game. By all means let Democrats put pressure on the party to change the system after this election cycle. I am deeply concerned that people who oppose Hillary deliberately smear her with trying to rig the election because of the super delegates. They didn't help her in 2008 and may not necessarily help her this election.
Sanders chose to run as a Democrat knowing the rules because he thought he would have a better chance running as a Democrat than an Independent. Fine. He is just an opportunist as others have accused Clinton of being but he doesn't get labeled as an opportunist. His supporters boasts about all the caucus states he won and because he won see nothing wrong in the system. Go figure.
8
The last count I saw had Clinton with 469 superdelgates to Sanders 31! Clearly, as both Clinton and Sanders say, "The system is rigged." Unfortunately, it's rigged for Clinton who is being aided and abetted by DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Your analysis of primary v. caucus states misses an very important point: most of Sec. Clinton's primary victories came in the South where the Sanders campaign did not fully compete. Nor will those solid red states matter in the general election as Sec. Clinton will not win there. In the states that DO matter, Sen. Sanders has been much stronger and scored more victories. What the Bernie voters are starting to realize is the we unfortunately have an un-Democratic Party that may field a flawed, establishment candidate most vulnerable to Donald Trump.
3
It seems that the Republican party has become more open and innovative that the Democrats. The "coronation" of Clinton is shameful and illuminates clearly the hubris of the party establishment.
3
Not at all true. The Republican party is far worse. The Democrats allocate delegates proportionately - instead of the different accounting method for every state used by Republicans. They also have uncommitted delegates, who are nothing but superdelegates. Check out the NYT article about how Trump may have fewer delegates in many states that he actually won! Both parties need to improve their systems to become more democratic, more so for the Republicans.
1
illuminates clearly the hubris of the party establishment.
==================
As well as the manipulation of the news by the media
==================
As well as the manipulation of the news by the media
I don't agree with the statement that sAnders is nothing if not an insurgent. Does Blow mean that if anyone should date to challenge who the party puts up in the primary, they are merely an insurgent.? That certainly doesn't sound like what democracy is supposed to be. Why shouldn't an alternate candidate be able to challenge the party favorite? Should we all just sit back and let the party close our leaders?
Blow is railing against the unfairness that 30 percent of the nominating votes go to the super delegates, yet he doesn't want anyone to challenge the party choice. You can't have it both ways. And I don't want the party to decide that I have only one choice in the primary.
Perhaps Blow should explain how there could be a challenger in the primary who would not be considered an insurgent.
Blow is railing against the unfairness that 30 percent of the nominating votes go to the super delegates, yet he doesn't want anyone to challenge the party choice. You can't have it both ways. And I don't want the party to decide that I have only one choice in the primary.
Perhaps Blow should explain how there could be a challenger in the primary who would not be considered an insurgent.
Just like pregnancy, you can't be just a little bit democratic. We either trust the people to make the right decisions or we agree with the founding fathers that the people cannot be so trusted. The people elected Harry Truman despite the establishments predictions, Teddy Roosevelt was thought to be totally unprepared for the presidency until he ended up on Mt. Rushmore and since most people don't even bother to vote, we have a lot of nerve criticizing other countries for their lack of democratic processes. The people voted for Al Gore and the Supreme Court thought they knew better. How did that work out for us?
2
Mr Blow your article supports the premise some American non-voters have about our election system. I have registered hundreds of young people,mostly high school seniors. Thank goodness they haven't delveloped negative attitudes about the voting process,at this stage of life. Older adults, many who were drafted during the Vietman War era,have no interest in voting. Many believe the system to be rigged.
Fortunately, the two undemocratic aspects tend to cancel each other out. At least the Democrats have proportional rep in their delegate allocation rather than winner take all like many GOP contests. Republicans would never be confused with democrats; look at their voting procedures and their gerrymandering of House and state legislative districts.
First, the Democratic Party -- as Will Rogers famously pointed out -- is not an organized political party. it is a coalition of interest groups who do a lot of pushing and shoving as they struggle to work together.
Second, the purpose of a political party is to win office and govern successfully. The "lifers" (superdelegates) and the "true believers" (caucus goers) have to be accommodated. So, incidentally, do the people who put up the money.
The donkey in the room, of course, is why people who are not registered Democrats -- let alone party members -- get to choose the party's nominee. Please don't tell me independents are "shut out." All you have to do is register.
Please don't tell me it should be "one-person-one-vote." That is a right guaranteed to us in the election of our government, not in a political party. Don't like the process? Please go ahead and form your own party.
Second, the purpose of a political party is to win office and govern successfully. The "lifers" (superdelegates) and the "true believers" (caucus goers) have to be accommodated. So, incidentally, do the people who put up the money.
The donkey in the room, of course, is why people who are not registered Democrats -- let alone party members -- get to choose the party's nominee. Please don't tell me independents are "shut out." All you have to do is register.
Please don't tell me it should be "one-person-one-vote." That is a right guaranteed to us in the election of our government, not in a political party. Don't like the process? Please go ahead and form your own party.
9
With Hillary getting elected President of the United States, we have an opportunity to watch a woman hit the ground running as she leaves Bill to pick out the china and drapes.
For the first time in this country a woman will ascend to a station where 'girls' will finally have a role model who hasn't been relegated to the kitchen so she can be seen, 'cleaning up spills" or hanging out in the laundry room making sure the family will benefit from her choosing the right Fabric Softner, the one with that "Fresh Scent.'
This is there time for women to stand up and be counted. And it wasn't Title IX that got Hillary to this point in our nation. She's been hammering away at that glass ceiling for her entire adult life.
Bernie Sanders hightailed it to Vermont, a safe white enclave of whites, over 94% white. And this is a state of just 600,000. He's been there his whole adult life, living in a very low-key state of just 600,000 constituents. And he's a Socialist. The Republican Party is sitting at the table with fork and knife in hand just waiting for the feeding to begin. They'll define him for what he is, inexperienced, naive, uninformed, and not fit to run the country. He wear the'r labels of him like a stinky fish around his neck.
For the first time in this country a woman will ascend to a station where 'girls' will finally have a role model who hasn't been relegated to the kitchen so she can be seen, 'cleaning up spills" or hanging out in the laundry room making sure the family will benefit from her choosing the right Fabric Softner, the one with that "Fresh Scent.'
This is there time for women to stand up and be counted. And it wasn't Title IX that got Hillary to this point in our nation. She's been hammering away at that glass ceiling for her entire adult life.
Bernie Sanders hightailed it to Vermont, a safe white enclave of whites, over 94% white. And this is a state of just 600,000. He's been there his whole adult life, living in a very low-key state of just 600,000 constituents. And he's a Socialist. The Republican Party is sitting at the table with fork and knife in hand just waiting for the feeding to begin. They'll define him for what he is, inexperienced, naive, uninformed, and not fit to run the country. He wear the'r labels of him like a stinky fish around his neck.
14
I have trouble with the characterization of Bernie Sanders as "inexperienced". Bernie has been active in Washington for quite a few years, House and Senate. He's been privy to all sorts of debates, domestic and foreign. I'm in favor of his candidacy because he is pointing the way to a more just society. Even Hillary Clinton's goals are much more incremental when I feel we have to undo the damage of the last several decades.
1
Sorry, but this comment has a tinge of nastiness about it not sure if it a gender or some other perceived issue on the part of the writer, but nevertheless disappointing to read and digest.
Hillary only got where she is because she was married to "The President".
1
The general election must be democratic.
Political parties are private organisations, and may run any candidate, chosen by any method. There is no reason why that method must be democratic.
Political parties are private organisations, and may run any candidate, chosen by any method. There is no reason why that method must be democratic.
5
I suppose a column like this is necessary--there are so many low-information voters and even low-information New York Times readers--but there is nothing new here. Blow talks about superdelegates and caucuses, but these are far from the only undemocratic aspects of the nominating processes of BOTH parties. Consider first of all that the primaries all have different rules. Some states have early voting. Some have voting by mail. Some primaries are "open," meaning that any registered voter may participate, so that in a GOP primary, for example, independents and even Democrats may "cross over" and influence the Republican contest; other primaries are "closed" to all but registered party members. Consider also that some primaries and caucuses come very early in the cycle; this means that voters in, say, Iowa and New Hampshire have less information about the candidates than voters in New York and California. And caucuses in particular disenfranchise anyone whose work or other responsibilities preclude participation.
The upshot is that those who complain about the superdelegate system as being unfair are rather missing the point. There is virtually nothing democratic about our primary-and-caucus system, it's been this way for decades, and the only way to change it is to put pressure on party leaders to do so. Waiting until an election year to complain about it is too little and way too late.
The upshot is that those who complain about the superdelegate system as being unfair are rather missing the point. There is virtually nothing democratic about our primary-and-caucus system, it's been this way for decades, and the only way to change it is to put pressure on party leaders to do so. Waiting until an election year to complain about it is too little and way too late.
13
The idea of giving independent voters a say by having open primaries makes a great deal of sense. These are people who can determine the outcome of an election. The issue of voters from one party sabatoging the other party's primary is unsubstantiated.
1
@David: I did not object to independents' being allowed to vote in primaries, nor did I complain about crossover voters' "sabatoging" (or even sabotaging) primaries. I merely pointed out that these things can happen in some primaries but not in others. The point is that primary rules are wildly inconsistent.
1
gtodon - did you read last week's NYT about people who point out other people's typos? As a friend of mine says, small keyboard bumpy road.
Our "party system" is a hybrid that no longer works democratically, if it ever did. Shouldn't we examine the parliamentary system which effectively gives the relevant party's the choice of selecting candidates, doing away with the primary system. Consider direct voting, no primary and no state voting restrictions applicable to federal candidates only.
1
This, of course, would require that we throw the Constitution out and start over. Maybe we can get the tooth fairy to help.
1
I'm aware of this fact. The Constitution gave the decision to the states the ability to determine election rules. Unless we amend the Constitution we are stuck with an election system which will always be far from perfect, as if we could ever devise a workable system that would be acceptable to everyone. More crucial would be a way to convince more people to vote. 50%??
So, in the less democratic caucuses where less voters participate, Sanders has won. In the more democratic primaries, where more voters participate, Clinton has won. And superdelegates are voting for the candidate who is winning more voters in the more democratic primaries. And this is a problem why?
17
If the superdelegates vote like the rest of us why are they needed?
1
I come from NH where we have a primary, but many rural towns have Town Meeting in the spring to vote on municipal issues. These are becoming more scarce as many towns are becoming SB2 towns. What we are finding, though, is when we have Town Meetings, people get up and talk about the issues, the pros and cons of conserving 100 acres of land or buying two new police cruisers. Then we vote by raising our voter cards. This isn't as crazy as a caucus (I've never participated, but have seen the YouTubes), but equally transparent and open.
Now that most towns are SB2 and we just vote in the voting booth, people are less informed about the issues, but more people are voting. The result is less people vote "Yes" to conserve the land because they aren't hearing how that actually saves money for the town.
So Caucuses may be both more Democratic and less Democratic. I've seen the lines of voters in Arizona, and I've seen the lines of voters in Portland to enter the caucus. I think regardless of which one you have you need to fix the system and ensure that more people participate and are informed.
Now that most towns are SB2 and we just vote in the voting booth, people are less informed about the issues, but more people are voting. The result is less people vote "Yes" to conserve the land because they aren't hearing how that actually saves money for the town.
So Caucuses may be both more Democratic and less Democratic. I've seen the lines of voters in Arizona, and I've seen the lines of voters in Portland to enter the caucus. I think regardless of which one you have you need to fix the system and ensure that more people participate and are informed.
72
The democrat party offers the following choice Hillary or Bernie!
A choice between a candidate who places self above country and one who places government control above freedom. Ladies and Gentleman that is the choice between generational degeneration, Western Europe, or totalitarian domination China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Cuba...
These are not choices they are sentences.
A choice between a candidate who places self above country and one who places government control above freedom. Ladies and Gentleman that is the choice between generational degeneration, Western Europe, or totalitarian domination China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Cuba...
These are not choices they are sentences.
1
A choice between a socialist and a felon
Unlike Bernie Sanders, I am a lifelong Democrat. (I suppose many Republicans have made a similar observation about Trump.) I care a lot about what happens down ticket, I'm not sure Bernie has given it much thought. Why would he?
A political party involves a lot more than putting forward a Presidential candidate every 4 years. I have no problem with Bernie finding it convenient to run as a Dem but no, you can't just expect to parachute in and change all the rules. As for all the bigwigs, some years ago I was chatting with the crossing guard at my local school. She told me she was going to the convention as a delegate. I was so proud of my party!
A political party involves a lot more than putting forward a Presidential candidate every 4 years. I have no problem with Bernie finding it convenient to run as a Dem but no, you can't just expect to parachute in and change all the rules. As for all the bigwigs, some years ago I was chatting with the crossing guard at my local school. She told me she was going to the convention as a delegate. I was so proud of my party!
6
What a load of false equivalents!
1 Clintons hold on supers is not the same as Sander's success in caucuses. The former based on political contrivance and deal making, while the latter is the decision of voters beholding to neither candidate.
2 The primaries Clinton had most of her success in are southern states that a Democrat won't carry in the general election anyway! Not all primaries are EQUAL!
1 Clintons hold on supers is not the same as Sander's success in caucuses. The former based on political contrivance and deal making, while the latter is the decision of voters beholding to neither candidate.
2 The primaries Clinton had most of her success in are southern states that a Democrat won't carry in the general election anyway! Not all primaries are EQUAL!
2
Upon further review, it is plain that the 1980 election (and the Carter administration) were not the Democratic disasters the party believed at the time; instead the election was stolen by traitors working to install Reagan by making illegal deals with Iran, a practice they continued once in office.
Vermont's Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin was just interviewed on statewide public radio saying the superdelegates would probably vote for the candidate with the larger national popular vote in the primaries. Until then he'd been saying he was in Hillary's column, regardless of Bernie's 86% result in Vermont.
Vermont's Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin was just interviewed on statewide public radio saying the superdelegates would probably vote for the candidate with the larger national popular vote in the primaries. Until then he'd been saying he was in Hillary's column, regardless of Bernie's 86% result in Vermont.
Let's go one step further and do away with the Electoral College as well. An election based strictly on the popular vote is as close to a true democracy as possible. A biased Supreme Court appointed George Bush as president. Sixteen years, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, an unstable Middle East, trillions of dollars wasted and the birth of ISIS later is the price we've all had to pay for an antiquated system that was originally designed to favor the powerful over the ordinary citizen.
6
I really like Charles Blow but he seems to be missing the irony of his position on super delegates. Their main strength is that they can act as a brake on highly undesirable candidates such as Donald Trump. Not that Democratic primary voters would likely ever turn to an ignorant misogynist, xenophobic bigot to lead them and the country but, then again, demagogues come in all shapes and sizes and sometimes it's all too easy to appeal to people's fears and anxieties. In such an environment the Donald Trumps of the world flourish.
I'm certainly not saying that there is no room for improvement in the Democratic presidential nominee selection process. But right now I'm sure there are many in the GOP who wish they had the same fail safe in place.
I'm certainly not saying that there is no room for improvement in the Democratic presidential nominee selection process. But right now I'm sure there are many in the GOP who wish they had the same fail safe in place.
3
Bernie is a vote against the Democratic leadership. The concept of super delegates needs to be eliminated. This will cause the leadership to pay more attention to the citizen base.
While we are at it do away with Citizens United
While we are at it do away with Citizens United
2
Yes, Charles Blow, superdelegates are outrageously unDemocratic. An establishment structure that equates a single establishment vote with thousands of citizen votes is beyond criminal, beyond unjust, downright unfair! That superdelegates can declare their premature loyalty before voting has end is grotesque! Crooked! Mrs. Clinton has already enlisted 359 superdelegates to her support. And the restricted and limited voting hours at the Primaries and Caucuses have caused havoc with low-wage workers who have slim to no control over their schedules which effectively bar them from voting. Caucuses should be eliminated in favor of Primaries where voters have privacy in the voting booth instead of being influenced by the peer pressure of their community at the caucus. So much, including superdelegates and caucuses should be eliminated from the nominating process of Democrats (and Republicans) as the Big Tent of American presidential politics leaves the true voters, the least advantaged voters, outside - while the clowns and ringmaster inside garner unfair and crooked nominations, Charles, your take on the "(Un) Democratic Party is right as rain!
Blow seems to ignore that super delegates likely will support the candidate(s) that are significantly invested into the Democratic Party, which Clinton is. Unlike the Sanders campaign, Clinton's actively supports, and consistently has supported, Democratic candidates for Congress, while Sanders apparently is seen as more committed to his own revolutionary movement.
So, why, then, should the "party elites" favor someone who likely is perceived as a Democrat of convenience who hasn't shown much interest in much of the party's broader agenda?
So, why, then, should the "party elites" favor someone who likely is perceived as a Democrat of convenience who hasn't shown much interest in much of the party's broader agenda?
2
The democrats need to rethink the entire nomination process. Why is turnout so low, especially when so much is at stake? Would voter turnout increase if you had better candidates, less influence of the DNC and superdelegates and more transparency/openness? Why do we start the primary season with so many red states that are not reflective of the base and are unlikely to be won in the national? Why not start with diverse states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, California or New York? Should caucuses be allowed and, if they are, why is there so much chaos? Why are there so many accusations of election fraud (registration flipping, long lines, insufficient ballots,...) Should primaries be open or closed (certainly many independents would vote for Bernie!)?
Why is turnout so low, especially when so much is at stake?
==============
No one is enthused about the choice between two elderly white people
==============
No one is enthused about the choice between two elderly white people
The president should also stay oit of the process. Only dictators get to chose who will follow them in office.
1
What does that say about Bill Clinton's wife, who never held elected office before he was president, becoming a senator, Secretary of State and now trying to follow him into the presidency? And remember, she also ran in 2008.
1
The superdelegates are a nonissue. If Sanders was winning the pledged delegates and popular vote, his supporters would have good reason to complain. He's doing neither and is not likely to. The abuse hurled at HRC and her supporters has been unprecedented in this democratic voter's memory. While I've spent many months mediating between the two groups I'm no longer of any mind to placate the Sanders people. Celebrating his loss will be more satisfying than her win. You've brought it on yourselves.
7
I have to say that as a Democrat, if a Donald Trump figure were running in my party, I would be thanking my stars for the superdelegates. If there was that much delegate power in the GOP machine, the Trump phenomenon would be dead and buried right now.
The whole system needs to be rethought!
(1) Tax-payer funded campaigns for Senate, House and Presidential candidates!
(2) All districts will be elected by computers with 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Repubs and 1/3 Ind.
(3) The biggest switch would be to a more superior Parliamentary system which would give the President or PM a functioning majority to work with!
(1) Tax-payer funded campaigns for Senate, House and Presidential candidates!
(2) All districts will be elected by computers with 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Repubs and 1/3 Ind.
(3) The biggest switch would be to a more superior Parliamentary system which would give the President or PM a functioning majority to work with!
1
It would truly be outrageous to see the superdelegates go to the candidate who did not achieve the majority vote and the majority of delegates. That's not happening in this cycle.
But I can imagine that the Republicans wish they had something like superdelegates to help derail Trump. And Democrats should be glad they have them too. Sanders, though a bit of a demagogue and former elector of the Marxist Socialist Workers Party, may not be our worst nightmare, but the Republicans would have a field day with him and defeat him easily. We count on our party leaders to head this kind of thing off (unless the author wants to see President Cruz in office).
But I can imagine that the Republicans wish they had something like superdelegates to help derail Trump. And Democrats should be glad they have them too. Sanders, though a bit of a demagogue and former elector of the Marxist Socialist Workers Party, may not be our worst nightmare, but the Republicans would have a field day with him and defeat him easily. We count on our party leaders to head this kind of thing off (unless the author wants to see President Cruz in office).
2
Actually it's pretty smart for democrats to have Super Delegates to prevent a hostile takeover of their party. Witness the ALEC/Koch brothers takeover of the republican party and it's imminent collapse. Yes, all states should have OPEN national primaries where all voters are able to vote for any candidate in any party or non-party. That, and automatic voter registration at the age of 18 as Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton advocates, would be much more democratic than the systems in place now. Americans are fed up with the party polarization and in-fighting and are fighting back in their own way by self-reporting as Independents. According to Gallup, "Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago." We don't want or need to become a "third" party- we are one - and WE can rise above party differences to elect socially conscious people who want to restore democracy in America.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-indepen...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-indepen...
1
Well said, Mr. Blow, but in fact the entire nominating process is a bunch of rubbish. Why is it that the two parties feel compelled to defer to a New Hampshire ordinance that gives it the exclusive "right" to hold the first-in-the- -nation primaries in each election cycle? Who gives Iowa the "right" to hold the first caucuses and a few other relatively small states the authority to determine who the major contenders for President will be in a manner that excludes the rest of America? If "superdelegates" carry more weight than most other voters (and super-affluent voters carry more weight than the poor shlubs who work for them) why muddy the waters of democracy further by allowing the opinions of voters in a handful of states to consistently take precedence over those maintained by the rest of us?
14
Here's another bit of irony Charles Blow might want to reserve for a future column. When Americans finally do go to the polls in November we aren't going to be voting directly for who we want to become president. Instead, we vote for electors who in turn are going to vote for who becomes president for us. The founding fathers feared mob rule and put a lot of buffers in place to make sure ordinary people didn't run amok every four years.
1
iI the US had real member owned and funded political parties it would not have so much crossover sabotage of the opposing party's tickets in primaries, which is the most obvious explanation for the profoundly lousy quality of so many US politicians today.
The whole election process needs some revamping. Caucuses vs primaries? I know the state authorities want to cling to to their political power, but the idea of delegates was designed when people had to travel via horses for days to communicate the people's results. In our technology era where tweets give live action, we hardly need this antiquated system. That goes for the Electoral College as well. Instead of wasting more time on trying to overthrow Roe vs. Wade and Obamacare, couldn't our political geniuses figure out a way to revise our election process so that EVERY American can cast their vote....we then wouldn't need primaries, caucuses and delegates....algorithms, pundits, and elections that take 19 months. I am election weary and we still have seven months to go.
I would love to see us have a direct presidential election....primaries (one person, one vote...all voters eligible) 3 months before the general election.
Our system is compromises our elections -- everyone is trying to find the headline of the day. Want to know how the evil of Trump grew to such proportions? He craves the headlines. We don't need a year of pundits and media telling us who to vote for, who is going to win. LET US VOTE! and let us have votes that count. States that have winner-take-all-delegates doesn't value all votes, Super-Delegates feeds the back-room-boys attitudes of fraudulent elections.
Our electoral system needs more overhaul than just getting rid of Citizens United.
I would love to see us have a direct presidential election....primaries (one person, one vote...all voters eligible) 3 months before the general election.
Our system is compromises our elections -- everyone is trying to find the headline of the day. Want to know how the evil of Trump grew to such proportions? He craves the headlines. We don't need a year of pundits and media telling us who to vote for, who is going to win. LET US VOTE! and let us have votes that count. States that have winner-take-all-delegates doesn't value all votes, Super-Delegates feeds the back-room-boys attitudes of fraudulent elections.
Our electoral system needs more overhaul than just getting rid of Citizens United.
2
Add to the problems described in the article the fact that the media act as an additional "thumb on the scale" by choosing their preferred establishment candidate the ignore others and the whole process is deeply flawed, deeply undemocratic and frankly reeks of insider privilege.
The process is corrupt and so are those who support it. The DNC has no bragging rights about the degree to which it represents the people.
The process is corrupt and so are those who support it. The DNC has no bragging rights about the degree to which it represents the people.
4
In ignoring or trashing the Sanders campaign while being enthralled by Donald Trump to the point where he's the only 'news' covered while many of his rallies have been broadcast live without any critical perspective, the media has been more irresponsible than any other entity in this election, including the two miserable political parties.
1
There should be NATIONAL primaries where voters choose six candidates in no particular order in October.
In December voters choose their top 4.
In March their top 2.
In May they vote for the nominee from those 2. They may also vote "neither" . If "neither" wins a plurality we go to an open convention in June and the delegates decide.
On May 15th we have our nominee. Or we have an open convention on June 30th. On July 4th we have our candidate.
The nominee is not running for the President of Iowa, Texas, or NY. She's running for POTUS-all the people. He won't have to pander to the Corn farmers, or pretend to like corn-dogs, or bagels.
All of the campaigning and debates can go on as before--but no back room deals, super delegates and the rest of it. As we go from six to two candidates, voters can see which of the candidates is getting stronger, which demonstrate fatal weaknesses and who deserves a second or third job interview.
The first National primary should also ask voters to vote Yes or No on a number of issues:
Ban Citizens United?
Raise the Retirement Age for people under 40?
Medicare For All?
Amendment to Balance the Budget?
Background Check for Gun Purchase?
Deport 12 million illegal immigrants?
Democrats should lead the way on this new, small-"d"- democratic system of choosing a presidential candidate. And voters might actually vote and participate.
In December voters choose their top 4.
In March their top 2.
In May they vote for the nominee from those 2. They may also vote "neither" . If "neither" wins a plurality we go to an open convention in June and the delegates decide.
On May 15th we have our nominee. Or we have an open convention on June 30th. On July 4th we have our candidate.
The nominee is not running for the President of Iowa, Texas, or NY. She's running for POTUS-all the people. He won't have to pander to the Corn farmers, or pretend to like corn-dogs, or bagels.
All of the campaigning and debates can go on as before--but no back room deals, super delegates and the rest of it. As we go from six to two candidates, voters can see which of the candidates is getting stronger, which demonstrate fatal weaknesses and who deserves a second or third job interview.
The first National primary should also ask voters to vote Yes or No on a number of issues:
Ban Citizens United?
Raise the Retirement Age for people under 40?
Medicare For All?
Amendment to Balance the Budget?
Background Check for Gun Purchase?
Deport 12 million illegal immigrants?
Democrats should lead the way on this new, small-"d"- democratic system of choosing a presidential candidate. And voters might actually vote and participate.
2
There is no equivalency to the undemoctatic nature of super delegates compared with caucuses. Super delegates bypass the electoral process and can negate the votes of the people whereas caucuses are open to the adherants of both candidates.
2
There are other levels of undemocratic process involved. The very selection of delegates to carry the vote to the convention (like our presidential electoral system), and state conventions to allocate delegates cannot be called true democracy either.
1
How did this article make it past the editor with such a blatant error?
"Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates. That, on its face, is outrageous."
No, they don't. As Mr. Blow said earlier, these 712 Superdelegates make up "30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination," and thus 15 percent of the TOTAL number of delegates (4765). While I agree with most of the argument against superdelegates, let's please get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions.
"Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates. That, on its face, is outrageous."
No, they don't. As Mr. Blow said earlier, these 712 Superdelegates make up "30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination," and thus 15 percent of the TOTAL number of delegates (4765). While I agree with most of the argument against superdelegates, let's please get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions.
4
Oregon recently passed an automatic voter registration law and uses only mail- in ballots. As a result, they have very high voting rates. Eady peasy.
4
I think the real problem is that the Democratic party does not have a deep bench. We started off with only three candidates compared to, well I forget, but a lot of Republicans. The Democrats need to win state races and create a pool of candidates for statewide and national races.
4
We take pride in our Democracy and even like to thrust it on other countries who are absolutely unready of it. If we only paused to consider about our own Democracy. What a sham!! Before the Nomination there are the superdelegates and in the general election we have the electoral colleges. In both, the people's votes i.e the popular vote is inconsequential. The Man/Woman who receives the most votes i.e the front runner may not be the winning Candidate. Only in America!
4
Democracies make compromises. The Democrats use of superdelegates does give them influence to choose a winnable nominee instead of the sometimes less electable peoples choice. If such a system existed on the Republican side, then the "person whose name you can not mention" would have fewer delegates leaving room for some other more winnable choice.
4
I am not sure things are much better in the Republican party when you include what candidates go on to do verses what they promised. My impression is that some make promises popular with their constituents but go on to realize achievements popular with the establishment.
2
I remember in 1984, someone trying to explain to me how it was that Gary Hart won Florida, but Mondale got most of the delegates, and being unable to do it. I wonder now if he really was unable, or just didn't want to admit the embarrassing truth, that 30% of the delegates were there to steal the election from the voters if they thought it necessary.
4
So do I have this correct?
The rules are undemocratic, unfair and unjust? The entire system of picking the individuals that will represent me in my country is corrupt. These individuals will make set economic and social policy and decide who we wage war upon.
Oh my, thank god we what a judicial system to keep this system from going off the rails!
The rules are undemocratic, unfair and unjust? The entire system of picking the individuals that will represent me in my country is corrupt. These individuals will make set economic and social policy and decide who we wage war upon.
Oh my, thank god we what a judicial system to keep this system from going off the rails!
3
The Democratic party should set an example in democracy for the whole world, by getting rid of caucuses, abolishing superdelegates, promoting early voting, and allowing electronic voting. Ultimately, the latter is the most democratic of them all, if done carefully along with voting booths for people who cannot or will not use the ethernet for voting. If we can do our banking online, why can't we vote online?
6
I'm all in favor of superdelegates. If there's a loose canon rolling around the deck, they'll get it tied down. It's not a complicated issue.
Caucuses should be modified: hold the discussions, then vote in private.
It is hardly a fair method, betraying one's right to an unfettered, pressure free experience.
Caucuses should be modified: hold the discussions, then vote in private.
It is hardly a fair method, betraying one's right to an unfettered, pressure free experience.
8
The mechanisms to change the Party rules exist, they're even public. The mechanisms by which to start or support a third party exist. If one is not willing to spend any time on this issue other than screamy rants once every four to eight years, one simply doesn't care enough. However, if one is not engaged in attempting to change the system so that one doesn't have to rant, I won't be listening to the rants.
6
If the superdelegates steal victory from Sanders, Clinton will almost certainly lose owing to disaffection by angry Sanders voters. As presently constituted, the superdelegates serve no function at all. And I agree too that the caucuses are less democratic than the primaries.
Here's the thing -- the primary system has been a disaster that has saddled both parties with inadequate candidates. Just look at Trump.
Primary campaigns have become so lengthy that one almost has to be abnormal to run in them. They require vast sums of money, which makes most candidates (Sanders being a happy exception) beholden to special interests.
What's more, too many primary voters are taken in by the Ted Baxter effect and vote for telegenic idiots.
The smoke-filled room system was never ideal, but let's be honest, it produced much better presidential candidates. The parties and candidates still had to answer to the people in general elections, and while there were some clunkers, we had many good and great presidents as well.
Superdelegates won't work because of voter anger. What we really need is a system that, at this stage, involves less direct democracy, not more, and I can't think of better evidence for that than the caucuses, which, attracting as they do those who are better educated and more politically aware, have broken for Sanders.
Here's the thing -- the primary system has been a disaster that has saddled both parties with inadequate candidates. Just look at Trump.
Primary campaigns have become so lengthy that one almost has to be abnormal to run in them. They require vast sums of money, which makes most candidates (Sanders being a happy exception) beholden to special interests.
What's more, too many primary voters are taken in by the Ted Baxter effect and vote for telegenic idiots.
The smoke-filled room system was never ideal, but let's be honest, it produced much better presidential candidates. The parties and candidates still had to answer to the people in general elections, and while there were some clunkers, we had many good and great presidents as well.
Superdelegates won't work because of voter anger. What we really need is a system that, at this stage, involves less direct democracy, not more, and I can't think of better evidence for that than the caucuses, which, attracting as they do those who are better educated and more politically aware, have broken for Sanders.
1
Whether she loses or not will depend on who the GOP puts up against her. All the candidates are terrible on both sides. Heck, I'm a lifelong Republican but if it's Trump vs. Hillary I might just pull the lever for Hillary.
1
The simple fact is that both parties have problems with non-members of their group trying to manipulate the process. Personally, I saw it first when large numbers of the opposite party tried to flood our precinct caucus to vote for a fringe candidate.
Somehow, each party has to find a way to allow only their own partisans to decide who will represent them--and no political party has found a really good way of doing that.
Somehow, each party has to find a way to allow only their own partisans to decide who will represent them--and no political party has found a really good way of doing that.
67
The solution is pretty simple: Primaries should be used to elect delegates who will pick the nominee at the party convention. But at present no party has been willing to do that because it would be seen as undemocratic.
I'm with you on the caucuses. The process is a disadvantage to the shift worker, whose voice should most definitely be heard.
Superdelagates, not so much. Why shouldn't the people who will be running on the ticket in down ballot races have a say in the selection of the top of the ticket. They will invest a lot of time and energy in the election to come and deserve the right to an emphatic say in the choice of a nominee. There is simply more at stake for them.
Superdelagates, not so much. Why shouldn't the people who will be running on the ticket in down ballot races have a say in the selection of the top of the ticket. They will invest a lot of time and energy in the election to come and deserve the right to an emphatic say in the choice of a nominee. There is simply more at stake for them.
None of what's suggested would be as important as the Democratic Party reducing the role of money in the selection of presidential and congressional candidates by prohibiting every candidate from accepting more than a nominal amount from individual or corporate contributors. We can't do anything to block super PACs from raising money because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United case, but the Democratic Party is not the government and so is presumably not bound by that case.
Not that this is a recent revelation, but I always thought that my vote mattered.
Not so much anymore.
In fact, not at all.
Super Pacs
Super Delegates
Hedge funds that bring a nation to its knees because they bought their bonds on the cheap and want a full refund for merchandise they got at a discount.
America's most venerable newspaper tailors its coverage to improve its stock price.
Becoming a banana republic? Ha, been there for quite a long time.
All that Purple Mountains Majesty and Let Freedom Ring seem such a distant memory; how sad.
Habits die hard, but I'm still gonna vote.
For Bernie.
Not so much anymore.
In fact, not at all.
Super Pacs
Super Delegates
Hedge funds that bring a nation to its knees because they bought their bonds on the cheap and want a full refund for merchandise they got at a discount.
America's most venerable newspaper tailors its coverage to improve its stock price.
Becoming a banana republic? Ha, been there for quite a long time.
All that Purple Mountains Majesty and Let Freedom Ring seem such a distant memory; how sad.
