Open your eyes! Barak,Hillary,Mac,Dubya,Bill,Osama,Saddam,Mickey Mouse? What do all of these have in common? None of them are in control....they just seem to think they are. Vote for whoever you want to........in the end, they will have to answer to the one who is in control. We all came into this world with nothing except a soul, we will all leave this world with nothing......but a soul. GO RED SOX

If super delegates decide this election and we start off another administration with anyone other then the American people deciding this election I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN. People need to decide on what they want more? Hillary to be the democratic nominee or do you want a democratic president? HILLARY CANNOT BEAT MCCAIN!

I've been a voter since 1964 if it come to the Super Delegates deciding who is going to be the Dem. I will not vote, because I know Bill Clinton will be his wife back bone.

If Hillary wins the primary I will go with John McCain who is the lesser of two evils. I was really hoping for change in this election, but its apparent that we are in for "FOUR MORE YEARS". I feel more than disenfranchised at this point, I think we are allowing our country to be dismantled.

Well hey, at least the lobbyist win.

What about the super-super-delegates? I assume the Bilderbergers have full veto capability?

Unless Clinton gets absolutely killed in the caucuses (Edwards and Obama EACH beat Clinton's showing by 14% or a little under 560 delegates, the extra I'm projecting she gets in the total count due to superdelegates) she'll come in second and either Obama or Edwards will be forced out in the final mano-a-womano showdown (I think that's how it works, but someone correct me if I'm wrong: what if there's no majority after the first overall vote?)

Given that, I say to the Edwards and Obama camps: Prepare to hang togeher or else we shall all hang separately.

Excellent, thank you jcarleski, I get you now... and I hope Katrina vanden Heuvel reads your post as well and uses some of it to explain this better in her next article.

I think I will be playing around with the math to envision a more evenly spread 33% among Obama, Edwards and Clinton. It is of course a tight race and anything can happen, but the air is that Clinton won't get near to half the caucus/primary votes... but it does seem clear that Edwards is the biggest x-factor in all this. What that means, I have no idea!

Why will Clinton win in 2008? One word: Turkey. The Clintons and the Bushes represent exactly the same interests...think drugs and nuclear arms and you'll be on the right track.

The election is just a sham to get us to believe that we actually live in something vaguely like a democracy.

OK, let's say Clinton gets the ENTIRE superdelegate vote. She needs 37% of the total CAUCUS votes; this gives her 30.1 (-ish, I'm rounding)% of the total OVERALL vote plus the 20% for the superdelegates and she takes the nomination. If by August, Clinton has less than 37% (the number is really 36.8, I think, but again, rounding) of the CAUCUS vote, there's nothing the party can do to help her. On the contrary (and I don't see this happening, if someone were to pick up 2/3 (66%) of the total CAUCUS vote, they'd be unstoppable, no matter what the superdelegates do. In short, when the convention rolls around, anyone who has between 37 and 63% of the total CAUCUS vote could win with a large enough superdelegate bloc. Under 37, and you're screwed. Over 63 and you're a shoo-in.

How do I see this playing out in reality? First off, I don't think there's this mass conspiracy, but I'll keep playing along for now. I'm going to ignore the effects of the little guys' (Kucinich - although I hope he becomes a contender! - Gravel, Dodd) for the moment.

If Edwards and Obama stay in the race until the very end, it's probably going to stay very tight. I would expect no one to get the required 63% (2025 votes) to run away with it during the caucuses only (though anything can happen). At that point, it's a matter of alliances; Obama and Edwards would have to pool their voters somehow to get either one of them the nomination, but they'd have the votes to do it. If one drops out at any point, and the votes split between the remaining two, Clinton would pick up the 37% and thus (by our assumption) the nomination.

That being said, we know that not all the superdelagate votes are currently going to Clinton. 83 have gone to Edwards and Obama of the 237 that have been currently pledged. That's about a third. If we assume THAT trend continues, Hillary needs about 45% of the total CAUCUS vote (nearly half!) plus her superdelegates to win. One candidate out of three picking up nearly half the caucus vote would be pretty solid in and of itself.

just argument sake, say there was a 'conspiricy' working with Clinton vs Obama. If say Clinton got all the superdelegates, would she need only 37% of delegates and Obama would need 75% of delegates? Just seeing if I got your math right.

Not even going into how non-superdelegates are chosen and if it is directley proportional to the real votes of party members, if obama got 51% of delegates and clinton got 37%, would clinton win even if obama is the vote of the majority of party members? Sorry, I'm not the best at math, and this is a real concern to me considering the razor thin margin of elections these past few years. please advise

my last post isn't right.. hold on a second.. there

The information cited in this article is most important and must be repeated. The tyranny of super-delegates must be ended but it won't happen unless the general public is made aware and demands it. Let's spread this around.

It's just the children of privilege pissing on your heads; some more. You ought to be used to the humidity levels by now.

