Talk:Superdelegate/Archive 1

huh?

If the Rupublican Party does not use superdelegates, as this article states, why is it that Romney and Huckabee have received superdelegate votes per Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Presidential_primaries, which links here? kwami (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Republican Party has "unpledged RNC member delegates", which are basically the same thing as superdelegates. "A rose by any other name..." -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegate to Voter Comparison

Is drewski weak statistics. With an electoral college, individual votes aren't equally valuable. This statistic implied that these Superdelegates held an unfair amount of voting power, but failed to note that the majority of the delegates are popular elected, and thus popularly accountable. Placing this statistic in the introduction, out of context, is inappropriate. I am removing it, and if it is reinstated it should be added under "Criticism", and properly analyzed.

Also, the article made claims about the relative numbers of Superdelegates in the Democratic and Republican delegations (the Republican "RNC" delegates are functionally the same as Superdelegates, but none are elected), which did not account for the larger number of total Democratic delegates. I corrected this to reflect that the Republican RNC delegates represent one fourth of the voting power compared to their Democratic counter-parts. All of this information can be found at the same website referenced, but: 123 Republican RNC delegates, out of a total of 2380 delegates, is 5.168% of the Republican delegates, versus 796 Democratic Superdelegates, out of a total of 4049 delegates, is 19.659% of the Democratic delegates. Hence, Republican RNC delegates wield 26.288% of the power that their Democratic counter-parts do.

I am also uncomfortable with the lack of nuanced analysis in the criticism section, and feel it is important to qualify some of the criticisms with important counter-points. (I.e., it says they are "not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters", but fails to acknowledge that they mostly face re-election campaigns that could be effected by their votes.), however I have not made any changes to that section. 141.157.22.62 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are these people?

Can we find out what elected officials get superdelegates status? What is their voting history? Ya, they are not bound to vote with their state but how often do they actually go against the popular vote. The electoral college isn't always bound to the state voters either and can change their vote given the right circumstances. I assume these superdelegates are less bound to popular votes then the electoral college since almost half of them have already thrown in their support to one of the three leading candidates. Anyways, anyone who can find this stuff out would be much appreciated. 69.219.151.168 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Democratic side, I think that the superdelegates include all Democrats who are members of Congress, state governors, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, or current DNC members. Their voting history is, generally, that they tend to line up behind the candidate who did the best during the primary season; the superdelegates want an end to divisive intraparty battles, so they coalesce behind the leader to ensure that that candidate has a solid majority going into the convention. At the moment, though, I don't have a reliable source to support putting these comments into the article. JamesMLane t c 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article already has a high level list, and has a reference to the DNC delegate rules for more information. Simon12 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unpledged Delegates

I wanted to find out about unpledged delegates. "Unpledged delegates" redirects here; the statement here is "not all unpledged delegates are superdelegates". So what are the different types of unpledged delegates (who aren't superdelegates)?? Can someone add something here on this, or perhaps there needs to be a different page for unpledged delegates. 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Added expanded explanationOorang (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DMT -- I want to know the answer to this too. Who are the unpledged delegates who aren't "Super"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.41.164 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are "add-on delegates" who can be pledged or unpledged. JamesMLane t c 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph (referring to the Republican super/unpledged) needs to be removed. Republicans do not have superdelegates. They have two types of unpledged delegates, all of whom function the same way as the democratic superdelegates at the convention, but are not appointed the same way. Pledged delegates are elected by local party chapters, they attend the convention and vote in the name of the primary voting public. Some unpledged Republican delegates are also elected by local party chapters but are not bound to the voting preference of the public (hence unpledged). Other unpledged Republican delegates are appointed based on their holding Party chairmanships and committee seats. These are similar to Democratic superdelegates in that they are appointed by virtue of their elected position in the party, but not the same as only current party officials become unpledged Republican delegates, while all present and former party Democratic chairs, congress people, senators and governors become superdelegates. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russwbuss (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing semantics... it's still worht a mention as long as it's made clear that the term superdelgates has thus far been only applicable to unpledged Democratic party delegates. Please also remember that language can change and it may become the case where superdelgates becomes the term for all unpledged delegates (slthough I agree that it is not what the term means now).. if you continue to disagree, then I suggest we move this page to "Unpledged Delegates" since superdelegates is a media term with no official value.--67.62.103.180 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A reader would naturally want to know what the situation is in the Republican Party, and an article that talks only about the Democrats would leave the reader up in the air. I've restored the information about the Republican unpledged delegates, while adding the point that the specific term "superdelegate" is used only with regard to Democrats. JamesMLane t c 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