Habits die hard, but I'm still gonna vote.
For Bernie.
1
The principal approach of the Democratic Party to politics is elitist, benevolent but elitist (think of Roosevelt or Kennedy). The party is run by wealthy elites. Sanders is one of the few who rejects this approach and refused to use PACs. He does not have wealthy donors and relies entirely on contributions of citizens. He depends on them, rather than on rich tycoons such as Soros (as Hillary does). Sanders's support comes from citizens who do not look for dole or handouts; they want to be equal partners, not extras, in the political process.
1
For so many, voting in a presidential election becomes practically meaningless due to the realities of electoral college math. We should at least try to make the primary season more transparent. Otherwise, who is the Democratic Party to complain about oligarchy?
1
The real failure of the primary system is low turnout, and those that do bother voting are often activists pushing some agenda not embraced by the party as a whole. I'm pretty sure that super delegates have a better idea of which candidates are more acceptable to the public at large than the few activists who bother to vote in the primaries, and I'm pretty sure that the Republicans, whose party has been hijacked by activists wish they also had super delegates.
If candidates expect to use a political party’s brand, shouldn’t the party be able to determine whether their candidates are representative of the party’s ideals? The superdelegates are essentially brand ambassadors. They aren’t locked into their votes and are as subject to the influence of the electorate as the voters are influenced by them.
The caucus is very time consuming, and at least in my limited experience, changes no-one's mind; everybody voted the way they were thinking when they first arrived. Another issue is the chaotic organization of the caucus. The leader is selected by voice vote and it is pure luck if they know anything about mob control. Vote counting is sloppy. Altogether a huge waste of time, and leading to a dubious counting of votes at the end.
Good article, Mr. Blow. I agree that both super delegates and caucuses distort the selection of a candidate. However, they aren't entirely without merit. It would be nice if there was a way to keep the good but toss the bad.
For example, I'm sure many in the Republican party wish they had super delegates right now. Trump is all but unelectable. It isn't over yet, and maybe he can turn it around, but I don't see how. I think even some Trump voters are starting to realize the problem and are having buyer's remorse. Maybe keep super delegates, but not so many?
Caucuses give people a chance to speak out and interact with other voters. That's about the best thing I can say in their favor. Actually, many voters might prefer to do without that and would rather just go to a polling location and cast their vote. Maybe we could have voter town hall meetings for people who want to interact and leave the voting to primaries.
Another problem that caucuses solve is that some states won't pay for primaries. They claim they're trying to save money, but really this amounts to voter suppression and putting your thumb on the scales of democracy. This should not happen.
For example, I'm sure many in the Republican party wish they had super delegates right now. Trump is all but unelectable. It isn't over yet, and maybe he can turn it around, but I don't see how. I think even some Trump voters are starting to realize the problem and are having buyer's remorse. Maybe keep super delegates, but not so many?
Caucuses give people a chance to speak out and interact with other voters. That's about the best thing I can say in their favor. Actually, many voters might prefer to do without that and would rather just go to a polling location and cast their vote. Maybe we could have voter town hall meetings for people who want to interact and leave the voting to primaries.
Another problem that caucuses solve is that some states won't pay for primaries. They claim they're trying to save money, but really this amounts to voter suppression and putting your thumb on the scales of democracy. This should not happen.
I find it curious that those who claim they are 'sick of politicians' support Bernie, who is the consummate politician rather than Hillary, who is a terrible politician. If Bernie should become president, he will be another in a long line of politicians who promise the sky but are never able to deliver: free education, free health care, please. For those who buy into his promises, let's add the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge. Bernie and Trump supporters have this in common: they're gullible folks.
1
Actually, Colorado's caucuses pick delegates who have expressed a preference for a particular candidate. Those delegates are free to vote for whomever at the County assemblies and State conventions, but they are usually strongly for a particular candidate.
It only takes a few hours of phone banking or canvasing to understand the need to end caucuses. Time after time, people told me they couldn't make it to the caucuses because of mobility issues, often due to age. Similarly, single mothers couldn't leave their children alone for the hours it takes to caucus. Guess who these people planned to vote for? No surprise who wins the caucuses.
Mr Blow would have more credibility if he had not incorrectly asserted that superdelegates make up nearly a third of all delegates, when they make up only almost a sixth of all delegates. Blow should have complained that superdelegates could potentially be as much as a third of a winning candidate's coalition, which would have sufficed for his general point.
Journalists have been constantly trying to make each given primary/caucus bigger by talking about them in terms of the votes needed to win, which lets them double all the percentages. Blow's slip here illustrates how easy it is for even veteran, attentive politicos to be confused by this practice.
Journalists have been constantly trying to make each given primary/caucus bigger by talking about them in terms of the votes needed to win, which lets them double all the percentages. Blow's slip here illustrates how easy it is for even veteran, attentive politicos to be confused by this practice.
The Donkeys are having an orderly selection process in part because the establishment is signaling we want Hillary. Bernie would be worse than Carter. Carter led us to 12 years of a GOP controlled White House that has left us today with Clarence Thomas. Hillary is the true conservative in this race. Super delegates are doing exactly what they were created to do. The Greeks had pure democracy. We never did. We have representative democracy and there was a time we didn't even vote on Senators. The Framers did not completely trust the great unwashed to decide the fate of government. They feared demagogues. When you show me the day where no black person supports Farrakhan or Elijah Muhammad, then you can come and tell me about letting whoever happens to feel like having input on any given day, should decide the future of our great country.
I caucused in Washington State two weeks ago. On a holiday weekend (Easter) at 10 o'clock on a Saturday morning. Were the caucus-attendees representative? No one who traveled for Easter, who had a child involved in a soccer game or Easter egg hunt, or who worked that morning could attend. Terrible.
I have to weigh in on closed primaries. I live in a state, Pennsylvania, that has closed primaries. I have been a registered Democrat since I turned 18 back in 1981. I do not think that non-Democrats should be allowed to select the candidate for my party. (And same, of course, for the GOP). I know that when my own sister moved to PA, she was surprised she couldn't vote in primaries because she's a registered Independent. However, I feel very strongly that you should not be able to select a party's nominee if you are not a member of that party.
That is my number 1 problem with Senator Sanders. As a long-time Independent, I greatly resent him running for the Democratic nomination. He's not a Democrat. You want to represent my party? I'd love for you to be a member of it first!
That is my number 1 problem with Senator Sanders. As a long-time Independent, I greatly resent him running for the Democratic nomination. He's not a Democrat. You want to represent my party? I'd love for you to be a member of it first!
5
Have the superdelegates ever overturned the person who led in pledged delegates? If not, I don't see the point in having them, nor do I see the point in getting all heated up about them yet again. People were all heated up about them in 2008 and they moved to Obama when it became clear that Clinton would not overcome his lead. I haven't seen any movement after that election to get rid of them, and then an election comes around and people get angry again. This is one big issue we have in the Democratic party-we seem to get motivated in presidential election years and leave the off years to the other party, as well as the state legislatures and governorships.
Caucuses, on the other hand, are clearly leaving out certain demographic groups, and are a relic of the days when insiders picked the candidates. Again, like the superdelegates, we probably won't do anything about that and get upset about it again in another election year.
I'd love to see the Democrats take a real look at reforms between elections when they could do something about the next one.
Caucuses, on the other hand, are clearly leaving out certain demographic groups, and are a relic of the days when insiders picked the candidates. Again, like the superdelegates, we probably won't do anything about that and get upset about it again in another election year.
I'd love to see the Democrats take a real look at reforms between elections when they could do something about the next one.
And who did the Democrats nominate in 1984, the first year in which the rigged superdelegate system was in place? Walter Mondale, who was the darling of the establishment but went on to lose the general election by a margin of forty-nine states to one.
The leaders of the Democratic party are no better at choosing electable nominees than the voters. The superdelegate system should be scrapped.
The leaders of the Democratic party are no better at choosing electable nominees than the voters. The superdelegate system should be scrapped.
2
I have attended two caucuses in my state. I hate them but I think they work. In 2008 I was for Hillary. The majority of my caucus participants voted for Obama. There was much frothing and gnashing of teeth but they walked away with the nomination which was earned. The super delegates changed sides when they saw that the mob had selected a candidate that was electable and qualified. The system worked and I believe that it will work this time. I started writing this thinking that caucuses did not work but now I see the wisdom of the total system. We don't have a Trump or a Cruz running. Checks and balances. This is what all systems need to keep them honest.
The secret ballot was viewed as undemocratic when it was first introduced in the mid-1800's. The idea that there is some pure platonic democracy we are seeking is contrived. Caucus's allow actual deliberation and discussion, primaries leave voters to make up their minds with only the influence of our very corrupt news media. Super delegates were in fact first invented to encourage party elites to even attend the conventions. If you are going to make arguments based on history, read more history.
67
Yes and know that Tad Devine, Sanders' campaign manager, was one of the architects of the super delegate system. Because right now it isn't in his favor people cry foul. HA!
1
David, your jeremiad against the secret ballot shows that you have either not read your history, or have misread it.
As an old-time Democrat, I think this column is 100% wrong. There's nothing wrong with either caucuses or superdelegates. The problem is with primaries. Both parties were better off before the 1970s, when there were under 20 primaries and party leaders and party activists, including low-level people at the grassroots, had a bigger voice in the selection of nominee. It was this system that brought us John F. Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and on the Republican side, Dwight D. Eisenhower -- as well as losing nominees but good candidates like two-timers Adlai Stevenson and Thomas E. Dewey. The system was less chaotic, more thoughtful, and better for voters in the general election. Most voters are not thoughtful (I could say a lot worse, but it wouldn't get past the moderators of this forum); more political leaders and activists are. Less democratic is better in the nominee selection process.
There is no good reason why voting should be limited to a single day. Both the primaries and general election polls should be open for at least a week. Early voting centers should be open for months. Every citizen deserves the opportunity to vote, even those who work all day on tuesdays.
I've been a Democrat for pretty much my entire life, and since I first voted against Nixon in 1968, I've watched my party slip away from what it said it was. It is now no longer the party of working people - merely of educated elites.
The irony is that if the Democratic Party went back to its Depression-era roots, it could most likely regain much of the power that it has lost. Looking at the people who run the party, however, I'd have to say the chances of going back to its glory days are virtually non-existent.
The irony is that if the Democratic Party went back to its Depression-era roots, it could most likely regain much of the power that it has lost. Looking at the people who run the party, however, I'd have to say the chances of going back to its glory days are virtually non-existent.
Exactly the reason to vote for Bernie!
1
Caucuses are unfair. But the don't unfairly advantage Sen. Sanders. He is simply benefiting from their inherent unfairness. Clinton could easily had won more caucus states had she had better ground game. She didn't because she didn't expect to need it this far into the campaign.
But Superdelegates are bought and paid for this cycle by the Clinton machine. States party affiliates in financial trouble, like in the deep south, traded for Clinton campaign cash. Clinton big cash donors gave money to state party coffers that in turn was sent back to her campaign. That is the real story.
But Superdelegates are bought and paid for this cycle by the Clinton machine. States party affiliates in financial trouble, like in the deep south, traded for Clinton campaign cash. Clinton big cash donors gave money to state party coffers that in turn was sent back to her campaign. That is the real story.
1
I suspect that Democrats are hoping that Republican super-delegates can't prevent Trump from being nominated since Democrats are reasonably confident that Clinton, with all of her baggage, can beat Trump in the general election. I also suspect that Republicans are wishing that Democratic super-delegates could be bullied into supporting Bernie as they would far rather run against the socialist in the general election no matter who is their candidate.
It appears that super-delegates are as much of a problem for the opposite party as they allegedly are for their own. Ironic, no?
It appears that super-delegates are as much of a problem for the opposite party as they allegedly are for their own. Ironic, no?
The impact of caucuses on Bernie Sanders is a bit more subtle than suggested. In my caucus, turnout was very strong, running roughly 2:1 for Sanders. But in my senate district convention, the people who showed up were roughly 2:1 for Hillary Clinton. Consequently, the state convention delegates we elected have real sympathies which don't closely reflect the people they were elected to represent, and the
I find super delegates far more undemocratic than caucuses.
What's wrong with having a discussion with neighbors about the candidate you choose? You might actually make some friends.
What's wrong with requiring people to have that conversation before they blindly mail-in a ballot? Early voting is convenient for some but unfair to party outsiders.
Even more galling, what's wrong with independents joining the debate? Closed primaries and caucuses are the height of unprincipled control. The nerve is only exceeded by super delegates.
As for voting access, seriously lame excuse to blame the caucus system. There's an assigned time and place for you to discuss your community's political decisions. Caucus day is public knowledge. Employers are required to make accommodations. If you need to find daycare for work, you can plan ahead for caucus day. Plenty of people bring children with them.
If the DNC had the appropriate number of polling stations (or even ballots), the process would be simple. Which, for your information, there are now online caucuses. They currently only serve Republicans though. Thanks Dems. Very democratic.
What's wrong with having a discussion with neighbors about the candidate you choose? You might actually make some friends.
What's wrong with requiring people to have that conversation before they blindly mail-in a ballot? Early voting is convenient for some but unfair to party outsiders.
Even more galling, what's wrong with independents joining the debate? Closed primaries and caucuses are the height of unprincipled control. The nerve is only exceeded by super delegates.
As for voting access, seriously lame excuse to blame the caucus system. There's an assigned time and place for you to discuss your community's political decisions. Caucus day is public knowledge. Employers are required to make accommodations. If you need to find daycare for work, you can plan ahead for caucus day. Plenty of people bring children with them.
If the DNC had the appropriate number of polling stations (or even ballots), the process would be simple. Which, for your information, there are now online caucuses. They currently only serve Republicans though. Thanks Dems. Very democratic.
1
The caucus, primary and delegate system is inherently flawed as it excludes independents and unaffiliated, a much bigger group than either republicans or democrats. For example, I suspect independents favor Bernie Sanders but since super delegates are not independent and many primaries and caucuses exclude unaffiliated, the system is inherently rigged by design. Since republicans and democrats write the rules it would appear that they fear a true democracy.
Dare I point out that most of the superdelegates are themselves democratically elected officials -- Senators, Representatives, Governors, and the like. They are, in a sense, representing VOTERS. If we are to have political parties (that's another issue to be argued) then those parties can set the rules for selecting nominees to represent those parties in elections.
Bernie Sanders -- not a Democrat -- chose to seek the Democratic nomination to run to be POTUS. He knew the rules going in. For him and his supporters to complain about them now is disingenuous at best. If Bernie wants different rules, he should have be active in the party's internal politics before he sought the nomination of a party of which he was never a member.
Bernie Sanders -- not a Democrat -- chose to seek the Democratic nomination to run to be POTUS. He knew the rules going in. For him and his supporters to complain about them now is disingenuous at best. If Bernie wants different rules, he should have be active in the party's internal politics before he sought the nomination of a party of which he was never a member.
2
The party has the right to choose it's nominee however it sees fit. As a Democrat who remembers the landslide losses in presidential races as well as the near collapse of the Democratic party in the seventies, I'm thrilled to point to the nominations and elections of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as evidence that the current system yields much better results than the days when the Democratic party had to hold telethons to stay financially viable. That the rules of the Democratic party don't fit the needs of a candidate who had neither supported nor participated in the party for decades does not bother me one bit. If Mr. Sanders doesn't like super delegates maybe he should have been a Democrat when the rules were written or at any time before he sought the party's nomination.
3
It is interesting that you would come out with an article like this right after the leader of the Republican Party was quesioned about the process they used to nominate a candidate. He talked about basically how much fairer the Republicans are verses the Democrats at the convention.
It seems that the powerbrokers for both parties can leverage, because of the system they use, who will be the parties' candidate. It also seems that because of finances no one has a change to be president, unless the money and power behind the party supports the candidate. That would even include the Donald.
Does this concern anyone else or am I along in my thinking? I am feed up with the corrupted political, corporate and judical system that needs changed and if that means voting for Sanders or Trump, so be it!
It seems that the powerbrokers for both parties can leverage, because of the system they use, who will be the parties' candidate. It also seems that because of finances no one has a change to be president, unless the money and power behind the party supports the candidate. That would even include the Donald.
Does this concern anyone else or am I along in my thinking? I am feed up with the corrupted political, corporate and judical system that needs changed and if that means voting for Sanders or Trump, so be it!
If Bernie Sanders lived in California, he might be a county supervisor in Alameda County. Vermont has less than half the population of Alameda County. 225 years after its inception, our system of representation is seriously out of whack.
I've never voted in a caucus. Forcing people to actually declare their political allegiance is not a bad thing. Limiting voting to a class of people who have lots of free time is certainly a bad thing.
Our system is not completely broken; but it could use some fix'n.
I've never voted in a caucus. Forcing people to actually declare their political allegiance is not a bad thing. Limiting voting to a class of people who have lots of free time is certainly a bad thing.
Our system is not completely broken; but it could use some fix'n.
1
I didn't understand the article at first, because it almost seemed to be pro-Sanders. But it is clear now: since Sanders wins caucuses, caucuses has to be abolished. Of course a disguise is necessary, hence the need to denounce the unelected delegates.
I have another translation for you: the open elections were influenced by the Obama campaign machine's organized voters. That's why Hillary Clinton had a good result there. But such a campaign organisation will not necessary translate into a country-wide result, especially if the party is disregarding its own voters (who are seemingly behind Bernie Sanders).
A wise politician would not ignore the popular vote. The years when controlling the party machine was everything that counted are over.
Take heed of the warning.
I have another translation for you: the open elections were influenced by the Obama campaign machine's organized voters. That's why Hillary Clinton had a good result there. But such a campaign organisation will not necessary translate into a country-wide result, especially if the party is disregarding its own voters (who are seemingly behind Bernie Sanders).
A wise politician would not ignore the popular vote. The years when controlling the party machine was everything that counted are over.
Take heed of the warning.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a functioning democracy is a fool. The incredible inconsistencies in how we vote, from state to state, are absurd. The whole notion of delegates and super-delegates is even more absurd. They exist to render the popular vote meaningless when conditions permit, as in the case of George W. Bush, who essentially took power in a bloodless coup. And then there's the Senate, where states like North Dakota have just as much representation as New York, a situation which favors the Republican Party and its pandering to rural folks it pretends to care about.
If you sat down with the intention of inventing a system riddled with inconsistencies and wide open to manipulation and corruption, you could hardly do better than the mess we actually have. It's embarrassing.
It shouldn't be so complicated. One person, one vote.
If you sat down with the intention of inventing a system riddled with inconsistencies and wide open to manipulation and corruption, you could hardly do better than the mess we actually have. It's embarrassing.
It shouldn't be so complicated. One person, one vote.
Although I get your points--and even agree with many of them--I think you're criticizing an apple for not looking like an orange. The process of nominating candidates for elective office from within a pool of individuals espousing allegiance to a particular political party was *designed* to be undemocratic. Our highly idealized 'Founders' simply did not trust the great unwashed 'mob' to make rational decisions that would further the interests of the party itself, which has always been to gain, and then retain, political power. Democracy? Well, if democracy for the country as a whole is a by-product of the process, then all well and good. But it is not the over-arching goal of the party elite. That's why we exist in a political system called a republic, and *not* a full-fledged democracy.
There are no laws or requirements determining how political parties choose their candidates. In some ways I think letting the party big-wigs choose candidates is more "pure." Why shouldn't the people who work with the party have more say than someone who decides on election day that they want to be a Democrat or a Republican?
If we want to weaken the control of the parties, then we should have non-partisan primaries, where all candidates run, and if someone gets 50.1% of the vote they win outright. If no one gets 50.1%, the top two vote getters would meet in a general election.
Why not go that route?
If we want to weaken the control of the parties, then we should have non-partisan primaries, where all candidates run, and if someone gets 50.1% of the vote they win outright. If no one gets 50.1%, the top two vote getters would meet in a general election.
Why not go that route?
Yes, "unbound delegates", "caucus voting", "gerrymandering", "qualified voter laws" and the soon-to-be "electoral college" are all well-meaning attempts to "improve" the democratic process. But they really just underscore the old saying: democratic government is the worst system ever invented, except for all the others.
It could even be argued that the whole world is heavily influenced by the US government. So maybe Europe and Asia should have some representation, (along with Puerto Rico and Guam).
It could even be argued that the whole world is heavily influenced by the US government. So maybe Europe and Asia should have some representation, (along with Puerto Rico and Guam).
I'm voting Unconvinced.
The parties' nomination processes are all about putting forward a candidate for office. How a party picks a candidate can and should reflect that party's values.
If the Democrats want to use caucuses and superdelegates, that's on them. If Republicans want to use winner-take-all and winner-take-most primaries, that's on them too.
Of far greater concern to me is how states administer general elections, how states make voting more likely or less likely, and how states ensure the integrity of the vote.
The parties' nomination processes are all about putting forward a candidate for office. How a party picks a candidate can and should reflect that party's values.
If the Democrats want to use caucuses and superdelegates, that's on them. If Republicans want to use winner-take-all and winner-take-most primaries, that's on them too.
Of far greater concern to me is how states administer general elections, how states make voting more likely or less likely, and how states ensure the integrity of the vote.
150
Media and the pundits are all yelling about how undemocratic the system of primary is.After the respective convention each party will give you a person who they want their nominee to be that represents the political party. But people are like it is not the person that i voted to represent my political party. The general election is considered to be democratic but not the primary season. That is why i find this article confusing because of that reason
I wish it were different, but the primary process is deeply flawed and has never been democratic. That's true for both parties, so any criticism of one by the other is simply hypocrisy. Sadly, a small percentage of the electorate and a significant number of influential individuals and corporations dictate our choice in November. No wonder we have difficulty attracting strong, independent minded candidates and consistently suffer poor voter turnout.
Charles, both parties have constructed a delegate system designed to be undemocratic---that is a given. But that is really the least of our problems with both parties. Forget about caucuses and super-delegates---the real threat to our democracy is money, dark money, that is being infused into campaigns and into special issues that some billionaire wants addressed. Presently, we are witnessing the power of dark money to prevent the seating of a Supreme Court justice. We now live in a country where a phone call from one individual can stop the democratic process in its tracks.
I hope this election process finally sheds some light on how cumbersome the presidential election process has become. For 2 years we endure the barrage until finally we have candidates that may or may not be the choice of popular vote. I think what we are beginning to see in this election cycle is the exposure of a rigged system. Cracks are beginning to appear in an antiquated top heavy system that does not fit well in the 21st century.
"So today we have an establishment structure that equates a single establishment vote with thousands of citizen votes."
We have several establishment like that. One is called the Supreme Court, where 5 people can override the wishes of the majority of the voters by pretending they found their agenda in the Constitution. Every month or so we read of a state passing an abortion regulation, presumably popular with its voters, only to have it struck down by a judge on the grounds that abortion is somehow a "Constitutional right". The Republican Party had benefited hugely by pretending to sympathize with frustrated voters while actually doing nothing, while the "Democratic" Party did not care until Citizens United gave Republicans a big advantage in campaign funding.
We have several establishment like that. One is called the Supreme Court, where 5 people can override the wishes of the majority of the voters by pretending they found their agenda in the Constitution. Every month or so we read of a state passing an abortion regulation, presumably popular with its voters, only to have it struck down by a judge on the grounds that abortion is somehow a "Constitutional right". The Republican Party had benefited hugely by pretending to sympathize with frustrated voters while actually doing nothing, while the "Democratic" Party did not care until Citizens United gave Republicans a big advantage in campaign funding.
1
Of course what happens to the Democrats also happens to the Republicans. The latter may not have the superdelegates to contend with, but they do face the same patchwork quilt of varied primary dates, primaries and caucuses. Through the devotees of "states rights" may howl, we really do need to establish a unified system that recognizes the value of each votte. Aso a rotating calendar allowing different groups of state to hold their primaries in varied order would also increase the value of the primaries to the democratic process.
1
Equating caucuses with superdelegates as if they were equally "anti-democratic" is absurd. The latter are an institution blatantly designed to prevent the nominaton and an election of a Bernie Sanders who is seeking a democratic political and economic revolution for the vast majority of Americans, who would have wiped Clinton out if her machine had not locked Sanders out in the black Democratic South. The former are simply gatherings of the most committed people in the party to openly debate what they are fighting for. Caucuses are just like that most classically democratic of all American institutions, the New England village town hall meeting. What's more "democratic" than that? Sanders' example this year, his huge success, has very well demonstrated that lower-class voters or disabled people who somehow can't make it to caucuses have little to fear from Democratic caucuses, at least, since they seem to lean so far left, thus in the direction of helping, not harming, lower-class, disabled, etc, voters of all races. The attack on caucuses is just the usual Times bias against Bernie, trying to "de-legitimize" him, to coin a word we often see in the Times in another context.
The Democratic Party needs to clean its own very dirty house before slamming the GOP for its systematic voter suppression, especially but not entirely in the deep South. Otherwise the Party remains rightfully open to the charge of hypocrisy.
We cannot expect reform from the Clnton elitist cabal and probably not from the Sanders crowd either. Although state-level party apparati now control primary election protocols, the process has gained such an outsized role in presidential elections, federal law is needed to rationalize and democratize primary elections so that all states and both parties play by the same rules.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
We cannot expect reform from the Clnton elitist cabal and probably not from the Sanders crowd either. Although state-level party apparati now control primary election protocols, the process has gained such an outsized role in presidential elections, federal law is needed to rationalize and democratize primary elections so that all states and both parties play by the same rules.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
"These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination, and could thus make all the difference.”
"Let’s start there. Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates. That, on its face, is outrageous."
Those two sentences cannot be true at the same time. Which is it? 30% of 2,382 is 15% of 4,765, the expected number of total delegates.
Therefore, superdelegates do NOT "make up nearly a third of all delegates".
They make up 15% of all delegates and 30% of delegates needed for the nomination.
Math (or logic) is evidently not your strong point.
30% may be outrageous, 15% less so. Inconvenient truth?
"Let’s start there. Superdelegates, whose votes are not bound by the millions of individual voters, make up nearly a third of all delegates. That, on its face, is outrageous."
Those two sentences cannot be true at the same time. Which is it? 30% of 2,382 is 15% of 4,765, the expected number of total delegates.
Therefore, superdelegates do NOT "make up nearly a third of all delegates".
They make up 15% of all delegates and 30% of delegates needed for the nomination.
Math (or logic) is evidently not your strong point.
30% may be outrageous, 15% less so. Inconvenient truth?
1
As I understand it, the DNC with its many parts and individual state committees is a private organization of many non-profit corporations with the DNC Board and Chairperson at the top, a “political machine.” It is not a government body subject to voters’ rights laws, and it exists for the sole purpose of maintaining a power base for winning elections and installing Democrats in positions of political power. I would assume the members who control the DNC are primarily people who have been actively dedicated and loyal to the Democratic Party for many years and have gradually worked their way up to these positions.
Bernie Sanders has been an Independent throughout his political career until last year when he became a Democrat for the purpose of running for the Presidency, knowing that being a Democrat would greatly increase his chances of success. I would speculate that a substantial number of his supporters, many of whom are first time voters or independents, became Democrats just to support him. In many places it is possible to vote in a caucus or state-run primary election by simply registering as you enter. A great many of these people clearly have no commitment or loyalty to the Democratic Party and are more likely to see the DNC and its organization as part of the problem. Many of them despise Hillary Clinton and say they will not vote for her. Is it any surprise that the DNC would build in mechanisms in their organization to prevent such a hostile takeover?
Bernie Sanders has been an Independent throughout his political career until last year when he became a Democrat for the purpose of running for the Presidency, knowing that being a Democrat would greatly increase his chances of success. I would speculate that a substantial number of his supporters, many of whom are first time voters or independents, became Democrats just to support him. In many places it is possible to vote in a caucus or state-run primary election by simply registering as you enter. A great many of these people clearly have no commitment or loyalty to the Democratic Party and are more likely to see the DNC and its organization as part of the problem. Many of them despise Hillary Clinton and say they will not vote for her. Is it any surprise that the DNC would build in mechanisms in their organization to prevent such a hostile takeover?
1
All true -- but our entire electoral process smacks of anti-democratic manipulation. Some here have mentioned the electoral college, and the insidious control of states' electoral apparatus by apparatchicks, most recently resulting in fraud in Arizona. The parties (and the media) also control who participates in the debates, determining who is even seen by the public. We also have rampant gerrymandering, renewed anti-Democrat voter id laws, and disenfranchisement of felons. Legalized bribery has long been part of our "democratic" process, though greatly exacerbated by Citizens United.
The Senate is radically undemocratic. Four states -- CA, NY, TX, and FL -- represent 33% of the US population but control only 8% of the vote in the Senate. Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as California, while CA has 67 times the population of WY.
The definition of "democracy" in the US has been reduced to the question of whether some form of voting occurs, regardless of the representativeness of the process or the result. The caucuses and superdelegates are only a small part of the problem.
The Senate is radically undemocratic. Four states -- CA, NY, TX, and FL -- represent 33% of the US population but control only 8% of the vote in the Senate. Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as California, while CA has 67 times the population of WY.
The definition of "democracy" in the US has been reduced to the question of whether some form of voting occurs, regardless of the representativeness of the process or the result. The caucuses and superdelegates are only a small part of the problem.
The caucus system is a very undemocratic process. I favors special interest groups and people who can commit to giving up an evening to vote. Bernie supporters have a large number of highly motivated young people. Middle aged Hilary supports have work and family issues that might work against them voting. Even elderly might find it hard to sit for hours waiting to vote.
Super delegates have pluses and minuses. We have a representative democracy. Super delegates are largely elected officials. (Ideally that should be who they are.) They should be allowed to support who they believe would make the best candidate. As one reader noted the NY Times endorsed Hilary ahead of the primary process. Endorsements don't have a big influence in the primaries. Super delegates provide a tempering influence. (Republicans wished they had super delegates.) Also, imagine if Bernie squeaked out the pledged delegates and Hilary won a large majority of primary voters. Would super delegates give the nomination to Hilary? Hard to say.
Super delegates have pluses and minuses. We have a representative democracy. Super delegates are largely elected officials. (Ideally that should be who they are.) They should be allowed to support who they believe would make the best candidate. As one reader noted the NY Times endorsed Hilary ahead of the primary process. Endorsements don't have a big influence in the primaries. Super delegates provide a tempering influence. (Republicans wished they had super delegates.) Also, imagine if Bernie squeaked out the pledged delegates and Hilary won a large majority of primary voters. Would super delegates give the nomination to Hilary? Hard to say.
We have a problem. How do people get to be candidates? Who says they are okay to run? Why not have a national primary system? With uniformity of caucus/primary/conventions? Maybe we need to have a "constitutional convention" to figure out a fair, democratic way to include parties in our political system. Maybe one ought to have 500,000 signatures on a petition to be a candidate; then have a fixed number of debates; then have a nationwide primary with ranked-system voting so that 3 persons are selected from each party to stand a run-off. Or some sort of "rational" method. Maybe we need an Article Five convention to discuss it. O. Thomas Feagin
This is a very timely article, and, while I generally do not share Mr. Blow's views, he is absolutely right in calling attention to a very pervasive problem with our electoral system. He could probably say something quite similar about the Republican Party, which would complete the picture.
The average American has absolutely no idea how or why the non-incumbent people on the ballot got there, and, for the most part, they had no meaningful participation in the choice of those people, even when there is a primary, because the primary contestants are chosen for them as well. Everything is usually all done in little publicized or even private meetings involving "political elites or party leaders," which is probably the politically correct term for "career politicians," to reward party friends and faithful. People like Bloomberg and Trump were able to avoid most of this system because of their wealth and notoriety, but very few others would be able to do that.
Voter turnout in the US is generally quite low when compared to many other advanced countries. Perhaps the inability of the voters to play a meaningful role in the choice of the people they vote for is part of the reason. When none of the people you can vote for are interesting to you or even known to you, why vote? The Republican Party has seen a big increase in members from Trump's participation, which tends to underscore the point.
The average American has absolutely no idea how or why the non-incumbent people on the ballot got there, and, for the most part, they had no meaningful participation in the choice of those people, even when there is a primary, because the primary contestants are chosen for them as well. Everything is usually all done in little publicized or even private meetings involving "political elites or party leaders," which is probably the politically correct term for "career politicians," to reward party friends and faithful. People like Bloomberg and Trump were able to avoid most of this system because of their wealth and notoriety, but very few others would be able to do that.
Voter turnout in the US is generally quite low when compared to many other advanced countries. Perhaps the inability of the voters to play a meaningful role in the choice of the people they vote for is part of the reason. When none of the people you can vote for are interesting to you or even known to you, why vote? The Republican Party has seen a big increase in members from Trump's participation, which tends to underscore the point.
I agree with Charles here 100 percent. It should be noted, however, that Clinton despite losing most of the caucus states is ahead of Sanders in the popular vote by 2.5 million votes and is ahead of him by more than 200 in earned (not counting super) delegates. Because of Mrs. Clintons blowouts in big states like Florida, Texas and across the South she will enter the convention with the most delegates regardless of the super delegates. It would be shameful and un democratic for the Sanders campaign to try and use the super delegates to thwart the will of the voters who gave Clinton both the lead in the popular vote and the earned (pledged) delegates. Nothing irks me more than to hear Sanders say that the landslide primary victories that Clinton scored across the South don't matter as much as his landslide victories in small all white caucus states. Brown and black votes matter. Sanders has never really understood that and this is why loses big primary states with diverse populations.
If I decide to run for a delegate spot, I do not want to run against my congressman, whom I support in his election. Super Delegates helps voters avoid being opponents of people they support. I also do not object to party leadership showing some leadership as individuals deciding which candidates they would run with rather than run away from. So I support Super Delegates.
Caucuses are very undemocratic, do deny working people and many others access to the nominating procedure. I would rather have a minimum of a week of mail in opportunities.
The timing of the caucuses and primaries is also a mistake. Having small rural white states may appeal to some, but I would rather have a mix with states like Missouri and Arizona getting a chance in the rotation of first primary states. We might find our party talking about human rights more and ethanol less.
Caucuses are very undemocratic, do deny working people and many others access to the nominating procedure. I would rather have a minimum of a week of mail in opportunities.
