Fuck the "Superdelegates", or: Why your vote doesn't count.
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
Right-o. So, despite Obama winning more primaries and caucuses, and having more legitimately "won" delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention, Hillary might still take the nomination. Because the Democratic Party automatically gives delegate status to every single Democrat in Congress, along with every Democratic governor in the US, and a bunch of other people on top of that. And who "we the people" (you know, the ones who are supposed to be in charge of who gets nominated) vote for has fuck-all to do with who these people end up voting for.
You might think the Democrats' "superdelegate" thing is a remnant of an earlier era, when the party could rightly assume the vast majority of voters were uneducated, illiterate yokels. Au contraire, the system was introduced in 1980. From Wikipedia:
After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process [...] to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination. [ed. As it should be.
These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic ticket. In response, the superdelegate rule was instituted after the 1980 election. Its purpose was to accord a greater role to active politicians. [ed. my emphasis.]
This is, IMNSHO, utter fucking bullshit. What it does, in a close race like this years' contest, is put the swing vote for the nomination in the hands of the—surprise, fucking surprise—party elite. How painfully ironic, for the party that gets unanimous support from labor unions. So much for the little man.
It's horseshit. Plain and simple. The Republican system of "winner take all" primaries effectively fucks the underdog … which is screwed in its own way. But the Democrats? The party that champions its support of the common man against the rich overlords? In the 2008 nomination race, we could very well see the party elite swing the nomination against the populist front-runner, in favor of the political-dynasty corporate whore.
If the trends in recent primaries holds true, Obama will be the clear popular vote leader. And yet, the majority of superdelegates who've already announced which candidate they back are supporting Hillary.
Get a fucking clue, you cunts. So long as this ass-backwards system is still in place, show some respect for the people who got out to the primary polls, or spent their afternoon at a caucus, and cast your convention vote for the most popular candidate, rather than the one with the most ties to your favorite corporate masters. Or, if nothing else, vote for the majority candidate from your home state. We're all well fucked-off over the last two presidential elections, and we're blaming the Republicans for that. For fuck's sake, prove to us that the only viable opposition party is above election-stealing.
I'm not even a registered Democrat … frankly, I think both the majority parties are fucked. But I was hoping the last eight years would have instilled in them some small conviction to prove to us they're different, if only for a single election cycle.
So, for you folks lucky enough to live in a state with Democratic congressional representatives, or a Democratic governor, do me a favor: Find out whether or not your local superdelegates have declared support for a candidate yet. If they're declared for Hillary, or they're undecided, write them a letter (or an email, or make a phone call) asking them to pledge to support whichever candidate wins the majority of the popular vote in national primaries and caucuses.
After this election, we can get down to the business of dethroning the kingmakers, and trying to turn the Democrats into something I could honestly consider registering with. ;-)
(If you want more gory details of how the average Joe democrat could easily get fucked in this year's convention, Superdelegates.org does a no-frills and thorough job of explaining it.)
(Add your voice to the 200,000+ people who have signed Moveon.org's petition asking the superdelegates to vote in accordance with the popular vote for the party nomination.)
Obama currently leads when you combine both.
13th February 2008 at 6:08 am | permalink |Sweet … let's hope that's still the case after the March primaries, eh?
13th February 2008 at 11:46 am | permalink |Hmmm… As of late Fuck the "Superdelegates" is the exact thought has been crossing my mind … and now seems to be crossing the superdelegates mind as well . . .
13th February 2008 at 6:28 pm | permalink |Yeah it was awesome seeing Obama win Louisiana, especially after going to the local polling place and voting for him (along with my sister and grandmother).
After we were done my grandmother said "I just hope he doesn't swear in on the Kuran…" I told her "He doesn't >_<"
I'd love to find the person who started that rumor, and punch him in the fucking face. Not that I care for the bible or whatever book the other religions use, but it's bullshit designed to turn voters away from him and pisses me off.
Apparently Hillary doesn't care what the people say, she wants to win no matter what and will try to get the super delegates to hand her the nomination regardless of what WE want: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html
14th February 2008 at 1:11 am | permalink |Hmm, pretty interesting stuff. I have to admit I really didn't know what these Superdelegates were. I'd have to agree that they certainly have too much leeway to tip the scales one way or the other in such a tight race. But don't regular delegates have the ability to 'switch' at the convention too? Or is that only electoral college delegates. Thinking of which, can we PLEASE do away with the damn electoral college?
14th February 2008 at 11:59 am | permalink |Moveon.org has a petition asking the superdelegates to vote in accordance with the popular vote … everyone should sign it!
@eric: "Pledged" delegates have to vote according to the results in their state primary/caucus, I believe.