Alright, before we freak out, let's do some basic math here:

4048: the number of total delegates [2*(2025-1)]
2025: the number needed for nomination
842: number of superdelegates

From these numbers, we learn that...
3206: number of pledged delegates
1183: number of pledged delegates required if all superdelegates vote as a bloc

This tells us that a candidate would have to pick up 37% of the total pledge vote in order for a total party-wide superdelegate conspiracy to secure his or her nomination. In a three-person race or more, this 37% represents the majority opinion anyway. (33.1% for 3, 25.1% for 4, etc.)

(Edit)
Where this matters is when the race comes down to two people; at THAT point, the party higher-ups could toss their entire support behind the minority candidate to pull an under-the-rug nomination. So if you're voting Democratic, the trick would to be make sure your candidate has at least 2/3 of the vote as things get whittled down. Then the superdelegates are absolutely irrelevant.

complaining about it on the internet does help. listen to this: we go to CD to read news and opinions that we wouldn't find on M$M. Then we post our own comments and opinions- through defending our position and exposing ourselves to other views, we are in a sense practicing for real world conversations. The first step has always been awareness- and participating in sites like CD help today's progressive prepare to spread the word. And you're an idiot if you think reading and commenting are the 1st and only step. But this is a DISCUSSION that you've joined. Not a march list or a contract or a pettition. There are plenty of those out there too. Please do all you can, and never stop learning and discovering!

I for one forsee a Ron Paul type person taking true republicans away from their party and life-long democrats away because those people want to see action.

As to KVH's oped, what are people's thought on regular party members discontent with superdelegates? What would it take for regular party members to really scrutinize the superdelegate factor, or any of the other serious election problems that TJ mentioned? Is there a scenerio where many people would regognized the nomination is rigged, and thus leave the party?

Political parties in the United States are nothing more than private clubs. And these are clubs that are obviously set up for the disproportionate benefit of their leaders' interests rather than their members' interests.

Did you notice how often your so-called Representative in Congress represents his/her party's leadership rather than representing his/her constituents?

Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world of Democratic super delegates.

Obama wn Iowa and Hillary is ahead in delegates. game over.

How does complaining on the Internet resolve any of these issues? If people truly believe that the method of selecting super delegates who can vote for someone other than the candidate who received the most popular votes in the delegate's state isn't a good or fair method, then they should take action to change the system. If the voting method was changed due to McGovern just a few decades ago, it can be changed back again, or changed to something else as well.

Poor eshu. There is a vast array of progressive opinion and much more spirited debate on Common Dreams and the multitude of other good online progressive sites than the right wing locksteppers ever display. Proclamations by a wee troll don't do anything to change that.

Now about that ONE DAY *on a weekend* when all primaries are held, and that ONE DAY on a weekend a couple of month later for the runoff...

Just more proof that the Democrats are working very hard to see that Bush and the Republicans stay in office without much ado.

You know, I'm beginning to think the name of this site ought to be "True Believer" as opposed to "Common Dreams". There is an almost cult-like willingness to ignore the obviously reactionary quality of "democratic" party leadership found among many of the posters here that absolutely fascinates. It's almost like reading the old communist party press of the 1930s- only the communists had more progressive content, despite their illusions in stalinism.

I agree with metamorph. Polls suggest that Obama would do better against repugs than Hillary will. One would hope that the superdelegates would vote for the more-likely-to-win candidate when the vote comes. (Oh if only the system made any sense at all)

The Democrats shot themselves in the foot last time nominating John Kerry when the real candidate was Howard Dean. Do you think Howard Dean could have stood up to George Bush would have won against Howard Dean? NO

John Kerry got the Democratic vote and it was a huge mistake and I do not think that the Democrats will choose a candidate if there are indications that the person will loose.

I've always said the two-party system is rotten, but looks like the voting system is also good for the folks who are weak in the upstairs.What a democrapy. Stop exporting your "democracy" to other nations!

The Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic presidential ticket is formally agreed upon, has 796 superdelegates. Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, various additional elected officials, as well as members of the Democratic National Committee.

A candidate needs a simple majority of the combined delegate and superdelegate votes to secure the nomination. Democratic delegates from state caucuses and primaries number 3,253. This means that the total number of votes is 4,049. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025. Superdelegates account for approximately one fifth (19.7%) of all votes at the convention. Delegates chosen in the Democratic caucuses and primaries account for about four fifths (80.3%) of the Democratic convention delegates.

{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate}

"The people can vote for whomever they want, as long as I get to choose the candidates." -William "Boss" Tweed

Super-delegates="Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Thanks to KVH for pointing this out.

If you add the Electoral College (which was successfully designed to give southern slave owners a choke-hold on the system);

Gerrymandering of electoral districts by the major parties which control the redistricting apparatus;

Private financing of campaigns, guaranteeing control of candidates by the rich and corporations;

Legal bribery known as "lobbying;"

Rigged voting machines and vote counting by corrupt local party officials;

A truly anti-democratic polyglot primary "system;"

Complicity in all of the above by the corporate-dominated media;

How is it possible to take national elections in the United States seriously?