The timing of the caucuses and primaries is also a mistake. Having small rural white states may appeal to some, but I would rather have a mix with states like Missouri and Arizona getting a chance in the rotation of first primary states. We might find our party talking about human rights more and ethanol less.
Caucuses may well be a quaint vestige of another time, appropriate maybe for relatively small and/or sparsely populated regions. In any case, they have served to obfuscate the fact that in terms of absolute vote count for the 2016 primary season, Clinton has out-polled Saunders by almost 2:1 (close to 3 million vs around 1.5 - 1.6 million), meaning that Saunders' wins in the Caucus format have tended to inflate his delegate count, and its impact, beyond what direct popular sentiment would say it should be. His supporters wailing about the stances of superdelegates indeed should reflect more upon those total vote numbers before they protest too much.
In my mind the caucus system disenfranchises too many voters, and I haven't read any arguments that support it being a superior system. The only argument I've heard is that it is cheaper than a primary. So, I hope that system will be phased out in future primaries.
Right now, I'm betting the Republican party is wishing it had superdelegates. What happens when your voters vote for someone who completely unqualified for the job? What happens when the candidate who might win does the kind of damage we are seeing on the Republican side?
In the party system, shouldn't those already elected by voters, and therefore already representing a greater constituency have a greater say in who gets nominated to lead the party? How much say?
I'm not advocating for super delegates, but I do think parties should have some tools at their disposal to indicate party support and weight those already elected by voters. Otherwise you can end up with the same kind of situation that is occurring in the Republican party.
Right now, I'm betting the Republican party is wishing it had superdelegates. What happens when your voters vote for someone who completely unqualified for the job? What happens when the candidate who might win does the kind of damage we are seeing on the Republican side?
In the party system, shouldn't those already elected by voters, and therefore already representing a greater constituency have a greater say in who gets nominated to lead the party? How much say?
I'm not advocating for super delegates, but I do think parties should have some tools at their disposal to indicate party support and weight those already elected by voters. Otherwise you can end up with the same kind of situation that is occurring in the Republican party.
I absolutely agree that the Superdelegate approach and caucuses are NOT democratic. But let's go further and examine the many other undemocratic voting practices we have here in the Land of Democracy. Here are a couple:
The Electoral College. We have awarded the presidency to the candidate who did NOT win the popular vote four times in our history, the most recent, of course, being George W. Bush. That did NOT work out well...
Two U.S. Senators Per State. Period. Nobody ever talks about this but it's patently undemocratic that Wyoming with about 600,000 people and California with almost 39 million have the same number of U.S. Senators. I don't want to hear about states' rights. It's simply undemocratic. It also makes the Electoral College more lopsided because the number of each state's electors includes their senators and represenatatives.
Citizens United. This court ruling may not seem related but it is. Part of ensuring that we are a true democracy is ensuring that all voices are heard - not just those of the uber-wealthy.
Conclusion: If we're going to claim to be a democracy, we have to count everyone's votes - and then ensure that everyone's votes count.
The Electoral College. We have awarded the presidency to the candidate who did NOT win the popular vote four times in our history, the most recent, of course, being George W. Bush. That did NOT work out well...
Two U.S. Senators Per State. Period. Nobody ever talks about this but it's patently undemocratic that Wyoming with about 600,000 people and California with almost 39 million have the same number of U.S. Senators. I don't want to hear about states' rights. It's simply undemocratic. It also makes the Electoral College more lopsided because the number of each state's electors includes their senators and represenatatives.
Citizens United. This court ruling may not seem related but it is. Part of ensuring that we are a true democracy is ensuring that all voices are heard - not just those of the uber-wealthy.
Conclusion: If we're going to claim to be a democracy, we have to count everyone's votes - and then ensure that everyone's votes count.
1
There is no question that most of the Democratic Super Delegates in this election intend to anoint Hillary -- regardless of voters' preferences. However, this problem simply exacerbates the "dirty tricks" that have compromised our election system for sometime. Just since 2000, Florida's close vote was compromised by questionable military ballots that Gore refused to challenge; in 2004, it was likely that machine tampering in Ohio deprived Kerry of the Presidency -- and gave Jeb's brother another "dubious win." It appears that
Hillary's Team has paid close attention to the sort of tactics that recently have been employed to ensure the most likely Presidential outcomes; and her team now seems to be leaving no stone unturned; for one obvious example, just look at the Arizona mess. If that outrage wasn't staged, then Arizona citizens better be very concerned about the water all of them must be drinking. . .
Hillary's Team has paid close attention to the sort of tactics that recently have been employed to ensure the most likely Presidential outcomes; and her team now seems to be leaving no stone unturned; for one obvious example, just look at the Arizona mess. If that outrage wasn't staged, then Arizona citizens better be very concerned about the water all of them must be drinking. . .
1
Nice false equivalence. Super Delegates are the establishment's way of keeping out insurgents. Caucuses are in concept perfectly fine ways to handle a small scale election.
My only complaint regarding caucuses would be the arcane and Byzantine rules designed to formulate the outcome of a caucus.
My real complaint relative to voter intent and democracy is the undue influence of small, socially conservative states through the voting schedule. The first Primary should be a large and diverse state like California instead of Bible Belt states of the Old Confederacy Socially conservative rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire. California is geographically, culturally, economically, politically religiously, ethnically and racially our most diverse state and should vote first.
Jerry Brown could do America a favor by asking the state to move the California Primary to early February.
My only complaint regarding caucuses would be the arcane and Byzantine rules designed to formulate the outcome of a caucus.
My real complaint relative to voter intent and democracy is the undue influence of small, socially conservative states through the voting schedule. The first Primary should be a large and diverse state like California instead of Bible Belt states of the Old Confederacy Socially conservative rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire. California is geographically, culturally, economically, politically religiously, ethnically and racially our most diverse state and should vote first.
Jerry Brown could do America a favor by asking the state to move the California Primary to early February.
211
While I get that we should move to a more demographically representative state as the 'first' state to vote, I do take some issue with painting a state like Iowa as socially conservative. While being very overly white, compared to the mean of the country at least, Iowa is actually pretty socially progressive, such as in recent memory being one of the first states to legalize same sex marriage.
But personally, I would like to see the nomination process considerably condensed into a short time frame, such as limits on when ads can appear and moving the caucuses/primaries into closer windows, if not having it done by time zone, which would hit all the big populated states in different windows and have smaller states still remain relevant.
But personally, I would like to see the nomination process considerably condensed into a short time frame, such as limits on when ads can appear and moving the caucuses/primaries into closer windows, if not having it done by time zone, which would hit all the big populated states in different windows and have smaller states still remain relevant.
National elections are, by definition, not small scale. Caucuses are run by the parties and generally badly run. Maine had a record Dem turnout with 3 hours lines in below freezing weather. The GOP had 22 caucus sites for a state of over 35K sq miles.
The combined turnout was 6.5% of the voting age population.
The combined turnout was 6.5% of the voting age population.
Except it's also a big money state. How does the little guy get his message out?
Charles, you are exactly right. But there's more. Early states have more influence on the nomination process -- however it is done -- than later states. And the early small state voters have a hugely disproportionate impact on who is nominated. Does the vote of a democrat who votes in the NY primary count as much as a democrat who votes in the Vermont primary? Of course not.
And what makes the entire presidential process even less democratic is the electoral college. A Republican in CT may as well not vote as their vote is irrelevant. It's actually the same for a Democrat in CT because the majority of voters in CT will vote (foolishly I might add) for the nominee of the Democrats.
So, except for voters in a handful of states, we've all been pretty much disenfranchised.
Which is totally unnecessary these days given technology. The honest thing to do would allow voters of each party to cast their vote for who they want to nominate in late May -- electronically -- everyone at the same time we do in the general election. And dump the electoral college. That is an artifact of an earlier time.
But -- that won't completely level the playing field. As long as fund raising -- regardless of how it is done -- allows the better fund raisers to buy more time and saturate the media with their message (if they have one) then money will influence the outcomes.
And what makes the entire presidential process even less democratic is the electoral college. A Republican in CT may as well not vote as their vote is irrelevant. It's actually the same for a Democrat in CT because the majority of voters in CT will vote (foolishly I might add) for the nominee of the Democrats.
So, except for voters in a handful of states, we've all been pretty much disenfranchised.
Which is totally unnecessary these days given technology. The honest thing to do would allow voters of each party to cast their vote for who they want to nominate in late May -- electronically -- everyone at the same time we do in the general election. And dump the electoral college. That is an artifact of an earlier time.
But -- that won't completely level the playing field. As long as fund raising -- regardless of how it is done -- allows the better fund raisers to buy more time and saturate the media with their message (if they have one) then money will influence the outcomes.
I dislike the part of political discourse where a carefully worded phrase is used to be accurate but designed to produce a misimpression. But rarely do I find an author falling for his own crafted phrase the the next sentence. Mr. Blow notes "These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination.”
A more typical and natural way of saying that is they make up 15% of the delegates, but since one needs only half of the delegates to win, it becomes 30% of those.
So Mr. Blow then mistakenly writes "Superdelegates, ... make up nearly a third of all delegates."
Unpledged delegates are a mere 15% of the Convention delegates, not 30%. They are mostly elected with hundreds of thousands more votes than those elected as pledged delegates. While a small proportion of the Convention, they give voice to tens of millions of voters who vote in general elections but not in the party primaries or caucuses. The point of this process is pluralism -- a variety of voices through delegates selected by different means -- unpledged, caucus, open and closed primaries, etc.
A more typical and natural way of saying that is they make up 15% of the delegates, but since one needs only half of the delegates to win, it becomes 30% of those.
So Mr. Blow then mistakenly writes "Superdelegates, ... make up nearly a third of all delegates."
Unpledged delegates are a mere 15% of the Convention delegates, not 30%. They are mostly elected with hundreds of thousands more votes than those elected as pledged delegates. While a small proportion of the Convention, they give voice to tens of millions of voters who vote in general elections but not in the party primaries or caucuses. The point of this process is pluralism -- a variety of voices through delegates selected by different means -- unpledged, caucus, open and closed primaries, etc.
Given the level of aggressive pressure from Sanders supporters -- evident both on the comments sections in the NYT as well as social media, not to mention on college campuses -- the issue of 'peer pressure' in caucuses is obviously an immense concern.
Super delegates are undemocratic, though their purpose was to avoid disastrous choices. Bet the Republicans had more of that right now. But the undemocratic nature of super delegates can be easily adjusted, as Charles points out, especially in terms of them declaring their allegiance in advance.
But even more essential to democracy is my right to my very private choice in making my vote, without being subjected to pressure and outright hostility.
The caucuses represent something much more malevolent. They are not 'more democratic' but rather strike at the heart of democracy.
Ironic that Sanders' people want more caucusing when they can't win the same kinds of majorities when it comes to actual voting. Does that suggest 'real' democracy?
Super delegates are undemocratic, though their purpose was to avoid disastrous choices. Bet the Republicans had more of that right now. But the undemocratic nature of super delegates can be easily adjusted, as Charles points out, especially in terms of them declaring their allegiance in advance.
But even more essential to democracy is my right to my very private choice in making my vote, without being subjected to pressure and outright hostility.
The caucuses represent something much more malevolent. They are not 'more democratic' but rather strike at the heart of democracy.
Ironic that Sanders' people want more caucusing when they can't win the same kinds of majorities when it comes to actual voting. Does that suggest 'real' democracy?
2
When I was a kid, we were taught the Founders wanted a Republic, not a Democracy; that the difference between our revolution and the French one came down to that distinction.
Pure Democracy produced demagogues, dictators, and/or chaos (or so we were taught.) The most daring changes we made to our electoral system up to then (mid 20th century) was to extend the vote to women and minorities and to allow the direct election of Senators - although we still kept it to 2 per State, even when one State had 50 times the number of voters as another.
All the delegates at Presidential Conventions were what we now call Super- delegates.
It worked fairly well. When we moved to direct primaries, etc. the Democratic party saw the flip side of the coin fairly fast and backtracked a little.
The Republicans, being more conservative, didn't seem to have the same problems. Now it's hit them square in the face. It doesn't take a genius to see that at least super-delegates are in their future.
It seems to me we do best as the (Fairly) Democratic Party.
Pure Democracy produced demagogues, dictators, and/or chaos (or so we were taught.) The most daring changes we made to our electoral system up to then (mid 20th century) was to extend the vote to women and minorities and to allow the direct election of Senators - although we still kept it to 2 per State, even when one State had 50 times the number of voters as another.
All the delegates at Presidential Conventions were what we now call Super- delegates.
It worked fairly well. When we moved to direct primaries, etc. the Democratic party saw the flip side of the coin fairly fast and backtracked a little.
The Republicans, being more conservative, didn't seem to have the same problems. Now it's hit them square in the face. It doesn't take a genius to see that at least super-delegates are in their future.
It seems to me we do best as the (Fairly) Democratic Party.
So if someone like Donald Trump was ahead right now on the Democratic side, would you still be against the Super Delegates? This election cycle has made me more certain than I ever have been we need them. If the people were all informed and made rational decisions based upon an understanding of what their vote meant, I'd say get rid of them. But most people vote based upon a limited understanding of government and what the President can accomplish. It is still a contest of personality and there must be a way to stop a candidate that is wholly unfit for office.
If your position on the caucuses is accurate they need to be changed. If people are going to choose the candidates, rather than having the party appoint them as they did well into the 20th century, everyone should be allowed that freedom to exercise their vote.
All states should vote the same. Either we have all winner take all or we have apportioned delegates. It's ridiculous in the 21st Century every state has it's own crazy little approach to voting.
And lastly voting should be mandatory as it is in Australia. Our real problem in this country is Congress. The President can do containable damage in a limited term. Congress on the other hand is free to run wild for decades.
I understand the issue about oligarchs and I agree. But it has very little to do with the presidency and everything to do with a bought and sold Congress.
If your position on the caucuses is accurate they need to be changed. If people are going to choose the candidates, rather than having the party appoint them as they did well into the 20th century, everyone should be allowed that freedom to exercise their vote.
All states should vote the same. Either we have all winner take all or we have apportioned delegates. It's ridiculous in the 21st Century every state has it's own crazy little approach to voting.
And lastly voting should be mandatory as it is in Australia. Our real problem in this country is Congress. The President can do containable damage in a limited term. Congress on the other hand is free to run wild for decades.
I understand the issue about oligarchs and I agree. But it has very little to do with the presidency and everything to do with a bought and sold Congress.
I disagree about caucuses. They are a form of direct participatory democracy as in ancient Greece where all Athenians assembled in the great hall and made laws by majority vote. The persuasion was public. The voting was public. There was no money involved in the process. This is more democratic than casting a secret electronic ballot which can be tallied by crookedly programmed poll equipment. Furthermore, that secret ballot is cast after public advertising and persuasion by people with vast sums of money. Unfortunately, the way the system works today it is in elections that money tends to win and in primaries that the people tend to win. Caucuses are infused with a degree of logic and public discussion which may counteract advertising.
An overhaul of both major parties is obviously in order.
The Republican dismantling and attempt at reassembly is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this moment: a bore here, a stroke there, and certainly a fresh set of lifters to complement shiny new valves to assure proper flow of fresh air in and toxic gases of combustion out. The timing is definitely in need of adjustment.
For the Democrats, the engine isn't the weak link, the transmission is. The power is there, but by the time it is transmitted to the driveshaft, the odd meshing of round elections with square-cornered caucuses and then the added extra "super"gears that are tossed in to compensate for that mismatch dissipate the torque shoved into the front of the tranny and dilute and diminish it to the lazy circling of a ceiling fan in a tropical-themed bar.
Either way, the public is being offered the choice between a lemon...and another lemon.
The Republican dismantling and attempt at reassembly is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this moment: a bore here, a stroke there, and certainly a fresh set of lifters to complement shiny new valves to assure proper flow of fresh air in and toxic gases of combustion out. The timing is definitely in need of adjustment.
For the Democrats, the engine isn't the weak link, the transmission is. The power is there, but by the time it is transmitted to the driveshaft, the odd meshing of round elections with square-cornered caucuses and then the added extra "super"gears that are tossed in to compensate for that mismatch dissipate the torque shoved into the front of the tranny and dilute and diminish it to the lazy circling of a ceiling fan in a tropical-themed bar.
Either way, the public is being offered the choice between a lemon...and another lemon.
There is a value to superdelegates. If the Republican party had them, it would not be sweating out a possible Trump nomination. Trump would have had to mount a third party run if he wanted to run on a platform different than the party platform.
Sanders does not stray terribly from Democratic orthodoxy, but he is officially an Independent not a Democrat. I can see some objection on that alone. Keeping out riff-raff whose primary appeal is a cult of personality following like Trump is useful, but Sanders is not riff-raff.
My objection to the superdelegates are two. First, there are too many of them. A candidate who has all of them is already 30% of the way to the nomination. I'd like to see that drop to 20%, which should be sufficient to keep out the riff-raff. Second, Mr. Blow is correct that superdelegates should not be allowed to declare their loyalty at least until all primaries and caucuses have ended. This would permit candidates to campaign for them as well as for the other delegates.
And caucuses just seem like vestiges of an era when communications were poor and information about candidates not easily obtained and people lived in much smaller communities. I am not sure who they serve now, but a primary election surely allows more people access to the process; and that is to be encouraged.
Sanders does not stray terribly from Democratic orthodoxy, but he is officially an Independent not a Democrat. I can see some objection on that alone. Keeping out riff-raff whose primary appeal is a cult of personality following like Trump is useful, but Sanders is not riff-raff.
My objection to the superdelegates are two. First, there are too many of them. A candidate who has all of them is already 30% of the way to the nomination. I'd like to see that drop to 20%, which should be sufficient to keep out the riff-raff. Second, Mr. Blow is correct that superdelegates should not be allowed to declare their loyalty at least until all primaries and caucuses have ended. This would permit candidates to campaign for them as well as for the other delegates.
And caucuses just seem like vestiges of an era when communications were poor and information about candidates not easily obtained and people lived in much smaller communities. I am not sure who they serve now, but a primary election surely allows more people access to the process; and that is to be encouraged.
The Democratic and Republican parties want presidential candidates who can win in November and also help "down-ticket" candidates. I don't mind party insiders, including super delegates, helping to make those choices.
The Mets and Yankees want to win games, but they don't poll their fans on how to do it. That's the job of the so-called brain trust -- managers, coaches, and front office people.
I live in Georgia. Our electoral votes will go to the Republican, and all the pros know it. My cousin lives in California. Their electoral votes will go to the Democrat, and all the pros know it. The presidential election will be decided by 10 or 12 states that are considered up for grabs. It is not unreasonable to suggest that party insiders may be in a better position than primary voters to make choices as to who can win those 10 or 12 states.
Again, I live in Georgia. Our Democratic primary went heavily for Hillary Clinton. Primary voters here voted as they did because they would rather see Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders in the White House. Big deal. What I care about is which of them is more likely to win electoral votes in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin. What I care about is which of them is more likely to help Democratic candidates win Senate seats in New Hampshire, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
On that score, I am not unhappy to have the input of super delegates.
The Mets and Yankees want to win games, but they don't poll their fans on how to do it. That's the job of the so-called brain trust -- managers, coaches, and front office people.
I live in Georgia. Our electoral votes will go to the Republican, and all the pros know it. My cousin lives in California. Their electoral votes will go to the Democrat, and all the pros know it. The presidential election will be decided by 10 or 12 states that are considered up for grabs. It is not unreasonable to suggest that party insiders may be in a better position than primary voters to make choices as to who can win those 10 or 12 states.
Again, I live in Georgia. Our Democratic primary went heavily for Hillary Clinton. Primary voters here voted as they did because they would rather see Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders in the White House. Big deal. What I care about is which of them is more likely to win electoral votes in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin. What I care about is which of them is more likely to help Democratic candidates win Senate seats in New Hampshire, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
On that score, I am not unhappy to have the input of super delegates.
I agree wholeheartedly about caucuses. Mr. blow, you forget to mention they disenfranchise the disabled too. The largest estimate that I saw of Washington state was 200k votes which is 2% of the population. Caucuses are anti-democratic. They are easily swayed by small groups of loud people coming out to vote, many of whom may not be democrats.
In defense of the super delegates, the nominee is the nominee of the party. The party has a platform, which is honed over decades. The platform says what the party stands for. Someone can run as a democrat that doesn't not stand for those values. The party does have a responsibility to make sure that someone who is electable heads the ticket (putting aside the relative merits of the current two candidates on that score). The GOP right now, wishes it had super delegates to get rid of trump.
Lastly many states have totally open primaries and caucuses. That means that some of those votes are valid but some are spoilers. In Michigan we have a proud tradition of messing with the other parties nominating process. Bernie Sanders won big in conservative Kent county and in many conservative counties throughout the country. Maybe those are honest votes and maybe they are spoilers. I just wouldn't count them as solid votes for a democrat, even sanders, in November when the big money is spent on advertising.
In defense of the super delegates, the nominee is the nominee of the party. The party has a platform, which is honed over decades. The platform says what the party stands for. Someone can run as a democrat that doesn't not stand for those values. The party does have a responsibility to make sure that someone who is electable heads the ticket (putting aside the relative merits of the current two candidates on that score). The GOP right now, wishes it had super delegates to get rid of trump.
Lastly many states have totally open primaries and caucuses. That means that some of those votes are valid but some are spoilers. In Michigan we have a proud tradition of messing with the other parties nominating process. Bernie Sanders won big in conservative Kent county and in many conservative counties throughout the country. Maybe those are honest votes and maybe they are spoilers. I just wouldn't count them as solid votes for a democrat, even sanders, in November when the big money is spent on advertising.
In fairness the author might note that superdelegates are elected officials with a stake in the nomination of a viable candidate. The coattail effects of a candidacy are often overstated in the press but it does have an effect if the candidate is essentially unelectable. The elected Democratic superdelegates help to provide ballast for the Democratic party's choice. In 30 years the Democrats have not had a primary election where they were the determining factor. It is not a rigged process as the rules are known in advance and the superdelegates can shift allegiance from one candidate to another during the process as happened in 2008. However the threshold of viability as considered by previously successful elected officials is a necessary part of winning the nomination.
The premise in this editorial is that a political party's purpose, be it Democratic or Republican, is to reflect the unfiltered will of the people as a simple majority. This idea is simply historically untrue and not based in any fact. The purpose of a political party is to bring forward the person they see as the best and most likely person to WIN a given election and I as a voter understand that. Political parties are essentially privately run enterprises and our votes are only one aspect of the decision on who ultimately becomes a candidate. If a large enough number of people don't like what's happening they can form their own party and nominate their own independent candidate but in the US this course has only rarely been used or successful. That independent party can make up it's own rules about who ultimately gets nominated. In regards to a caucus versus a straight up vote the same principal holds true; state parties determine which process to use. I think sadly Mr. Blow's editorial is basically inaccurate in promoting the idea that Political Parties are or have ever been purely democratic.
"For a Democratic Party that prides itself on the grand ideals of inclusion and fairness, the nominating process is anything but."
Sadly, I agree. We have no real choices. I am a registered and voting Democrat since 1968. Most of our family votes Democrat as well. However after the deep disappointment of the Obama presidency and our total distrust of Hillary ("These jobs are not coming back") I may not vote Democratic this year. Why should I vote for anyone who voted to go to war and who's husband signed NAFTA into law? How can I trust the leadership of my party? I can't. For that reason I may vote for John Kasich if he becomes the Republican nominee. Of course Sanders may make it and I might feel more comfortable with him.
Lately I find my party the party of exclusion and elitism. Many of us feel locked out. The fact that super delegates exist also discourages many of us. We no longer have a voice. Its bad enough that the Republicans are committed to suppression of voting rights and dissolution of the Voting Rights Act but now we find that the Democrats demonstrate the same exclusionary practices at the caucuses.
I no longer know why I'm a Democrat. I no longer feel loyalty to a party that has betrayed the middle class for the last 30 years. I don't care one iota for Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz either. I surely don't want Hillary Clinton and a repeat of the disastrous trade and other policies of the Clinton administration.
This fall I may just stay home.
Sadly, I agree. We have no real choices. I am a registered and voting Democrat since 1968. Most of our family votes Democrat as well. However after the deep disappointment of the Obama presidency and our total distrust of Hillary ("These jobs are not coming back") I may not vote Democratic this year. Why should I vote for anyone who voted to go to war and who's husband signed NAFTA into law? How can I trust the leadership of my party? I can't. For that reason I may vote for John Kasich if he becomes the Republican nominee. Of course Sanders may make it and I might feel more comfortable with him.
Lately I find my party the party of exclusion and elitism. Many of us feel locked out. The fact that super delegates exist also discourages many of us. We no longer have a voice. Its bad enough that the Republicans are committed to suppression of voting rights and dissolution of the Voting Rights Act but now we find that the Democrats demonstrate the same exclusionary practices at the caucuses.
I no longer know why I'm a Democrat. I no longer feel loyalty to a party that has betrayed the middle class for the last 30 years. I don't care one iota for Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz either. I surely don't want Hillary Clinton and a repeat of the disastrous trade and other policies of the Clinton administration.
This fall I may just stay home.
3
In addition to caucus peer pressure, there's another kind of peer pressure that's subtle and subconscious. It's known as the "bandwagon effect." It's a psychological phenomenon; an observed social behavior in which people tend to go along with what others do or think without considering their own actions. It's hypnotic. We humans tend to be sheep like. We don't want to be left out. It's an evolutionary instinct. (During early evolutionary times, if we were left out we didn't survive). Thus we align ourselves with alpha's not omega's. Or even who just appears on the surface to be either of those categories, like the real estate mogul. So we easily become enamored with and awed by and thus grasp onto anything or anyone who looks like a winner, even if they in reality aren't. Then there are polls that can also influence the bandwagon effect. Superdelegates can correct for that.
1
If a party exists to elect like-minded candidates, then it makes sense (to me) for there to be superdelegates. After all, they owe something to the party and the party owes something to them. Preventing an "insurgent" candidate who has no allegiance to the party and has done nothing to campaign or fund party candidates, is reasonable from the party's point of view. The problem is that we are bound to a two-party system. If a candidate, like Sanders or Trump, is going to hijack a party's nomination and then expect that party resources will be used to help him win a general election when he's done nothing to help the party in the past, then superdelegates are a necessary means of making sure the party (and the voters who consider themselves members of that party and will vote reliably for the party's candidates) can elect party loyalists.
I always thought that to counteract Republican excesses, perhaps all Democrats should run to join the Republican party, effectively insuring there is only one party, responsive to the majority of voters. No more gerrymandering, no more loony-tunes elected to Congress. If we can't have one party, then we need lots--where every candidate with unworkable, fanciful, or just plain bigoted notions can have his followers vote for him and the party with the biggest voter draw wins. No more Nader spoilers or choices between the lesser of two evils, like Trump and Cruz. They each get their own party. Now that would be democratic.
I always thought that to counteract Republican excesses, perhaps all Democrats should run to join the Republican party, effectively insuring there is only one party, responsive to the majority of voters. No more gerrymandering, no more loony-tunes elected to Congress. If we can't have one party, then we need lots--where every candidate with unworkable, fanciful, or just plain bigoted notions can have his followers vote for him and the party with the biggest voter draw wins. No more Nader spoilers or choices between the lesser of two evils, like Trump and Cruz. They each get their own party. Now that would be democratic.
I agree with both points. Superdelegates are an absurdity. Frankly, this is what people mean when they use "liberal elitism" as a criticism. It's the belief, present in the higher echelons of the DNC, that these individuals "know better" or "know what's best" for the base of the Democratic party, and the American people, regardless of what the voters want.
It is undemocratic, because it allows these connected individuals to choose the nominees for the people, as opposed to the other way around. I was at a dinner in 2012 with someone who worked within the DNC apparatus. We were talking about the election in general, and I said something to the effect of "the voters, and people, choosing the candidate". He laughed in my face, and said, "At that point in the process, the voters are the least important part of the process. They don't matter then". My blood boiled.
Caucuses are also ridiculous, for the reasons presented herein. Primary voting should mirror the actual election as closely as possible. No one needs to peer-pressure their candidate into success, nor should they have to take an entire day off to make their preference known. This is the 21st century, we shouldn't be conducing our electoral process like a group of ranchers squabbling at a grange meeting.
It is undemocratic, because it allows these connected individuals to choose the nominees for the people, as opposed to the other way around. I was at a dinner in 2012 with someone who worked within the DNC apparatus. We were talking about the election in general, and I said something to the effect of "the voters, and people, choosing the candidate". He laughed in my face, and said, "At that point in the process, the voters are the least important part of the process. They don't matter then". My blood boiled.
Caucuses are also ridiculous, for the reasons presented herein. Primary voting should mirror the actual election as closely as possible. No one needs to peer-pressure their candidate into success, nor should they have to take an entire day off to make their preference known. This is the 21st century, we shouldn't be conducing our electoral process like a group of ranchers squabbling at a grange meeting.
I can see limiting the number of superdelegates to only members of Congress and Governors for the Democrats (as well as requiring they not declare until all primaries have finished). But, it is unrealistic to think that elected members of Congress and Governors should not have a say in whom should be their nominee. For members of Congress, they need to have some input into the person with whom they will have to work with if that person wins the presidency. Further, governors represent the roots of the party framework. Again, they need to have some input in that they are intimately familiar with the concerns of the base. It is a political party, after all, not a collection of celebrities.
As for caucuses, I would be thrilled if they were all abandoned. They are a totally undemocratic institution that allows activists to control the process, not the electorate. In Texas, for example, before this year, they used to have both a primary and a caucus. In 2008, Hillary Clinton won a sizable majority of the primary but Barack Obama won the caucus. So, how can one claim that a caucus represents the 'will of the party' if the results are so discrepant with an election? Thankfully, this year the dual system was dropped and they only had a primary.
As for caucuses, I would be thrilled if they were all abandoned. They are a totally undemocratic institution that allows activists to control the process, not the electorate. In Texas, for example, before this year, they used to have both a primary and a caucus. In 2008, Hillary Clinton won a sizable majority of the primary but Barack Obama won the caucus. So, how can one claim that a caucus represents the 'will of the party' if the results are so discrepant with an election? Thankfully, this year the dual system was dropped and they only had a primary.
There are many ways to game the system, the timing of the state primaries is one of them and the media is another. The media's influence is spread much more evenly with instant access to a multitude of sources. That should be a good thing but many of these sources on the left and the right have the sole aim of disseminating false information or are revenue machines. Always check information against a variety of credible sources and old data against recent data. They are often at odds with each other but can balance perspective.
Caucuses are obviously unfair unless of course your candidate wins, then the caucus becomes the voice of "we the people".
Although she won the popular vote, The Party chose Obama over Hillary and that's worked out pretty well hasn't it?
The system isn't going to change soon but both Hillary and Bernie are seasoned politicians and the people running their campaigns have been quite successful in their strategy.
If "we the people" (the mob) go for Donald and he wins the popular vote he should be our next president.
Would you then make the the same argument for fair elections?
Caucuses are obviously unfair unless of course your candidate wins, then the caucus becomes the voice of "we the people".
Although she won the popular vote, The Party chose Obama over Hillary and that's worked out pretty well hasn't it?
The system isn't going to change soon but both Hillary and Bernie are seasoned politicians and the people running their campaigns have been quite successful in their strategy.
If "we the people" (the mob) go for Donald and he wins the popular vote he should be our next president.
Would you then make the the same argument for fair elections?
1
Super delegate is a misnomer and shows the power of language to distort the truth. Elected representatives and the party's most engaged workers are automatic delegates. Including them in the total count increases the number of delegates able to participate in the convention. Their primary interest is the furtherance of the party's Democratic platform, which comes from resolutions submitted by and voted on by those who choose to engage. The super delegates have not, and will not, do anything to jeopardize the chance to move the agenda forward through governance.
Governance succeeds through compromise and finding common ground. Caucuses allow for learning, exchange of information among neighbors and opportunities to be involved in party efforts. Primaries allow for more voters to easily register their preferences, whether they are informed by individual reasoning or influenced by ads, news sources or family and friends. Neither process will produce better governance until more voters are engaged in fact-finding and paying attention to issues and legislation at all levels of government. Frustration is at a peak now, and voters are finally becoming engaged. Blowing up the system through protest and demonization, and walking away when they don't get all they want, will not produce the desired results.
Governance succeeds through compromise and finding common ground. Caucuses allow for learning, exchange of information among neighbors and opportunities to be involved in party efforts. Primaries allow for more voters to easily register their preferences, whether they are informed by individual reasoning or influenced by ads, news sources or family and friends. Neither process will produce better governance until more voters are engaged in fact-finding and paying attention to issues and legislation at all levels of government. Frustration is at a peak now, and voters are finally becoming engaged. Blowing up the system through protest and demonization, and walking away when they don't get all they want, will not produce the desired results.
The idea of the political party itself is undemocratic, but it is also an effective way to develop a cohesive, organized, compromise agenda with a variety of elements that appeal, to a greater or lesser degree, to a large segment of the voting population. The superdelegates are people who have devoted their time, energy and ideas to making the party effective in promoting that agenda. Because of that, I have no problem with superdelegates having a "super-vote", especially given that they, more than most voting citizens, have a much better sense of which potential nominee is actually capable of not only winning the general election but also furthering the agenda the citizens are voting for.
The caucuses are a different matter, not only because prevent broad citizen participation, but because they allow bullies to intimidate other caucus participants. Both elements enter into the extremely lopsided wins Sanders has achieved in caucus states. It is patently ridiculous to read those results as reflecting the views of most Democratic voters in those states.
The caucuses are a different matter, not only because prevent broad citizen participation, but because they allow bullies to intimidate other caucus participants. Both elements enter into the extremely lopsided wins Sanders has achieved in caucus states. It is patently ridiculous to read those results as reflecting the views of most Democratic voters in those states.
1
Our system of electing a President is archaic. I believe my nephew is correct: Primaries for both Parties are just becoming a way to fill coffers. The will of the people can be easily circumvented if it does not coincide with the Party elites. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Democrats, and Bernie Sanders will be shuffled aside. The Republicans are semi-supporting a reprehensible candidate for the purpose of denying Trump a majority of electoral votes, so in a brokered convention the elites can put forth a candidate of their choice. Then there's the electoral college.
