My Name is Megan T and I am a Superdelegate ...

Also (0.00 / 0)

You also forgot to mention that nearly every superdelegate, be it national or state level was elected to what ever position gives them superdelegate status.

Not to mention that part of the problem in 1968 with McGovern is that the party didn't support McGovern. Sure there might be an argument that superdelegates provide a level of control, but they also create buy-in. What good is it to have a candidate get the party's endorsement if they don't have the support of the folks in the party actually doing the work to get whoever the nominee is elected.

Complaining about superdelegates is just as dumb as complaining about Florida's and Michigan's delegates not being seated. Vilifying parts of the process simply because they don't help your candidate is the definition of being a sore loser.

---

by: dweinand @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 18:51:13 PM CST

clinton? (0.00 / 0)

I am just guessing. Recently Hickes on a conference call to supporters, asked to refer to super delegates as automatic delegates. I wonder if you happen to get the memo.

no there is nothing wrong. but given the historic turnouts and the enthusiastic support, the super delegates have to play their card with great care. They can end up ruining the biggest opportunity to seal a pact with a huge number of young progressives for decades to come. this is how republican party was build from the 1970s after all.  

---

by: bharath @ Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 22:49:35 PM CST

democracy? (0.00 / 0)

The super-delegate debate should not be about people being "evil".  The fundamental problem is that a super-delegate is not tied to the popular vote. That is not democratic.

I am sure that you are a normal person. As such you should get 1 vote just like every other normal person. But instead, your vote, a super-delegate vote, is about 9 - 10,000 times the rest of ours.  Hard work, while appreciated, is not a justification for having a voice 10,000 times louder.

I support a straight simple democratic election process. But since that is not available, I am forced to put my faith in the super-delegates--that they will not shift the balance of democracy. I can only hope that you and others will consider our voices when you cast your vote.

And consider this. . . If you vote against the popular vote winner, you will be putting your own interests above democracy, you may disrupt the democratic process and you could even lower the chances of a Democratic president. The media will have a field day, and personally, I cannot vote for a candidate that did not get the popular vote in the primaries.  What would be the point?

Finally, I am a bit offended by your sentiment. I work my ass off doing a lot of community work. I do not make a lot of money at my job because I choose to put my efforts into something I believe in. I do not ask for special treatment. I don't need the reward of attention or increased voting power. I always remember that it's my choice to spend my time this way.  

---

by: semiller @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:42:33 AM CST

Right. (0.00 / 0)

And I know there are a lot of party activists who also put a ton of hours and work into getting Democrats elected, but aren't superdelegates.

Defeating Norm Coleman and choosing a Democratic successor to Bush are worthy goals, but let's focus on what's really important: Sending Michele Bachmann back to the private sector!

---

by: smit2174 @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 13:00:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Responding (0.00 / 0)

One note ... I am speaking to the selection method in Minnesota only.

Actually, all "superdelegates" are elected in one form or another. Granted, some are not directly elected. I was elected by the State DFL Central Committee last year which consists of delegates that are elected from Senate District Conventions made up of delegates elected from the precinct caucuses. DNC members are elected at the state DFL Convention, Members of Congress obviously are elected by their districts/states. Even Walter Mondale earned his status by being elected Vice President in 1976.

No, I was not in on the conspiracy to call them "automatic" vs "Superdelegates". In the DFL Constitution I believe it is "automatic".

I am not arguing that some people deserve the automatic delegate status because they work so hard. Rather, I am responding to the disrespect that has been shown to several "Superdelegates" as of late because they do not support the candidate people want them too. to put it bluntly, stop sending nasty, threatening emails to the 70+ year old DNC member who has dedicated her life to this party.

Also, why do I not have the right to my own opinion? I was not elected to be a "Superdelegate", I was elected to perform a specific job, a job that I believe I have performed well. The "Superdelegate" status is granted for the reasons outlined above but when I was elected no one asked me  who I was supporting because they wanted to know I could do that job. You are essentially saying that because I ran for this one position I should actually have no freedom of speech myself.

Finally, as Dan alluded to, many of these people are the party builders, the people who want the DFL to succeed. They understand that going the summer without a nominee is a bad idea and when needed they will switch to another candidate if needed.