External link listing all of the superdelegates

The following external link on the page, List of Democratic superdelegates, is not outdated. For one, it lists all of the superdelegates in the Democratic party. Secondly, if you actually go and look at the site, it lists delegates for Clinton and Obama, while Edwards and Kucinich's lists are empty. Do not remove the link unless you have a good reason for doing so. The stated reason of "out of date" is simply not valid. --Rajah (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree... the site is itself a wiki and thus could change... if the IP guy had actually read my notes he would understand that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The site is way out of date. For example, Norma Torres and Arrington Dixon endorsed Obama on January 25, almost 2 weeks ago. Patti Higgins endorsed Clinton almost 2 weeks ago. I can count 20+ endorsements over the last 2 weeks that are not on the site. The Clinton list has not been updated since Jan. 30. Also, the information on the site is totally unsourced, and therefore there's no way to know if its accurate, or if the providers of the site have any bias. I believe providing it as a link is a disservice to the readers of this article. 209.212.5.130 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then find another source to replace it with. Removing the info altogether, with only your word to go on, seems the real disservice, to me. Jeffpw (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there is another source, and it's already in this article, in the 2008 Dem Convention section. Its also used as the main source for a listing of Democratic superdelegates in Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, so there's some consistency in the different articles. As discussed in that Talk section, the demconwatch site provides an up-to-date listing, and, more importantly, provides verifiable sources in the spirit of Wikipedia for its list of endorsements, something superdelegates.org does not do. Simon12 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Y'know what pisses me off... people assuming something they have no idea about... I just discovered that Superdelegates are allowed to support candidates who have dropped out of the presidential race. That means, unless somebody knows for sure that, say, a John Edwards superdelegate has switched to another candidate, then that superdelegate should remain in the Edwards column... sources that list Edwards as a candidate with superdelegate support ARE NOT NECESARILY OUT OF DATE.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think that listing former Edwards superdelegates as current supporters of Edwards is accurate, fine, but CNN, CBS, the AP, most other media organizations, as well as other Wikipedia articles would disagree with that thinking. In fact, I can't find one other source that supports keeping Edwards former superdelegates in his column. And if that is the site's policy, where are Richardson's former superdelegates? He had 11 of them before he left the race. Not very consistent. In addition, 4 of the 26 superdelegates the site has as Edwards supporters have endorsed other candidates[1], one almost a week ago, but are still being shown as Edwards superdelegates at this site. As I said, the superdelegates.org site continues to be out-of-date, and should not be listed as an external link on this page. Simon12 (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention they now have a list of Uncommitted superdelegates, and they list 2, when there are over 400. The link should be removed until the site shows it can provide accurate and up-to-date information, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon12 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Talk:Superdelegate#Wikipedia_list_of_Dem._Superdelegates. --Rajah (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates Math

These numbers in the Criticism really need some sources, and I've removed one of them for simply not making sense. Here's my reasoning: The statement is that there are 153,636 people represented by each superdelegate. There are 796 superdelegates. This means that there are 153,636 people/superdelegate * 796 superdelegates = 122,294,256 people, that's 122 million. This would indicate that ~20% of the delegates somehow represent ~30% of the entire nation's population (not just those who vote in primaries), which makes no sense.

From another angle, we'll consider what the calculation would be like if we were considering the voters/delegate of only the representational delegates (non-superdelegates). That would mean 3,253 delegates at 153,636 voters/delegate, and 499,777,908 people represented by the total delegates, or a population larger than that of the U.S. Now, this assumes they calculated this number using only representational delegates, so we'll probe next as if they had used all the delegates (super and otherwise) to make the calculation.