The "swing states" are almost all that matter anymore. This is not representative of the nation as a whole. Time has long past when we need an electoral college. A President should be elected by direct popular vote. That would be fair and more representative of a true democracy, and less vulnerable to political maneuvering. The electoral college cost Al Gore the Presidency and gave us George Bush.
The "swing states" are almost all that matter anymore. This is not representative of the nation as a whole. Time has long past when we need an electoral college. A President should be elected by direct popular vote. That would be fair and more representative of a true democracy, and less vulnerable to political maneuvering. The electoral college cost Al Gore the Presidency and gave us George Bush.
2
This is a strange year to complain about the undemocratic aspects of the presidential primary season. Party nomination processes can be as democratic or undemocratic as the members of the parties want them to be. The people get their say in the actual election. We would be better off if the process was more undemocratic and party leaders chose the nominees. At least it would knock about a year and a half off the whole thing. Do we really need two-year long presidential elections?
I can see no evidence that the more democratic selection process has selected better nominees or produced better presidents. I think Republicans would agree this year and wish they had a less democratic process on their side.
If the party leaders picked the nominees, they would have picked Clinton and Bush who would be fine representatives of their parties and guarantee at least a competent President. Most of the frustration and complaints about the system are exaggerated; the truth is the system is really working the way it is designed to work, like it or not. We all need to chill out.
A process that throws up Sanders and Trump because people are frustrated with the system is a process that needs to be reexamined. The so-called democratic nominating process empowers each party’s base and activists not the people, and a less democratic process would be more efficient, probably produce saner candidates, and be a lot cheaper.
I can see no evidence that the more democratic selection process has selected better nominees or produced better presidents. I think Republicans would agree this year and wish they had a less democratic process on their side.
If the party leaders picked the nominees, they would have picked Clinton and Bush who would be fine representatives of their parties and guarantee at least a competent President. Most of the frustration and complaints about the system are exaggerated; the truth is the system is really working the way it is designed to work, like it or not. We all need to chill out.
A process that throws up Sanders and Trump because people are frustrated with the system is a process that needs to be reexamined. The so-called democratic nominating process empowers each party’s base and activists not the people, and a less democratic process would be more efficient, probably produce saner candidates, and be a lot cheaper.
2
How about this: election reform. 1. Publically financed elections with requirements that political ads shall be truthful and their content focus on the issues, and requirements of equal and full coverage by media of all campaigns passing some minimum threshold. 2. Ranked choice voting to do away with two-party stranglehold on nominations. 3. Uniform, simplified, transparent voter registration overseen by disinterested parties. 4. Election Day holiday for voting. Plenty of polling places. Optical scanning machines only so recount is always possible. Again, oversight by disinterested parties. 5. Direct vote, no electoral college. No superdelegates. No delegates.
289
And they can raise my taxes in order to accomplish the publicly financed elections idea. And while we are at it - public financing would help to disembowel the Supreme Court's 'Citizens United' disaster.
Who will determine what's truthful? The fact checkers at the NYT???
1
Portia - Ma.
But I don't think one can legislate that political ads be "truthful".
"Truth is in the eye of the beholder".
But I don't think one can legislate that political ads be "truthful".
"Truth is in the eye of the beholder".
Rather unfair that the Democratic National Committee Person, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is HRC's former campaign matter, or that she scheduled the debates when less people would be watching (btw, they're trying that again), and eliminated the fairness rules Obama put into keep Super Pac money out of the primary election season. The deck has been stacked all along. Sometimes, we ask ourselves, why aren't the Democrats speaking up for their (our) positions more stridently? Why are Durban and Schumer such pantywaists vs the opposition? Here's why...they are paid off to keep quiet. The Democratic Party has become a slimy, malfunctioning, mess. Maybe HRC should take responsibility for setting an example that politics is really about feathering your nest, not really about service to the people.
3
Primaries are a peculiarity of the American party system. In most countries with numerous parties and a parliamentary system leaders are not selected by votes open to the public at large. The parties are more closely knit and it is basically those with the most political clout that end up picking who will be running for parliament as a member of the party. The voters only get to chose between the choices presented to them by each party. In such a system neither Sanders nor Trump could be running as members of the Democratic or Republican party. Is the US system of primaries better? The US system is more open, basically allows anyone to declare himself a Republican or a Democrat, collect enough signatures and then run in the primaries. The biggest hurdle is money, without substantial funds any candidate is doomed. Without campaign finance reform one cannot say that the US system is more democratic.
In other countries it is the parties that provides the funds for campaigns and the parties does have much more control over the process. In the US it is the individual may raise funds on his own, the net result is that money counts for much more than in other countries.
In other countries it is the parties that provides the funds for campaigns and the parties does have much more control over the process. In the US it is the individual may raise funds on his own, the net result is that money counts for much more than in other countries.
5
Real political parties have nationally consistent distinctive platforms. Voters select whose platform to support in elections after the parties select the candidates to implement them.
Political parties are not now and never have been about democracy. Neither are they about good government. Political parties are private associations and their goal is power and control. That we regard them today as an essential part of the election process stands as evidence of how effectively they have usurped the intended power of the people. I refuse to consider myself as a member of a political party and as a result in New Mexico I am therefore prohibited from voting in the primary election even though it is paid for by the taxpayers. This is clearly a legal violation of electoral intent, but good luck getting it changed, as once the parties get their hands on the controls of power they will never vote to give it up.
13
Well, one could also argue that political parties are there in lieu of fragmented coalitions of narrower interests. It just means that negotiations and concessions for those *among* a generalized political philosophy are front-loaded into the nomination process, instead of worked out while governing. Say what you will, but having three parties kept an unliked, destructive conservative PM in Canada for a decade while the majority of the country wanted him out but kept splitting their vote.
I think it's a myth that without political parties, we would suddenly have a government that is somehow *more* representative of the people's will. We would just factionalize and fragment into tinier advocacies, and candidates who are more extreme would rise to greater positions of power because they would only require pluralities. Right now, the Trump nationalist party would be beating both the Centrist Clinton liberal-democrat party and the New Left Sanders party. Hey, but at least that would "be about democracy"?
I think it's a myth that without political parties, we would suddenly have a government that is somehow *more* representative of the people's will. We would just factionalize and fragment into tinier advocacies, and candidates who are more extreme would rise to greater positions of power because they would only require pluralities. Right now, the Trump nationalist party would be beating both the Centrist Clinton liberal-democrat party and the New Left Sanders party. Hey, but at least that would "be about democracy"?
Failure to retain the Parliamentary system was one of the worst mistakes of the American Revolution.
It is stupid to fight human nature in politics. People are inclined to join into like minded groups to amplify their voices, and influence public policy by electing candidates to public offices.
It is stupid to fight human nature in politics. People are inclined to join into like minded groups to amplify their voices, and influence public policy by electing candidates to public offices.
Some people seem to be confused about the 1980 campaign. Jimmie Carter was the establishment candidate, the sitting President. Ted Kennedy was the insurgent, whose bid was thought to have weakened Carter in the general election. Then as now the establishment thought it necessary to suppress the left wing.
46
As Carter details in his memoir, it was Kennedy's decision to back away from their healthcare initiative for political reasons (he thought the credit that would accrue to Carter would make him unassailable) that foiled it. I appreciate what an insurgent candidate can do for a party--in fact, I worked for Gene McCarthy back in 1968--the infusion of energy, the enfranchisement of communities of people who may feel forgotten or marginalized by the mainstream, the affirmation of democratic principles are all good. But, just to note, an insurgent candidacy can do a lot of harm as well. One cannot be selectively cynical!
You're confusing 1980 with 1976. Carter was the Establishment candidate in 1980, yes.
Question # 1. Why have political parties?
They are inherently undemocratic. Super delegates and caucuses are only the tip of the iceberg. They have committees, like the fundraising, rules and platform committees, that are selected by the party elites. Not elected by the voters.
In states with closed primaries, the two dominant political parties effectively disenfranchise the independents and the third party candidates. How democratic is that? Maybe we should just convert the primaries into extended general elections.
Question #2. Who are the members of these parties? Voters who switch allegiance to party every two years or whenever they don't like the party's slate? Voters with some proven allegiance? Campaign workers? Elected office holders with long records of supporting party candidates and policies?
Question #3. Should all members of the Party, from the transiently committed voter du jour to the elected office holder be accorded equal power?
They are inherently undemocratic. Super delegates and caucuses are only the tip of the iceberg. They have committees, like the fundraising, rules and platform committees, that are selected by the party elites. Not elected by the voters.
In states with closed primaries, the two dominant political parties effectively disenfranchise the independents and the third party candidates. How democratic is that? Maybe we should just convert the primaries into extended general elections.
Question #2. Who are the members of these parties? Voters who switch allegiance to party every two years or whenever they don't like the party's slate? Voters with some proven allegiance? Campaign workers? Elected office holders with long records of supporting party candidates and policies?
Question #3. Should all members of the Party, from the transiently committed voter du jour to the elected office holder be accorded equal power?
18
Political parties exist because we have the freedom of association as guaranteed by the Constitution. There is nothing undemocratic about free people getting together and organizing for political change. The problem is that we have an electoral system that so heavily favors a two party system that any attempt to organize an alternative voice serves mostly to hand a win to the party that most opposes that alternative voice.
The attack on caucuses seems an attack on Obama. He would have lost in 2008 on an all-primary system. Hillary is the one with organization, not Bernie The caucuses should favor her. As in 2008, the well-informed elements of the electorate under 50 who go to caucuses think she is hopelessly out of touch.
40
I phone banked for Hillary in caucus states and found many Hillary voters that could not get to the caucuses because of health reasons or family reasons. There was also intimidation of Hillary supporters by Bernie supporters in a number of locations.
1
The caucuses do not favor her because they are correlated with high attendance by whites and low attendance by African Americans. I also suspect elderly people, shift workers, people with young kids especially single parents, and disabled people are disenfranchised by caucuses.
1
It's simple. When you take the power away from the people, whether through bogus voter I.D. laws or through the use of superdelegates, made up of party elites, it literally undermines our democratic principles that we claim to cherish and naively think is the very heartbeat of our Republic. It's as if America's primary goal is to bully its way to become the preeminent laughing stock of the world. I'm so disgusted with this country. We're a sham, a big fat fake for the wealthy and powerful to plunder until there's nothing left. No wonder people don't bother voting. It's the pseudo democracy dance of the American fools.
547
I agree with you. Still, voting is the only way to express our voice, flawed as the process is.
3
Way to dodge the also undemocratic process of the caucus.
1
Again, with the "bogus ID laws"? Bundling that with otherwise valid arguments only weakens the whole discourse. There's nothing bogus about expecting voters to be able to prove that they are who they claim they are; and above all, citizens, with the same simple photo ID they need for any other interaction with the government.
1
Bernie does great in caucuses where the Bernie Bros can yell and intimidate voters who dare oppose their messianical candidate. But wait, I thought the appeal of Bernie was that he had the support of "the people" and the popular vote?
They're all against "back door politics" until Bernie pulls some back door politics in Nevada disenfranchising thousands of voters. Then its cool.
As far as I can see it, Bernie is exactly what the superdelegates are designed to stifle. An ideologue campaigner who gives grand promises with no actual chance of winning the general, or getting anything done in office. A candidate who's losing by millions of votes, and resorts to demogoguery and intimidation.
They're all against "back door politics" until Bernie pulls some back door politics in Nevada disenfranchising thousands of voters. Then its cool.
As far as I can see it, Bernie is exactly what the superdelegates are designed to stifle. An ideologue campaigner who gives grand promises with no actual chance of winning the general, or getting anything done in office. A candidate who's losing by millions of votes, and resorts to demogoguery and intimidation.
111
Decima, I wonder where you've gotten your information on the intimidating Bernie Bros. Here's my caucus in WA: first we voted before any speech making - about 80-20 for Bernie - 5 undecided. Speeches were then made. Final comment was, "I'm a Bernie supporter, but it seems unfair that Hillary supporters receive no voice (WA has a 25% minimum), so I'd encourage the undecideds to vote for Hillary so that their voice be represented too." And with that Hillary got 6 votes in the 2nd tally. Yup, there's those intimidating Bernie Bros. bullying their way again.
3
Oh, come on. Give it a rest. Sanders is doing well out west. I honestly don't care which one wins, but they're both reasonable candidates. Sanders, if elected, and with long coattails might very well be able to achieve single-payer health care. No on free colleges. But the kinds of policies he advocates are in place for most of our allies. I live in a county that gave Obama 19% of the vote and know a lot of Sanders supporters among my friends. Amazingly, they are just people. You know. Like we all are, in spite of the fact that campaigning is ugly and people can get mean. Maybe it's anti-democratic to insult your fellow citizens and call them thugs and idiots? Yep. I'm thinking that's a problem for democracy, too.
4
Yes, if Hillary wins, the republicans will welcome her with open arms as the continuation of Obama. The vitriol against her will constrain her efforts even more than they did for Obama. I look at what Hillary did as Senator and what Bernie did. Clearly, Sen Sanders had far more successes than Hillary.
Bernie is not a Democrat, so quit chastising my party for not being welcoming to him. The Socialist Independent changed lanes solely for the purpose of using my party's primary/caucus machinery.
Like Trump, Bernie fashions himself as an anti-Washington maverick. Well, Bernie, welcome to the world of Ron Paul, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, angry white mavericks who thought they were smarter than anyone else, but who actually accomplished very little because they could not play well with others.
Like Trump, Bernie fashions himself as an anti-Washington maverick. Well, Bernie, welcome to the world of Ron Paul, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, angry white mavericks who thought they were smarter than anyone else, but who actually accomplished very little because they could not play well with others.
145
To Ed in Oklahoma City. Yes, the Ron Pauls, Ross Perots, Ralph Naders of the USA are problematic. Bernie can't win. But, even though I am not a Bernie supporter and I was not a Paul, Perot, or Nader supporter, I am aware that they all have and do bring important facts and discussion and issues to the forefront, which are nonetheless ignored by the greater population of the USA. Duh? When are people going to start realizing that we can't hate the government? What is the source of this mass "self hate" that propels and energizes the common people? And, by the way, what are we, or what can we do about the Oklahoma problem? The Oklahoma Syndrome, we might call it, if it were a disease (and maybe it is). So, unfortunately, you cannot vote cuz your vote will be eaten up by the "reds" of your state who, in large part, vote against their own self-interest. Don't they know that Ted Cruz wants to do away with Social Security?
1
So, political parties should be exclusive rather than inclusive. And thus, by extension, so should American style democracy because you can hardly have inclusion and full participation if the system is controlled by two exclusive clubs. Which leaves millions of Americans out in the cold - those who don’t necessarily fall in line with one-size-fits-all party platforms. The reality is that each of the parties is concerned less with democracy and a participatory government, and almost exclusively with retention of power. So Bernie is forced to either crash the party and run under one party’s banner, or run as a third party candidate. Of course, the two parties have intentionally created laws that make it virtually impossible to run as a third party candidate. But if Bernie were running as a third party candidate, Hillary and the cry-baby Dems would be screaming to high heaven that he is taking votes from her. And they would be right; he would take millions of votes from her, and the result would be a Trump presidency. This is a perfect example of the corruption of the two-party system, and proof that we need more political parties in the mix to represent the many voices of contemporary America. This is what the post 2016 election revolution will be about : challenging the back room machine politics which Hillary represents, and bringing more people into the process instead of just the oligarchs.
5
"the Socialist Independent changed lanes solely for the purpose of using my party's primary/caucus machinery. "
Really?
Bernie is running as a Dem precisely because he does not want to inflict the damage that Nader did. You don't have to vote for him, but please be somewhat thankful that he's chosen this route. BTW, the Dems have been happy to have him on their side in the Senate.
Really?
Bernie is running as a Dem precisely because he does not want to inflict the damage that Nader did. You don't have to vote for him, but please be somewhat thankful that he's chosen this route. BTW, the Dems have been happy to have him on their side in the Senate.
4
The superdelegate system obviously hurts Senator Sanders. He has indeed dominated the caucuses but you don't explain in any way how the causus system actually "favors" him. In fact you imply that it does the opposite:
"This says nothing of the burden caucuses put on families without child care, students and senior citizens . . . It’s the height of irony that the caucuses have favored Sanders, the candidate promising to decrease income inequality and fight for higher wages."
"This says nothing of the burden caucuses put on families without child care, students and senior citizens . . . It’s the height of irony that the caucuses have favored Sanders, the candidate promising to decrease income inequality and fight for higher wages."
14
The caucus favors the candidate who is most appealing to the passionate and loud who have time on their hands. That describes a lot of young relatively well off democrats (a group that heavily supports Sanders) and fewer other democrats (who tend to have greater responsibilities either to family or to just putting food on the table).
So Caucuses favor ideologues (who evoke the passion and impracticality of youth) while Super Delegates favor establishment candidates (who you can argue represent age, conformity and the will of moneyed interests). Both are undemocratic, and both should go - though to be honest the presidency should be decided by a popular vote (as delegates from states are not needed in our modern era of advanced communication).
So many things to fix...
So Caucuses favor ideologues (who evoke the passion and impracticality of youth) while Super Delegates favor establishment candidates (who you can argue represent age, conformity and the will of moneyed interests). Both are undemocratic, and both should go - though to be honest the presidency should be decided by a popular vote (as delegates from states are not needed in our modern era of advanced communication).
So many things to fix...
@ Gerald–the caucuses prevent many older voters from voting. And voters over 50 has been as strong a demographic for Clinton as voters under 30 has been for Bernie. Caucuses favor young, healthy and white voters period. And young and white is Bernie's whole voter base and that is why caucuses favor him.
Meh! Just like there'e all kinds of capitalism, there's all kinds of democracy. We are a party system, and parties are by definition exclusionary, but the barriers to admittance are low. I, like most Americans, do not have the patience or interest to sit through rules and platform committee meetings, in an off year and on a local level, but that's on me. There's a lot of work that goes into a political party, or a union, or a school board, etc. Heck, we can't hardly get people to vote in elections, let alone participate in any process for deciding on who or what we are voting for.
39
And people are always totally unaware of the election boards who make sure we have ballots, make sure voter registrations are valid, make sure there are people working the polls, make sure the votes are counted, etc., etc., etc.... All the brouhaha surrounding the straw man that the Republican Party has set up regarding voter fraud and their ability to change rules so that they (RP) can deny voting rights to certain classes of people (students, Hispanics, poor people, people who don't drive, etc.) is contingent on the fact that people are ignorant of the existence of the election board and all that it does and the rules about voting. It is virtually impossible for an unqualified voter to cast a vote.
Best comment on this article - thanks
In a time of independent (Unenrolled) voters be in the majority (as is the case in Massachusetts) political parties are a unfortunate leftover from a time before the Internet.
The Republican are done and the Democrats are not far behind. We do not need these corrupt undemocratic anachronisms of machine politics.
The founders did not envision parties and were appalled when they arose. Now we can do without them and every candidate can be an indipendent.
The Republican are done and the Democrats are not far behind. We do not need these corrupt undemocratic anachronisms of machine politics.
The founders did not envision parties and were appalled when they arose. Now we can do without them and every candidate can be an indipendent.
18
The Ist Amendment provides for freedom of speech and the right to assemble and petition your government. Parties are an inevitable outcome of said rights as James Madison described in Federalist 10. The solution provided by Madison was to mitigate the dangers by the structure of the Constitution--federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances. Geography and diversity would protect the liberty interest. As a good politician Madison publicly denounced parties and then entered the competitive arena and behaved in a partisan manner. Many other founders did as well. At root parties are the aggregate of voter interests, coordinated for efficiency's sake. We might as well decry participation.
As a historical fact, George Washington was appalled when parties arose, but most of the other founders still involved in politics at the time parties were arising were too busy forming parties to be appalled.
"The founders did not envision parties and were appalled when they arose."-- interesting statement, but please state your source(s).
So the party that habitually accuses its opponent of voter suppression is in fact the master of voter suppression itself. Its always so horribly inconvenient when those disgusting little peons don't know whats good for them, right Queen Hillary?
And of course howling against picture ids to vote, and then requiring them to attend party conventions and events also are hypocritical, but that's just the way the DNC roles isn't it...
And of course howling against picture ids to vote, and then requiring them to attend party conventions and events also are hypocritical, but that's just the way the DNC roles isn't it...
38
Bow down to the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve.
I cannot add a thing to what Charles has outlined here. I'm against "super" anything (what could be more unDemocratic?) and also against caucuses because of the need to get to cold dark places in the late hours of the evening, a surefire recipe for the infirm or sick. It seems to me that all primaries should be raw vote: I'm fine with "apportionment" of delegates by percentage of raw vote, because this is a primary: not a general election.
The concept of "party leaders" playing king or queenmaker offensive, because it presumes voters aren't knowledgeable. I would venture to say anyone who does vote in a primary knows a lot, and cares--many don't bother.
But this essay also reminds me of people's natural misconceptions of US election rules. Many are shocked that we have an electoral college that does the actual voting, and our poll decisions in November decisions are just aggregate allocations of votes for those in the college. In other words, the concept of one man/woman = one vote is simply not true, other than to form an aggregate. Popular vote does not equate to final result, and that's been the way it's been for a long time.
So, yes, Charles, let's make the primary process more representative and less autocratic. Let raw vote determine nominations, because it may be the last time one person/one vote counts.
The concept of "party leaders" playing king or queenmaker offensive, because it presumes voters aren't knowledgeable. I would venture to say anyone who does vote in a primary knows a lot, and cares--many don't bother.
But this essay also reminds me of people's natural misconceptions of US election rules. Many are shocked that we have an electoral college that does the actual voting, and our poll decisions in November decisions are just aggregate allocations of votes for those in the college. In other words, the concept of one man/woman = one vote is simply not true, other than to form an aggregate. Popular vote does not equate to final result, and that's been the way it's been for a long time.
So, yes, Charles, let's make the primary process more representative and less autocratic. Let raw vote determine nominations, because it may be the last time one person/one vote counts.
185
I am sure the Republicans wish they had some super delegates!
Even with proportional allocation, if there us not one individual with a majority you will need some way to come to an agreement on the standard bearer.
Ranking of candidates by voters is a possibility.
Even with proportional allocation, if there us not one individual with a majority you will need some way to come to an agreement on the standard bearer.
Ranking of candidates by voters is a possibility.
"The concept of "party leaders" playing king or queenmaker offensive, because it presumes voters aren't knowledgeable..."
Actually, it is worse. The part leaders don't really care what the voters think, knowledgeable or not.
Actually, it is worse. The part leaders don't really care what the voters think, knowledgeable or not.
1
are you against super banks, super insurance, super energy, super military industrial production, super prison industrial production, super deregulation, super trade policies that serve corporate interest? If yes, why for a candidate that has been lock step with all such supersizing. Isn't it time to bear down a bit on the contradictions? It really isn't THAT complex.
We do have to remember that the GOP and the Democrat parties are not governmental entities. Each is a not-for-profits with a set of governing rules. These rules can be changed. Of the two rules Mr. Blow discusses in this column, I am more concerned about the caucus system because it directly suppresses the ability of "card carrying" Democrats to express their choices. Superdelegate can, and do, change their minds. They are susceptible to pressure from party members. Of the two, I would opt to ban the caucus as the larger evil.
55
Each state has its own rules about how the two party labels conduct business locally. There is no national uniformity to the processes.
The democrats are not the only party where super delegates and convention rules committees hold power. In the GOP a member of the convention rules committee, said in no uncertain terms that, "Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees." One big difference for the GOP is the candidate they are trying to slam is the one most voters have voted for, Trump. Louisiana is the poster child where Cruz lost but is going to get more delegates. Trump doesn't just roll over. He attacks the system that allows this to happen, calling the process unfair and it is. Voters in some primaries waited for one to three hours to vote, being told every voted counted. But it doesn't. This is a process that Trump won't just roll over for. Sanders is trailing, so some will say the process did change something that was going to happen anyway. But in Trumps case, he is leading by a significant number. If he has the nomination stolen from him in the convention, those who voted for him in primaries will feel betrayed. Betrayal has a long memory. The party will suffer. The Democrat's establishment already has had some fall out. Jim Webb realized early on that Clinton had been anointed. He dropped out and was said to be considering an independent run. It didn't happen but he will probably remember this for a long time.
8
@HRM,
I remember those early debates and how Clinton didn't really seem to acknowledge any of her opponents on the stage. I remember Webb and his consideration for an Independent run, all of former candidates, including O'Malley who accused the DNC of political malpractice, I believe. If memory serves me correctly, Clinton's people didn't attack Webb or Chaffee, did they? Of course, they withdrew. And Sanders didn't. He gets blacked out or demeaned, except by (most) non-corporate media. His genuine voters are condescended to by the press, attacked by so many of Clinton's voters who (willfully?) lump them with "Bernie Bros." Not mention the pressure from Steinem who I admire and Albright, who I don't (frankly). It feels like a lifetime ago. It seems no one can disagree in a civil way anymore.
I remember comments about Trump's successes, including some who said they witnessed coercion. It gave me pause, particularly since you said he complained about delegates. Regardless of the chasm of differences between Trump and Sanders (what an understatement), both of them were correct and agreed about a few things. One of which is obvious. For better or worse, things need to change. I have a feeling they will soon. I just hope we survive it.
4-4-16@11:11 am
I remember those early debates and how Clinton didn't really seem to acknowledge any of her opponents on the stage. I remember Webb and his consideration for an Independent run, all of former candidates, including O'Malley who accused the DNC of political malpractice, I believe. If memory serves me correctly, Clinton's people didn't attack Webb or Chaffee, did they? Of course, they withdrew. And Sanders didn't. He gets blacked out or demeaned, except by (most) non-corporate media. His genuine voters are condescended to by the press, attacked by so many of Clinton's voters who (willfully?) lump them with "Bernie Bros." Not mention the pressure from Steinem who I admire and Albright, who I don't (frankly). It feels like a lifetime ago. It seems no one can disagree in a civil way anymore.
I remember comments about Trump's successes, including some who said they witnessed coercion. It gave me pause, particularly since you said he complained about delegates. Regardless of the chasm of differences between Trump and Sanders (what an understatement), both of them were correct and agreed about a few things. One of which is obvious. For better or worse, things need to change. I have a feeling they will soon. I just hope we survive it.
4-4-16@11:11 am
1
It's the establishment, stupid.
Everywhere!
Everywhere!
20
Oh, right. The "establishment" -- not people representing a variety of constituencies who are elected. They fall from the sky or are otherwise foisted on...well...you, because you are right and their interests are wrong.
Groups represented by lobbyists: unions, ACLU, nurses, doctors, tobacco, anti-tobacco, big businesses, small businesses, environmentalists, churches, on and on.
Which ones shouldn't have the right to petition their government?
The arrogance of the "anti-establishment" people -- that they are right and everyone else corrupt -- is an eight-year-old's understanding of pluralist democracy.
Here's news: a lot of people don't agree with you. Their votes count, too. Just like the votes of black southern Democrats count.
Hillary Clinton has more votes than any other candidate this year. The dismissal of this by self-appointed Sanderista arbiters of Just Policy is reprehensible.
Groups represented by lobbyists: unions, ACLU, nurses, doctors, tobacco, anti-tobacco, big businesses, small businesses, environmentalists, churches, on and on.
Which ones shouldn't have the right to petition their government?
The arrogance of the "anti-establishment" people -- that they are right and everyone else corrupt -- is an eight-year-old's understanding of pluralist democracy.
Here's news: a lot of people don't agree with you. Their votes count, too. Just like the votes of black southern Democrats count.
Hillary Clinton has more votes than any other candidate this year. The dismissal of this by self-appointed Sanderista arbiters of Just Policy is reprehensible.
1
There are two sides to caucuses. One is that there is only one. If one is going to use the Caucus method, there should be weeks of caucuses at various times on various days. The other thing is about what Bernie learned after the Iowa caucus. He learned that he had to ask caucus goers to report back to the campaign with the numbers of votes.
I watched an HBO documentary after the Bush/Gore election. It was absolutely proven that it's easy to change election results to make them worthless. Just pay the maker of the voting machine to adjust the votes to arrive at the desired winner - in Ohio - that was Bush.
I watched an HBO documentary after the Bush/Gore election. It was absolutely proven that it's easy to change election results to make them worthless. Just pay the maker of the voting machine to adjust the votes to arrive at the desired winner - in Ohio - that was Bush.
33
Since elections are so infrequent, it is actually more economical to hand count the vote than invest in automating the counting.
In the 2012 election in Illinois, that's exactly what happened in suburban Chicago where even a Republican candidates own vote was switched to his Democratic opponent. It was determined that the machine was "out of calibration", but it didn't stop those votes from being counted.
Of the People, By the People, For the People, Whatever. Democracy a nice concept but quickly forgotten from day one on. The founding fathers liked the idea but limited the electorate to people like them, white, male, propertied. Its been played different way at different times but today, setting aside the numerous restrictions on when and where and who, voting outcomes are largely determined by Money expended and the micro-managing processes that knows everything about the potential voter but the color of its eyes; maybe. Its become in the general election a robot process and the undemocratic electoral college technique of assigning final votes just makes it suspenseful. Let’s hope enough are elected this time who care and make it democratic as possible for a while. I know one.
6
I'm sure they also know the color of the voter's eyes.
Is Bernie planning a third party run? He is well funded and really does not have any allegiance to the Democratic Party.
13
Bernie is for Bernie. Period.
He accuses Hillary of accepting Fossil Fuel support, but obviously doesn't care a twit he has a wing of the Insurance Industry, Captive Insurance Companies, camped out in his state, basically not minding that Vermont is an on-shore Cayman Islands for Insurance Fat Cats. But that's alright, for Bernie. When the IRS attempts to tighten the screws with regulatory actions, the Insurance Lobbies jump up and down, screaming how those companies will simply go to another state that supports the Captive Insurance Industry or back to the Cayman Islands.
"But Vermont will lose jobs," they say. Yeah, please.
It's all about Vermont providing a tax dodge so the rich can keep getting richer.
He accuses Hillary of accepting Fossil Fuel support, but obviously doesn't care a twit he has a wing of the Insurance Industry, Captive Insurance Companies, camped out in his state, basically not minding that Vermont is an on-shore Cayman Islands for Insurance Fat Cats. But that's alright, for Bernie. When the IRS attempts to tighten the screws with regulatory actions, the Insurance Lobbies jump up and down, screaming how those companies will simply go to another state that supports the Captive Insurance Industry or back to the Cayman Islands.
"But Vermont will lose jobs," they say. Yeah, please.
It's all about Vermont providing a tax dodge so the rich can keep getting richer.
1
And since the Democratic party leadership has taken the voter for granted, many of us who used to be Democrats and are now Independents may well go with him.
As said elsewhere: it's the establishment, stupid.
As said elsewhere: it's the establishment, stupid.
Bernie has never had any allegiance to the Democratic Party. He's an independent. They owe him nothing at all.
2
Democracy in America? Since when?
One person one vote? Since when?
One person one vote? Since when?
44
Agree on the caucuses. Strongly disagree on super delegates.
In the republic that is the US, our system was deliberately set up to avoid mob rule. Thus needing a 2/3 majority of states to amend the Constitution, separation of powers between the President and Congress and the continued endurance of the Electoral College.
By both parties using super delegates, it ensures that the will of the people is tempered, usually, by mostly the parties' elected representatives.
In the republic that is the US, our system was deliberately set up to avoid mob rule. Thus needing a 2/3 majority of states to amend the Constitution, separation of powers between the President and Congress and the continued endurance of the Electoral College.
By both parties using super delegates, it ensures that the will of the people is tempered, usually, by mostly the parties' elected representatives.
40
Super delegates are generally party members who have proven credibility by getting elected to public offices.
1
The word "tempered" you offer as an apology or exuse for this unraveling travesty is more accurate spelled as tampered.
1
Exactly.
1
I completely agree with the premise that caucuses must be eliminated. Maine is a caucus state. It took me three hours total to do my civic duty. That really is not right. Many people, especially low-income workers, cannot take that much time. And voting should be private. There is a movement afoot here in Maine to get rid of the caucus and go back to a primary.
And the superdelegates? Gosh, don't get me started on that process. It is totally, 100% un-democratic and must be eliminated.
I believe we should have a National Primary Day, have the whole country vote at once. All that this dragged out process does is enrich Big Media and make it entertainment which has not been helpful to this election at all.
And the superdelegates? Gosh, don't get me started on that process. It is totally, 100% un-democratic and must be eliminated.
I believe we should have a National Primary Day, have the whole country vote at once. All that this dragged out process does is enrich Big Media and make it entertainment which has not been helpful to this election at all.
280
I agree with you on caucuses. I, too, went to the Maine caucus, and spent the entire afternoon there. I think that a candidate can have a caucus strategy where they can pack a caucus with supporters and end up winning a state without worrying about the popular vote. Caucuses tend to bring out fervent supporters.
As far as super delegates go, I disagree. This is, after all, a political party that wants to field a candidate for president that they think can win, and that has party loyalty. The candidate is, after all, the standard bearer of the party, and should have to answer in some way. For instance, Bernie was asked recently about the prodigious amounts on money he has raised, and would he be using some of it to help other Democratic candidates. He said basically, not now, maybe later. This election isn't just about Bernie as far as the Democratic party is concerned, but about changing the dynamic in Congress, so the party leaders want some say about how that will happen. From a party point of view, super delegates keep someone from hijacking the party and establishing their own agenda. The Republicans wish they had super delegates, but instead are trying to resort to some sleight of hand at their convention to get the candidate they want. I would rather know up front what the party is doing.
As far as super delegates go, I disagree. This is, after all, a political party that wants to field a candidate for president that they think can win, and that has party loyalty. The candidate is, after all, the standard bearer of the party, and should have to answer in some way. For instance, Bernie was asked recently about the prodigious amounts on money he has raised, and would he be using some of it to help other Democratic candidates. He said basically, not now, maybe later. This election isn't just about Bernie as far as the Democratic party is concerned, but about changing the dynamic in Congress, so the party leaders want some say about how that will happen. From a party point of view, super delegates keep someone from hijacking the party and establishing their own agenda. The Republicans wish they had super delegates, but instead are trying to resort to some sleight of hand at their convention to get the candidate they want. I would rather know up front what the party is doing.