In fact, the big impact that the Obama Campaign was able to have in Minnesota is almost directly attributable to DNC Member, "Superdelegate", Rick Stafford, who pushed to move the caucus date forward and have the binding Presidential ballot. If not for him, the cursed Clinton supporting "Superdelegate" that he is, we would still be waiting in the wings while other states made the decision for us.

---

by: Megan @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 14:42:00 PM CST

Thanks for responding (0.00 / 0)

Megan:

No one is questioning your right to free speech.  I appreciate you taking the time to exercise your 1st amendment rights by posting here on this blog.  I appreciate the hard work and service of you and your fellow automatic delegates, but, to me, this does not justify the disproportionate voice that superdelegates have and the lack of accountability that goes along with it.

Some of the arguments you raise in favor of automatic delegates are thought-provoking, but I think on balance they fall short.  

For instance, I don't understand your point here:

You are essentially saying that because I ran for this one position I should actually have no freedom of speech myself.

Could you please elaborate?

I think that sending mean and nasty e-mails to superdelegates is not only disrespectful, but counterproductive.  I believe that both campaigns have asked supporters not to contact superdelegates, as they have their own professional, targeted outreach operations in place.  I understand people's frustration with the process, but I think a lot of the concern about superdelegates "stealing" the election for one candidate or the other is premature, as that is not an outcome that either side wants.  I hope that it will all work out fairly in the end, but I also hope that we take a look at the process for future elections and determine a fairer, more accountable system.

Defeating Norm Coleman and choosing a Democratic successor to Bush are worthy goals, but let's focus on what's really important: Sending Michele Bachmann back to the private sector!

---

by: smit2174 @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 20:37:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Real questions here... (0.00 / 0)

I think there are real questions here about superdelegates that can be addressed without the defensiveness and rancor.

The argument that automatic delegates save new DFL activists from having to run against the likes of Mondale makes sense to me.

My impression, though, of what rankles so many (myself included) about automatic delegates is the utter lack of accountability and transparency--the "old boys' club" component.  Automatic delegates should be well-known to the people that they represent, but I couldn't tell you who the super delegates in my district are.  Heck, there should be a "meet your automatic delegates" section of the caucuses where at least the automatic delegates in that home district can stand up and wave so at least the rank and file can see who they are.  There is no reason that the DFL should not make the list of automatic delegates available to the DFL rank and file.  (I believe the same is true of State Central Committee members, by the way.)  Why shouldn't automatic delegates hold regular town hall meetings to explain their latest party business to and receive feedback from the rank and file, like our elected officeholders do?

I also see no reason that automatic delegates should not be held to the same binding straw poll ballot that delegates rising to the caucus system are.  Either we as a party believe in the caucus system or we don't.

Real, legitimate questions are being raised about automatic delegates that should be addressed with sincerity and thoughtfulness, instead of assuming the worst of people asking the questions.  Being an automatic delegate is a real privilege, and carries a great deal of power.  I, for one, would be more comfortable with the idea of automatic delegates if they and the process that appointed them was much more transparent.

---

by: northstarprogressive @ Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 18:28:22 PM CST

Details about SuperDelegates (0.00 / 0)

This is a great discussion.  I want to thank Megan for getting the ball rolling everyone for their comments.  I'm not from Minnesota, and this is my first post here.  I hope you will accept it for what it is and that it will add to the discussion.

I've been helping out a little bit with the Superdelegates.org websites.  It is a Wiki where anyone can post information about superdelegates.  I've spent a little time looking into the superdelegates in Minnesota and have helped get the Minnesota page into shape.

Based on CNN, Minnesota has 16 superdelegates.  Superdelegate.org has identified 14 of these superdelegates.  It doesn't include Megan.  Any information that can be posted about Megan and the other unknown superdelegate would be greatly appreciated.  Also, any corrections would be greatly appreciated.

Also, according to CNN, Minnesota went 67% to 32% for Obama in the caucuses, and the ratio matched the pledged delegates assigned, 48 for Obama and 24 for Clinton.  Amongst the superdelegates, as identified by Superdelgates.org, the same ratio is playing out by superdelegates that have endorsed one candidate or another.  6 of the 9 have endorsed Obama and 3 of the 9 have endorsed Clinton.