I did not know this. The game is rigged even more than I thought. I guess the only thing to do is wait and see, and keep on hoping or praying or keeping your fingers crossed or whatever you want to call it. And to, of course, vote, which we have to do no matter what.

since1942 writes:

"Both parties are controlled by corporations who aren't about to let anyone get nominated who advocates true change. That's the last thing that corporate America wants."

you're absolutely right. i just got off the phone with Dubya himself and he says that if he "decides" to let the election occur he will pass on the imperial sceptre to the first Empress of the United States of Israel Hillary Clinton.

go ahead and vote tho, it makes it look that much more legitimate. however, it won't change anything.

We live within a Capitalist system and not within a democracy, so get over it! Our national motto is: "Money talks and bullshit walks". That means only rich people have a voice in government.

Eat the Superdelegates...

Nader2000 said this doesn't mean the game is rigged against us because we can just work to take over the party and become superdelegates. Yes, and we can try to rise to the top of corporations so we can bribe whoever does get "elected"...the point is, this is NOT democratic, and endless work to take over a corrupt party, even if successful, would inevitably leave the successful individuals equally corrupt--that's the point of the system. So let's see, to win we need 60% of the Democratic vote in the primaries, and then we need 60% of the general election vote because the Republicans control the vote-counting machines in so many places. Then there's the way every state gets two senators whether it is 250,000 people or 15 million, guaranteeing a rurally-biased (conservative, white) Senate.
I guess we need to petition the EU to invade and bring democracy to the US.
Thank you KVH, for alerting us to yet another way this stinking game is rigged.

If Obama should win the through the primary process and the powers that be give it to Hillary, I think that would be the final nail in the coffin of this quite sick society.

All of the blacks now claiming that Obama is not one of them would suddenly discover that he is, and, in the heat of the summer, might decide to vent a little pent up frustration. And a hell of a lot of white americans are going to be plenty ready to join in to fight against a government which no longer belongs to us.

The above being true, one would be led to think such an action against the popular will of the country would be inhibited, but that simply ignores the fact that our government has no problem killing those which get in its way--they call it acting in America's self interest.

If Obama wants to get rid of the superdelegate system, he'll do it after getting the nomination (more likely the next time around when he's up for renomination) and he'll keep quiet about it until then because he is not an idiot.

On the other hand, the superdelegate system does not mean the game is rigged against "us". Those of "us" who want to take over the Party should aim to BECOME superdelegates by becoming Party officers and elected officials. At the same time, "we" can try to abolish the system (or reduce the number of supers) if "we" feel that's important.

Hey, here's an idea.

If Obama actually wants 'change', he could stand up and swear that if he's the nominee he'll use his majority of convention delegates to get rid of the super-delegates in the future. Put the rule such that all delegates have to come from votes in a primary election or a caucus.

Never gonna happen. Just thought I'd mention it to point out that Obama doesn't really support any real ideas of change.

since1492 January 5th, 2008 2:15 pm

"Both parties are controlled by corporations who aren't about to let anyone get nominated who advocates true change. That's the last thing that corporate America wants.
Hoa binh"

You've got that right! Both parties are selling out the citizens of what use to be the United States of America.

Here's the direction this "control" is moving us toward. Talk about tyranny!:

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/deepcaster/2008/0104.html
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/walayat/2008/0103.html

Just part of the system by which the game of trying to work within the Democratic Party is rigged against us.

In a case where its two party hacks both supported by parts of the party machine, the super-delegates will split and won't mean much. I think that's a better description of an Obama v Hillary contest.

What they are there for is to stop any attempts by the grassroots to take control of the party. So if its a campaign of a grassroots candidate versus a party hack supported by the party machine, then the grassroots candidate needs 60% of the vote to beat the party hack who can win with 40% of the vote. That's because in total there's some 800 of these superdelegates out of the 4000 or so that will be here in Denver. This is part of the reason why Kucinich never had a prayer of being the nominee.

The Democratic Party has only been anti-war for one very brief time at the end of the Vietnam war. That was when the opposition to the war was so strong that it propelled McGovern to the nomination. The Democratic Party then swiftly acted to make sure that never happens again. Welcome to the undemocratic Democratic Party. And its why its a complete waste for progressives or anyone who doesn't believe in a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation needs to try to work from within this disgusting party.

Both parties are controlled by corporations who aren't about to let anyone get nominated who advocates true change. That's the last thing that corporate America wants.
Hoa binh

The super-delegate system is awful and was indeed designed to water down the people's will. So much for the "Democratic" Party. However, I think it's very, very unlikely that the super-delegates will determine who wins the nomination, and find it hard to believe the party elites, so to speak, would pull out the stops to block Obama from being nominated. Kucinich maybe, but not Obama.

If Clinton gets the nomination because of the super-delegates rule when Edwards or Obama has more citizen delegates then I'm not voting. I refuse to participate in my own marginalization.

Is this Katrina Van Den Heuvel of topanga? There is no hope for the flowers... is it all a fix?