I was a caucus worker at the Maine Democratic caucus this year. The rules are arcane, unfavorable to anyone who doesn't have the time (3 hours +) very difficult for parents of young children, physically uncomfortable, (sitting on bleachers for 3 hours!) . The actual discussion and voting , by filling out a form, was about 45 minutes. No one moved from one side to the other. Ridiculous waste of time and energy. However the powers that be in the Maine Democratic Party seem to think this was fine. If you were elected as a delegate, you had to go to the State convention at you own expense, hotel room, meals and travel. Surprise! No one other than the local officials wanted to go.
I KNOW, isn't it just AWFUL that you have to spend three hours a year performing a civic responsibility. And worse yet, you have to actually think and express yourself rather than making a simple anyonymous binary choice.
OH, the humanity!
[/SARC]
OH, the humanity!
[/SARC]
I look forward to reading this column April 4, 2020.
6
@gusii,
You mean if we survive this with our marbles intact, right?
4-4-16@11:13 am
You mean if we survive this with our marbles intact, right?
4-4-16@11:13 am
1
There are things that caucuses gauge better than general primaries-notably enthusiasm and grass roots organizing. Hillary's lack of success in the caucuses indicates to me that she does not ignite much passion with most of her supporters This will be a problem if she doesn't garner support down the ticket given the Republican party's strategy of opposition. Some people will see the superdelegates as the wise old men and women of the party; I don't know them personally but my guess is most are corporatists Democrats who lean hawkish on defense matters.
14
Both parties are showing their true elitist stripes. Neither serves the people of the United States any longer as shown in Congress and the presidency. True democratic governments serve the people. When they only come to serve the elite of the country they are no longer democratic. We have reached that crux in this nation and the Trump and Sanders supporters are telling the elite this. The direction they come from may be different but the intentions are not. What both voices are coming down to is that the people are being left out. We the People are not being heard. If the parties deny the popular candidates they will fall and what follows could be very ugly because once the Sanders and Trump supporters realize they have all been disenfranchised and there is no where else to go then they may come to believe that the US is now an oligarchy run by the elite. What we need is a Roosevelt type figure who will redistribute wealth back to the middle and lower classes, even Trump is promising that, and forestall a revolution or the armed Trump supporters will be teaching the Sanders supporters how to shoot. Pitchforks will be the last thing the elite will have to worry about in a nation armed to the teeth. We have a chance, one chance, to prove we are still a democracy and it doesn't look good.
12
FDR was the very embodiment of the "elite". No doubt today he would be tarred by the term and rejected as a tool of Wall Street. Did he make his tax returns public I wonder?
thanks for the analysis. Maybe someday, in some ideal world, we will be able to eliminate the electoral system and use the simple popular vote. Today's I.T.- which was unavailable in the fairly recent past- could easily dump the obsolete the electoral system, if somebody really wants to change it.
They do a better job with general elections- using modern, computer-tabulated phone line voting machines down in Venezuela. But look what it got them.
Here, it's just more of the same old fear of a simple, uncontrolled middle-class majority, electing someone (an unapproved insurgent) that might actually try to do something progressive for a change.
Or something radical like election reform.
It all leaves me scratching my head. Obama was nothing if not an insurgent candidate. Although Obama has carried himself with dignity- and one can be proud that we elected a qualified black man as President- has the Democratic special group appeal-strategy been good for the party?
The seemingly under-appreciated return to populism by unapproved insurgent Sanders is working and more in step with Democratic traditions. But it is obviously scary for Wall St. and the corporate contributors.
Wasn't it the Heritage Foundation that got Carter elected? We have never really had a successful Democratic President that was unapproved by Wall St.and etc. And who controls the superdelegates?
They do a better job with general elections- using modern, computer-tabulated phone line voting machines down in Venezuela. But look what it got them.
Here, it's just more of the same old fear of a simple, uncontrolled middle-class majority, electing someone (an unapproved insurgent) that might actually try to do something progressive for a change.
Or something radical like election reform.
It all leaves me scratching my head. Obama was nothing if not an insurgent candidate. Although Obama has carried himself with dignity- and one can be proud that we elected a qualified black man as President- has the Democratic special group appeal-strategy been good for the party?
The seemingly under-appreciated return to populism by unapproved insurgent Sanders is working and more in step with Democratic traditions. But it is obviously scary for Wall St. and the corporate contributors.
Wasn't it the Heritage Foundation that got Carter elected? We have never really had a successful Democratic President that was unapproved by Wall St.and etc. And who controls the superdelegates?
12
The problem with eliminating the electoral college is it will tend to limit access to the political process. The college was established to give some equal weight to small states. If we changed to the popular vote, perhaps 10 - 12 states would be required to get elected. Now there is at least some chance that smaller populated states will get a say I. The process.
Take one look at Donald Trump and recognize the "people" aren't informed enough to be allowed free rein.
The laws aren't made for the individual but the many.
The laws aren't made for the individual but the many.
Yes. I know. You like Clinton. You've been real clear about it.
26
Yeah because Hillary has done so many great things for African Americans: NAFTA, Iraq War, ending Welfare, for-profit prisons, for-profit health care, fracking, Monsanto
The Democratic party establishment's preference for Hillary has been a factor long before this matter of winning the convention and superdelegates. Hillary Clinton's whole political career is based purely and completely on the fact that the party establishment had decided to appoint her to a position of great power within the party.
This is, of course, a reference to the establishment picking her out of the blue and placing her on the Democratic ticket for US senator for the state of NY. They did this despite the fact that she never lived a day in the state that she was nominated to represent, nor because she knew anything at all about the state of NY in regard to its needs and interests at the senate and certainly not because they held it was in the best interest of the people of NY..
She was nominated for the sole reason that the party establishment found an open vacancy for the senate in NY, due to the fact that the senator holding the position was retiring, and figured that if they placed her on the ballot she would certainly get the position since it was a sure thing that NY voters would vote for whoever was on the Democratic ticket.
In 2008 it was she who was the establishment choice, vs. the upstart and outsider Obama and it was clear for years that she was the establishment's choice for this election.
In short Hillary Clinton's whole political career is due only to her being a product of the party's establishment.
This is, of course, a reference to the establishment picking her out of the blue and placing her on the Democratic ticket for US senator for the state of NY. They did this despite the fact that she never lived a day in the state that she was nominated to represent, nor because she knew anything at all about the state of NY in regard to its needs and interests at the senate and certainly not because they held it was in the best interest of the people of NY..
She was nominated for the sole reason that the party establishment found an open vacancy for the senate in NY, due to the fact that the senator holding the position was retiring, and figured that if they placed her on the ballot she would certainly get the position since it was a sure thing that NY voters would vote for whoever was on the Democratic ticket.
In 2008 it was she who was the establishment choice, vs. the upstart and outsider Obama and it was clear for years that she was the establishment's choice for this election.
In short Hillary Clinton's whole political career is due only to her being a product of the party's establishment.
25
Yes, that's why she was nominated for president over Barack Obama.
Michael Stavsen,
It is bizarrely myopic of you to suggest that the Democratic establishment picked Hillary 'out of the blue' to run for Moynihan's seat. Hillary chose to run for it after serving as first lady and working for democrats for her eight years there and her 20 years in Arkansas. She had the courage to run. She risked a lot, whether you can see that or not. Nobody handed it to her and no one handed her this run. She is working for it, heart and soul and is getting it on her own considerable merit, ability and resume. She worked hard for others and the country as a whole and finally decided to run against Guilani and take her shot.
What of Bernie? He chose to move to Vermont and run for office there. No one handed him anything, either.
There is something good to be said for those of us brave enough to put themselves in the arena and run.
You are hung up with some wrongheaded idea about how Hillary came to this moment.
It is bizarrely myopic of you to suggest that the Democratic establishment picked Hillary 'out of the blue' to run for Moynihan's seat. Hillary chose to run for it after serving as first lady and working for democrats for her eight years there and her 20 years in Arkansas. She had the courage to run. She risked a lot, whether you can see that or not. Nobody handed it to her and no one handed her this run. She is working for it, heart and soul and is getting it on her own considerable merit, ability and resume. She worked hard for others and the country as a whole and finally decided to run against Guilani and take her shot.
What of Bernie? He chose to move to Vermont and run for office there. No one handed him anything, either.
There is something good to be said for those of us brave enough to put themselves in the arena and run.
You are hung up with some wrongheaded idea about how Hillary came to this moment.
Some of this April snow must have blown into the nether regions. I agree with Blow's column completely.
2
There is another injustice in caucuses: No absentee voting. My 18-year old daughter is away at college and could not participate in the democratic primary. She is at an east-coast university where many of her peers were able to vote as absentees. She, like many, supports Bernie. He did win in Kansas, but it does not help our democracy when a newly registered voter can't actually vote.
Another issue to explore is why some state have caucuses. It is my understanding that austerity measures in Kansas caused the switch from primaries. This may be because primaries are run and funded by county governments, but caucuses are funded by the party. I have not confirmed this, but it is important to understand why a state has a caucus.
Another issue to explore is why some state have caucuses. It is my understanding that austerity measures in Kansas caused the switch from primaries. This may be because primaries are run and funded by county governments, but caucuses are funded by the party. I have not confirmed this, but it is important to understand why a state has a caucus.
15
Everything Mr. Blow says is absolutely correct. So what? Do privates in the Army get to select their general? Does a ship's crew get to pick its captain? If the Democratic Party, a national political organization, has no control over the nominating process for its general election candidate, what would its purpose be to exist at all?
15
The thought that an arcane rule buried deep within one party's election process is preventing democracy is laughable.
If you'd like outrage, how about the electoral college - because in the US we can't trust our citizens to cast votes directly.
Or how about a miserable two-party system where one is populated by pigs and one by humans (apologies to George Orwell). I can't tell where the stupidity, fecundity, and corruption of one ends and the other begins.
Or perhaps how about a SCOTUS replacing the concept of one-man-one-vote with one-dollar-one-vote.
What the Democratic party does is meaningless drivel next to these subversions of democracy.
If you'd like outrage, how about the electoral college - because in the US we can't trust our citizens to cast votes directly.
Or how about a miserable two-party system where one is populated by pigs and one by humans (apologies to George Orwell). I can't tell where the stupidity, fecundity, and corruption of one ends and the other begins.
Or perhaps how about a SCOTUS replacing the concept of one-man-one-vote with one-dollar-one-vote.
What the Democratic party does is meaningless drivel next to these subversions of democracy.
14
SCOTUS didn't replace one person one vote. They merely pointed out that every person or group has the right to express their political opinion. If there was a direct correlation between money and political success there would be a lot more billionaire politicians in power.
As to your other point; we the people can change the political system anytime we wish. Was it Perot who received the most votes as a third party candidate? If memory serves me correctly, he received less than 15% of the vote. So your complaint should be focused on your fellow voter, not on the process.
As to your other point; we the people can change the political system anytime we wish. Was it Perot who received the most votes as a third party candidate? If memory serves me correctly, he received less than 15% of the vote. So your complaint should be focused on your fellow voter, not on the process.
The electoral College in part expresses the rights of the states vs. the rights of the people. We live in The United States of America, not Amerika, The USA is a federal republic, as intended by the founders, not a mosh pit as apparently preferred by you.
1
Low wage workers can't get off work to vote for somebody who wants to increase the minimum wage?
And why not have a national holiday to celebrate voting?
And why not have a national holiday to celebrate voting?
8
Why have a national holiday? Vote on Sundays.
@Robert McKee,
And of course, that's something that Sanders and Clinton have advocated.
4-4-16@8:10 am
And of course, that's something that Sanders and Clinton have advocated.
4-4-16@8:10 am
1
Considering the likes of Trump and Cruz, it looks as though the Republicans could use some super delegates. As we are led up to the coming conventions and elections, American voters are being strangled: super delegates, gerrymandering, election fairness being set aside at every turn.
Our immediate anger means absolutely nothing. The elections will be handled by the wealthy anyway.
If there is a bottom line here it is simply this: democracy isn't democracy anymore.
Our immediate anger means absolutely nothing. The elections will be handled by the wealthy anyway.
If there is a bottom line here it is simply this: democracy isn't democracy anymore.
3
The way to "fix" candidates like Trump who may, early on, appeal to angry masses fed up with the party elites is to have a single day of national primaries. All states citizens choose their party's candidate at the same time. This eliminates the amazing and unfair power early voting states have on deciding who continues in the races, as well as the day to day droning drumbeat of media and candidates that cherry pick their comments based on the racial, social or economic make up of each voting state at the time.
If, as you assert, Trump and Cruize are extremists, then the general electorate will take care of them. The same as if the general populace see HRC as a dishonest politician beholden to Wall Street. The system will work; even if it takes a couple of election cycles.
Seems to me, you (and often we) confuse the purpose of the primaries with that of the general election.
The purpose of primaries is for *political parties* -- not the nation's citizens -- to choose the candidates they wish to represent them in the general election. While superdelegates or caucuses may work well or poorly in any given election cycle, they more likely represent the will of those persons committed to the political party. The rest of us, frankly, matter a bit less at that point.
FWIW, Bernie has not been a member of the Democratic Party (although he could have been), so I understand the superdelegates' reluctance to jump on his wagon.
As for registering to vote and voting in the general elections, they should simple and easy processes, if not mandatory. Any one or group who attempts to make voting more difficult is basically treasonous, as far as I'm concerned.
The purpose of primaries is for *political parties* -- not the nation's citizens -- to choose the candidates they wish to represent them in the general election. While superdelegates or caucuses may work well or poorly in any given election cycle, they more likely represent the will of those persons committed to the political party. The rest of us, frankly, matter a bit less at that point.
FWIW, Bernie has not been a member of the Democratic Party (although he could have been), so I understand the superdelegates' reluctance to jump on his wagon.
As for registering to vote and voting in the general elections, they should simple and easy processes, if not mandatory. Any one or group who attempts to make voting more difficult is basically treasonous, as far as I'm concerned.
16
I agree with you up to your last paragraph. How is requiring people to vote going to make the process more Democratic? Do you really believe people who don't care enough to vote will make rational choices? As for making it "easier" to vote; having a simple identification is not an unreasonble request. The process should be fair and legitimate and the question of ones identification is not onerous as it is required for many daily activities.
Caucuses are not deomocratic, as Mr. Blow pointed out. The only participants are those who are the most active and vocal and who have the time to come during the period the caucuses are open to participants.
Thus, Bernie Sanders' young people who aren't working have time on their hands to go to the caucuses whereas most adults have to work and fit voting into their time schedules around caring for children, etc.
Thus, Bernie Sanders' young people who aren't working have time on their hands to go to the caucuses whereas most adults have to work and fit voting into their time schedules around caring for children, etc.
29
1) Despite your preconceived notion, not all Sanders supporters are students. The "youth vote" is generally defined as millennials between 18 and 35. Unless you're a Phd or a teacher, the majority probably aren't in school.
2) If political participation is an activity you value, you should probably schedule 2.5 hours every few years to make a case for the candidate you support. If can't do that, I'd rather you abstain from voting.
2) If political participation is an activity you value, you should probably schedule 2.5 hours every few years to make a case for the candidate you support. If can't do that, I'd rather you abstain from voting.
2
@MI-Jayhawk,
I've met some of those young people. They work, have families and many obligations. Trust me, time is as much a luxury to them as it is to anyone else.
4-4-16@8:08 am
I've met some of those young people. They work, have families and many obligations. Trust me, time is as much a luxury to them as it is to anyone else.
4-4-16@8:08 am
2
The Parties attempt to manage a messy, deeply troubling process of anointment. Their efforts to manipulate the electorate is blatant. Their desire is power and winning. The Republicans seeming willingness to accept Trump is exactly the kind of amoral position of our political leadership. Similarly, Hilary's anointment and the controls exerted by the Clinton Machine are the same.
It shouldn't be Hilary and it shouldn't be Trump (or Cruz).
It shouldn't be Hilary and it shouldn't be Trump (or Cruz).
6
Sanders retreated to a state with a population of 600,000. Hillary served as a two term senator in a state of over 20 million. Sanders will stumble out of the blocks if elected, and by the time he got his footing, it would all be over. he's be a one term President. The Republican Party will make sure to it. It won't be pretty.
Hillary will hit the ground running. She'll leave it for Bill to pick out the china and drapes. And for once in this country, women will have someone who can relate to their needs and wants. Girls will see another 'girl' on television and in the news. They'll get a sense of what they can be, and it will be quite different from the usual presentation we see of a woman, that 'mom cleaning up spills in the kitchen.'
Hillary will hit the ground running. She'll leave it for Bill to pick out the china and drapes. And for once in this country, women will have someone who can relate to their needs and wants. Girls will see another 'girl' on television and in the news. They'll get a sense of what they can be, and it will be quite different from the usual presentation we see of a woman, that 'mom cleaning up spills in the kitchen.'
Merc, Hilary's position as Senator was a derivative of her husband that machine that they created. Similarly, he position at State was backroom prize around the Obama election. I agree that she has had a career of advocacy but her accomplishments are truly few. Today, women have any number of highly accomplished role models from Sheryl Sandberg to Malala Yousifazi. Hilary's accomplishments are based on "the means justify the ends" approach to politics and she is not a worth role model. I'm guessing that you are closer to her generation than that of a young person.
Charles, first of all, liberals and democrats call Koch Bros ugly names for funding and financing party politics, up and down the political system. Guess what, the Democratic party does the same thing, except in a more sneaky way, invisible to all the believers who think the party is clean, pristine and pure. Rude shock. The Clintons have "bought" the democratic party in the pretext of using their star power to raise funds for the party. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-lo...
You have to read this to believe how undemocratic, sneaky, obscene with complex layers of corruption have been built into the party by the Clintons who literally own it. How have we Americans allowed so much concentration of power in one couple, one family, the Clintons?
"In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington."
You have to read this to believe how undemocratic, sneaky, obscene with complex layers of corruption have been built into the party by the Clintons who literally own it. How have we Americans allowed so much concentration of power in one couple, one family, the Clintons?
"In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington."
13
And Hillary was the mastermind of 9/11. And the Kennedy assassination. and the fake "moon landing."
6
Right on. Mr. Blow is blind to the most undemocratic facet of the democratic primary (and US politics more generally): the role money plays. How about corporate mass media charging candidates significant money to run ads? Seems like a barrier to entry for the non-wealth or famous. That Sanders has proved an exception to the rule does not change the rule. How about the way that Super Tuesday is a mass of elections on the same day, which effectively requires candidates to campaign through the mass media, which costs lost of money? Seems like an un-democratic barrier to entry, no? How about closed primaries? If the democrats and republicans are going to be allowed to make rules that create significant barriers to entry of a third party on any type of national scale (can't participate in national debates, no cross-listing of candidates between parties, etc.), then you might think it'd be democratic to allow as many people as possible to participate in the two parties. Our democracy has been slowly eroded to the point that we now live in a plutocracy--our institutions are captured by bias toward those who can express themselves with money. The NYT can still wake itself to acknowledge this. I won't be holding my breath, though.
1
In other words, Paul, you have no answer.
2
One of the main reasons that Hillary is so unpopular with so many is this superdelegate issue. Most of these delegates expressed their intention to support Clinton long before it was apparent that Sanders was a serious candidate. The idea of a "coronation" is inconsistent with the American tradition of democracy. It reminds me of an English prince waiting so long to become king, and he will be even though he would never be elected to that position by a popular vote.
3
Aaron Adams, Hillary is only unpopular because of superdelegates???
First of all Hillary must be a little popular because she is ahead in polls over Sanders, has 2 and a half million more votes than Sanders and has 229 more pledged delegates than Bernie. So Hillary, first off is popular.
Now then, if you are saying that people that hate her hate her because of superdelegates, I reject that too. It started a long time ago.
People hate Hillary mostly because she is a woman. it is most often pure misogyny. THey call it by other names. that she is dishonest or arrogant. But those of us watching all these years see it for what it is on the right and on the left: an innate suspicion of women seeking political power.
First of all Hillary must be a little popular because she is ahead in polls over Sanders, has 2 and a half million more votes than Sanders and has 229 more pledged delegates than Bernie. So Hillary, first off is popular.
Now then, if you are saying that people that hate her hate her because of superdelegates, I reject that too. It started a long time ago.
People hate Hillary mostly because she is a woman. it is most often pure misogyny. THey call it by other names. that she is dishonest or arrogant. But those of us watching all these years see it for what it is on the right and on the left: an innate suspicion of women seeking political power.
2
Poor Hillary, if only she were a man she would be king. Nonsense! She has more votes because of early voting and party hacks/complicit media that have pushed her. She is the bought and paid for candidate the establishment needs to retain power and corruption. It's amazing how many of these career politicians have become wealthy in office and Hillary is top of the list!
I wonder if the national popular vote movement Democrats agree with the superdelegate construct Democrats? Our majority Republican state legislature just did away with straight party voting and the Democrats failed to get enough votes to get no-reason absentee ballot voting. I wonder if those Democrats also agree with superdelegate-approving Democrats. Seems like the only people objecting to superdelegates are the ones whose preferred candidate is not preferred by the party elite. More of the "I got mine, you get yours." philosophy.
This article is premature. If Hillary winds a majority of the pledged delegates it then becomes irrelevant.
2
In defense of Super delegates...let's not forget that the vast majority of these are either elected representatives of the people (congressmen, governors, etc) or state and national party officials. Why shouldn't we shouldn't want their voices to count in the nomination of a party candidates. The Republicans right now WISH they had super-delegates like the Democrats do, because then they could avoid the train-wreck of Donald Trump.
8
Thanks for this, Mr. Blow. I'm finding your commentary some of the very best, this political season.
I want to note that Sanders supporters are becoming the biggest whiners I've ever witnessed. Everything is rigged against their candidate, apparently....but only when he loses. Of course, the press and the process has always been supremely fair to Hillary......in your dreams. The Sanders campaign has a lot to offer, but this whining is not putting him in a good light.
Many of the people I know who are most worked up about him are people who have never ever been politically involved before (and it's great that they're participating now) and who are SHOCKED to discover how the political system works. Well yeah. Messy system, every little piece of it fought out for years and years by people with good and bad intentions of various sorts. That's the way the world works. It's also the way Washington works, which is why Bernie's "Political Revolution" is just silly.
I'm also really tired of the bullying of Hillary supporters by Bernie's fans. We are told (mainly if we are female) that we are being elitist. Well, how does it come to be that Hillary performs best in the least advantaged districts, over and over again? How does that conform with elitism? We are told that Hillary is dishonest. Well, the most reliable fact check organizations find that she's the most honest candidate of the season. She's Republican lite. Except the Republicans detest her and have savaged her for years.
I want to note that Sanders supporters are becoming the biggest whiners I've ever witnessed. Everything is rigged against their candidate, apparently....but only when he loses. Of course, the press and the process has always been supremely fair to Hillary......in your dreams. The Sanders campaign has a lot to offer, but this whining is not putting him in a good light.
Many of the people I know who are most worked up about him are people who have never ever been politically involved before (and it's great that they're participating now) and who are SHOCKED to discover how the political system works. Well yeah. Messy system, every little piece of it fought out for years and years by people with good and bad intentions of various sorts. That's the way the world works. It's also the way Washington works, which is why Bernie's "Political Revolution" is just silly.
I'm also really tired of the bullying of Hillary supporters by Bernie's fans. We are told (mainly if we are female) that we are being elitist. Well, how does it come to be that Hillary performs best in the least advantaged districts, over and over again? How does that conform with elitism? We are told that Hillary is dishonest. Well, the most reliable fact check organizations find that she's the most honest candidate of the season. She's Republican lite. Except the Republicans detest her and have savaged her for years.
20
Too little, too late, Mr. Blow. Why were we not hearing about this months ago? Why was there no effort to help voters have a better understanding of the nominating process? (Un)Democratic party indeed. And a press that is no longer neutral.
6
Charles Blow is first discovering now how ironic it is that the caucuses favored Bernie Sanders?? Charles Blow really should have known better. Of course the caucus system favored Sanders because all of his fanatically devoted supporters dominated every single state which held a caucus. All Bernie's rabid followers had to do was just keep shouting "Bernie! Bernie" at the top of their lungs which ensured an easy Sanders victory again and again. But now the remaining contests now shift entirely to primary only states where everything is done by secret ballot. Thus far, Sanders hasn't done as well in the primaries. Is the tide about to turn against stealth flavor of the month spoiler Sanders??
8
Sharon with all due respect we were fanatically devoted supporters of Obama too. Especially those kids of ours who voted for the first time in their lives. Obama forgot about them, caught up in the obstructionism of the opposition, insipid support from fellow democrats and jusr trying to stay on top of the ever changing world around him. The kids felt ignored neglected and let down. Until Bernie came along. He is the real deal, the one candidate who gets them and excites them from the malaise hopelessness they felt. So please don't insult them, if you had kids you would understand.
1
'Is the tide about to turn against stealth flavor of the month spoiler Sanders?'
'Stealth flavor'? Bernie has been in office much longer than Clinton. Match his voting record against Clinton's and you may begin to see why his campaign is giving Clinton such a headache.
Just like in '08, her anointment is being delayed due to a candidate people actually like.
'Stealth flavor'? Bernie has been in office much longer than Clinton. Match his voting record against Clinton's and you may begin to see why his campaign is giving Clinton such a headache.
Just like in '08, her anointment is being delayed due to a candidate people actually like.
1
I have come to think of the super delegates as being akin to the US senate, and think they serve the same purpose the senate does to the house of representatives.
In pondering their fairness look at classes of people. Are women disadvantaged by superdelegates? Not that I can see. Are African Americans disadvantaged by superdelegates? There is reason to think so? Is the LBGT community disadvantaged or shut out by superdelegates? No, there is no reason to suspect that either. Can an outsider run and have a chance of winning the democratic nomination? Obama started as an outsider and won. Sanders is quite the outsider and had a real chance to win his anti-Hillary campaign. Are superdelegates the reason he will lose? no, he can't overcome her lead in pledged delegates and that is why he has lost.
Will superdelegates help prevent someone like Trump using the machinery of the democratic primary process to become president? yes, the superdelegates can help stop a Trump-like candidate from taking over our party. In this way, in this election cycle we see what a critical roll superdelegates might play: if only the republicans had them!
In pondering their fairness look at classes of people. Are women disadvantaged by superdelegates? Not that I can see. Are African Americans disadvantaged by superdelegates? There is reason to think so? Is the LBGT community disadvantaged or shut out by superdelegates? No, there is no reason to suspect that either. Can an outsider run and have a chance of winning the democratic nomination? Obama started as an outsider and won. Sanders is quite the outsider and had a real chance to win his anti-Hillary campaign. Are superdelegates the reason he will lose? no, he can't overcome her lead in pledged delegates and that is why he has lost.
Will superdelegates help prevent someone like Trump using the machinery of the democratic primary process to become president? yes, the superdelegates can help stop a Trump-like candidate from taking over our party. In this way, in this election cycle we see what a critical roll superdelegates might play: if only the republicans had them!
6
Dictatorships are always cleaner than Democracies. Of course a few people can pick someone more palatable to "the masses". Why not let the voter have some say in the person they want to represent their party? You think Trump is bad? Don't vote for him in the general election (better yet, vote for a different Republican in the primary). How would you react if the DNC picked a leftist version of Mr. Trump?
In other words, the democratic party uses super-delegates to make sure a candidate that they don't want to win the nomination, let's say Bernie Sanders, has no chance against the candidate that they want to win, Hillary
15
Don't worry Mr. Blow, after this unexpected primary run by Bernie, the mainstream democratic party will enact more rules to make sure this fiasco never happens again.
The people are rejecting both mainstream parties because both are bought and paid for by special interests. Their addiction to money will only end when the People quit being enablers by voting for bought and paid for candidates.
The political revolution is getting money out of politics so it does not control each and every policy passed in Washington. A good place to start is with Bernie Sanders.
The people are rejecting both mainstream parties because both are bought and paid for by special interests. Their addiction to money will only end when the People quit being enablers by voting for bought and paid for candidates.
The political revolution is getting money out of politics so it does not control each and every policy passed in Washington. A good place to start is with Bernie Sanders.
8
The party is choosing a candidate. This doesn't necessarily need to be a popularity contest, it doesn't need to be a democratic process. In fact the way we select presidential candidates creates a long, painful campaign process that does more harm than good.
Let the party leaders choose their candidates and have the people vote on. Which candidate they want as president.
The problem is that we have a win / lose system that forces us into a two party contest. We need multiple parties and multiple viable candidates and some form of proportional representation. Even with a perfectly democratic primary, this political system doesn't work.
Let the party leaders choose their candidates and have the people vote on. Which candidate they want as president.
The problem is that we have a win / lose system that forces us into a two party contest. We need multiple parties and multiple viable candidates and some form of proportional representation. Even with a perfectly democratic primary, this political system doesn't work.
3
I watched some of the Iowa caucus on MSNBC and saw Sanders supporters trying to convince undecides with false (probably just in error) information about Sanders's positions. So no, the caucus in not likely to be a good place to make up one's mind. The media is far from perfect but there are lots of places to get accurate information before the vote.
If choosing a candidate does not need to be a democratic process, then why go through all of this angst? Just for the money it generates? To get an idea of what will fly in the general election? If the people do not need to be involved, why not have the party leaders do it for us in the first place, without all the rigmarole?
Eliminating caucuses would be OK as long as the media doesn't ignore any of the candidates. For example, a friend in Washington went to the caucus a committed HRC supporter, solely because she had no idea of Bernie Sanders policy positions. Due to the caucuses discussions, she is now a complete convert and is feeling the Bern!
Bernie 2016!
Bernie 2016!
8
Do your math Charles. Superdelegates do not make up "nearly a third of all delegates." They make up about 15 percent of all delegates.
5
Because they tend vote in block, they would represent a third of the delegates a candidate needs to secure the nomination.
Well, there is no requirement that the way parties select candidates be "democratic." But, like Blow, I share the bemusement with an arcane and overly complicated process. There are other undemocratic elements, too. The rules about how the distribution of delegates mirror the votes varies from state to state (at least the dems are more proportional than the GOP). And the scheduling of the primaries gives some small states inordinate power and leaves many voters to go to the polls after many candidates have dropped out or even after the nomination has been effectively decided. Combine this with the Electoral College--which can reasonably convince individuals that their votes don't matter if their state isn't close even if the overall election is neck and neck--and we have a pretty flawed system.
3
Elections are regulated. politicized processes. The supers' virtue is they can prevent emergence of dangerous nominees and increase the capacity of a president to govern more effectively.
In our relatively undemocratic elections, supers are the least of it, much less important than: routine and various forms of state/local voter suppression and regulatory chicanery, denial of felon voting rights and barriers to registration/voting, MSM commitment to a horse race rather than substantive discourse, state/local control of voting technologies/calendars/locations, gerrymandering, state limits on ballot access, endless legal battles as a consequence of state/local electoral practices. Much of this can be summarized as the absence of enforced national election voting rules, holidays and technologies that promote democratic elections.
What makes elections undemocratic is leaving them in the hands of those who routinely and historically benefit from state/local government control. The problem is not supers. It is rather that they are often the product of grossly undemocratic state/local election processes, practices, and rules.
Eliminating supers opens the door to Trumps and worse. Turning nominations over to a relatively small primary slice of the electorate does not make elections any more democratic than the old "smoke-filled room." Political parties are undemocratic, for various reasons. But democracy in the absence of active and representative parties is probably impossible.
In our relatively undemocratic elections, supers are the least of it, much less important than: routine and various forms of state/local voter suppression and regulatory chicanery, denial of felon voting rights and barriers to registration/voting, MSM commitment to a horse race rather than substantive discourse, state/local control of voting technologies/calendars/locations, gerrymandering, state limits on ballot access, endless legal battles as a consequence of state/local electoral practices. Much of this can be summarized as the absence of enforced national election voting rules, holidays and technologies that promote democratic elections.
What makes elections undemocratic is leaving them in the hands of those who routinely and historically benefit from state/local government control. The problem is not supers. It is rather that they are often the product of grossly undemocratic state/local election processes, practices, and rules.
Eliminating supers opens the door to Trumps and worse. Turning nominations over to a relatively small primary slice of the electorate does not make elections any more democratic than the old "smoke-filled room." Political parties are undemocratic, for various reasons. But democracy in the absence of active and representative parties is probably impossible.
4
I don't know if Charles Blow ever attended a caucus, but I have. This year in my Minnesota Democratic caucus we had a room busting turnout with young, middle aged, and older voters. We elected the person who would run our precinct caucus meeting, cast our votes for Sanders and Hillary and signed up as volunteers for committees for the State Democratic Convention. Subsequently, our Resolutions Committee has met twice to organize the caucus resolutions of that night for discussion and adoption at the upcoming State convention. the resolutions addressed environmental concerns, energy policy, health insurance policy, food labeling and safety, public safety, transportation, government transparency and accountability, public funding for elections, education, infrastructure, tax policy, Citizens United, veterans' benefits, etc. Overall, the process was more democratic than any committee meeting that I have attended in many organizations in my decades of adult life.
Many of that night's caucus attendees will continue to participate in this Fall's election process. They will bring their fresh ideas, energy, and enthusiasm to the important process of selecting our government leaders.
Noticeably absent was the role of money or party leadership control in this entire process.
The issue of super-delegates in this year's election is a problem to be solved. The bigger problem is that out of 306 million Americans so few qualified people could or would run for President in either party.
Many of that night's caucus attendees will continue to participate in this Fall's election process. They will bring their fresh ideas, energy, and enthusiasm to the important process of selecting our government leaders.
Noticeably absent was the role of money or party leadership control in this entire process.
The issue of super-delegates in this year's election is a problem to be solved. The bigger problem is that out of 306 million Americans so few qualified people could or would run for President in either party.
3
JMT, thanks for the information.
