Home

Infante's Inferno - Political ranting, redux

Jan. 9th, 2008

10:58 am - Political ranting, redux

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry

First things first -- the superdelegates thing? Bites. I very much dislike having to figure random politicos into what is otherwise simple math.

Here's where the Democratic candidates stand with actual delegates won in actual elections:

Obama: 30
Clinton: 28
Edwards: 21

And here's the totals with the whole superdelegates bullshit:

Clinton: 183
Obama: 78
Edwards: 52

You see why this is annoying. Mind, it's mostly only a curio, and only matters if it comes all the way to the convention. The party always stands by the clear elected winner, not the one who would win if Joe Lieberman's vote gets to count more. But still. Annoying.

You can do the same thing with the Republican candidates. Here's where the GOP front-running candidates stand with actual delegates won in actual elections (there are slightly different party rules, which result in the slightly lower numbers. Still, the same logic applies):

Huckabee: 17
Romney: 8
McCain: 7

Aaaaand, with committed delegates:

Romney: 30
Huckabee: 21
McCain: 10

As you can see ... there's a small gap between what the party leaderships want and the actual will of the voters.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:[info]nerak_g
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
yeah, I hate this bullshit.Muddies the waters.

Republika
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]ocvictor
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Again, mostly it's a nuisance. But yeah. It gives Clinton a huge boost to be such an insider.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]radioactiveart
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I was researching this this AM and have much the same reaction -- great minds think alike...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]ocvictor
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah ... it hit me driving home from New Hampshire last night, that in pure delegates from elections, Obama had to still be winning. And I was right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]jeditigger
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Rather like in 2000 and 2004 there was a difference between certain federally elected officials and the candidates desired per the will of the people? :P
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]ocvictor
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well ... The difference being, this is an annoyance that's out there for everybody to see, the other was a series of Federal crimes which remain unprosecuted.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]jeditigger
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Word.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]uberdude
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My political accumen is practically nil, can you ellaborate on 'superdelegates'?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]ocvictor
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Harken thee to Wikipedia, who has a pretty good explanation:

Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to accord some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

As of the 2008 nominating cycle, the Republican Party does not have superdelegates. It does, however, have 463 unpledged delegates, 123 of whom are Republican National Committee members.

In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held.


The latter example is a cautionary tale -- a candidate who was an early winner of superdelegates and who won New Hampshire but lost Iowa -- for Mrs. Clinton. One of which I'm sure she's all too aware of.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]uberdude
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]dj_muse
Date:January 9th, 2008 04:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I understand the argument for continuing any sort of delegate system is to keep smaller states from being rendered irrelevant (Iowa, anyone?). But I think that a system put into place when they didn't trust people to choose a president by popular vote (I suppose they still don't) is pretty stupid for a country that bitches about other countries not having democracy. Looking at this super-delegate crap, it sure doesn't feel very democratic to me.

But what the hell do I know.

Thank you for giving me the scoop on things political. I love having informed, articulate friends on my LJ to give me my own personal analysis that actually educates me (gasp).

I must be getting old - I like the idea of being informed. :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]meryddian
Date:January 9th, 2008 09:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Amen. The electoral college is outdated... but all politicians seem to do about it is go, "Yeah, well, maybe it's outdated" and then, because said system got them into office, ignore it until they hope it goes away.

*sigh*

If any other country in the world uses a system like ours, I'd love to hear it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]zonewombat
Date:January 9th, 2008 09:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And they wonder why people can't be bothered to go vote.
(Reply) (Thread)