Home » all category posts » USA » USA: Campaign 2008

The Super Delegate Transparency Project


Coming out of Super Tuesday, a day which didn't turn out to determine much of anything, folks started looking seriously at delegate numbers. And what they found was that the folks who are likely to make the difference are the so-called Super-Delegates, members of the Democratic party who have a vote in the nomination due to their position. A lot of people are made somewhat nauseous by the though that unelected delegates could determine who winds up as the nominee, something that seems suspiciously undemocratic. Perhaps worse than that, if super-delegates are the determining factor, the other candidate's supporters may not feel the nominee is legitimate.

Which brings us to the Super Delegate Transparency Project. The project is tracking who each delegates constuents (if any) voted for and matching them up against the delegates declared support. And if it doesn't match, well, some pressure might be applied. Jennifer Nix explains what's going on, and you can see the project itself here.


Ian Welsh February 7, 2008 - 9:54pm
Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version | digg
( categories: USA: Campaign 2008 )

A dream

I know it's a pie in the sky dream, but if there should be no clear winner after the primaries are run, then rather than throw the decision to the internal structures of the party, a national primary should be held. Finally we might get a fair choice without weighting of states and media hype waves from prior wins. It might be costly but if ever the cost seems worth it, this would be the case.

Amos Anan February 7, 2008 - 10:57pm
login to post comments
It's Liberal Disease

It's the liberal disease: special people with special training, experience and standing who know better than the little people what is good for them. The most recent out-break of liberal disease was confined to the United Kingdom. That outbreak was traced to former Prime Minister Tony Blair who knew better than the Iraqis that western style democracy must be forced upon their culture at the barrel of a gun. Let's entrust the common-sense of Dr. Dean to find a cure for the present outbreak.

jake2 February 7, 2008 - 11:42pm
login to post comments
And with an assist

And Howard Dean should gladly accept an assist from Nix and the Project.

jake2 February 7, 2008 - 11:48pm
login to post comments
thinly veiled Obama attack

Who wants this program? The Clintons.

Why? If super delegates switch their vote, its usually for whoever is most popular later on in the nomination cycle... in this case, Obama.

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

bex February 8, 2008 - 2:39pm
login to post comments
Paranoid much

this project is more likely to benefit Obama than Clinton. She has the majority of declared super delegates and is most likely of the two candidates to need them to win. Enough already. Everything that happens in the world is not an attack on your favored candidate.

Ian Welsh February 11, 2008 - 2:27am
login to post comments
Why do I get the feeling

Why do I get the feeling that most people won't mind the Superdelegate influence if in the end it favors their candidate of choice? If you knew they'd favor Obama, would you care as someone who prefers Obama? If you knew they'd favor Clinton, as a Hillary supporter do you care?
As someone who is neutral on Obama and anti-Hillary, it's irrelevant. I think it's fair and it's nothing new. This is the way nominees were decided until 1972. And because George McGovern turned out to be a disaster (in the sense that he lost 49 states), the system was changed yet again to allow party insiders to retain some influence and control over the public, maintaining a political balance.

Nominay February 8, 2008 - 5:45pm
login to post comments
It's just one more thing...

...sometimes right but mostly wrong with the way we elect Presidents.

Gordon February 8, 2008 - 11:40pm
login to post comments
The whole idea of having

The whole idea of having "super delegates" decide this lively contest is sickening. It could not have been devised by folks who care about the Democratic party. In a hotly contested battle the last thing we should resort to is a group of insiders trading favors for the prize. This cheapens the process and fosters corruption.
However heartbreaking, a majority of one delegate determining an election is easier to unite around than a group of secret delegates. Hopefully Obama's momentum will continue and we will have a clear front runner soon so all this talk of the Clinton's calling in markers and returning to the White House amidst scandal, shock and awe, ceases.

gadfly February 8, 2008 - 11:23pm
login to post comments
Exactly

Whether Clinton or Obama is jilted by the special people (super delegates), the blowback likely would rip the party - similiar to the 1968 era. The fact that this was the mechanism since post 1972 speaks for itself - it sure helped elect a lot of democratic presidents - NOT. The party must stop doing the same thing with the same people and expecting a different result. Dean fixed the myopic coastal focus with his 50-state focus. Now he (and the project with Nix) must fix super delegate disenfranchisement of the voters.

Don't think for moment that repubs cannot win. Recall 2000 and 2004. The rallying point must be, "it's the electoral college, stupid." Even the national polls are meaningless unless factored or washed through an electoral college accounting (distorting) formula.

jake2 February 9, 2008 - 12:57pm
login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.