So what is the difference between caucuses and super delegates. They both represent influential party leaders who have an agenda. One group represents the elites; the other represents groups of people that come together to choose delegates. Caucuses I suggest are made up more diverse groups of people that have a strong interest in the outcomes in their states. In elections which might actually be more democratic you have people who don't have a clue and just pull the lever on what they have learned from negative ads and are not willing to help the candidate win.
Caucuses seem fairer than super delegates who just have an agenda, like supporting a candidate because she is a female, even if she is criminal.
So what is the difference between caucuses and super delegates. They both represent influential party leaders who have an agenda. One group represents the elites; the other represents groups of people that come together to choose delegates. Caucuses I suggest are made up more diverse groups of people that have a strong interest in the outcomes in their states. In elections which might actually be more democratic you have people who don't have a clue and just pull the lever on what they have learned from negative ads and are not willing to help the candidate win.
Caucuses seem fairer than super delegates who just have an agenda, like supporting a candidate because she is a female, even if she is criminal.
After playing his part in the Times' push to get Clinton out in front, Blow's now quibbling about the process. It looks like pundits can pivot with the best of the pols. Blow was a good company and party man in the winter. Now that spring is here he wants to rehabilitate his progressive cred. Pretty easy to see.
4
@Burroughs,
Progressive cred and Mr. Blow in the same sentence? I love that contradiction? Your comment is interesting, particularly Blow as a good "company man." Oh, he's definitely a company man.
4-4-16@8:33 am
Progressive cred and Mr. Blow in the same sentence? I love that contradiction? Your comment is interesting, particularly Blow as a good "company man." Oh, he's definitely a company man.
4-4-16@8:33 am
1
We're only hearing so much about the superdelegates because one of the candidates is not a Democrat, he's an independent.
Of course the Democrats are going to favor one of their own over a man who has been dismissive and critical of the Democratic party in the past.
Sanders knew this when he got into the race. Complaining about it now is disingenuous. Regardless -- it doesn't matter. He's down enough delegates that even if superdelegates were banned tomorrow, he still wouldn't win the nomination.
Of course the Democrats are going to favor one of their own over a man who has been dismissive and critical of the Democratic party in the past.
Sanders knew this when he got into the race. Complaining about it now is disingenuous. Regardless -- it doesn't matter. He's down enough delegates that even if superdelegates were banned tomorrow, he still wouldn't win the nomination.
18
He is certainly a democrat, but a social democrat. He is disgusted with how the party works so he chooses to be an independent. Clearly his policies are all democratic. He wants to change the party so it is in line with its own ideals and not corporate ideals.
It's laughable to hear the Sanderistas defend caucuses as somehow democratic. They certainly aren't inclusive. Just as primaries tilt more towards activists than the general election, so caucuses lean that way more than primaries. This gives disproportionate weight to the most "committed" of party members, which are almost always the most extreme (both parties, both ends of the spectrum).
If the goal is winning elections in November it is counter-productive. With the exception of Barack Obama, a politician of rare charisma who stirred an incredible high level of minority participation, the last time someone running as a liberal was elected to a first term as president was...never.
Nominate Sanders and we will lose.
If the goal is winning elections in November it is counter-productive. With the exception of Barack Obama, a politician of rare charisma who stirred an incredible high level of minority participation, the last time someone running as a liberal was elected to a first term as president was...never.
Nominate Sanders and we will lose.
10
Bumpercar:
It will be interesting to hear what you have to say when Hillary is the nominee and loses, which she will. She loses to every Republican except Trump.
Plus she will be in jail. She has the highest negative scores in trustworthiness and likability than anyone running.
I am a lifelong Democrat that will never vote for Hillary.
It will be interesting to hear what you have to say when Hillary is the nominee and loses, which she will. She loses to every Republican except Trump.
Plus she will be in jail. She has the highest negative scores in trustworthiness and likability than anyone running.
I am a lifelong Democrat that will never vote for Hillary.
2
These two anti-democratic practices need to stop, but the caucus is much worse. First, when people see a CNN poll that has all superdelegates going to Clinton, that effects the vote. That is problematic. But, the superdelegates may very well save us from what would be a closer general election with Sanders as the candidate. As far as the caucuses are concerned, who has the time for that, or the need to be demonized in their small community. In metro areas, where you don't know your neighbors, maybe you could caucus without repercussions, but not in small communities. I certainly didn't caucus. Of the two issues, the caucus is truly the more problematic, because at the very least, if superdelegates are governors and legislators, the public voted for them in the past.
6
Bernie Sanders is a Superdelegate.
So you can't claim that they were appointed by some shadowy group to stifle the voice of people like Bernie Sanders.
Most of them were elected by far greater numbers of voters than turned out for caucuses or even primaries. They were elected to represent us as Senators, Members of Congress, Governors, etc.
They will have to work with the President to get policy proposals passed and implemented, so if they have an opinion about that based on having interacted with the person before, that opinion could be worth a hearing.
Democratic elected representatives have been working to overturn Citizens United, expand access to health care, protect Social Security and Medicare, raise the minimum wage, protect the environment. They work every day as elected Democrats ( or, in the case of Superdelegate Senator Sanders, elected independent who caucuses with the Democrats) to advance these causes.
It seems reasonable that they would have a vote at a Democratic Party convention.
So you can't claim that they were appointed by some shadowy group to stifle the voice of people like Bernie Sanders.
Most of them were elected by far greater numbers of voters than turned out for caucuses or even primaries. They were elected to represent us as Senators, Members of Congress, Governors, etc.
They will have to work with the President to get policy proposals passed and implemented, so if they have an opinion about that based on having interacted with the person before, that opinion could be worth a hearing.
Democratic elected representatives have been working to overturn Citizens United, expand access to health care, protect Social Security and Medicare, raise the minimum wage, protect the environment. They work every day as elected Democrats ( or, in the case of Superdelegate Senator Sanders, elected independent who caucuses with the Democrats) to advance these causes.
It seems reasonable that they would have a vote at a Democratic Party convention.
8
Superdelegates and caucuses protect a democracy from the 'whims of the rabble', something which many of us believe is going on over on the GOP side with Trump's wave of popularity. At least this was the idea in the debates going back to the founding of this country. Trump is a good reason why superdelegates and caucuses exist.
No system is perfect, but if given the choice, I would much rather have the superdelegate system, and right now it seems be playing just the role intended in tempering the capricious enthusiasm of the electorate. Clinton is a far more experienced and realistic candidate than Sanders, who is riding on a wave of emotional discontent. As one of his colleagues in the House--Barney Frank--recently noted, what's most characteristic of Sanders' time in Congress is how little he actually achieved, he was essentially a back-bench ideologue. He's got good ideas but I don't want a back-bench ideologue as president for the next four years.
No system is perfect, but if given the choice, I would much rather have the superdelegate system, and right now it seems be playing just the role intended in tempering the capricious enthusiasm of the electorate. Clinton is a far more experienced and realistic candidate than Sanders, who is riding on a wave of emotional discontent. As one of his colleagues in the House--Barney Frank--recently noted, what's most characteristic of Sanders' time in Congress is how little he actually achieved, he was essentially a back-bench ideologue. He's got good ideas but I don't want a back-bench ideologue as president for the next four years.
8
What is most frustrating about this is that those who take the time to vote and in the voter suppression states, stand in line for hours, know that their voices won't be heard, or as in AZ, their votes even COUNTED at all. Since the game is rigged it's time to let the voters know so we don't waste our precious time on a sham "democracy". Even though I'm repulsed by Trump, and much more horrified by Cruz, the voters have spoken and are choosing Trump in overwhelming numbers. If we truly are a "democracy" then the voice of the voters should be heard and be the final say, no matter how damaging to the party.
As for the concerted effort against Bernie Sanders, who I like and will support if he wins the nomination (I'll also equally support Clinton should she win-no tantrum here) all the polling numbers indicate that Sanders annihilates both Trump and Cruz so where does the fear lie? I imagine it's because he truly is a candidate of the people, having taken very little wealthy donor money, and the establishment fears he can't be bought or bent to their will. They're terrified that WE, the voters, may elect a president who will actually be president of all of the USA and not just the wealthy few. The more the electoral process is manipulated the less the people will vote. I'm sure that this is by design since many believe the hoi poloi shouldn't get a vote. An overhaul is needed including the elimination of the Electoral College, another institution that thwarts the people's will.
As for the concerted effort against Bernie Sanders, who I like and will support if he wins the nomination (I'll also equally support Clinton should she win-no tantrum here) all the polling numbers indicate that Sanders annihilates both Trump and Cruz so where does the fear lie? I imagine it's because he truly is a candidate of the people, having taken very little wealthy donor money, and the establishment fears he can't be bought or bent to their will. They're terrified that WE, the voters, may elect a president who will actually be president of all of the USA and not just the wealthy few. The more the electoral process is manipulated the less the people will vote. I'm sure that this is by design since many believe the hoi poloi shouldn't get a vote. An overhaul is needed including the elimination of the Electoral College, another institution that thwarts the people's will.
11
The GOP would kill for super delegates in the moment of Trumpmania. But while the process is more democratic on their side, if a majority do not nominate one candidate, it goes to second round voting where effectively all delegates are super delegates. Maybe this is the best compromise.
Why did you not mention the Electoral College or the small state "compromise"? As far as I am concerned, two senators per state, regardless of population, is a small state unmitigated victory (and a defeat for democracy).
You know what else is undemocratic in the extreme? GOP leadership in the Senate who is literally stopping a senate vote on a duty specifically required by the Constitution. Furthermore, McConnell claims that the delay in filling the SCOTUS is somehow based on some democratic principle. Reminds me of a Stalin quote: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." I guess McConnell is taking a page from Papa Joe's playbook of "democracy".
You could have told a story about how superdelegates foiled the will of party members, but didn't mention it. Meanwhile, the electoral college failed to reflect the will of the people in Gore v. Bush, an election in which the Supreme Court was drafted to cast the deciding vote.
You also criticize caucuses. How is this the fault of the Democratic party writ large? Clearly, this is a state by state decision. Furthermore, GOP has caucuses too. If you are interested in criticizing causes, why are you only going after the Democratic Party?
The premise of your editorial may be great for attracting clicks, but inventing problems ultimately hurts your reputation. As a recurring contributor to NYT, you should be above cheap tactics employed by ammature YouTube channels.
You know what else is undemocratic in the extreme? GOP leadership in the Senate who is literally stopping a senate vote on a duty specifically required by the Constitution. Furthermore, McConnell claims that the delay in filling the SCOTUS is somehow based on some democratic principle. Reminds me of a Stalin quote: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." I guess McConnell is taking a page from Papa Joe's playbook of "democracy".
You could have told a story about how superdelegates foiled the will of party members, but didn't mention it. Meanwhile, the electoral college failed to reflect the will of the people in Gore v. Bush, an election in which the Supreme Court was drafted to cast the deciding vote.
You also criticize caucuses. How is this the fault of the Democratic party writ large? Clearly, this is a state by state decision. Furthermore, GOP has caucuses too. If you are interested in criticizing causes, why are you only going after the Democratic Party?
The premise of your editorial may be great for attracting clicks, but inventing problems ultimately hurts your reputation. As a recurring contributor to NYT, you should be above cheap tactics employed by ammature YouTube channels.
6
Superdelegates and caucuses are just the messy part of choosing candidates.
Superdelegates give more voice to the party establishment on purpose. Rather than have the party select candidates independently, we have elective processes which tell us what the motivated base wants and a party voice which looks at what the party wants, what centrists and swing voters want. We are complaining because it is a disadvantage to Sanders. Had Trump run on the Democrats ticket we'd be praising superdelegates to the stars.
Caucuses the opposite. They give most voice to the concentrated motivated base.
I am more comfortable with the seemingly undemocratic Democratic party process than I am with the free for all on the GOP side which, unless the party ultimately puts up a compromise candidate in later rounds, will yield the least qualified candidate in my lifetime - and I have lived through gems such as Nixon and Bush.
Superdelegates give more voice to the party establishment on purpose. Rather than have the party select candidates independently, we have elective processes which tell us what the motivated base wants and a party voice which looks at what the party wants, what centrists and swing voters want. We are complaining because it is a disadvantage to Sanders. Had Trump run on the Democrats ticket we'd be praising superdelegates to the stars.
Caucuses the opposite. They give most voice to the concentrated motivated base.
I am more comfortable with the seemingly undemocratic Democratic party process than I am with the free for all on the GOP side which, unless the party ultimately puts up a compromise candidate in later rounds, will yield the least qualified candidate in my lifetime - and I have lived through gems such as Nixon and Bush.
2
Cathy,
And yes, you and the country lived through some gems. And if Trump wins the country will continue to live through some gems.
And yes, you and the country lived through some gems. And if Trump wins the country will continue to live through some gems.
1
Dear Mr. Blow,
Thank you. In essence, your column merely indicates what most of us voters (The few, the proud, the not so lazy) already know; the electorate has always only the choice of "the lesser of two evils".
And if this election boils down to Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton, the choice becomes very clear; either a big mouth thief and liar from New York or a female big mouthed liar from New York. One of them is thoroughly obnoxious and the other is less obnoxious but certainly knows how to make money through "speaking" engagements to anyone who'll pay her fees.
"Leadership" takes a back seat to "electability", "party politics" remains intact and the country continues on a leaderless path much like the last four years of government stagnation.
Sure, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE holds the blame for fiscal cliffs, shut downs and sequesters but if both parties continue "business as usual", I expect the only gains in the next 4 years, no matter who wins the presidency, will be an increase in the number of millionaires in our Congress (1/2 of them are already there).
Oligarchy is a nasty term and "oligarchs" are a nasty bunch but it seems this rigged system guarantees the "rule of the wealthy" with the voters only marginally involved...as usual.
Thank you. In essence, your column merely indicates what most of us voters (The few, the proud, the not so lazy) already know; the electorate has always only the choice of "the lesser of two evils".
And if this election boils down to Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton, the choice becomes very clear; either a big mouth thief and liar from New York or a female big mouthed liar from New York. One of them is thoroughly obnoxious and the other is less obnoxious but certainly knows how to make money through "speaking" engagements to anyone who'll pay her fees.
"Leadership" takes a back seat to "electability", "party politics" remains intact and the country continues on a leaderless path much like the last four years of government stagnation.
Sure, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE holds the blame for fiscal cliffs, shut downs and sequesters but if both parties continue "business as usual", I expect the only gains in the next 4 years, no matter who wins the presidency, will be an increase in the number of millionaires in our Congress (1/2 of them are already there).
Oligarchy is a nasty term and "oligarchs" are a nasty bunch but it seems this rigged system guarantees the "rule of the wealthy" with the voters only marginally involved...as usual.
5
If this was a column on an economics topic, it would be like ignoring the "invisible hand" of the markets. That would be like trusting the general consensus of the masses.
Super-delegates and caucuses sure do take a bite out of the infinite wisdom of society argument. Super-delegates harken somewhat back to the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. And caucuses overemphasize the votes of people with time on their hands, respond easily to browbeating or who are good at verbal intimidation.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Super-delegates and caucuses sure do take a bite out of the infinite wisdom of society argument. Super-delegates harken somewhat back to the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. And caucuses overemphasize the votes of people with time on their hands, respond easily to browbeating or who are good at verbal intimidation.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
At one point it seemed that society in general was becoming more mobility friendly. That's just one of the serious issues I have with the caucus process. I have no problem at all with superdelegates and the Sanders campaign reinforces just how important they are to the Democratic Party. The idea behind a party is to help all candidates at all levels of that party to win. Sanders is not assisting anyone else running for election. The President becomes the head of their Party. Sanders has refused recently, again, to commit to helping any other candidates in the Democratic Party while Secretary Clinton has enthusiastically been doing so. Who does he think will help him run the country?
12
Yes, government by the party and for the party.
>>>>
"There are two prominent features of the Democratic Party’s presidential selection process that are thoroughly undemocratic and undermine faith in the party: superdelegates (which favor Hillary Clinton) and caucuses (which favor Bernie Sanders)" CMB
Agreed get rid of both.
"There are two prominent features of the Democratic Party’s presidential selection process that are thoroughly undemocratic and undermine faith in the party: superdelegates (which favor Hillary Clinton) and caucuses (which favor Bernie Sanders)" CMB
Agreed get rid of both.
2
Odd as it seems to some people, we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic. The average citizen is separated from the actual decisions being made. The framers of the constitution worried about what they called the "tyranny of the masses" and put in safeguards to prevent it. Thus only the representatives in the house were directly elected; senators were chosen by their state legislators. Likewise, the electoral college was set up so the voters would be a step removed from the selection.
I suspect that in this primary cycle, there are many republican leaders who wish that they had super delegates.
I suspect that in this primary cycle, there are many republican leaders who wish that they had super delegates.
5
YOu are looking at the Federalist Papers, that were the losers in the argument of whether we should or should not have a Constitutional Republic.
You don't realize that thanks to the Federalists, the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to overturn the U. S. Constitution and replace our government with an unworkable and national Common Law government where the court sits on an implied throne, and the people are "subjects" (property) of the government.
Your understanding of American history is so shallow, you can't see what has happened. Not your fault. U. S. public schools don't teach the real, documented history.
You don't realize that thanks to the Federalists, the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to overturn the U. S. Constitution and replace our government with an unworkable and national Common Law government where the court sits on an implied throne, and the people are "subjects" (property) of the government.
Your understanding of American history is so shallow, you can't see what has happened. Not your fault. U. S. public schools don't teach the real, documented history.
The decision to add superdelegates was originally sold to the public as a way to give professional politicians a greater role in the selection process. The idea was that the primary system had gone too far, that it was likely to produce candidates who could not be elected to the office for which they were nominated. Calm heads would decide, or at least influence, the final choice.
Superdelegates are inherently undemocratic, but then so is one of our most important legislative bodies, the U.S. Senate, which provides much more representation for cows in Wyoming and corn in Iowa than for the voters in more populous states. We should always take democracy as our ideal to be pursued ardently. Right now, the primary processes of both Democrats and Republicans are a mishmash of confusing procedures that work for and against the vision of true, mass participation. This is not acceptable.
The Republican rules are particularly and intentionally undemocratic. By awarding all or most of the delegates in a state based on not who wins a majority, but just on who gets the most votes out of the total, the Republicans align themselves with their leadership's royalist tendencies. This year, it is backfiring on them in a major way unfortunate for their party and the nation as a whole. They are not likely to consider "reform", however. Republicans don't do reform.
Stated plainly, our system of picking potential candidates for president is a form of public madness.
Doug Terry
Superdelegates are inherently undemocratic, but then so is one of our most important legislative bodies, the U.S. Senate, which provides much more representation for cows in Wyoming and corn in Iowa than for the voters in more populous states. We should always take democracy as our ideal to be pursued ardently. Right now, the primary processes of both Democrats and Republicans are a mishmash of confusing procedures that work for and against the vision of true, mass participation. This is not acceptable.
The Republican rules are particularly and intentionally undemocratic. By awarding all or most of the delegates in a state based on not who wins a majority, but just on who gets the most votes out of the total, the Republicans align themselves with their leadership's royalist tendencies. This year, it is backfiring on them in a major way unfortunate for their party and the nation as a whole. They are not likely to consider "reform", however. Republicans don't do reform.
Stated plainly, our system of picking potential candidates for president is a form of public madness.
Doug Terry
3
How political parties select candidates for the general election is a symptom of a bigger problem: the mere existence and power of the 2-party system. By definition, unfortunately, primaries and caucuses are not actual, democratically controlled elections. They are about "nominating" only. The parties set the rules and they decide how the votes are counted and delegates to conventions assigned. Some states have rebelled by establishing top two primaries (Washington state, for example). But even those rules do not apply to the presidential parties. To make matters worse, millions have registered as independents, so even fewer voters participate in the primaries because the parties do not want to hear the voice of independents in their nomination game. By design, we will be left with Trump and Hillary, and a smattering of unelectable 3rd party candidates. The parties win (or lose, depending on your perspective) and even worse, democracy loses. Only by aggressively reforming our 2-party system of government can we restore true democracy in our elections.
2
The democratic process is not sacrosanct for goodness as bad actors have exploited voting by ordinary people sense forever. The founding fathers were suspicious of the ordinary citizen being incapable of goodwill and reason. The delegate process was designed for the political elite to effect order and control. Chaos and disorder implies misalignment and an inability to lead. The masses live by appitite but not reason was the earliest testiment regarding allowing anyone to vote or govern. So, representative democracy was invented to mollify the masses and to quell the feelings of hopelessness when being ordinary. The GOP elite fully understand that disorder is chaos and that they need to deminish voter power using institutional process because voters are only symbols of power but not order and control. GOP is Authoritrianism (at the core), and their convention will prove the limitations of representative democracy in Cleveland, soon.
2
These foolish politicians are still trying to force their will on the American people. From Democrats I hear Saunder or Trump. From Republicans I am hearing Trump or Saunders. What you aren't seeing is that these are the reform candidates. Cruz is a foreign born Hitler. Hillary is a parasitic mooch. Kasich should stay in the game because although he's an irritable sort, he's not the disaster that Cruz is.
1
At this point in the process, how is the commitment from a Super Delegate any different than an endorsement? At this stage, it isn't. So, unless Charles Blow is also arguing that prominent Democrats shouldn't offer their endorsement for, or campaign for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders it is hard to make the case that the roll of Super Delegates prior to the convention is turning the nominating process un-democratic.
7
It's different because the superdelegate actually has a vote at the convention, and because the media reports the superdelegate endorsements as a part of the overall delegate counts needed to win, thus giving the impression that the preferred candidate of the establishment is closer to winning the than he/she actually is. This makes it seem like the math is insurmountable and effects turnout.
2
Mr. Blow has a point. But I think equally important is the fact that if Sanders wins, the likelihood of Mr. Trump becoming president rises a lot, and we just can't afford that.
10
@Ice Teaparty,
I've heard so many say the same thing about Clinton. Ah well...
4-4-16@8:36 am
I've heard so many say the same thing about Clinton. Ah well...
4-4-16@8:36 am
"...the establishment puts its thumb on the scale and signals its approval and disapproval ahead of Democratic voters. How can this be defended?"
It can be defended because the media, either news or advertising, is the source of the public's information about the candidates. You can think of the super-delegates as the party's bulwark against the manipulations of the media. Political coverage by a newspaper should be all about the positions of the candidates, not a means to sell advertising space. If we assume that the party "elite" are experienced, informed and honest, then there is justification for this system.
It can be defended because the media, either news or advertising, is the source of the public's information about the candidates. You can think of the super-delegates as the party's bulwark against the manipulations of the media. Political coverage by a newspaper should be all about the positions of the candidates, not a means to sell advertising space. If we assume that the party "elite" are experienced, informed and honest, then there is justification for this system.
3
This is a well written essay on caucuses and superdelegates. I now understand the topic. Thank you, Mr. Blow!
2
The primary system (for both parties) has been a lurch from one oddball mechanism to another - prior to the late '60s it was all backroom politics, and the motivation for change began in earnest after the DEM convention in '68 in which McCarthy was denied any delegates at the convention in spite of doing well in many primaries. That angered his (primarily anti-war) supporters and ignited the mayhem in Chicago. The DEMs (with the GOP watching), tried binding delegates but that resulted in the upstart Carter, so they then lurched again to incorporating superdelegates that could manage those rare surprises without (they hoped) angering voters too much. Caucuses are just an antiquated remnant, maintained more out of nostalgia than anything else. It's hard to imagine how to "fix" these issues - that's how we got in this mess to begin with. The DEMs are having a healthy contest - maintained by the caucus system, but the GOP establishment would surely like to have superdelegates in their back pocket to control the Trump problem. But manipulating the system in favor of one class of voter or another can not help but anger the disenfranchised. I just hope Cleveland and Philadelphia do not compete to replace Chicago in the historical record of political conventions.
5
Mr. Blow identifies a problem that has existed for a long time - but which has recently become a bit much for the electorate to digest. Government by, of and for the elite.
The bond was effectively broken in 2008 when the common folk were asked to pick up the tab for the fumbles of the elite. Nobody of any consequence among the elite absorbed any consequences. The Democratic Party turned its attention to other things in the immediate aftermath - even though it had a perfect alignment of control, of the White House and both Houses of Congress.
Mowing the lawn while the kitchen was on fire.
The common folk noticed.
It is about time that the NY Times noticed. Kudos to Mr. Blow for noticing and commenting on the elite's control. If the elite was competent, it might be defensible. But, as was seen in 2008, the elite wants the rewards of competence, but not the responsibilities.
The bond was effectively broken in 2008 when the common folk were asked to pick up the tab for the fumbles of the elite. Nobody of any consequence among the elite absorbed any consequences. The Democratic Party turned its attention to other things in the immediate aftermath - even though it had a perfect alignment of control, of the White House and both Houses of Congress.
Mowing the lawn while the kitchen was on fire.
The common folk noticed.
It is about time that the NY Times noticed. Kudos to Mr. Blow for noticing and commenting on the elite's control. If the elite was competent, it might be defensible. But, as was seen in 2008, the elite wants the rewards of competence, but not the responsibilities.
3
No system is perfect. The fact that two different systems produce two different results suggests to me that we have here two systems that to a certain extent repair each other's defects.
Given polls that suggest that the electability of Sanders is slightly better than that of Clinton the superdelegates may need to reconsider their choices.
On caucuses there is indeed a risk of group pressure. But there is also an open discussion that can avoid that people will vote for a candidate just because some party officials supported him or her.
What Blow forgets to mention is that primaries have their own problems.
Given polls that suggest that the electability of Sanders is slightly better than that of Clinton the superdelegates may need to reconsider their choices.
On caucuses there is indeed a risk of group pressure. But there is also an open discussion that can avoid that people will vote for a candidate just because some party officials supported him or her.
What Blow forgets to mention is that primaries have their own problems.
1
Sorry, but there is no rule or law saying that parties even have to have primaries - they are essentially 'recommendations' by the voters, taken by the party elites to nominate whom they chose. The hope is of course that the interests of the public and elites align to generate more legitimacy for the candidate, as normally happens. In most countries however (even Bernie Sander's favorites like Denmark and Sweden) the parties elect their leaders internally and the public has no direct say. There is not clamoring by the public over here that the process is undemocratic, so long as the general election is free and fair. Parties want to win, and thus they put up the candidate they think will have the broadest appeal to voters, otherwise they lose and try again. There's already far too many elections in the U.S:, maybe we could do away with primaries altogether, saving money and (hopefully) increasing turnout in other elections
That people even believe that primaries are some type of directly democratic, binding process shows a lack of understanding on the part of the public.
That people even believe that primaries are some type of directly democratic, binding process shows a lack of understanding on the part of the public.
6
You have one system of the other, not both. If you conduct primaries and allow voting, you should respect that vote. People are likely to get angry if consulted and then ignored. If you want to decide internally, then do that. Just change the name of the party.
An insurgent candidate won the Democratic nomination in 2008. His name was Barrack Hussein Obama.
The primary process is flawed, no question. The causes that is held on Election Day and the television pundits that discuss the negatives often know not what they are talking about.
The caucus workings vary by state. But I would argue that the caucus system is the pure essence of democracy. People, neighbors discussing the issues and listening to the pros and cons of a candidates character and position on issues. The stages from district to county and ultimately to state conventions refining the selection process of a nominee is a lesson in participation.
The straight vote in the primary where winner take all , one could argue, is less representative as voters strategically vote across party lines and are influenced by outside money and outside organization..
Politics is the art of compromise. It can get messy. But in the end, local discussion, during the evening can sway one's opinion on who would be the best candidate to win.
In 2008, an experienced politician that understood the game better than anyone else, came out to support a young black Senator from Illinois. Ted Kennedy's support made all the difference. A man, who knew the importance of compromise and who knew the strength of timing. He was s Super Delegate. As was Former Vice President Mondale, who supported Hillary and ultimately supported That young Senator from Illinois, the insurgent candidate of 2008.
The primary process is flawed, no question. The causes that is held on Election Day and the television pundits that discuss the negatives often know not what they are talking about.
The caucus workings vary by state. But I would argue that the caucus system is the pure essence of democracy. People, neighbors discussing the issues and listening to the pros and cons of a candidates character and position on issues. The stages from district to county and ultimately to state conventions refining the selection process of a nominee is a lesson in participation.
The straight vote in the primary where winner take all , one could argue, is less representative as voters strategically vote across party lines and are influenced by outside money and outside organization..
Politics is the art of compromise. It can get messy. But in the end, local discussion, during the evening can sway one's opinion on who would be the best candidate to win.
In 2008, an experienced politician that understood the game better than anyone else, came out to support a young black Senator from Illinois. Ted Kennedy's support made all the difference. A man, who knew the importance of compromise and who knew the strength of timing. He was s Super Delegate. As was Former Vice President Mondale, who supported Hillary and ultimately supported That young Senator from Illinois, the insurgent candidate of 2008.
3
Uh, we live in a pseudo-democracy folks. When less than 50% of the voting public actually votes, it can't be all that democratic - unless you argue that it is a democracy of the willing or involved. Our country would be an interesting place if everyone was required to vote. Interesting Indeed!
2
This is an excellent column; both super delegates and caucauses should be discontinued; as an independent leaning democrat this is why I never registered as a Democrat.
2
Why did you not mention the Electoral College or the small state "compromise"? As far as I am concerned, two senators per state, regardless of population, is a small state unmitigated victory (and a defeat for democracy).
You know what else is undemocratic in the extreme? GOP leadership in the Senate who is literally stopping a senate vote on a duty specifically required by the Constitution. Furthermore, McConnell claims that the delay in filling the SCOTUS is somehow based on some democratic principle.
You claim that superdelegates and cacuses are a big deal to members of the Democratic party, and undermine its legitimacy. Sounds good in theory, but where are the numbers?
You could have told a story about how superdelegates foiled the will of rank and file party members, but didn't mention it. Meanwhile, the electoral college failed to reflect the will of the people in Gore v. Bush, an election in which the Supreme Court (an unelected body) was drafted to effectively cast the deciding vote.
You also criticize cacuses. How is this the fault of the Democratic party writ large? Clearly, this is a state by state decision. Also, Republicans also have cacuses. If you are interested in criticizing causes, why are you only going after the Democratic Party?
The premise of your editorial may be great for attracting clicks, but inventing problems ultimately hurts your reputation. As a member of NYT staff, you should be above cheap tactics employed by ammature YouTube channels.
You know what else is undemocratic in the extreme? GOP leadership in the Senate who is literally stopping a senate vote on a duty specifically required by the Constitution. Furthermore, McConnell claims that the delay in filling the SCOTUS is somehow based on some democratic principle.
You claim that superdelegates and cacuses are a big deal to members of the Democratic party, and undermine its legitimacy. Sounds good in theory, but where are the numbers?
You could have told a story about how superdelegates foiled the will of rank and file party members, but didn't mention it. Meanwhile, the electoral college failed to reflect the will of the people in Gore v. Bush, an election in which the Supreme Court (an unelected body) was drafted to effectively cast the deciding vote.
You also criticize cacuses. How is this the fault of the Democratic party writ large? Clearly, this is a state by state decision. Also, Republicans also have cacuses. If you are interested in criticizing causes, why are you only going after the Democratic Party?
The premise of your editorial may be great for attracting clicks, but inventing problems ultimately hurts your reputation. As a member of NYT staff, you should be above cheap tactics employed by ammature YouTube channels.
3
I'm sure you objected to the blocking of votes and process under Harry Reid when Dems had control, right?
Charles, the caucuses which were formed by the founders of this great nation to pick up the candidates for their respective parties was itself very undemocratic although to Bernie and and his supporters, this is the shining example of what a Democratic process should look like since winning 10 caucuses against Hillary's just four.
A 'process' where everyone knows which candidate the 'others' are supporting, is totally opposed to the secret balloting where we can only guess whom our next door neighbor voted for.
The reason the secret balloting was introduced in the voting system was to prevent the circus like atmosphere that prevails in all the caucuses which to the winning candidates (Bernie for the Democrats and Cruz for the Republicans) is a sign that the democracy is in order as people can debate and cajole one voter to change their vote by bringing him or her to their caucus.
But to a losing candidate like Hillary here, a caucus gives lot of impetus to fraud because we're actually forcing voters if not through intimidation but by sheer persuasions to change their allegiances to a particular candidate like Bernie, in most of the Democratic caucuses.
Now to some, that amounts to an affront to the democratic process where they've to change their votes because they do not want to live among all the neighbors who support Bernie or Hillary.
One should be able to hide their preference for a particular candidate in a democracy instead of blurting it out to the whole world.
A 'process' where everyone knows which candidate the 'others' are supporting, is totally opposed to the secret balloting where we can only guess whom our next door neighbor voted for.
The reason the secret balloting was introduced in the voting system was to prevent the circus like atmosphere that prevails in all the caucuses which to the winning candidates (Bernie for the Democrats and Cruz for the Republicans) is a sign that the democracy is in order as people can debate and cajole one voter to change their vote by bringing him or her to their caucus.
But to a losing candidate like Hillary here, a caucus gives lot of impetus to fraud because we're actually forcing voters if not through intimidation but by sheer persuasions to change their allegiances to a particular candidate like Bernie, in most of the Democratic caucuses.
Now to some, that amounts to an affront to the democratic process where they've to change their votes because they do not want to live among all the neighbors who support Bernie or Hillary.
One should be able to hide their preference for a particular candidate in a democracy instead of blurting it out to the whole world.
1
It's really sort of amazing how some commenters here have indicated that yes, while the superdelegate model is inherently undemocratic, it is necessary to keep the likes of Trump out of the running. (Actually, we all know they mean Sanders, but only a few of them have the chutzpah to say so.)
In other words, since the superdelegates' votes currently seem to be falling in line with theirs, well, yeah, it's unfair, but thank goodness for that unfairness. Otherwise, the everyday mortals who also are supposed to have a say will behave "like kids in a candy shop" and do something immature, like participate in the democratic process. This attitude sounds like that of the rich kid who comes into the candy shop with his/her dad and proceeds to buy the entire stock while the other kids are forced to watch.