This leaves us with the most reasonable way to have found a number such as this, with 153,636 voters/delegate and 4049 delegates, which leaves us with a whopping 622,072,164 voters, the most insane number yet.

As you can see, these numbers don't even make sense, and seem like original research or something someone read on a blog, or have done some number fudging and playing with semantics. I have left the "0.0007%" bit up there because it leads to slightly less crazy numbers, although it still needs a source.

Shirakawasuna (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think even the "0.0007%" reference is pointless (as well as probably being OR). It's as if an article about the U.S. Congress stated the number of members as a percentage of the U.S. population. None of the superdelegates achieved that status on their own; most of them were elected by the voting public, and some were chosen through intraparty processes that were indirectly responsive to choices in primary elections in prior years. JamesMLane t c 10:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The new figures are even worse, implying that there are over a billion voters. Whoever keeps adding these statistics needs a *source*. Shirakawasuna (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I finally found the *source* I've been searching for. The page is at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/D.phtml I think we've already established that the superdelegates have 19.6% power in the DNC. Now this is simple math guys and I apologize for esimating earlier. Since the 2008 primary is not over I think it would be incredibly convenient and conservative to go by the results of the 2004 democratic national primary considering that this does not reflect the total number of citizens eligible to vote in the primary, but rather the total number who ACTUALLY voted. On the webpage I just mentioned it states that the total number of people who voted in the 2004 democratic national primary was 16,535,823. There are 796 superdelegates. So, 796/16535823=0.0000481 or 0.00481%. For simplicity sake we'll say 0.005% of the voting population has 19.6% voting power in the 2008 democratic national primary based on voter turnout in the 2004 primary. Let me know if there's anything questionable here. My intent is only to expose the apparent inequality in the organization and rules of the democratic national convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starorion5 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if all of this agrees with you, please help to stop the deletion of this important fact. People need to not only know that the use of superdelegates is undemocratic, but also HOW much it is undemocratic from a quantitative perspective.Starorion5 (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Green Papers is acceptable as a source. FIrst off, it is not a blog but has been around for some time. The main DNC 2008 page uses DemConWatch, which is clearly a blog (and a low-tier Blogspot one at that), but the editors there decided that the calculation was transparent enough to be used, and they revert anyone who violates that consensus. When we cite for sources on delegate allocation for the Republicans, we use Green Papers. I think it was inappropriate for StarOrion to keep reverting, but I will back him up on this being a reliable source. Calwatch (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Starorion, the way you can stop the deletion is to identify some significant factual information that’s missing from the current article and then write something about it that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. So far you haven’t done that.

The article presents the fact that superdelegates may cast their votes without regard to the outcome of the primaries and caucuses. That’s the fact that leads some people to criticize the system as undemocratic (as the article also states). We report facts, including facts about opinions, but we don’t adopt or argue for opinions. It’s not a proper purpose of a Wikipedia article to "expose the apparent inequality".

For my part, I don’t think there’s an inequality. Consider one example: At the beginning of 2006, Hillary Clinton, Jonathan Tasini, and John Spencer each had an equal number of votes at the Democratic National Convention of 2008 – that number being zero. (Clinton was in the Senate but her term was set to expire before the Convention.) Clinton became a superdelegate, and won the right to cast one vote for herself at the Convention, because she defeated both Tasini and Spencer. More than three million people voted for her in the general election. That's what now entitles her to a superdelegate slot. For your comparison to make sense, you’d have to take account of her three million votes. Governor Eliot Spitzer received about the same number, and Chuck Schumer even more than that in 2004. That’s about nine million votes just for the three statewide elected officials who are superdelegates from New York. Add in almost seven million people who voted for Barbara Boxer in California in 2004, and you see that those four superdelegates received about as many votes as were cast in all the primaries and caucuses in 2004 (the figure you rely on). Obviously, there were scores of millions of votes cast for all the superdelegates combined.

You’re entitled to hold the opinion that the foregoing analysis is mistaken. Your opinion, though, is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article is not here to adopt or propagandize for your opinion. The article can report facts about opinions when the opinions are advanced by prominent spokespersons. This article reports the criticism of the system as undemocratic. If the mathematical argument of which you’re so fond has been espoused by a prominent spokesperson, find a citation and we can consider it for inclusion.

