Why is the simple solution to the Dimocrit Nominating Mess Not Obvious?
[Posted by WLS]
How about this — the superdelegates assemble at a location, real or virtual, on July 15 and vote by secret ballot.
No one will know who sold out who, and the 795 superdelegates can vote their conscience or their calculation, whichever is dominant in their thinking.
Now this doesn’t solve the Mich/Fla problem, which must be solved in order for each candidate to know going in where they stand in the overall race.
But a secret ballot among the superdelegates would eliminate the possibility for reprisal by the winner against anyone who voted against him/her.
Each candidate would have to pledge in advance to respect the outcome of the vote, and make their best effort to see that their supporters did the same.
And the party as a whole would have the benefit of knowing going into the convention who the nominee was going to be.
Is that a radical thought to Dimos — a secret ballot?
— WLS
Update: In response to Patterico’s inquiry, I’ve changed the word “Dimo” in the caption to “Dimocrit”. Its a moniker that I gave the Dems online back in 2004, and raised the ire of a bunch of regulars on the old NYT Online Forum in their Editorial Section.
But I think they’ve earned it once again this election cycle.
No secret ballots are allowed. It says so right in the DNC rulebook.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/13/2008 @ 6:43 pmj curtis — if that’s true then they deserve every bit of turmoil they are about to endure. What a bunch of children.
Funny, in doing a little research earlier today for a post I didn’t put up, I looked back at the events of some of the Dimo conventions that I was too young to really understand. The 1972 convention with McGovern’s loonie lefties running the show seems eerily prescient when considering how the far left has captured the process here on behalf of Obama. Because his delegates controlled the convention, McGovern was able to shut out the big city political machines and unions from just about all the key decision-making.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/13/2008 @ 6:55 pmHere is the source:
As Adopted by the Democratic National Committee, February 2, 2007.
VIII. PROCEDURAL RULES OF THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
F. Voting:
1. Secret Ballot: No secret ballots shall be permitted at any stage of the Convention or its
committee proceedings.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/13/2008 @ 6:58 pmAre crowbars to the knees by 1st Ward “prencict captains” secret ballots?
nk (8a8387) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:07 pm*precinct*
nk (8a8387) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:09 pmSecret ballot so we can’t know who sold out whom and won’t see reprisals? WLS, you take all the fun out of things.
This is going to be like Gomez Addams’s train wrecks on a behemoth scale.
Steverino (2c9e20) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:15 pmWhat’s a “Dimo”?
Patterico (ce8d42) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:18 pmIf votes are secret they can’t be bought. The person doing the buying has no idea if they are going to get what they paid for.
Mark1971 (c92bfa) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:20 pmDemocrats In Moniker Only.
Duh.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:28 pmCan’t have a secret ballot – no way to control the outcome.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:53 pmJust wouldn’t be FAIR!
Because trusting that the candidates will honor a pledge (like they did in FL and MI) has worked out well so far:D
I wish there weren’t so much at stake with this election. Because I’m kind of getting a perverse pleasure out of the drama of it all.
akm (ee680a) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:56 pmIt’s a label-maker, Patterico. Cuz the Dems are always labelling people.
Steverino (2c9e20) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:30 pmYep. It’s right after the chapter advising that if you’re a high-ranking official and plan to hire a hooker, be sure to pay said individual only with the most untraceable bank funds or cash possible. 😉
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:58 pmConsidering what they tried to do with Union secret ballots, I’m thinking this would NEVER fly…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/13/2008 @ 9:04 pmDarn, Scott Jacobs, you beat me by an hour in reminding everyone that the Dems are steadfastly against unions having secret-ballot elections. Can’t imagine that they would be brazen enough to nominate a Presidental candidate that way — oh wait, it is the Democrats that we are talking about, so maybe they would.
JVW (65c233) — 3/13/2008 @ 9:17 pmOh, you only beat me by about 15 minutes. I guess the comment tracker hasn’t been updated for the end of Daylight Savings.
JVW (65c233) — 3/13/2008 @ 9:18 pmAlternative plan: jello wrestling. Best 2 out of 3 falls.
JayC (bcc7a8) — 3/13/2008 @ 10:07 pmI think it would be great if they revised the rules in time to have a secret ballot in time for the convention. Then we could be treated to the spectacle of 100% of the superdelegates claiming they supported the winner, in order to claim future favors, even though the vote wasn’t unanimous. It would be like the Bradley effect in a way, but with superdelegates.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/13/2008 @ 10:18 pmThunderdome: Two dems enter, one dem leaves.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 3/14/2008 @ 5:03 am*chants* “TWO DEMS ENTER, ONE DEM LEAVES!!!”
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/14/2008 @ 5:16 ameither leave MI and FL with no delegates or split them evenly between the two candidates leaving them net even. No real change in numbers that way, but if split evenly at least the delegations can be seated. No do-overs though.
kimsch (2ce939) — 3/14/2008 @ 1:41 pm