And yeah, I'll get to the electoral college later. ;-)
14th February 2008 at 2:56 pm | permalink |@davidgx: lol … I hadn't heard the "swearing in on the Quran" thing. That's fucking pathetic. (And it's even more pathetic that it's actually going to scare some people away from voting for him …)
The sad thing about Hillary is that she's so obviously scrambling. She was actually trying to paint herself as an underdog "outsider" candidate for a while, now she's lobbying the superdelegates, hoping they'll tip the scale.
On the upside, Obama just got a major union endorsement that ought to help him out in Texas and Ohio … hehe
15th February 2008 at 12:56 pm | permalink |I'd be more upset if there was someone worth voting for..
See what I mean..?
15th February 2008 at 3:37 pm | permalink |@tj: I totally understand … but in this case, I think there's a pretty clear lesser of the evils to choose from, and after the last eight years, I'm willing to go with that for now …
… see what I mean? ;-)
15th February 2008 at 4:12 pm | permalink |Well I think it's pretty fantastic that you've already decided that the election is over, and that you're a disenfranchised victim, even though both candidates are only about halfway there.
Great job being completely and unreasonably idiotic, and an extra kudos for clogging up the StumbleUpon pipeline with this self-promoting, self-important drivel.
Thumbs up, will read again. :|
15th February 2008 at 8:58 pm | permalink |i agree that the primaries are f*cked up, but the truth of the matter is that political parties are NOT REQUIRED to hold primaries, and if they do, the results are NOT BINDING. obviously, the parties usually nominate the person who wins because that person has the best chance of winning the general election; however, the democrats could nominate john edwards if they so desired.
so, yes, the system is f*cked up, but don't blame the parties, blame the voters. if you don't like how parties are run, you are free to vote for another candidate; but the democrats and republicans know that their candidates will get votes NO MATTER WHAT, so they have no reason to change their methods.
anyways, to quote gb shaw, a democracy is a form of government which ensures that we are governed no better than we deserve.
15th February 2008 at 9:47 pm | permalink |@jib: Wow, so hostile! hehehe
Lessee …
"you've already decided that the election is over" I didn't say that.
"you're a disenfranchised victim" All Kucinich supporters are disenfranchised at this point … but if having a relative handful of party bigwigs decide who you get to vote for is cool with you, then I guess you're a happy camper no matter what, eh?
"Great job being completely and unreasonably idiotic" I'm hardly the only writer who's pointed out that the superdelegates could very well cast the deciding votes in this year's Democratic convention. I suppose we could all be idiotic though.
"Thumbs up, will read again." Great! I'm kinda low on derogatory comments, truth be told.
15th February 2008 at 10:00 pm | permalink |@jam: Well, if I don't like the way the democratic primaries are run, but they're still the clear lesser of evils come election time, it seems to me that the more constructive thing to do is work within the party to effect a change in their primary structure. They've changed things twice before, so there's no saying they can't change it again …
… personally, I don't see the point of going to all the trouble of doing primaries and caucuses if you're not going to go with the more successful candidate at the end though.
The Shaw quote is good. :-) Reminds me of Mencken's essay on the Presidency …
15th February 2008 at 10:23 pm | permalink |couldn't agree more. This video really helped me to understand the whole Super Delegate issue.
http://thecandidacy.com/2008/02/10/super-delegates-what-are-they/
Thanks for posting the link to Moveon.org
17th February 2008 at 9:23 pm | permalink |This Yank system sucks. Please explain how it is more democratic than the British system? Seems the more dollars you have the more chance of (personal) power. What an idiotic system, designed for the good but abused by the few, with dollars. America used to be looked up to, not anymore in the free world. This democracy is a prime example of what not to become. Fuck it.
19th February 2008 at 3:05 am | permalink |@concerned: Thanks for your link as well! The more democratic voters actually understand the superdelegate system, the more people will be able to speak out against it … and hopefully change it.
@azza: Well, I could try to explain how it's more democratic than the British system, but I don't think it is. ;-) I'd much rather see the US using some kind of proportional, party-centric system than our current celebrity face-off elections.
19th February 2008 at 4:06 pm | permalink |What do you mean by proportional, part-centric system?
BTW, I like your blog so far.
26th February 2008 at 12:08 pm | permalink |@garrowolf: In proportional representation, parties send representatives to the legislative body according to what percentage of the vote each party received … it's the only way minority party supporters really get any representation.
By party-centric, I mean people vote for parties (which individuals campaign on behalf of), rather than individual personalities. In the UK, a party can actually remove the Prime Minister and replace him/her with another member of their party … I think it helps prevent the whole "I AM THE RULER OF THE WORLD" megalomania someone like GW seems to suffer from.