Calwatch, as far as I can tell, Green Papers is being used as a source only for the number of votes cast during the 2004 campaign for the nomination. Whether or not it's a reliable source for those data, the argument that Starorion wants to insert seems to be original research in violation of WP:NOR. If Green Papers makes the argument, the issue would be whether Green Papers is sufficiently prominent that its opinion merits reporting, and I'd say no. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Calwatch, the third line on The Green Papers's homepage states, "We were blogging before it was cool". So, if they're reliable, then we have to believe they're a blog. If they're a blog, they're not a good source for Wikipedia. If this information is notable, then find it somewhere reputable and integrate properly into the article if it indeed belongs. →Wordbuilder (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because Green Papers is a reliable source based on a reliable third party researcher.

[2] You'll note that Bloomberg, WaPo, and the Kansas City Star cites it. I think James' argument has merit, but your argument does not. See, for instance, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." in WP:V. Calwatch (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is notable, why can you only come up with a self-proclaimed blog as a source for this particular data? I'm not saying it is not notable. I'm just saying the lack of credible sources raises serious quesitons. →Wordbuilder (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've found a source for it: the Times of London (in a staff edited blog, which is IMHO just a reliable as something printed in the paper by the staffer) and the Daily Breeze. 10,000 voters in the primary/caucus = one superdelegate. No math required. Calwatch (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about a staff blog, but in this instance the Times writer is merely quoting something from the Huffington Post. I think the comment should be sourced to the original. More important is that the basis of the figure isn't explained. I'm guessing it means that, if a candidate picks up 10,000 more votes in a primary, that will translate to, on average, one extra pledged delegate. I'm going to change the source and move the observation to the criticism section, because I gather it's directed to the allegedly "undemocratic" nature of the system. JamesMLane t c 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm very glad to see that you all are so passionate about this. Second, what I propose should be accepted since individual research is not acceptable (i was unaware) is what the voting power of superdelegates was in the 2004 DNC using the numbers from the green papers website. If it is acceptable in the "superdelegates in 2008" section to say that superdelegates amount to 1/5 of the vote or 19.6%, I think it should be equally acceptable to state the numbers in the criticism section as percentages as well using the same logic. Furthermore, when you look at the sources cited for the numbers in the "superdelegates in 2008" section you'll find that neither page states 19.6% as an exact number so the statement earlier that its necessary that a prominent person or organization states the information outright in order for it to be put on wikipedia is not warranted. I don't think that you can consider this original research nor an opinion since it is simple division to arrive at 19.6% which seems to be undisputed. If you disagree with the numbers in the "criticism" section, then you should also disagree with the numbers in the "superdelegates in 2008" section and the statement that superdelegates hold 1/5 and 19.6% of the vote at the convention should be promptly deleted. If not, then the percentages in the "superdelegates in 2008" as well as the "criticism" sections should not be deleted. Please let me know what you think.Starorion20 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are indeed passionate about maintaining Wikipedia's accuracy and neutrality.

You evidently haven't read the NOR policy. I commend it to your attention, especially this section: Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. There you'll read an explanation of why we can present the number of superdelegates as a percentage of the number of total delegates: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing."

Let's apply that policy to the case at hand. If the source says that there are 796 superdelegates out of a total of 4,047 delegates, then it doesn't change the meaning to say that the superdelegates are 19.7% of the total. On the other hand, the source you keep citing for your opinion about superdelegates doesn't say anything close to what you assert. It merely gives the figures for votes cast for the pledged delegates. Your personal opinion is that, for reasons you haven't explained, votes cast for the superdelegates should be ignored, and the system should be analyzed as if superdelegates held their positions by feudal succession. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but you can't by any stretch of the imagination attribute that opinion to GreenPapers. The person who compiled the table of primary and caucus votes would probably be quite surprised to learn that he or she had been treated as expressing that opinion. JamesMLane t c 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say I completely disagree with your analysis. I'm not saying that superdelegates should be IGNORED. Did I use any of these words in the article? The answer is NO. I'm not stating an opinion but rather presenting the numbers in percent form. The wikipedia policy article that you supplied is not applicable and I would hope as a NYC lawyer you can understand the distinction. The article says "summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing". The numbers are coming from one article, not two, and are being presented in percent form. What's the percentage of superdelegates to people who voted? 0.005%. What's the percentage of superdelegates to all delegates? 18.6%. Now just put those two answers together and you get the following: .005% of the voting population held 18.6% voting power. There's no individual research and no opinion here. But if this sounds like an opinion to you, would the following be more acceptable to you?