We can spend a lot of time arguing about whether or not Superdelegates are good for the system, and I find it an interesting argument.  One of the most compelling parts of the argument against superdelegates is the lack of transparency and accountability.  One way of addressing this is by working together, and making the process more transparent and more accountable.

So, stop by at Superdelegates.org, add whatever information you can, and help make the process more transparent and accountable.

---

by: Aldon Hynes @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:35:19 AM CST

Megan is a state superdelegate, Aldon (0.00 / 0)

Not national :-)  The argument sticks at the national and state levels, however, and you're right -- it's a good one to have.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:05:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But to help... (0.00 / 0)

email me and I can try to help you identify the last two.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:06:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The last two delegates (0.00 / 0)

are to be chosen at the state convention.  I assume this happens through a vote by all convention delegates.  I'm curious if anyone is actively campaigning for these positions and what the odds are that Obama supporters fill these last two slots.  The DFL just says "two unpledged add-on delegates, who are chosen at the state convention."
See
http://www.dfl.org/index.asp?T...

There is another Wiki delegate tracker project at Sourcewatch.org -- http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
It's too bad the wikis aren't combined because there is a lot missing from both projects.  Great work by all those contributing though.  I hope that the pledged delegates are decisive, but we all may end up very focused on these lists of supers.  

Lastly, is there a way to embed links in comments?  I feel sloppy pasting in these long web addresses.  

---

by: Jump! @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 14:55:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Last Two Delegates - Add Ons (0.00 / 0)

Technically these two seats are up for election but they are generally nominated by the nominee apparent's campaign at the time of the State Convention.

Four years ago the Kerry Campaign nominated Sylvia Kaplan for one of these positions but she was challanged at the State Convention, eventually she did win.

Again, I am only speaking to Minnesota's process, it may and most probably is different in other states.

---

by: Megan @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 15:34:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No lack of respect (0.00 / 0)

Kudos to you, Megan, for your hard work and dedication. I doubt that anyone wants to curtail the free expression of your opinions, but being a delegate is a different issue. It's not about your opinions. A delegate's responsibility is to represent others. The idea of a delegate is not that people give up their own choices in deference to the opinion of the delegate, but to pass to the delegate the capacity to take their choices to the convention. The delegate's personal choice remains as important as each of the people that she represents.  

---

by: elizabeth @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:54:23 AM CST

running against mondale? (0.00 / 0)

Here's the problem with the "who wants to run against walter mondale to be a delegate" argument.  It presumes that Mondale would get a chance at being a delegate.  

Fundamentally, if candidate A wins the state 90% to 10%, but Mondale supports candidate B, he wouldn't' get elected, unless he pledged to support candidate A on the first ballot. Candidate B would not get any delegates (this is an extreme example, but you see my point--candidate B's delegates should be tied to a democratic process).

This is becoming an issue now with talk that 100 or so superdelegates would sit out the vote so nobody could win on the first ballot, then the regular delegates are no longer bound to their candidates and then there would be a fight to, say, nominate Al Gore.  If the superdelegates were bound to a candidate by the popular will, I'd have no problem.  So, if, for example, a MOC was an automatic delegate, but bound to support the candidate that won her CD, that's democratic.

Even worse in your example is that Walter Mondale, unlike a sitting MOC, isn't even accountable for his vote.  He will never stand for election again.  At least, with a MOC, if the party members in his CD are annoyed at his vote, they can hold him accountable in the next election.  So if superdelegates were actually a form of representative democracy, I'd be fine with it.  The current system however is more like the politburo electing a new premier.

Lastly, Megan T. suggests that the superdelgate vote somehow prevents guys like LaRouche getting delegates.  First, it doesn't.  LaRouche would still get delegates.  Second, to the extent it prevents a situation where a LaRouche  type might actually get elected (yeah right), it is non democratic.  If LaRouche can persuade more millions of Americans than anybody else that he should be the democratic nominee, who is Megan T to decide he shouldn't be.

---

by: sguire @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:32 AM CDT