At any rate, I think it would be great should Trump get the nomination. If party machinations prevent that (as opposed to lack of votes), he and his supporters will be able to claim some sort of martyrdom. If he does get the nomination, he will most likely be defeated by Clinton in the general... or - if the numerous polls that are usually overlooked in this paper are correct - absolutely trounced by Sanders.
In other words, since the superdelegates' votes currently seem to be falling in line with theirs, well, yeah, it's unfair, but thank goodness for that unfairness. Otherwise, the everyday mortals who also are supposed to have a say will behave "like kids in a candy shop" and do something immature, like participate in the democratic process. This attitude sounds like that of the rich kid who comes into the candy shop with his/her dad and proceeds to buy the entire stock while the other kids are forced to watch.
At any rate, I think it would be great should Trump get the nomination. If party machinations prevent that (as opposed to lack of votes), he and his supporters will be able to claim some sort of martyrdom. If he does get the nomination, he will most likely be defeated by Clinton in the general... or - if the numerous polls that are usually overlooked in this paper are correct - absolutely trounced by Sanders.
4
There's a theorem due to Ken Arrow that pure democracy is impossible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
Blow is complaining that the Democratic Party has failed to achieve the mathematically impossible. It's like he's complaining that they don't have a rational expression for pi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
Blow is complaining that the Democratic Party has failed to achieve the mathematically impossible. It's like he's complaining that they don't have a rational expression for pi.
1
if bernie had the SDs would Mr. Blow written this
nah
nah
2
@bill b,
Bill Clinton should have been as faithful Hillary as Mr. Blow has been.
4-4-16@7:24 am
Bill Clinton should have been as faithful Hillary as Mr. Blow has been.
4-4-16@7:24 am
1
The country and the world would have less to worry about if the Republican Party had super delegates. Unfettered democracy is like unfettered Capitalism. It needs checks and balances.
2
Hillary's coronation, long in progress and foiled once has been most tedious and tiresome in recent history. If it wasn't for the decency and good character of Obama and Sanders (and their respective ethnicity and religion) we would have seen the ruthless negative campaigning devices of the Clintons in devastating full throttle. But they had to take it down a notch or two.
When Sanders talks about "Establishment Politics," I take it to mean the super delegates and the DNC who are no different from their Republican counterparts: corrupt, drunk with power, and bought-and-paid-for by special interest.
When Sanders talks about "Establishment Politics," I take it to mean the super delegates and the DNC who are no different from their Republican counterparts: corrupt, drunk with power, and bought-and-paid-for by special interest.
14
The super delegates are a product of the conservative Democrats and the Caucuses do not represent the votes of that state. Both of them should be abolished. The majority of the people should determine who the candidate should be. In case Democrats have not noticed, the party is changing and becoming the party of FDR, not the party of the Reagan Democrats or the Bill Clinton Democrats. The party needs to go back to our roots when they represented the people and cared about us and not Wall street or the rich.
7
As an Independent who bailed out of the unDemocratic party long ago, i'm willing to accept that how the party runs its business is none of mine. Do whatever you want. Override our votes with superdelegates, restrict access in caucuses (i've never lived in a caucus state), keep some of your primaries closed, and by any means necessary get your establishment candidate of choice the nomination. But don't think that your party doesn't pay the price for essentially rendering our (and rouge Democrats') votes irrelevant in the primaries.
Put up whomever you want for the general, but you can't be upset if we decline to tick the box for your candidate. Rendering our votes irrelevant doesn't exactly help in getting out the vote either - remind me again of how the last few midterms went for the Democrats? You've paid the price downballot, Dems at the congressional and state levels have been decimated. Look very forward to more of the same. (First on the hit list - superdelegates in office who don't vote in line with the popular vote.)
Put up whomever you want for the general, but you can't be upset if we decline to tick the box for your candidate. Rendering our votes irrelevant doesn't exactly help in getting out the vote either - remind me again of how the last few midterms went for the Democrats? You've paid the price downballot, Dems at the congressional and state levels have been decimated. Look very forward to more of the same. (First on the hit list - superdelegates in office who don't vote in line with the popular vote.)
1
Um, Clinton is leading by about 2.5 million popular votes.
How is her being in the lead therefore undemocratic?
How is her being in the lead therefore undemocratic?
3
Her being in the lead is arguably Democratic depending on how you want to slice it. It doesn't follow that a disproportionate number of superdelegates committing to her (at this point) is.
I expect her to win the mid-Atlantics because those primaries are closed. You can argue either way whether or not that's Democratic. But just don't expect Independents (40% of the electorate, and going heavily for Sanders in the open Democraatic primaries) to fall in line in the general, or show up to vote Democratic in the midterms. The Democratic party has already indicated that those votes are relatively irrelevant to their purposes.
I expect her to win the mid-Atlantics because those primaries are closed. You can argue either way whether or not that's Democratic. But just don't expect Independents (40% of the electorate, and going heavily for Sanders in the open Democraatic primaries) to fall in line in the general, or show up to vote Democratic in the midterms. The Democratic party has already indicated that those votes are relatively irrelevant to their purposes.
Correcting the math here: Superdelegates do not "make up nearly a third of all delegates", as noted in the column. 712 delegates out of 4,765 (the number of *all* delegates) is a little less than 15%.
6
False equivalency!
2
When you hold the power you don't have to apoloigize.
1
The system is rigged. Two parties, one outcome, no change. Big money decides it all. The media as sycophants. Had enough yet?
14
amen.
3
It has always rankled me that pretty much all 700 of the Democratic Party’s elite openly “declare” for a candidate right out of the starting gate without even making a pretense of taking notice of plain party members. Of course, only money and political influence have anything do with it and deals and quid pro quo arrangements are long sealed before the primaries. The manipulation of this system seems to have reached its peak under the leadership of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and is one reason I have switched from being a registered Democrat to an independent.
6
Also, some primaries allow independents to vote, others are democrats only, so results don't always reflect the will of democratic voters.
6
America will never ever be a democracy .
American democracy is a puppet on a string, the strings in the hands of its puppeteers , the mega Corporations .
99% of the people in america hardly have any voice .
Shame on america!
American democracy is a puppet on a string, the strings in the hands of its puppeteers , the mega Corporations .
99% of the people in america hardly have any voice .
Shame on america!
3
The biggest irony of the entire Super Delegate thing is that Sanders supporter Tad Devine helped implement the process. And the biggest hypocrisy is after months and months of damning them, now Sanders is trying to court them, oops Bernie a lot them are the same people you have worked with in government for years who haven't endorsed you...feel their burn?
11
In my area of upstate New York, I have already received too many Facebook posts and emails supporting HRC from "known democrats". Recently I received my absentee ballot. On it, I had a chance to vote for these known democrats as, what do you know.....delegates to the convention. So, these delegates have been supporting her for months. No delegate boxes will be checked from me.....only 1 box for Bernie Sanders.
6
@Ptruns,
I'm in the minority. I don't have a Facebook account. I was advised to get one, asap. Are others being hounded this way? Your comment almost sounds like a warning.
4-4-16@7:30 am
I'm in the minority. I don't have a Facebook account. I was advised to get one, asap. Are others being hounded this way? Your comment almost sounds like a warning.
4-4-16@7:30 am
3
"Open Caucuses" and "Open Primaries" should be eliminated as well. They are not designed to select a party nominee but are designed more like a general election choice.
Caucuses and primaries are suppose to have the purpose of picking who the party wants to represent them in the general election. They should be limited to members of that party. To open them to anyone who wants to be a part of the process is to taint the results because it allows outsiders to determine the results when they might not have the the best nterests of the party in their heart but may be voting just to throw the election to someone they think would be an easier opponent in the general election.
Caucuses and primaries are suppose to have the purpose of picking who the party wants to represent them in the general election. They should be limited to members of that party. To open them to anyone who wants to be a part of the process is to taint the results because it allows outsiders to determine the results when they might not have the the best nterests of the party in their heart but may be voting just to throw the election to someone they think would be an easier opponent in the general election.
3
Both super delegates and caucuses are elitist but the former is defensible while the latter is not. Super delegates are people who know how to win elections. Their informed judgment produces a stronger candidate. Caucuses, on the other hand, suppress voter turnout, filtering out all but the most partisan voters who value purity over practicality.
2
When Howard Dean was DNC chair he worked hard to appear neutral.
it's inexcusable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is DNC Chair while Hillary's a candidate after she was co-chair of Clinton's 2008 campaign. Nobody believes Wasserman-Schultz hasn't used her DNC position to rig this nominating process for Hillary far in advance of Clinton announcing - which as a close friend, Wasserman-Schultz knew she would. From raising DNC money for Hillary to gaming the debates, Wasserman-Schultz is perceived as corrupt & this process viewed as unfairly in-the-bag for Clinton from the outset.
Hillary supporters don't get the vehemence with which Bernie supporters oppose her & won't promise to unite eventually. It's partly because they believe Bernie never had a fair chance.
If the Democratic Party wants to survive, they must ensure there's never again a biased DNC Chair perceived as cheating the way Wasserman-Schultz has. This screams "the peon voters don't matter" even more than super delegates.
Hillary staffers warn Bernie about his 'tone' while Hillary shouts in public she's sick of Bernie lying about her. Seriously? This after Chelsea told voters Bernie wants to repeal Obamacare and end medicare and CHIPs. All of that an outrageous lie. The Clintons are entitled & have played dirty all their lives. Hillary & her minions are outrageous hypocrites. If they want the party united eventually, they'd better get to work. They have their work cut out for them.
it's inexcusable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is DNC Chair while Hillary's a candidate after she was co-chair of Clinton's 2008 campaign. Nobody believes Wasserman-Schultz hasn't used her DNC position to rig this nominating process for Hillary far in advance of Clinton announcing - which as a close friend, Wasserman-Schultz knew she would. From raising DNC money for Hillary to gaming the debates, Wasserman-Schultz is perceived as corrupt & this process viewed as unfairly in-the-bag for Clinton from the outset.
Hillary supporters don't get the vehemence with which Bernie supporters oppose her & won't promise to unite eventually. It's partly because they believe Bernie never had a fair chance.
If the Democratic Party wants to survive, they must ensure there's never again a biased DNC Chair perceived as cheating the way Wasserman-Schultz has. This screams "the peon voters don't matter" even more than super delegates.
Hillary staffers warn Bernie about his 'tone' while Hillary shouts in public she's sick of Bernie lying about her. Seriously? This after Chelsea told voters Bernie wants to repeal Obamacare and end medicare and CHIPs. All of that an outrageous lie. The Clintons are entitled & have played dirty all their lives. Hillary & her minions are outrageous hypocrites. If they want the party united eventually, they'd better get to work. They have their work cut out for them.
34
Oh come on furious, Howard Dean took away the votes of two states, Michigan and Florida because they changed dates. He worked hard to be fair! To whom? The Dems need a name change at the very least.
2
At this point, Clinton will be lucky if the Sanders camp just stays home. In this election cycle, I think the NYT and Clinton have been very successful in creating new enemies. Looking back, it almost seems like it was their original goal.
The GOP are offering the White House like Isaac on the hill and the Clinton campaign and the NYT are playing games? I suspect there'll be a political hell to pay come November.
The GOP are offering the White House like Isaac on the hill and the Clinton campaign and the NYT are playing games? I suspect there'll be a political hell to pay come November.
1
Fast and Furious,
We get it. Hillary can do no right and your candidate can do no wrong.
It is a mystery why you think threatening to hold your breath or threatening to never come out of your room is going to get us to hate Hillary the way you do or change our vote. That you won't vote for the consensus candidate is totally up to you. It is funny that you believe you are a part of some secret majority, that Hillary can't win without you, that we should all see your brand of reason and come 'round to your way of thinking. Hillary is winning without you. Hillary has earned the trust of many more voters than your candidate, by two and a half million votes and 229 pledged delegates more.
Stay home.
Pout.
Hold your breath until you get your way.
But Sanders already lost this.
Conversely, even without you, Hillary's got this.
We get it. Hillary can do no right and your candidate can do no wrong.
It is a mystery why you think threatening to hold your breath or threatening to never come out of your room is going to get us to hate Hillary the way you do or change our vote. That you won't vote for the consensus candidate is totally up to you. It is funny that you believe you are a part of some secret majority, that Hillary can't win without you, that we should all see your brand of reason and come 'round to your way of thinking. Hillary is winning without you. Hillary has earned the trust of many more voters than your candidate, by two and a half million votes and 229 pledged delegates more.
Stay home.
Pout.
Hold your breath until you get your way.
But Sanders already lost this.
Conversely, even without you, Hillary's got this.
4
Agree on caucuses and disagree on super delegates. Most Americans, of both parties, are ill informed about what it takes to perform the job of a public sector executive position. Those super delegates are in the best position to assess the political viability of candidates as well as how well they are equipped to perform the duties of the position if elected. Caucuses have been used in my state by the Republicans to ensure that the selected candidate is ideologically pure. The process lends itself to such an assessment without regard to the candidates political viability or ability to perform.
3
Lumping together superdelegates and caucuses as symbols of the Democratic party's unfairness is pretty cynical.
Superdelegates--especially those who declare months before the primaries begin--are nothing good. Most superdelegates have a future tied to the Clintons or owe them. It's a corruption of the process.
Caucuses are democracy at a level we've largely abandoned in favor of often dysfunctional machines. It's neighbors talking to neighbors about who they like and why, trying to persuade each other of who should lead.
Caucuses are the opposite of superdelegates.
But you had to make them equal, because superdelegates favor Clinton while caucuses favor Sanders.
Superdelegates--especially those who declare months before the primaries begin--are nothing good. Most superdelegates have a future tied to the Clintons or owe them. It's a corruption of the process.
Caucuses are democracy at a level we've largely abandoned in favor of often dysfunctional machines. It's neighbors talking to neighbors about who they like and why, trying to persuade each other of who should lead.
Caucuses are the opposite of superdelegates.
But you had to make them equal, because superdelegates favor Clinton while caucuses favor Sanders.
14
Siobhan, check the history of open voting, and the reasons we fought to get rid of it. Check County Clare and Daniel O'Connell.
2
But caucuses are not "nights talking to neighbors": they are individuals who have a certain degree of economic freedom to attend the caucuses. In the old fashioned demos, the Athenians allowed themselves to be directed by the will of the people. But modern liberalism emphases the freedom of the individual. Democracy is now one person expressing his or her own opinion shielded from the social pressures of the group and the consequences of expressing an unpopular opinion. This system better accommodates diversity. The problem of super delegates and the problem of caucuses are different kinds of problem, but they are not opposites. Super delegates also reflect the "will of the people" mediated by the party's elected officials. They represent the interests of the people who elected them. Sure, their political fates may be entwined with that of the candidate, but one needn't be cynical about that. Politicians have to work together. It's not only allowable for one politician to prefer someone whom they respect--it's necessary. Facing a monolithic party intent on destroying government (not the Senate Republicans' decision to foreclose President Obama's right to appoint a Supreme Court justice), Democratic elected officials have to be able to assert a collective will. An insurgent candidate at this point in history could deal a serious blow not only to the party but to the future of our country: of our world.
1
Sorry for my haste. I meant to write that caucuses are not "NEIGHBORS talking to neighbors"; and "modern liberalism EMPHASIZES the freedom of the individual"; and "the problem of super delegates and the problem of caucuses are different kinds of PROBLEMS."
I stand by the rest of what I wrote: "An insurgent candidate at this point in history could deal a serious blow not only to the party but to the future of our country: of our world."
I stand by the rest of what I wrote: "An insurgent candidate at this point in history could deal a serious blow not only to the party but to the future of our country: of our world."
Superdelegates they didn't exist in 1968 - and yet Humphrey lost. They did exist in 1984, and Mondale lost just as badly as had McGovern in 1972. And Carter only lost in 1980 because of the Iran hostage crisis, and the inclusion in the race of a relatively competitive 3rd party candidate, John Anderson - not because he was a popularly-elected yet "weak" candidate.
Defeat is one of two inevitable options in electoral politics. You can easily draw the wrong conclusions from the outcome of an election.
As for caucuses, having lived my entire life in a primary election state, I neither understand why they exist nor their appeal.
The obvious remedy to the superdelegate problem is for the primary voters who supported the candidate who was unfairly deprived of a nomination to stay home in November, and allow the party bigwigs to be humiliated (and eventually ousted from their positions).
My working assumption is that Hillary Clinton will win at least a couple of large coastal state primaries going forward, and thus secure the nomination on her own; but should Sanders indeed defeat Clinton in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California, and the party big wigs still steer the nomination to Clinton, then there is going to be hell to pay in November - Trump or no Trump.
The existence of superdelegates is only injecting an unhelpful perception of intrigue and corruption into what must be a wholly transparent process.
Defeat is one of two inevitable options in electoral politics. You can easily draw the wrong conclusions from the outcome of an election.
As for caucuses, having lived my entire life in a primary election state, I neither understand why they exist nor their appeal.
The obvious remedy to the superdelegate problem is for the primary voters who supported the candidate who was unfairly deprived of a nomination to stay home in November, and allow the party bigwigs to be humiliated (and eventually ousted from their positions).
My working assumption is that Hillary Clinton will win at least a couple of large coastal state primaries going forward, and thus secure the nomination on her own; but should Sanders indeed defeat Clinton in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California, and the party big wigs still steer the nomination to Clinton, then there is going to be hell to pay in November - Trump or no Trump.
The existence of superdelegates is only injecting an unhelpful perception of intrigue and corruption into what must be a wholly transparent process.
15
Carter did not lose because of a third party candidate. Reagan took far more votes than Carter all others combined.
1
@Matthew Carnicelli,
I wasn't able to get to a rally for Obama, the first time he ran and I really regret that. I attended the rally for Sanders in the Bronx. It was my first time being that close to a prospective nominee for president. It was truly galvanizing.
I try not to assume or presume anything. And, with respects, I admire those who also refrain from doing so. I don't feel it serves any purpose. I've spoken to a number of fellow Sanders volunteers and voters about the possibilities and gotten a range of feedback. I've spoken to Clinton supporters, too, as well as voters who won't discuss their preferences.
You mention hell to pay if Sanders wins those states and doesn't get the nod?
If that happens, come November, I can't help thinking it could bring a whole new level and meaning to "feeling the Bern."
4-4-16@9:04 am
I wasn't able to get to a rally for Obama, the first time he ran and I really regret that. I attended the rally for Sanders in the Bronx. It was my first time being that close to a prospective nominee for president. It was truly galvanizing.
I try not to assume or presume anything. And, with respects, I admire those who also refrain from doing so. I don't feel it serves any purpose. I've spoken to a number of fellow Sanders volunteers and voters about the possibilities and gotten a range of feedback. I've spoken to Clinton supporters, too, as well as voters who won't discuss their preferences.
You mention hell to pay if Sanders wins those states and doesn't get the nod?
If that happens, come November, I can't help thinking it could bring a whole new level and meaning to "feeling the Bern."
4-4-16@9:04 am
2
Superdelegates and caucuses made more sense at other times. They are not foolish, just not really suitable to the circumstances of the moment.
Superdelegates suit the problem the Republicans just had, a fractured vote among many candidates, mostly troubled from the view of a majority of voters, but each appealing to a narrow slice. Superdelegates take the larger view, based not on being an elite, but on being politically dependent themselves on survival of the party as an institution with a broader appeal. They personally need to ensure that or they'll personally lose their own positions.
As applied to two candidates, each strong, it is undemocratic.
Caucuses are a choice of party activists, rather than voters more generally. There is some role for that. Especially early on, it allows those most interested to highlight messages from those less known.
A caucus being smaller allows someone less known to become known to the people who will make the choice.
Again, this suits some years more than others. Now that Bernie and his message are known, and other challengers to Hillary's long-established message machine have dropped out, the real purposes of a caucus just don't apply. We know who the choices are, and we know a lot about them. Voters more generally ought to make the call on that.
But a caucus, or at least an election in a small state, allows something like the Eugene McCarthy phenomenon of 1968, when this enabled him to send the voter's message.
Superdelegates suit the problem the Republicans just had, a fractured vote among many candidates, mostly troubled from the view of a majority of voters, but each appealing to a narrow slice. Superdelegates take the larger view, based not on being an elite, but on being politically dependent themselves on survival of the party as an institution with a broader appeal. They personally need to ensure that or they'll personally lose their own positions.
As applied to two candidates, each strong, it is undemocratic.
Caucuses are a choice of party activists, rather than voters more generally. There is some role for that. Especially early on, it allows those most interested to highlight messages from those less known.
A caucus being smaller allows someone less known to become known to the people who will make the choice.
Again, this suits some years more than others. Now that Bernie and his message are known, and other challengers to Hillary's long-established message machine have dropped out, the real purposes of a caucus just don't apply. We know who the choices are, and we know a lot about them. Voters more generally ought to make the call on that.
But a caucus, or at least an election in a small state, allows something like the Eugene McCarthy phenomenon of 1968, when this enabled him to send the voter's message.
18
Excellent analysis.
1
Of the People, By the People, For the People, Whatever.
Democracy a nice concept but quickly forgotten from day one on. The founding fathers liked the idea but limited the electorate to people like them, white, male, propertied. Its been played different way at different times but today, setting aside the numerous restrictions on when and where and who, voting outcomes are largely determined by Money expended and the micro-managing processes that knows everything about the potential voter but the color of its eyes; maybe. Its become in the general election a robot process and the undemocratic electoral college technique of assigning final votes just makes it suspenseful.
Let’s hope enough are elected this time who care and make it democratic as possible for a while. I know one.
Democracy a nice concept but quickly forgotten from day one on. The founding fathers liked the idea but limited the electorate to people like them, white, male, propertied. Its been played different way at different times but today, setting aside the numerous restrictions on when and where and who, voting outcomes are largely determined by Money expended and the micro-managing processes that knows everything about the potential voter but the color of its eyes; maybe. Its become in the general election a robot process and the undemocratic electoral college technique of assigning final votes just makes it suspenseful.
Let’s hope enough are elected this time who care and make it democratic as possible for a while. I know one.
3
The primary process is and should be ONLY an indicator of favorability to the electorate inasmuch as the proportion of voters in the primary process are so relatively few; witness the Trump phenomenon. There has to be some "politically professional" brake on emotion, stupidity, misunderstanding, etc of primary voters (and I don't mean that sarcastically or arrogantly) and that's where the role of the superdelegates comes in. Trump, for example, may roll to the nomination in the Republican Party because they just don't have enough superdelegates to bring some common sense and political judgment to their nominating process.
7
I heard Al Hunt pushing this argument on "Charlie Rose." He said the super delegates are necessary because they're professional politicians and as such have 'more invested' in the outcome of the election than regular voters.
How despicable.
How despicable.
2
Using your logic, Clinton (liar, freezes in a crisis (Benghazi) then lies about it, Sanders (socialism has never worked regardless how many times it has been tried) and Trump (no one knows what he believes or will do) would be passed over. However, the Dems are pushing Clinton--it's hard to understand why if we are using logic. Cruz is the obvious choice (it's too bad he couldn't stay out of the mud with Trump) if the voters and delegates used common sense and political judgment.
The cards are stacked in favor of Hillary Clinton. A first grader can understand.
58
Janis, if "the cards are stacked in favor of Hillary Clinton," why is it that she has a very substantial lead in primaries, where all eligible and engaged voters participate, while Sanders has a sizable lead in the caucuses, which are structured to be heavily undemocratic and elitist?
2
A first grader could also understand simple math, right? Hillary is winning the popular vote, by a lot. Could it be sour grapes?
1
A first grader can also understand simple math, right? Hillary is winning the popular vote, by a lot. How is that stacking the cards?
1
Super-delegates by any other name... A feature of both American parties. Let's not get carried away. America is not democratic? Who knew?
Caucuses... A throwback to the days when the lords of the land had whippers-in to herd voters to the polls. The term comes from fox-hunting, which involves keeping the hounds together and at their task. "Whip"is still used in parliaments and assemblies, where the be-suited whips count votes and squeeze them from their party members.
In the old countries of what now are GB and Ireland, the whips rounded up voters and got them to the polls, where agents of his lordship noted those who were missing and those who failed to vote as his lordship required. (Rent increase was a common penalty.) Because then, there was no secret ballot. It's called voting for a reason (vox, Latin, voice). It's ironically redundant now to hear the term "voice vote."
Caucuses... A throwback to the days when the lords of the land had whippers-in to herd voters to the polls. The term comes from fox-hunting, which involves keeping the hounds together and at their task. "Whip"is still used in parliaments and assemblies, where the be-suited whips count votes and squeeze them from their party members.
In the old countries of what now are GB and Ireland, the whips rounded up voters and got them to the polls, where agents of his lordship noted those who were missing and those who failed to vote as his lordship required. (Rent increase was a common penalty.) Because then, there was no secret ballot. It's called voting for a reason (vox, Latin, voice). It's ironically redundant now to hear the term "voice vote."
6
Certainly such convoluted voting processes only further disenfranchise people from engaging in the democratic process. One cannot claim each vote counts and implore voters to show up on the day of elections, while continuing to engage in a nominating process that shows such little regard for the value of each vote. I'd like my vote to be heard throughout the process, not just at the end, when a candidate has been (seemingly) selected by party elders.
9
Welcome to the (Un)democratic United States! Increasing barriers to the ballot box such as voter ID, the inexplicable Electoral College, hackable paperless malfunctioning voting machines, hours-long lines, confusing registration laws that differ from state to state -- the two mentioned faults in the Democratic presidential primary are symptoms of a system in need of complete overhaul. Alas, without the political will and adequate funds to make a change, voters will continue to see elections as a faulty bet and stay away in droves.
15
I agree with much of what you say -- especially the bits about voter ID laws, polling places, bad machines, etc. But the Electoral College (which I dislike) was the Founders' idea. They wanted a Republic, with very little to no direct democracy at the national level. Senators weren't directly elected until the 20th century.
Their 18th-century fear of the landed white male gentry losing its place of privilege holds on today in various, though less absolutist ways. (The US did finally elect a black President and there is a decent chance it will elect a woman soon -- if not this year, then in the not-too-distant future.)
Unfortunately, getting rid of the EC would require a Constitutional Amendment and that seems unlikely.
Also unlikely are badly needed national standards for electoral access and reliable technologies / tabulation systems, etc. And the ridiculous and vote-supressive ID laws must be ruled the unconstitutional barriers that they are. (With a provable ID voting fraud rate of something like 31 in several billion, these laws are the very definition of a bad solution to a non-existent problem.)
As for how the parties function internally, their undemocratic processes are irritating perhaps, but if we accept the idea of parties, should they not have reasonable leeway in setting their own policies and procedures? If the country really wants direct democracy, it is possible, but more than the less-than-half of the electorate will actually need to participate.
Their 18th-century fear of the landed white male gentry losing its place of privilege holds on today in various, though less absolutist ways. (The US did finally elect a black President and there is a decent chance it will elect a woman soon -- if not this year, then in the not-too-distant future.)
Unfortunately, getting rid of the EC would require a Constitutional Amendment and that seems unlikely.
Also unlikely are badly needed national standards for electoral access and reliable technologies / tabulation systems, etc. And the ridiculous and vote-supressive ID laws must be ruled the unconstitutional barriers that they are. (With a provable ID voting fraud rate of something like 31 in several billion, these laws are the very definition of a bad solution to a non-existent problem.)
As for how the parties function internally, their undemocratic processes are irritating perhaps, but if we accept the idea of parties, should they not have reasonable leeway in setting their own policies and procedures? If the country really wants direct democracy, it is possible, but more than the less-than-half of the electorate will actually need to participate.
2
Super delegates help to preserve the influence and power of the political party as an institution. If the party elite loses all say in the selection of the candidate who will represent the GOP or Democrats, then the organization becomes merely a vehicle for the temporary majority that favors the most popular candidate in a given election cycle. The party leaders this ephemeral majority chooses might feel loyalty only to the nominee, not to the party itself. Could such an organization mobilize support for congressional and state candidates, whose fate helps to determine the ability of the president to govern?
Mr. Blow's critique of superdelegates and caucuses as undemocratic seems irrefutable. Our system of government abounds in features that can't pass the 'democratic' test. Some of these, like the disproportionate influence enjoyed by lightly-populated states in the Senate, almost certainly hamstring effective government. But the framers' attempt to restrain a dominant majority through the system of checks and balances has, on the whole, worked well.
Democracy simply means the majority rules, regardless of any other considerations. As the struggle against various forms of discrimination has demonstrated, the voice of the 'people' sometimes speaks in biased tones.
The case against superdelegates, like the indictment of other undemocratic features of our constitutional and political system, should focus on the harm they do to the longterm interests of the nation.
Mr. Blow's critique of superdelegates and caucuses as undemocratic seems irrefutable. Our system of government abounds in features that can't pass the 'democratic' test. Some of these, like the disproportionate influence enjoyed by lightly-populated states in the Senate, almost certainly hamstring effective government. But the framers' attempt to restrain a dominant majority through the system of checks and balances has, on the whole, worked well.
Democracy simply means the majority rules, regardless of any other considerations. As the struggle against various forms of discrimination has demonstrated, the voice of the 'people' sometimes speaks in biased tones.
The case against superdelegates, like the indictment of other undemocratic features of our constitutional and political system, should focus on the harm they do to the longterm interests of the nation.
3
The whole election process in this country was not designed to be fair. It was not designed to be anything at all, because it was not designed. It is the cumulative result of the battle of forces seeking to gain an advantage. The Senate is unfair. The Electoral College is unfair. Gerrymandering is unfair. Campaign finance regulations and their enforcement or lack thereof are unfair.
The rules are not supposed to be fair or unfair. They are what they are. If we wanted a fair set of rules and procedures, we would develop a way to test them to make sure they did what we thought they would do and not the opposite, and also to evaluate their fairness. We do not do such testing, so we are not really interested in fairness, but only with projecting an image of fairness from a set of rules that benefits us. Real fairness has little to do with the projection of attractive images of fairness, but the latter is what we do when we argue about fairness.
The rules are not supposed to be fair or unfair. They are what they are. If we wanted a fair set of rules and procedures, we would develop a way to test them to make sure they did what we thought they would do and not the opposite, and also to evaluate their fairness. We do not do such testing, so we are not really interested in fairness, but only with projecting an image of fairness from a set of rules that benefits us. Real fairness has little to do with the projection of attractive images of fairness, but the latter is what we do when we argue about fairness.
45
Funny, I thought Carter won. I also thought that, in clarity of hindsight, his presidency is now generally regarded as greatly underappreciated. Who knew?
To equate the super-delegate system with caucuses is, at best, a stretch. But, one thing is certain - in a land of gerrymandering, voting restrictions, lobbying, virtually unlimited campaign contributions, PACs, dark money, etc., it fits right in. Welcome to sham democracy, America. The vested interests know what's best for us. We just have to keep the faith.
To equate the super-delegate system with caucuses is, at best, a stretch. But, one thing is certain - in a land of gerrymandering, voting restrictions, lobbying, virtually unlimited campaign contributions, PACs, dark money, etc., it fits right in. Welcome to sham democracy, America. The vested interests know what's best for us. We just have to keep the faith.
194
I think it is time to recall President Carter for another term. We need his wisdom and his peaceful heart!
1
I'm a Sanders supporter, and I agree with Mr. Blow that both caucuses and superdelegates should go. Democrats would do better to focus on preventing Republican malfeasance and election fraud. Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 not because he was unpopular, but because the Reagan campaign made a deal with Iran to hold the hostages until after the election.
Nixon won because his campaign had made a deal with South Vietnamese leaders to reject Johnson's peace plan.
Bush 41 was elected on Reagan's coattails.
Bush 43 was "elected" because his brother wiped hundreds of eligible voters from the voting rolls.
Now there are voting irregularities all over the country, mostly in states controlled by Republicans and where there are large minority populations. Democrats don't want to talk about this, but it's a serious problem and threatens our Democracy.
Nixon won because his campaign had made a deal with South Vietnamese leaders to reject Johnson's peace plan.
Bush 41 was elected on Reagan's coattails.
Bush 43 was "elected" because his brother wiped hundreds of eligible voters from the voting rolls.
Now there are voting irregularities all over the country, mostly in states controlled by Republicans and where there are large minority populations. Democrats don't want to talk about this, but it's a serious problem and threatens our Democracy.
272
Democrats talk about this all the time. Unfortunately republicans control both house of congress and the legislatures and governorships of the states that are passing these restrictive laws.
2
I agree completely about caucuses. They are undemocratic on their face, deprive people of a secret ballot, allow for intimidation, and discriminate against the very groups mentioned by Mr.Blow...except for students. What student does not have four hours to dedicate to a new experience? On the other hand, who can take that amount of time away from work or find childcare to leave the kids at home.
Let's remember that the Democratic Party is a private organization whose purpose is to elect fellow Democrats to office. One reason that Sen. Sanders has not attracted a significant number of super-delegates is that he is not a Democrat. He has evinced zero interest ion helping anyone but himself get elected...despite the fact his ambitious agenda is nothing but a fantasy without Democrats in Congress to vote for it.
And yes, sometimes people with more experience can see that Republicans have been working hard to secure the nomination of Sanders in hopes of a redo of 1972...on steroids. If George McGovern could carry only a single state that is one more than a leader of the Socialist Workers Party who supported Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the government of the ayatollahs while they were holding Americans hostage in our embassy in Iran will get once the Republican attack machine goes into gear if he is nominated.
And what's in that tax return that Sanders has lied about releasing? He has provided his 1040 and nothing else.That's not even the Cliff Notes version.
Let's remember that the Democratic Party is a private organization whose purpose is to elect fellow Democrats to office. One reason that Sen. Sanders has not attracted a significant number of super-delegates is that he is not a Democrat. He has evinced zero interest ion helping anyone but himself get elected...despite the fact his ambitious agenda is nothing but a fantasy without Democrats in Congress to vote for it.
And yes, sometimes people with more experience can see that Republicans have been working hard to secure the nomination of Sanders in hopes of a redo of 1972...on steroids. If George McGovern could carry only a single state that is one more than a leader of the Socialist Workers Party who supported Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the government of the ayatollahs while they were holding Americans hostage in our embassy in Iran will get once the Republican attack machine goes into gear if he is nominated.
