WHAT IS A SUPERDELEGATE? - QT Explains

SUBSCRIBE: https://www.youtube.com/c/questiontimeqt

If you've been following the democratic primary election closely, you've probably heard the term 'superdelegate' quite a bit recently.

But why do super-delegates exist in the first place? And what exactly is a super-delegate?

Even political insiders seem to be confused about this. Karl Rove, for instance, has suggested that the Republican party has super-delegates, as well. Some of you have even aped that idea in my comments section. But is it really true? Are super delegates a feature of the Republican party, too?

HOW DEMOCRATIC ARE THEY?

This shouldn't shock you, but Karl Rove is wrong. The republican party does not have super-delegates.

The closest they have are three members of the RNC in each state, who each get to vote. Now those three people per state do get to be delegates automatically, but unlike an actual superdelegate, they do not get to vote for whoever they want. They are bound to vote for the winner of their state's popular vote.

It's kind of like US senate. While the House of Representatives (or pledge delegates) will have more Californians than Rhode Islanders, the senate gives an equal voice to each state. By RNC rules, the vast majority of delegates are pledge delegates, who together represent the will of the people fairly proportionally. But, each state is also automatically granted three extra delegates supporting their state's favourite candidate. You could argue it makes the selection process less democratic, but it's nothing like the obscenity of the Democratic party's super-delegates.

DNC super-delegates are not just seated automatically. They also get to vote for whoever they want. In fact, they can also announce who they will vote for and then change it at the convention—and by the way, that's why CNN really shouldn't be counting super-delegate votes yet. The super-delegates haven't voted, and historically, they have changed their support: in fact, they usually line up behind the most popular candidate. Usually.

But the fact that super-delegate vote as they please, matters. The official name for a super-delegate, in fact, is an 'unpledged' delegate: their distinguishing characteristic is that they are not bound to vote for anyone. They do not have to vote for the candidate that the people prefer. Super-delegates are, then, by design, completely anti-democratic.

And this undemocratic structure is serious. While the RNC's automatic delegates are constrained to 3 per state, super-delegates represent a whopping 15% of the votes cast to determine the democratic party's nominee. So, super-delegates are a strong check against the will of the people.

And that's actually intentional. Super-delegates were created in the first place as a response to a more open and democratic selection process, which put George McGovern and Jimmy Carter on the ticket.

The DNC saw these candidates as proof that the people aren't good at picking winners. And the DNC's job is to make sure that the president has a D next to his or her name.

So, a guy named Jim Hunt led an effort to restructure the selection process and recommended that 30% of DNC delegates be democratic party insider. The number was then reduced to about 14% when the process was finally implemented in 1984.
And even though the process was less democratic, it worked. The DNC selected President Walter Mondale... oh wait a minute. Mondale actually lost. But he came close, right?

Nope! He only won one state. He won his home state of Minnesota and DC for a total of 13 electoral votes. His opponent, the Gipper, won 525. It was the worst electoral defeat Democrats had faced since Abraham Lincoln ran against chlamydia on a stick.

Then the process selected Dukakis, who lost pretty severely, as well. 426 to 111. It wasn't until Bill Clinton in 1992 that the super-delegate-infused system actually chose a winner. In reality, super-delegates are a failed solution to a non-existent problem.

The point was to pick winners, but the reality is that democratic party insiders are not better at picking winners at all. Just look at the 2016 primary. Poll after poll shows that Bernie Sanders is more electable, but who have the super-delegates lined up behind from the beginning? Hilary Clinton, whose prospective lead against Trump is diminishing by the day.

So, given that super-delegates have not made the selection process more effective at choosing winners, its defenders, like DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have to tell us: how useful are they? And given that super-delegates were conceived in the first place as a counter balance to the will of the people, tell us, please,

HOW DEMOCRATIC ARE THEY?

Видео WHAT IS A SUPERDELEGATE? - QT Explains канала Question Time