Superdelegates were 0.005% (802 superdelegates/16,535,823 people who voted) of the voting population in the 2004 Democratic National Primary. The voting power of superdelegates in the 2004 Democratic National Primary was 18.6% (802 superdelegates/4,322 total delegates).

Once again, there is NO opinion here regarding superdelegates. The numbers are being presented in percent form and are coming from one article. Let me know whether or not you think this is acceptable.Starorion20 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Starorion, there are several problems with claiming what you want to include does not have serious POV issues. "Voting power" is not a clearly defined term in this case. Without sufficient context, these claims make implications innapropriate to an encyclopedia. The data that you are attempting to include here has been more or less already introduced in the article. What we have here is a rephrasing/rehashing of what has already been said, with a pairing of two numbers that appears to summarize the math of the article in a POV manner. Appropriate info to be included would be various third party sources that explain opinions on the system and the math of it all, not including facts/statistics that unfairly summarize some apparent point without context.Gwynand (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to one of my comments, Starorion writes: "I'm not saying that superdelegates should be IGNORED." Please, Starorion, exercise a little care in reading what Wikipedia policies actually state and what other participants actually say. I noted your opinion that "votes cast for the superdelegates should be ignored...." (emphasis added) In an earlier comment I pointed out how there were scores of millions of votes cast for people like Spitzer and Boxer, and that that's how they got to be superdelegates. You want to take account of the votes cast for pledged delegates (in 2004) but ignore those cast for the superdelegates. You're entitled to your opinion that that's a relevant comparison. My opinion is that it's worthless. Neither your opinion nor mine is worth including in the article unless adopted by a prominent spokesperson. JamesMLane t c 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain further why this should not go in the CRITICISM section. Also, I don't see this information earlier in the article so if you say its there, please show me. I can't find it. Also, what would you suggest as an alternative? I don't think I'm editing my opinions into the article. For god's sake they're just percentages. lolStarorion20 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The amount of delegates and amount of superdelegates have already been introduced. It is an obvious fact that the amount of superdelegates is a small fraction of total primary voters. Does it make a difference that 800 is a percentage of 18 million, or 8 million, or 80 million? Just because you found one article that printed this somewhat useless piece of info doesn't automatically mean it warrants inclusion here. That is why this is POV, it's taking something obvious and including it in the article, something that anyone could reasonably infer. The explicit reprinting of this obvious fact over the tons of others we could randomly include is not a balanced un-POV way of doing things. It's inclusion doesn't add anything.Gwynand (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, I must correct one small point. You say, "Just because you found one article that printed this somewhat useless piece of info...." Actually, Starorion has not found such an article. He has one source that gives the number of superdelegates in 2008 and another that gives the number of votes cast for pledged delegates in 2004. As far as I can tell, no one except Starorion thinks that the quotient of those two numbers is even worth computing, let alone including in the article. JamesMLane t c 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you didn't understand my question....of course I think its a useless piece of information as well. That's why I suggest combining the two percentages into a meaningful sentence. Its fact from 2004 and based on the response its been getting I think its quite pertinent. I think your missing the point. But so be it. I thought it was straightforward enough for everyone to understand and thus be included in the criticism section as a CRITICISM but apparently you all are more interested in arguing with me than any kind of factual criticism.Starorion20 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack on the other people editing this page is unwarranted. We've included in the "Criticism" section a properly sourced comment that each superdelegate is equivalent to about 10,000 regular voters. That seems to be substantially the point you're trying to make with your incessant reverts. Personally, I think that criticism is fairly empty unless better explained, as I stated above, but I'm fine with including it. The reason is that Dan Abrams is a prominent spokesperson. You are not. Therefore, your opinion doesn't get included, and his does. JamesMLane t c 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what starorion is trying to say is that 802/16,535,823=0.005 is as much his opinion as 10/5=2. Also, I don't think juxtaposing two numbers can really be considered an opinion.Infinitesuperdelegate (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A mathematical fact isn't an opinion, but including the juxtaposition of two numbers in the article reflects an opinion. It's an objective fact that 802, the number you use for the superdelegates, is also the area code for Vermont. Should the article say so? It's hardly opinion and isn't open to reasonable dispute. There's also no reasonable dispute that DNC Chair Howard Dean is a former governor of Vermont. Should the article report and juxtapose all these facts? Starorion's edit was the equivalent of reporting these facts (a wrong editorial decision) and adding a suggestion that Dean set it up that way (an even worse editorial decision). JamesMLane t c 02:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that starorion's point is more substantial than that. Its not as if he's saying that "there are 802 superdelegates and that 801 is the area code of wisconsin", which are two unrelated facts. What's being said is that "0.005% of the voting population had 18.6% of the vote in 2004" which is much larger than what your attributing to him and which is substantiated from a source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought summarizing information in an easily understandable format was both the purpose of wikipedia and considered good editing.Infinitesuperdelegate (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You write, "It seems that starorion's point is more substantial than that." Exactly! It's Starorion's point, not the source's, and it's substantial. That's why it's improper. By contrast,Calwatch found a quotable source that makes substantially the same point, and that information is now in the article.