And what's in that tax return that Sanders has lied about releasing? He has provided his 1040 and nothing else.That's not even the Cliff Notes version.
24
@Rich,
I can only guess that you're joking when you ask what student doesn't have four hours to spare? Of course the U.S. is full of working students, undergrad through doctoral level, who've very little time to spare. My alma mater had plenty.
Though I gather from your rather, um, firmly put criticisms of Sanders, perhaps you've forgotten that his message isn't limited to himself? Many seats will be voted on in Congress, etc. We'll be voting in those elections, also. Even so, he's worked successfully with Republicans. Even the NYT acknowledged that, though they tried to minimize the article about it.
Apropos, the election process in this country, I do agree with you. There's a lot that to be seriously reconsidered. The delegates and superdelegates are (possibly) the least of it. I'd start with restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overturning Citizens United, etc.
4-4-16@7:17 am
I can only guess that you're joking when you ask what student doesn't have four hours to spare? Of course the U.S. is full of working students, undergrad through doctoral level, who've very little time to spare. My alma mater had plenty.
Though I gather from your rather, um, firmly put criticisms of Sanders, perhaps you've forgotten that his message isn't limited to himself? Many seats will be voted on in Congress, etc. We'll be voting in those elections, also. Even so, he's worked successfully with Republicans. Even the NYT acknowledged that, though they tried to minimize the article about it.
Apropos, the election process in this country, I do agree with you. There's a lot that to be seriously reconsidered. The delegates and superdelegates are (possibly) the least of it. I'd start with restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overturning Citizens United, etc.
4-4-16@7:17 am
3
Students are systematically being denied the vote, by being unable to register in the actual town that they live in 9 months of the year. By having colleges not allowed to be polling places. By making absentee ballots only count provisionally. Students are not benefiting from caucuses--they would have to be in their home state to attend one. Have you met a student lately? Walked across a campus in the past 30 years?
3
This is sort of like the Supreme Court "electing" W. Bush though Gore apparently won the election.
From what is being discussed in the media, the GOP procedures and rules are not exactly democratic either. Though Trump won more votes in Louisiana, Cruz apparently picked up more delegates using some obscure party rules to his advantage. There are other "rules" that could be used in favor of one candidate or another.
The GOP's "anyone-but-Trump" stance is similar to the "only-Hillary" stance of the Democratic party. The voters are incidental to the party "process."
From what is being discussed in the media, the GOP procedures and rules are not exactly democratic either. Though Trump won more votes in Louisiana, Cruz apparently picked up more delegates using some obscure party rules to his advantage. There are other "rules" that could be used in favor of one candidate or another.
The GOP's "anyone-but-Trump" stance is similar to the "only-Hillary" stance of the Democratic party. The voters are incidental to the party "process."
31
Many states, especially on the Republican side, award delegates by who wins the most votes in each House district within the state, then, in most cases, another block of delegates are set aside at the state level for the candidate who gets the most votes statewide, again not necessarily an actual majority of the votes. Thus, one could have a 42% nominee, as Trump appears likely to be this year, having "won" not a majority of voter's support, but more than other candidates.
I can see no good reason to determine winners by votes within House districts, other than to give the professional politicians a good gauge on which way the wind is blowing. The underlying intention seems to be to fractionalize the voting, allowing the candidate who starts out strongest to win. The way voting results are played in the major media, however, runs counter to the actual delegation section process. The media declares winners regardless of how the delegates result from each state's voting.
Doug Terry
I can see no good reason to determine winners by votes within House districts, other than to give the professional politicians a good gauge on which way the wind is blowing. The underlying intention seems to be to fractionalize the voting, allowing the candidate who starts out strongest to win. The way voting results are played in the major media, however, runs counter to the actual delegation section process. The media declares winners regardless of how the delegates result from each state's voting.
Doug Terry
1
Well, except that Clinton has garnered significantly more actual votes than Sanders. The superdelegates can change their allegiance in most cases -- and in 2008 many did, when Obama began to emerge as the choice of more voters.
If Sanders surpasses or even catches Clinton in regular delegates -- and he may -- I suspect we will see some superdelegate re-alignment.
If Sanders surpasses or even catches Clinton in regular delegates -- and he may -- I suspect we will see some superdelegate re-alignment.
2
What you are writing about here is more accurately described as corruption by the powerful wealthy elite. Unfortunately, it is in both parties, as written about in "No Debate", a powerful book describing the grip the two parties have on our democracy. The two parties have formed a corporation to run the presidential debates, in which they get to decide who will be in them and what questions can be asked! Droves of voters are coming out to protest the corruption as we see in the candidacy of Trump (who is really a Trojan horse for the elite in my opinion) and also in the candidacy of Sanders, as enthusiastic thousands and thousands fill his venues over and over. In these primaries, caucuses were the option left for paricipation in democracy. Voter suppression around the country in the Democrat's primaries are also outrageous as well as Republican states enacting voter suppression tactics. As Roosevelt said to his class, you better share some of your money or else you will lose all of your money. Hiliary Clinton gets her money from the elite, and according to many many voters, this does not pass the smell test. Her impending "interviews" with the FBI doesn't bode well either. Trump is not much of a threat, if Sanders gets to run against him. I just sat next to a fellow at dinner last night, who is a moderate Republican, who is considering voting for Sanders. Sanders is much more moderate then the elite want to give him credit for.
99
It's interesting, Mr. Blow, that you criticize the superdelegates for "declaring their loyalty before voting has ended," but you conveniently fail to mention the fact that your own newspaper loudly endorsed Hillary Clinton before even one vote had been cast. Looks like it's not just the Democratic Party that is trying to sway this election.
564
Endorsements carry no weight at conventions, delegate count does.
13
Expat Annie, the newspaper, as a privately held entity, has the right to endorse whomever they want. We don't have to vote for who they endorse. I voted for sanders in the MA primary election. Who the newspapers endorsed had no bearing on who I voted for. If a person is so ignorant of the policies and platform of a candidate that they would vote for the one the newspaper endorses, or a celebrity endorses, or a sports figure endorses maybe he/she shouldn't be voting at all.
I have five young adult children. Not one of them reads a newspaper but all of them know about Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders and all support Sanders but will support Clinton should she win. They are politically savvy, getting their news from other sources than the NYT or our local conservative papers, of which only the Boston Globe is liberal leaning. Just because you don't read a MSM newspaper doesn't mean that you are uninformed. And just because the MSM supports a certain candidate doesn't mean that you need to follow their lead.
I had heard of Bernie Sanders far before he chose to run for president since I follow the progressive Democratic party through organizations like MoveOn and Think Progress. In the age of the internet there is absolutely no reason to have one newspaper or news source as your sole source of news. There's a whole wide world of info out there at our fingertips. All one needs to do is type and seek out the truth. It's not that difficult, it just takes time. The choice is ours.
I have five young adult children. Not one of them reads a newspaper but all of them know about Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders and all support Sanders but will support Clinton should she win. They are politically savvy, getting their news from other sources than the NYT or our local conservative papers, of which only the Boston Globe is liberal leaning. Just because you don't read a MSM newspaper doesn't mean that you are uninformed. And just because the MSM supports a certain candidate doesn't mean that you need to follow their lead.
I had heard of Bernie Sanders far before he chose to run for president since I follow the progressive Democratic party through organizations like MoveOn and Think Progress. In the age of the internet there is absolutely no reason to have one newspaper or news source as your sole source of news. There's a whole wide world of info out there at our fingertips. All one needs to do is type and seek out the truth. It's not that difficult, it just takes time. The choice is ours.
13
An endorsement usually comes at the beginning of voting. The point of the endorsement is to influence voters. You only complain because your candidate did not receive their endorsement.
7
More to the point: We should search for means by which to eliminate parties altogether.
Political parties are vehicles for wielding power. Any tendencies to (literal) democracy or even basic fairness are counter to their aims. Ballot access is monopolized by Ds and Rs, leaving independents (a plurality of citizens) with no viable recourse.
Many cities select their leaders with non-partisan elections. This could be a starting point for ridding our system of the plague that parties have wrought.
Political parties are vehicles for wielding power. Any tendencies to (literal) democracy or even basic fairness are counter to their aims. Ballot access is monopolized by Ds and Rs, leaving independents (a plurality of citizens) with no viable recourse.
Many cities select their leaders with non-partisan elections. This could be a starting point for ridding our system of the plague that parties have wrought.
7
MKB-"More to the point: We should search for means by which to eliminate parties altogether."
I couldn't agree more. I know Republican party members who find both Trump and Cruz terrifying and reprehensible but they will still vote for whomever wins the candidacy since voting against their "party " is anathema. They choose party over country time and again. If parties were eliminated we would then be voting on substance and policy. If we truly are the UNITED States of America why have political parties that do no more than divide us? I admit that although registered as an independent I usually vote Democrat but if the only democratic choice was a damaging far left candidate, say, maybe one who would not allow parents to send their children to parochial schools since we are a "secular" nation, or wanted to ban all fossil fuel and force us to commute by bicycle, ban foods that are seen as unhealthy, ban religious books, ban the celebration of religious holidays since we are a "secular" nation, or other examples that would encroach on our freedoms, I wouldn't support that candidate in spite of his being from my preferred party. A case in point was those who were enrolled in ACA and had access to healthcare for the first time in a long time voting for McConnell, KY despite the fact that he campaigned on doing away with the ACA. Their reason; "I always vote Republican." Would he have gotten their vote if they voted policy over party? Probably not. The loyalty is incomprehensible.
I couldn't agree more. I know Republican party members who find both Trump and Cruz terrifying and reprehensible but they will still vote for whomever wins the candidacy since voting against their "party " is anathema. They choose party over country time and again. If parties were eliminated we would then be voting on substance and policy. If we truly are the UNITED States of America why have political parties that do no more than divide us? I admit that although registered as an independent I usually vote Democrat but if the only democratic choice was a damaging far left candidate, say, maybe one who would not allow parents to send their children to parochial schools since we are a "secular" nation, or wanted to ban all fossil fuel and force us to commute by bicycle, ban foods that are seen as unhealthy, ban religious books, ban the celebration of religious holidays since we are a "secular" nation, or other examples that would encroach on our freedoms, I wouldn't support that candidate in spite of his being from my preferred party. A case in point was those who were enrolled in ACA and had access to healthcare for the first time in a long time voting for McConnell, KY despite the fact that he campaigned on doing away with the ACA. Their reason; "I always vote Republican." Would he have gotten their vote if they voted policy over party? Probably not. The loyalty is incomprehensible.
4
That's extremely naive. If you, as an independent, want a party to listen to you, get involved. The parties are a coalition of ideas - that's why they arose in the first place. People with similar ideas banded together to get their ideas enacted into laws.
As for eliminating them, I just don't see how you'd do that without violating the 1st Amendment.
This "burn down the system" approach reads a lot like the movie SLC Punk! By the end of the film, the protagonist realized you can do more inside the system than attacking it from the outside. It's time so called independents (who are actually generally partisans that just can't admit it to themselves) to assert themselves and get involved in the process.
As for eliminating them, I just don't see how you'd do that without violating the 1st Amendment.
This "burn down the system" approach reads a lot like the movie SLC Punk! By the end of the film, the protagonist realized you can do more inside the system than attacking it from the outside. It's time so called independents (who are actually generally partisans that just can't admit it to themselves) to assert themselves and get involved in the process.
4
8th grade civics tells us that we do not live in a true democracy. And there's much to be said for that.
The world is a fragile and complex place, and betting the fate of the planet on the fickle 'will of the people' is foolhardy. 'The people' can, and often do, represent a genuine. A quick 360 glance around confirms that in this cycle. Trump ? Bernie ? Both are popular, neither are reasonable. We are children in a candy store.
Now, can each of them have an impact in our nation ? Certainly ! But expecting them to EARN the exalted stature as potential presidents is rational.
The world is a fragile and complex place, and betting the fate of the planet on the fickle 'will of the people' is foolhardy. 'The people' can, and often do, represent a genuine. A quick 360 glance around confirms that in this cycle. Trump ? Bernie ? Both are popular, neither are reasonable. We are children in a candy store.
Now, can each of them have an impact in our nation ? Certainly ! But expecting them to EARN the exalted stature as potential presidents is rational.
9
Mr. Blow is quite right about the un-democratic super delegates and caucuses. It certainly affects voters that 359 SDs had already endorsed Clinton before voting started. Just as the NYT did. That also affects the election.
The Times is a private business, but as with "Fair and Balanced" Faux News they purport that they are an objective news source, while being anything but (although Faux is way out there compared to the NYT). Today there is another Times article noting multiple times Mr. Sanders loss in Nevada (among other misrepresentations), even after Sanders won Nevada yesterday. The Times election results web-site has not yet been updated a day after the results became official. That also affects the election.
NYTimes: We subscribers are paying you to report the news, not make the news. As Mrs. Clinton seem slow to learn as well, we fact check statements in real time. There are videos and electronic copies of statements and articles going back decades now, that can be found in seconds.
It gets easier and easier to find other, less biased (or at least open about their bias) sources of news nowadays. As another comment to that other Times article stated:
- Do you know any millennials who are Sanders fans? Sure, plenty.
- Do you know any millennials who are NYTimes subscribers? Yeah, me neither.
That is not a good long term business plan.
05:30 EST (4 comments)
The Times is a private business, but as with "Fair and Balanced" Faux News they purport that they are an objective news source, while being anything but (although Faux is way out there compared to the NYT). Today there is another Times article noting multiple times Mr. Sanders loss in Nevada (among other misrepresentations), even after Sanders won Nevada yesterday. The Times election results web-site has not yet been updated a day after the results became official. That also affects the election.
NYTimes: We subscribers are paying you to report the news, not make the news. As Mrs. Clinton seem slow to learn as well, we fact check statements in real time. There are videos and electronic copies of statements and articles going back decades now, that can be found in seconds.
It gets easier and easier to find other, less biased (or at least open about their bias) sources of news nowadays. As another comment to that other Times article stated:
- Do you know any millennials who are Sanders fans? Sure, plenty.
- Do you know any millennials who are NYTimes subscribers? Yeah, me neither.
That is not a good long term business plan.
05:30 EST (4 comments)
360
jlalbrecht, I depend on the Times these past forty five years of daily readership for a lot o things. It isn't just that they inform me of news. They also predict the weather, report on trends and review movies or restaurants. The times gives me puzzles to do if choose and tells me which new buildings and art exhibits I ought to see and which ones are ugly or terrible. They tell me about countries and companies and neighborhoods that are coming into their own.
Are you forgetting that the Times endorses candidates under it's Opinion Page banner? That they editorialize every single day about war and piece and transit and all manner of policy at each or every layer of government?
It always amazes me when a reader or Bernie supporter writes in and forgets all these things and says that the Times shouldn't endorse or endorses too early! Your letter only makes the claim that the Times should not have endorsed before the voting started! They endorsed on the eve of voting, but would you have them wait until the voting is over? what kind of service would that be for their devoted readership?
Remember too that the News divisions covered the candidates for months and years before the editorial page came through with an editorial endorsing a candidate they could believe in. Readers had the time and choice to come to their own conclusions, right?
Are you that new to reading newspapers?
Are you forgetting that the Times endorses candidates under it's Opinion Page banner? That they editorialize every single day about war and piece and transit and all manner of policy at each or every layer of government?
It always amazes me when a reader or Bernie supporter writes in and forgets all these things and says that the Times shouldn't endorse or endorses too early! Your letter only makes the claim that the Times should not have endorsed before the voting started! They endorsed on the eve of voting, but would you have them wait until the voting is over? what kind of service would that be for their devoted readership?
Remember too that the News divisions covered the candidates for months and years before the editorial page came through with an editorial endorsing a candidate they could believe in. Readers had the time and choice to come to their own conclusions, right?
Are you that new to reading newspapers?
4
Actually my daughter in college is a NY Times subscriber on her kindle.
But shes gets news from many other sources as well
But shes gets news from many other sources as well
2
NYTimes: We subscribers are paying you to report the news, not make the news
================
You have to remember that the NY Times is one of those evil corporations empowered by Citizens United
================
You have to remember that the NY Times is one of those evil corporations empowered by Citizens United
1
What you fail to mention is that the mainstream media is in lockstep with the party leadership that sets up super delegates and refuses to stand up against voter suppression. Witness your newspaper's treatment of Bernie Sanders as somehow less than worthy compared to Hillary Clinton, not because he's untrustworthy or proposes sensible (if not to Ms. Clinton) policies that have been in effect in other developed countries for decades already, but because you and your newspaper are following directions from the party leadership elite. And you, Mr. Blow, are to blame, too, with your obligatory-to-your-job snarky comments about Mr. Sanders. Enough already, please.
324
Bernie has received kid gloves treatment from the entire media. You should be grateful that his inconsistent record, problematic votes, troublesome quotes in support of dictators, weird pornographic essays and unconventional personal life, including nearly a decade of unemployment have received very little scrutiny.
12
Olivia, Trump has already shown us what "being low" means. He went after Cruz's wife. How low do you want the American public to get? As it is tabloids are not sparing any detail with the Clintons' past. How many abortions she had, how many affairs he had. Liberals do not care, its the Republican so called conservatives who will go after anyone and everyone. http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-had-several-abortions-kept-chel...
or
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/03/29/bills-alleged-mistress-hillary-had-...
or
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/03/29/bills-alleged-mistress-hillary-had-...
2
Get over your conspiracy theory. The papers favor Clinton because she is more substantive. You should be happy they haven't raked him over the coals.
1
Hmm... back to the Status Quo and the Party's that no longer respond to the constituents.
Gee, It reads like what our Gov. has become to We The People.
Too bad we don't have a candidate that is trying to right this undeniable wrong.
Too bad those in charge don't listen or refuse to act because we need to take careful, incremental, pragmatic steps only after much deliberation and $$$ studies. We need to adjust the existing. We just need to jigger it a little. No need to re-write the rules.
Man, seems we've been hearing this and saying this the whole election.
But no. We are told that if you want to be a Dem. these are the rules. You knew that so hush!
Of course everyone is corrupt. But we are dirty for our side and just not as much. If your not cheating your not trying right?! Rubbin' is Racing. USA~!
Man! Too bad we don't have someone running that would say all these things we keep complaining about.
Oooohhhh, scary change. Nope cant do it.
Status Quo.
Safe and within the system.
Maybe someday we can try out those ideas. Be like other countries. Those that have better working systems and programs and yes, elections.
But that day is not today!
Dang. Why do I keep having all these fleas every time I lay down?!!!
Change America!
Get! Out! and Vote!
#NotMeUs
Gee, It reads like what our Gov. has become to We The People.
Too bad we don't have a candidate that is trying to right this undeniable wrong.
Too bad those in charge don't listen or refuse to act because we need to take careful, incremental, pragmatic steps only after much deliberation and $$$ studies. We need to adjust the existing. We just need to jigger it a little. No need to re-write the rules.
Man, seems we've been hearing this and saying this the whole election.
But no. We are told that if you want to be a Dem. these are the rules. You knew that so hush!
Of course everyone is corrupt. But we are dirty for our side and just not as much. If your not cheating your not trying right?! Rubbin' is Racing. USA~!
Man! Too bad we don't have someone running that would say all these things we keep complaining about.
Oooohhhh, scary change. Nope cant do it.
Status Quo.
Safe and within the system.
Maybe someday we can try out those ideas. Be like other countries. Those that have better working systems and programs and yes, elections.
But that day is not today!
Dang. Why do I keep having all these fleas every time I lay down?!!!
Change America!
Get! Out! and Vote!
#NotMeUs
5
You do know that Clinton has actually received something like 2.5 million more actual votes than Sanders so far, right?
How is the person with the most votes (by a decent margin) not being the most likely nominee undemocratic?
If Sanders catches or surpasses her and is denied the nomination, that is a different argument, but it does not reflect the current reality of one candidate being relatively far ahead in actual votes and therefore delegates.
How is the person with the most votes (by a decent margin) not being the most likely nominee undemocratic?
If Sanders catches or surpasses her and is denied the nomination, that is a different argument, but it does not reflect the current reality of one candidate being relatively far ahead in actual votes and therefore delegates.
8
Dobby's sock,
The process is designed to change cycle by cycle. The super delegates prevent the democrats from ever having a Trump-like takeover so thank goodness for super delegates. They also get their own lane rather than taking the place of party activists or groundlings at the conventions.
But this super delegate process is only a few cycles old and is adjusted constantly, tinkered with and changed. That is the process of change that your sometimes snarky letter alleges never happens.
You point to other countries as being fairer. Don't almost all countries have political parties? Isn't it crucial that political parties have autonomy from government to choose their representatives and nominees? Doe some other country have a more open and better party system? I doubt it.
It is easy to conflate the party nomination system (this year long process that unfolds one state at a time) with the actual election itself (8 - 12 brutal weeks in the fall) and pretend that one should be more like the other. But let the parties pick their candidates and vote for who you wish. It is not so much 'rigged' as thought out and practiced and complex. It is design to test candidates over time, something that is much more transparent than the process that picked Lincoln or FDR in times past. messy? yes, gloriously and elaborately so. Un-fair or rigged? I don't think so.
The process is designed to change cycle by cycle. The super delegates prevent the democrats from ever having a Trump-like takeover so thank goodness for super delegates. They also get their own lane rather than taking the place of party activists or groundlings at the conventions.
But this super delegate process is only a few cycles old and is adjusted constantly, tinkered with and changed. That is the process of change that your sometimes snarky letter alleges never happens.
You point to other countries as being fairer. Don't almost all countries have political parties? Isn't it crucial that political parties have autonomy from government to choose their representatives and nominees? Doe some other country have a more open and better party system? I doubt it.
It is easy to conflate the party nomination system (this year long process that unfolds one state at a time) with the actual election itself (8 - 12 brutal weeks in the fall) and pretend that one should be more like the other. But let the parties pick their candidates and vote for who you wish. It is not so much 'rigged' as thought out and practiced and complex. It is design to test candidates over time, something that is much more transparent than the process that picked Lincoln or FDR in times past. messy? yes, gloriously and elaborately so. Un-fair or rigged? I don't think so.
4
Super delegates endorsing prior to any voting, party hacks arranging things to favor their establishment candidate, extreme voting irregularities in many of the primary states and a complicit media pushing the name brand candidate in order to secure its own access after the election. Any more questions?
2
CORRECTED...
8th grade civics tells us that we do not live in a true democracy. And there's much to be said for that.
The world is a fragile and complex place, and betting the fate of the planet on the fickle 'will of the people' is foolhardy. 'The people' can, and often do, represent a genuine threat. A quick 360 glance around confirms that in this cycle.
Trump ? Bernie ? Both are popular, neither are reasonable. Because the people often are like children in a candy store.
Now, can each of them have an impact in our nation ? Certainly ! But expecting them to EARN the exalted stature as potential presidents is rational.
Let them go to work locally, or in Congress.
President ??? I'll take the security of our anti-democratic system....
8th grade civics tells us that we do not live in a true democracy. And there's much to be said for that.
The world is a fragile and complex place, and betting the fate of the planet on the fickle 'will of the people' is foolhardy. 'The people' can, and often do, represent a genuine threat. A quick 360 glance around confirms that in this cycle.
Trump ? Bernie ? Both are popular, neither are reasonable. Because the people often are like children in a candy store.
Now, can each of them have an impact in our nation ? Certainly ! But expecting them to EARN the exalted stature as potential presidents is rational.
Let them go to work locally, or in Congress.
President ??? I'll take the security of our anti-democratic system....
10
Yes, there's safety in slavery, isn't there?
2
Although Hillary is winning fair and square with assigned delegates and the popular vote.
7
Bernie not reasonable?
I suppose voters in Vermont who have been electing him for years are unreasonable too and according to your logic above "children in a candy store."
Why bother electing representatives at all if we are going to rely on the "security of our anti democratic system." Let's save ourselves the hassle and privatize government. How about a Koch dynasty?
I suppose voters in Vermont who have been electing him for years are unreasonable too and according to your logic above "children in a candy store."
Why bother electing representatives at all if we are going to rely on the "security of our anti democratic system." Let's save ourselves the hassle and privatize government. How about a Koch dynasty?
2
I'm all for preserving quaint traditions, like playing the national anthem at the beginning of AKC dog shows, but delegates, the electoral college, and caucuses are as shameful as they are outdated (if in fact they ever were timely).
As I lifelong Democrat, I can't help but wonder why we need celebrities to get on TV and tell us to vote, when the reality is the Democratic party will take care of that for you.
As I lifelong Democrat, I can't help but wonder why we need celebrities to get on TV and tell us to vote, when the reality is the Democratic party will take care of that for you.
47
I don't worry about favoring Hillary or Bernie.
I worry about beating Cruz or Trump.
I worry about beating Cruz or Trump.
362
Absolutely.
3
Readers: please re-read this comment by bnyc! SPOT-ON.
3
If you really did worry about that, you'd vote in a heartbeat for Bernie, who consistently outpolls both. Add in the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters, and the chances of flipping the House or Senate are higher than they are with HRC too.
Mr. Blow: This is exactly one of the things I commented on in your column supporting Hillary Clinton last week. The problem IS the establishment and their candidate HRC. The fact that so many superdelegates committed to HRC before a single caucus or primary had even commenced is one of the things motivating Bernie supporters. So, do you get it yet? You yourself point out that superdelegates make up nearly 1/3 of all delegates, and even refer to it as outrageous. Yes, exactly. Is this sinking in at all? Superdelegates - many of whom need money from Goldman Sachs and other wall street firms, or money from oil industry lobbyists just to keep their own seats. A rigged game, Mr. Blow. So, you finally figured it out. I wonder if Krugman will finally get it too.
640
Their jobs depend on them NOT getting it.
2
Tommy - It's rather telling that you ignore Blow's comments on the elitist caucus system, which has the effect of disenfranchising people whose focus is necessarily upon the mundane facts of life (like earning a living wage, caring for family, finding affordable and dependable transportation, or attending to the myriad details of life they can't fix with a check) or whose personality isn't amenable to the caucus process.
But it's also worth noting that Blow omits one democratic aspect of the super delegate system that is utterly lacking in the caucus system: while none of the caucus-selected delegates face the judgement of the entire electorate within their respective districts, a large proportion of the super delegate do, for they are elected officials who have won their position through general elections.
But it's also worth noting that Blow omits one democratic aspect of the super delegate system that is utterly lacking in the caucus system: while none of the caucus-selected delegates face the judgement of the entire electorate within their respective districts, a large proportion of the super delegate do, for they are elected officials who have won their position through general elections.
17
Tommy, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton was and is VERY SMART to insist on having enough Super Delegates to get the nomination before she ran for President because she knew the attacks she would face as the first viable female candidate in the 240 year HIStory of America. It is past time that we honor SMART WOMEN like her and make it all of America's story. SHE has my vote.
10
All voting systems which discourage most voters from voting, and violate the one-voter-one-vote paradigm, are by definition undemocratic.
If we can design and build an online credit card system that can reliably identify and bill the right consumer the right amount for the right transaction, we can surely design and build a reliable online voting system. In fact, one can say we've already done it.
The only resistance to online voting, in the end, is that it would indeed be "too democratic." Way too many people would vote, to the preferences of the powerful. We simply can't have that now, can we?
If we can design and build an online credit card system that can reliably identify and bill the right consumer the right amount for the right transaction, we can surely design and build a reliable online voting system. In fact, one can say we've already done it.
The only resistance to online voting, in the end, is that it would indeed be "too democratic." Way too many people would vote, to the preferences of the powerful. We simply can't have that now, can we?
331
Electronic voting is subject to hacking.
12
I guess some people think that the US Senate is undemocratic. It is. It is also part of the checks and balances which are, next to the bill of rights, the most important feature of our Constitution. The Constitution of a Republic, not of a simple democracy. It should also be pointed out that the Republicans hold a thirty seat majority in the House of Representatives despite having, overall, received fewer popular votes than the Democratic candidates. If you live in a large city which is heavily Democrat, your vote is probably wasted. This result is caused by gerrymandering - - a practice used by both parties. This last device should have been corrected by requiring the use of mathematical models long ago, but I do not note that it is part of the "revolutionary" rhetoric of the "insurgent" "populist" candidates of either major party.
5
There are many things that affect democracy: unequal education, lack of objective and reliable information, peer pressure, to name a few. And if they build a system for voting online, there will be a way to manipulate it to benefit the powers that be, just as the credit card system benefits the banks. "Ideals" are not the answer, as in "The Ideal Democracy". Ideals are OK to guide our way, but in the real world we want, as much as possible, a balance of power among the competing interests in our society.
5
1. You incorrectly refer to the superdelegates as being "committed." They're not. The Times has done better than other newspapers in separating them from the committed delegate count.
2. You pander to the paranoia of Sanders followers when you talk about the superdelegates being intended to prevent the nomination of insurgent candidates of whom the establishment disapproves. No, what the establishment cares about is whether someone is electable and capable of governing. I don't really see how it's more democratic not to do that. Look at the Republicans. Is their process helping democracy? And, of course, now that Sanders is far behind on committed delegates, he's rediscovered the beauty of superdelegates.
2. You pander to the paranoia of Sanders followers when you talk about the superdelegates being intended to prevent the nomination of insurgent candidates of whom the establishment disapproves. No, what the establishment cares about is whether someone is electable and capable of governing. I don't really see how it's more democratic not to do that. Look at the Republicans. Is their process helping democracy? And, of course, now that Sanders is far behind on committed delegates, he's rediscovered the beauty of superdelegates.
32
I cannot imagine why, given the Trump fiasco, the writer castigates Democrats for a way of running their nomination process that would prevent a similar disaster. I like Bernie, but it is clear that his grasp of the issues outside of a narrow band of economic concerns, is narrow. Unlike Trump, his campaign remains a fight for ideas - and hopefully his ideas will be included in a Clinton campaign. In fact they already have as the tide has turned toward the $15 minimum wage.
Of course, the parties should not have the hold they have over our politics - so commissions should be non partisan (election commission for example) not bi-partisan (which maintains the status quo). But absent some means to change the system, let's be happy that the Democrats do it better.
Of course, the parties should not have the hold they have over our politics - so commissions should be non partisan (election commission for example) not bi-partisan (which maintains the status quo). But absent some means to change the system, let's be happy that the Democrats do it better.
55
Its exactly that kind of complacency that people are tired of. A real democracy should be about electing IDEAS, not PEOPLE.
1
Terry said: "Unlike Trump, his campaign remains a fight for ideas - and hopefully his ideas will be included in a Clinton campaign. In fact they already have as the tide has turned toward the $15 minimum wage." The tide has turned toward a $15 minimum wage only in markets with high cost of living -- NY and CA. This is exactly why Clinton proposed $12, so that local markets could go above where it made sense. It would be ridiculous for the minimum to be the same in NY and KY.
2
@ J Anthony - I hate to break it to you, but electing people is just as important as electing people for their ideas. Ideas are great, but if you elect a person with poor leadership & negotiating skills, their ideas will flounder.
4
Charles, you did not also include the audacity of those "super delegates" who are constantly besieging the ordinary citizens with their "super delegate" stomping for their favorite candidate in the print as well as on national television; esp. on CNN and MSNBC.
There used to be a time when, if you were scheduled to appear on a segment of CNN for comment, I eagerly waited to hear you speak; no longer.
Although you may not be a super, when I now see you on CNN, it is apparent that your agenda is stomping for Hillary.
It used to be the case that the Republican Party was very undemocratic, but Chairman Reince Priebus' handling of the Trump fiasco shows that the RNC is more democratic and mindful of the will of the voters than the unethical mangling of our Democratic Primary which has sunk the DNC to the pits.
I can tell you that this Democrat is repulsed by the DNC, and the super D sleaze.
There used to be a time when, if you were scheduled to appear on a segment of CNN for comment, I eagerly waited to hear you speak; no longer.
Although you may not be a super, when I now see you on CNN, it is apparent that your agenda is stomping for Hillary.
It used to be the case that the Republican Party was very undemocratic, but Chairman Reince Priebus' handling of the Trump fiasco shows that the RNC is more democratic and mindful of the will of the voters than the unethical mangling of our Democratic Primary which has sunk the DNC to the pits.
I can tell you that this Democrat is repulsed by the DNC, and the super D sleaze.
11
Well, there really isn't much more to say, but when you can't trust the people or the party to select the right person to lead them, then you've got a problem. What was not mentioned though is that regular primaries are paid for by the state and caucuses are paid for by the political party. Oh! The real irony is that there is a ton of money involved in politics but not enough, apparently, to pay for a truly democratic process. Hmmm!
10
The rise of Donald Trump shows exactly why superdelegates are necessary. They are ballast to prevent a populist disaster like Trump, or Sanders, or McGovern. Remember, the superdelegates are not simply elites. Almost all of them are elected officials who represent not simply party voters, but all voters, inndependents included. They represent a different kind of democracy, indirect, but important. And they represent a needed dose of stability for a system otherwise liable to go off the rails. See the case of Trump, The Donald.
64
This system has already gone "off the rails"- most people are past the denial-phase. An economy that thrives on debt-peonage and perpetual warfare is hardly stable, and never will be. Wake up.
5
The system is already "off the rails"...an economy that thrives on debt-peonage and perpetual warfare will never be stable.
1
We don't need or want super delegates. They are a crooked fix. We don't need protection against our choice of a delegate. What you must fermented is that war is what happens when politics fail.
3
That is why the super delegates are important.......to put a check against caucuses.
11
Case in point, if Barack Obama were white, we all know there is high probability he would have been forced to resign and may have even been impeached. For any of the typical NY Times readers who love president Obama unconditionally, to whom he can do not wrong, I ask you to Consider this. The rabid loons in the GOP tried to impeach president Clinton over a sexual affair for crying out loud!
The only explanation for the GOP leaders saying that impeachment of president Obama is off the table since the early days of Fast and Furious is that they are afraid of the ramifications from impeaching the first black president. Particularly when you consider that the BLM movement burned down parts of Baltimore and Ferguson over what they see as racism by the police, what most of us know as the American police state. One can simply extrapolate the results of an impeachment proceeding to remove the first black president from office that would last for a long time and have every political leader particularly the most radical out on the street encouraging rage.