Pelosi to supers: respect the voters
House Speaker (and superdelegate extraordinaire) Nancy Pelosi says the superdelegates should follow the will of the voters, not override their verdict -- and also, that Michigan and Florida's delegations should not be seated.
P.S. Pelosi will chair the convention in Denver. I'm not sure how much actual power that gives her, but it certainly lends at least a bit -- and maybe a lot -- of additional significance to her statement.


Actually I think ~ well, Presume ~ it gives her a Lot of power. The convention Chair makes parliamentary Rulings and so forth, which could get rather Important.
(I know I'm hardly the first to Inquire about it but are Superdelegate Senators Teddy & Jawwn :> really expected to Respect the Will of their Baystate Voters by plumping for Hillary? :)
Posted by: Joe Loy | Feb 15, 2008 5:49:04 PM
This might be a dumb question, but what the hell: what is the purpose of superdelegates if the superdelegates should only vote in line with the pledged delegates? I mean, if the superdelegates only vote the way the majority of pledged delegates vote, aren't the superdelegates redundant?
Posted by: thebeef | Feb 15, 2008 6:09:24 PM
Silly thebeef !
Superdelegates exist so that the True Will of the Party can be paramount ... after all, without superdelegates, the will of the actual voters might have to be considered ... and we cannot have democracy in the Democratic Party, now, can we ?
Posted by: Alasdair | Feb 15, 2008 7:17:12 PM
I smell Clintonian phrasing here. She says they shouldn't "decide," not that they shouldn't be seated.
In other words, they should count as long as they don't, you know, count. IF they don't provide the winning margin, then seat them.
This, I think, will be Pelosi's middle road: hewing, kind of, to the rules while not alienating Florida.
Posted by: Texasyank | Feb 15, 2008 8:18:38 PM
Alasdair,
I totally didn't expect you to say anything anti-Democrat.
Posted by: kcatnd | Feb 15, 2008 9:30:50 PM
But kcatnd, Alasdair is right.
The superdelegates simply do not make sense unless they are designed as a check against the popular vote.
And what could be more undemocratic while nonetheless quintessentially leftist?
A leftist mindset includes an inherent skepticism of democracy; a concern that the populace does not know what is best for its own good, and thus a centralized organization should step in and regulate.
What other purpose could the superdelegates provide, other than as a check against an ill-informed popular vote?
It kind of reminds me of how left wingers view the Supreme Court.
Posted by: thebeef | Feb 16, 2008 12:05:31 PM
"A leftist mindset includes an inherent skepticism of democracy; a concern that the populace does not know what is best for its own good, and thus a centralized organization should step in and regulate."
That sounds like both extremes - left and right. I agree it's ridiculous for superdelegates to counter the will of the people. I never disagreed with that. I was just noting what I thought to be another cheap swipe at liberals/leftists/Democrats by Alasdair.
The superdelegates have, in actual practice, always gone with the popular will because it has been so clear-cut, right? They are a mere formality, given an honorary voice in the process to reinforce and draw attention to the selected candidate. I agree the problem stems from the fact that the superdelegates actually COULD be the deciders, but there's no way they could get away with actually changing the outcome of the popularly elected delegates. If they do, I certainly won't support the Democratic Party.
Posted by: kcatnd | Feb 16, 2008 4:48:32 PM
"The superdelegates...are a mere formality, given an honorary voice in the process to reinforce and draw attention to the selected candidate."
No, I don't think they are meant to be Merely that. If they were, I doubt that the Rules would be crafted in such a way as to have the Supers constitute nearly 20% of the total convention rollcall Vote. I should think that a purely Honorary voice would be a Quieter one. // Also, not to State the Bloodyobvious or anythinglike that : ~ if the Dems had wanted simply to guarantee Seats to certain party Poobahs BUT still see to it that they All* Follow the Popular Will, they could have easily Grandparented them In, by specified Biggiewig Category, WITHOUT taking the ADDITIONAL measure of explicitly making Some* of them a big bloc of Unpledged Set-asides, inoculated en masse against the Contagion of the Primary-&-Caucus results to which all the Other poor devils must inevitably Succumb.
*Note: "superdelegates" are PLEOs ~ occupants of Party Leader & Elected Official delegate seats. There are Pledged PLEOs (bound by the Popularvote-based formulaic Delegate Allocations to Candidates), and then there are the Unpledged PLEOs who remain at Liberty.
Also, re the widespread shorthand of "popularly elected delegates" to the National Convention, remember that strictly speaking there are None of these mythic creatures :> proceeding from precinct-level Caucuses, and I think relatively Few (if indeed Any) emerging triumphantly even from the Primaries. Just as Brendan's research found in the case of Michigan, modernday Presidential primaries typically do Not select the Warm Bodies who shall go forth to plant their hindquarters in the delegate Hotseats, OH no :). Granted, somebody will eventually make each such Saddle her-or-his Denver headquarters :> but the primaries mostly just apportion Numbers amongst the Threshhold-clearing Candidates. The pledged-delegate Lifeforms to Go with the mandatory Numbers usually get "elected" Later ~ and not necessarily "popularly", either. (The Iowa-template precinct Caucuses, of course, barely elect Squat. Generally they send delegates to the mighty County Conventions, whereat & whereAfter on up the pointyheaded pyramid, it's We're On The Road To God Knows Where. [Hat tip, Leanna Loomer & The Wolfe Tones] :)
Posted by: Joe Loy | Feb 16, 2008 6:36:43 PM
PS ~ for our Next class, compare & Contrast [hint hint :] the abovedescribed "system" :} with the one which Elects [hint hint ;] Presidential Electors.
Posted by: Joe Loy | Feb 16, 2008 6:42:34 PM
I was about to post this one as a fullblown Guestblog but then I thought Naaah, it's a good Fit (well ~ with a good Shoehorn, as deftly wielded Below :) here on the "Pelosi to supers: respect the voters" comment-thread; plus I don't wanna further Fire up the Ire of the surging Sick of the Politics Caucus and maybe they won't even Notice a wee Commentpost :} ... Soooo:
LOUISIANA TO HUCKSTERS: 'SCREW THE VOTERS' ;>
So there you Have it, folks. At the February Primary with 161,169 rank-&-file Republicans casting ballots, Huck (43.2%) beats Mac (41.9%) by a full 2,043 Popular Votes BUT the wily GOP Establishmentarians ;) ~ deploying their arcane & undemocratic Party Rules :> re January Caucuses at which I'll bet maybe a couple thousand party Insiders, Satraps & Hacks showed up to elect Themselves as stateconvention delegates ;) ~ [party poobahs] Arrange (as I was saying :) for their Pre-anointed Pre-nominee Presumptuous :) to obtain a Whopping Majority, indeed probably an end-of-the-day Unanimity, of the nationalconvention Delegates.
Eat your evil heart out, Hillary Clinton. Yes, when it comes to Gaming the system for to Frustrate the manifest Will of The People, your dainty little schoolyard shenanigans cannot hold a votive Candle to the massive Machiavellian maneuvres of the mighty McCainmen of fair Loozianne.
:)
Posted by: Joe Loy | Feb 16, 2008 10:12:01 PM