Please (re)read this thread. Four different experienced editors have tried to explain to you why this polemic is unacceptable. I despair of being able to add anything to what I and others have already said. JamesMLane t c 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I used the word "point" in the same way you used it above. Let me quote: "I've restored the information about the Republican unpledged delegates, while adding the POINT that the specific term 'superdelegate' is used only with regard to Democrats. JamesMLane t c 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)" If you attribute the same reading to your very own sentence, it seems that you're adding your own POV into the article. These are very petty ways of arguing. Also, let me see if I understand your second POINT (lol). It seems to me that your saying that putting both unsubstantial and substantial information in a wikipedia article is improper. If that's the case, then what's left to go into any article for that matter? Nothing. This makes absolutely no sense and the argument that what starorion added to the article should be deleted because its substantial should be dropped.

All this aside, the information from the green papers is indeed being summarized by starorion in a substantial form and I believe that the green papers would say that starorion's edit regarding 2004 is fact as the numbers are historically valid. What he said about the 2008 election I believe is opinion since the primary isn't over and the number's aren't in. Does anyone else have an opinion of this besides JamesMLane? Also, I hope that the next person who responds charitably interprets what we are all saying here as purposeful misrepresentation gets everyone nowhere.Infinitesuperdelegate (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Michigan and Florida

I think it is unclear which dnc rules are being referred to in regard to Michigan and Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.220.11 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates is a subset of Unpledged Delegates... not the other way around This topic is not covered thoroughly by this page and should be part of a larger article.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Superdelegate is a media term that has become associated with PLEO delegates of the Democratic party. As a result, very little information has been written about normal Unpledged delegates of both the democratic and republican parties and the information that has been written is subject to edit wars (because Superdelegate isn't the right place to put it), the best way to alleviate this is to cover all topics on an Unpledged delegates page. Otherwise, information about the unpledged delegate process is convoluted or ignored.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW... I still feel the term Superdelegate should be mentioned with regards to it's generally accepted meaning (Democratic Party Leaders and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates).... I just want the topic of Unpledged delegates to be covered thoroughly and properly. Superdelegate should be the redirect... not the other way around.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The two terms are not equivalent. If you look at the page cited in the article, under "What are the types of delegates? How are they selected?", you'll read the description of the superdelegates, i.e., the party leaders and elected officials (PLEO's) who become delegates by virtue of their positions. After this discussion of the PLEO's comes this paragraph:

Add-on delegates - May be selected by either the same selecting body that selects the state's PLEO delegates or by the same selecting body which will select the state's "at-large" delegates. They can be selected whether or not they previously filed a statement of candidacy for a delegate position or submitted a pledge of support for a presidential candidate. There are both pledged and unpledged add-on delegates.

