<p>I did not pay much attention to the primaries in the last four presidential election cycles, and am now, many, many years out of school trying to understand the practice of delegates and how candidates win their party’s nomination.</p>
<p>Is there anyone here who would be willing to try to give a Reader’s Digest version of all the nuances and what they mean.</p>
<p>To begin… the difference between unpledged delegates (and what that could mean), pledged delegates (and what that could mean) and super delegates. At what point do the super delegates have to commit? How many states have a winner take all? Do the primary results shown so far represent the winner takes all? I’m just having a hard time understanding at what point do all these primary outcomes become solid?</p>
<p>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. They are sometimes referred to as "unpledged delegates</p>
<p>This is what I found out about pledged
Candidates win “pledged” delegates not on whether they win a state - but on how many voters support them. So, for instance, even though Clinton and Edwards lost Iowa, they each won 16 delegates. Therefore, individual votes count towards pledge delegates.</p>
<p>What I figured out is that supers and unpledged can give their vote to any candidate at the nomination.</p>
<p>Pledge must give to that candidate. Edwards is out now and he can direct his delegates to give his over to another candidate…that is why they said he might be the King/Queen maker</p>
<p>So if these super delegates are not bound by the popular vote, at what point do they make their preference known? If this race is close enough, but there’s a certain number of uncommitted super delegates, we may not know who wins until the convention?</p>
<p>They also speak of districts in California and having to look at how districts fare; how does that make them different from other states?</p>
<p>California is not winner take all, so the delegates will be divided up accordingly. Just like Iowa and SC delegates.</p>
<p>CA would be pledged and the delegates would be divided accordingly…again this is why Edwards could be the tie breaker, once he endorses someone he is asking for his delegated to vote that way…I am not sure, but I think they are not legally bound to vote for who he endorses</p>
<p>Pledged delegates means that you’re bound to whatever candidate you endorse in the beginning. But, if at the convention, their candidate is not there, they can follow their candidate’s endorsement of another candidate–or follow their own path.</p>
<p>Unpledged delegates may have a preference but they can switch candidates without any penalty once at the convention. Their preferences MAY or may not be known. Depends on the state.</p>
<p>Superdelegates are elected party officials who have a role in the process. They are not bound by popular vote–nor do they have to have their preferences known. At the convention, if it is close, they have significant power. They never have to commit unless they want to.</p>
<p>With Edwards, he suspended his campaign. So, technically, he still can bring his delegates to the convention–and direct them who to endorse, though technically, they may not have to listen to him. (Though they probably would.) If it is close, Edwards is the one with a lot of lee way depending on who he endorses–or doesn’t endorse.</p>
<p>Very few states still have winner take all. And it’s much more common in the Republican race. I’m not sure of the number but it’s probably 2-6? at most. And also, the primary results would represent winner takes all–after all the votes are tallied (for that state) and the delegates are given to that one lucky candidate.</p>
<p>I copied and pasted this from another thread. So please enlighten me, I hear that we won’t know California delegates until perhaps tomorrow night. I’m assuming this is due to their congressional districts. How does this play out there? And could this early projection be not such a big deal tomorrow?</p>
<p>This early projection might mean nothing. The night before, it was really close. And probably, it will be MUCH closer as they tally up more votes. And yes, we won’t know the CA delegates until…whatever time they finish tallying all the districts.</p>
<p>Since the 1950s, there hasn’t been a situation where a VP didn’t run for President (making a clear-cut candidate). But, you could argue it hasn’t been this down-to-the-convention since the 1800. Though, one could say it was pretty close with McGovern/Muskie 1972. /history geekiness.</p>
<p>teriwtt, I tried to answer that on the other post.</p>
<p>People assumed that the bulk of the absentee ballots would swing Clinton’s way, because her machine got those turned in weeks ago, before the Obama surge. Early vote counts include all those absentee ballots, so, naturally (I’ve heard!) the early returns are going to be heavily Clinton.</p>
<p>asdfjkl1 - thanks for the information. I don’t feel so bad now feeling like I lived through such a historic event, but just didn’t remember it.</p>
<p>youdon’tsay - I must have missed the other post; all the commentaries make sense now. I kept hearing they thought it would be close, but to see it being reported like this is confusing.</p>
<p>As an aside, our collar county of Chicago had a major telephone glitch at the county’s Clerk’s office (they think it could be weather related - we’re supposed to get up to 12" of snow overnight) so all the ballots had to be hand delivered tonight. Don’t know if they’re all in or not yet. Am still waiting to hear about a school referendum.</p>
<p>The key word is “political machine.” I’m shamed that my state went to her. Sadly enough, I couldn’t do anything about it.</p>
<p>I would have voted early…but age. I’ve liked the same candidate since the beginning of the race. But, I would never want to kill the surprise by voting early…Ruins the fun.</p>
<p>swimcatmom - good article, but are these super delegates each have just one vote?</p>
<p>I agree with the article, though. It seems as if Obama’s momentum is consistently on an upward swing. Perhaps those super delegates will look at the trend (or not) if the race is that close.</p>
<p>Do any of you think the presidential election will draw out the record numbers of voters as the primaries have? On both sides of the party.</p>
<p>Yes the superdelegates have one vote each. But when you think how many ‘non super’ people have to cast a vote to get one ‘non super’ delegate - it is quite a power to have that superdelegate vote. I don’t think I approve. Seems to take away the point of ‘the people’ voting.
I certainly think if Obama were to be ahead with regular votes and the superdelegates gave it to Clinton it would really cost the democrats in November because the Obama supporters would feel disenfranchised.</p>
<p>So, my husband voted for Obama, but then split his delegate selections among Clinton and Obama supporters. I think that means he’ll count as an Obama supporter when they divvy up delegates, but that his choice of Clinton delegates will get a vote when they divvy up Clinton delegates. Anyone know for sure if that’s the way it works?</p>