26th February 2008 at 1:16 pm | permalink |I like the proportional representation version but we should also be able to vote on what meds the politicians take. We could call it a Representative Pharmacracy!
26th February 2008 at 8:18 pm | permalink |@garrowolf: LOL! That would be hilarious.
27th February 2008 at 2:43 am | permalink |Super delegates:
Go ahead and vote… just remember, the party always knows best.
And, on that note…
1984:
Left-wing totalitarianism, if you recall.
Not that I love republicans any more. I'd rather jump on a democratic bandwagon than take side with 90% of the bull they throw into the mix.
But seriously. It's ironic that, in the party supposedly founded on the "will of the people," they still sit in the mindset that the party knows better than the people on absolutely everything ever. It's just proof that the only party the people can justly have is themselves.
28th February 2008 at 4:15 pm | permalink |@adam seale: Totalitarianism of any variety is fucked … but the current Repub administration seems a lot more inclined that way that the Dem candidates. ;-)
28th February 2008 at 4:22 pm | permalink |I just faxed this to my Governor, Bill Richardson so he can read it and think about it.
29th February 2008 at 4:10 pm | permalink |@srvndank: Excellent! :-) Good to hear it.
29th February 2008 at 4:21 pm | permalink |Wait, you mean my Representative Pharmacracy comment just got faxed to a Governor?
29th February 2008 at 8:56 pm | permalink |GREEEAAAAT!
Then Kennedy should let it be known that while he endorses Obama, he will vote for Hillary… right?
Makes no sense that Super Delegates should have to vote with their state's majority. Let every individual choose who they vote for based on their own conscience, criteria and hopeful some critical thinking skills.
Obama is a stand-out guy, no doubt. He is clearly an agile thinker, smart, urbane, young and charming and if he receives the nomination, I am all in for him.
But I bet McCain beats OBama in the general election.
Republican's are terrified of Hillary…make no mistake. I really think they want to face Obama. I would not be surprised if some of the voters in the Democratic primaries have actually been Republicans rallied by party operatives to bolster Obama's vote counts.
Honestly I cant figure why so many people profess such a profound hatred of Hillary. Gallons of Kool Aid have been swallowed about her "likeability numbers being low"…Jesus. Many a dumbass "liked" Bush and some collossal dumbasses still do. I could give a shit about likeability factors, are we a nation of 6 year olds??
I rank experience, critical thinking skills, a willingness to consider differing viewpoints and past performance over likeability any day.
This thing is historic and way close-…if the Super delegates end up going for Hillary it wont be because they are beholden to the Clinton Dynasty, it will probably be for many of the same reasons I prefer her.
I really want the next President to be Hillary and if not her Obama and if not him…we should just merge with the Netherlands and get the hell out of war on "everything" mode.
Paul
11th April 2008 at 5:33 pm | permalink |Love child of Bill Clinton and Ertha Kitt.
@paul: If the Republicans want to run against Obama so much, why was Rush Limbaugh telling Republicans in open primary states to vote for Hillary?
Personally, I think she seems too meanspirited and desperate to be someone I want running the show. How 'bout that Bosnian sniper fire, too? Pure class, that woman.
11th April 2008 at 6:56 pm | permalink |I think that the reason Rush is telling people to vote for Hillary is to set up a lame duck candidate. Basically if Hillary wins then all Democrats loose because too many people on both sides hate Hillary. I think that none of the Republicans would vote for her and some Democrats would vote against her.
11th April 2008 at 7:55 pm | permalink |The opposite is true of Obama. He is acceptable to many Republicans and many of those supporting Hillary have shifted over to his side. He is better at seeing the good in both sides.
The other major issue is that people really want change right now. Most of the polls I've heard say that it's getting to 3/4ths of the population that says they want change. The problem is that Hillary is not change, she is business as usual and she has dug herself into a bigger and bigger hole.
Theoretically the whole superdelegate thing is to make sure that if there is a close election the unelectable candidate for a general election would not cause the Democrats to loose at the final race. I think that the superdelegates are going to be our saving grace and vote as a majority for Obama because he is electable. Many of the early supporters of Hillary are shifting sides now.
In a way the Superdelegates may allow us to vote later then our primaries as popular opinion shifts after we have voted. They can respond to that closer to the final race the we can.
@garrowolf: "set up a lame duck candidate" That was exactly my thought.
11th April 2008 at 8:10 pm | permalink |Obama-Clinton '08.
Or vise versa.
But I imagine Billary's a bit too spiteful to settle for that much.
11th April 2008 at 9:15 pm | permalink |