Thus, some of the unpledged delegates aren't superdelegates. Furthermore, many of the superdelegates have publicly endorsed one of the contenders for the nomination. In that sense, they're no longer unpledged, although of course they're legally free to change their minds.

The two concepts are related but distinct and should be kept separate. JamesMLane t c 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say they were equivelent... I said that this should be part of a larger article. I have corrected some of the mistakes in my original request. An artilce for Unpledged delegates doesn't even exist. Have you looked?
• All this can be covered in the unpledged delegates article that doesn't yet exist. You create the article with a section for normal unpledged delegates and a section for superdelegates.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why does the source you cited have the sentecne "Unpledged delegates are sometimes referred to as "superdelegates.""? That senetence right there is enough to cause huge confusion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• If the two concepts are so distinct why did you yourself add information about Republican unpledged delegates to this page?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As to your bulleted points:

• I'm not trying to stop the creation of a separate article about "Unpledged delegates". I'm dubious about whether it's needed, but I'll defer judgment until I see what you or anyone comes up with.
• Because the term "superdelegate" is in such wide use, it's reasonable to have an article at this title. Furthermore, there's a fundamental distinction between superdelegates and all other delegates (whether pledged or unpledged). All other delegates are chosen by someone -- the voters or the state party -- pursuant to a set of rules; they're chosen during the election year for the specific purpose of being convention delegates. The superdelegates, by contrast, become delegates by virtue of the status they hold, as party leaders or elected officials.
• I don't know if a source has that sentence. As I recall, someone edited the article to imply that superdelegates and unpledged delegates were the same thing. I think I changed that to say they were "sometimes called" the same because of my belief, now confirmed by further research, that calling them that is erroneous. I agree with you that the sentence causes huge confusion.
• As I said above, what's distinctive about superdelegates is that they become delegates based on other positions they hold, including membership in the Democratic National Committee. Similarly, members of the Republican National Committee also become delegates based on status. Whether they're pledged or unpledged doesn't matter for this purpose. They become delegates in the same way as some of the Democratic superdelegates, so they should be mentioned here for the sake of completeness.

I'm working on rewriting the article, one goal being to clarify the relationship between the two concepts of "superdelegate" and "unpledged delegate". JamesMLane t c 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I completed my rewrite. The article is about superdelegates, but with a passing reference to "unpledged delegates" so that the reader can see the relationship. If you create an article under that title, we can wikilink it here. I'd also suggest that your article make a passing reference to superdelegates with a wikilink to this one. Two separate articles, wikilinked, will be more helpful to the reader than making either title a redirect into a single article that tries to deal with both concepts. JamesMLane t c 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite does not do enough to differentiate between PLEO and non PLEO unpledged delegates and we still have the issue of Republican unpledged delegates not being covered anywhere in wikipedia... your rewrite,while helpful, does not sway my opinion toward moving the document.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've lost me here. PLEO unpledged delegates are superdelegates and are covered in detail in this article. Non-PLEO unpledged delegates are not superdelegates and are mentioned only in passing and in a way that makes it clear that they're not superdelegates. That's the information that will be most helpful to a reader who wants to understand the concept of "superdelegate". As for the Republicans, I have no idea what the story is on their unpledged delegates who aren't RNC members. If they turn out to be analogous to Democratic Party superdelegates (i.e., becoming delegates by virtue of some other position held), then they should be discussed here. If not, then they should not be discussed here. If you're concerned that they're not covered anywhere in Wikipedia, the information could be included in Republican National Convention, 2008 Republican National Convention, or in the new article on "Unpledged delegates" that you've suggested you might write. JamesMLane t c 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

People want to know more about non PLEO unpledegd delegates than "just a passing reference". How do the non PLEO delegates get picked for both parties? How far back does the history of non PLEO delegates go? Who are they(if that infois public)? How many of them are there? we should be clearing up the confusion that is caused by the current media buzz. Not adding to it. Non PLEO unpledged delegates need their own page. That ismy highest point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And my "highest point" is that there should be an article about superdelegates at the title Superdelegate. It seems to me that your goal and mine would both be accommodated if there were a separate article titled "unpledged delegate" or some such, with cross-wikilinks between that one and this one. Is there a problem with going that route? JamesMLane t c 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with moving this article to Unpledged Delegates, leaving a redirect here, and updating the article there. Or better yet, maybe an article just on Delegates in general, than all the pledged and unpledged delegate information can be in one place, covering, on the Democratic side, both pledged and un-pledged PLEOs, add-ons, at-large, etc, etc, and whatever is needed on the Republican side. (or maybe one article for each party?). Simon12 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't called "Unpledged Delegates," they're called "Super Delegates." Why would you move this article to rename it as something its not? And, speaking of this article, the NPOV has been completely erased and has a wiff of Obama to it. Someone has deleted the entire discussion of why the Super Delegate policy was enacted which was, in essence, to prevent the hijacking of the Democratic Party nomination by an unelectable candidate such as George McGovern. As someone recently said, Republicans don't need Super Delegates because they know how to unite behind a candidate in the best interest of the party. We Democrats, on the other hand, need babysitters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Please do not introduce false information into the debate... please go read some of the sources such as this AP story which clearly states ofMichigan... "The state GOP also has three unpledged delegates.".
  • 67.162.143.161's ignorance of the facts illustrates exactly why this article is in the wrong place and is misleading people. He doesn't even know unpledged delegates exist as a seperate entity.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• I very strongly oppose the requested move. A merge may be useful; but we should define and discuss this term, which is common parlance, and we should probably do it under this title. Superdelegates cannot pledge themselves; that is a fact, but not a defining fact; the next Democratic convention could permit them to do so, without necessarily changing this article except to note the change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But if we moved the page... this term would SILL be discussed... and just as thoroughly as it is here. I'd even have the redirect with a # sign to the section that discusses PLEO delegates.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This is the term actually used. The hypothetical unpledged delegates article would say "Some delegates to the Democratic national convention are pledged to a candidate; some are unpledged. Most of the unpledged delegates are superdelegates [circular link]..." Yawn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The term is not used consistently, sometimes it is used to describe only PLEO delegates and other times it is used to describe all Democratic unpledged delegates. Wikipedia should be clearing up confusion...not making more.
      • None of the Republican unpledged delegates are superdelegates. The non PLEO unpledeged delegates have a much older history than the Superdelegates and it is from the concept of unpledged delegates that the Superdelegates were created.... the topic is not being explained properly.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Then write unpledged delegate and let's see what it says; we can merge afterwards if called for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some writers who don't realize that some unpledged delegates aren't superdelegates. I tried to address the confusion by editing this article to add the citation to the passage in the rules about the selection of unpledged delegates other than superdelegates. As for your statement that "None of the Republican unpledged delegates are superdelegates," it's clear that more than a hundred Republican unpledged delegates became delegates by virtue of being national committee members. That's also how many of the Democratic superdelegates became delegates. At least one author referred to Republican superdelegates, and I added the citation to the article to support my assertion that the term is sometimes used that way. JamesMLane t c 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I've been leaning toward the write...then merge direction that you suggested...now I just need to find the time.

• • • I don't think that superdelegates should be part of another page ... although if another page wants to mention them that makes sense. Superdelegates are unique because they are a clearly undemocratic part of what is supposed to be a democratic system. This gives them a unique place in the mind of many voters.

User:sazoulai 19:00, 11, Feburary, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • I don't like the idea of Superdelegates either... but I couldeasily see somebody make the argument that superdelegates are no less Democratic than the Delegate process as a whole. After all, even the superdeleates had to win somekind of election to get where they are, Elected official are elected and Party Leaders areelected from within the party. Irealize it's asomewhat specious argument but my point is that the differece between various unpledged delegates will helptoclear up confusion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• What if I called the non PLEO unpledged delegates "state level unpledged delegates" for both the Democratic and Republican party, these unpledged delegates are chosen by the state party. My research seems toindicate that would be a good way to discuss them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The PLEO unpledged delegates in both parties include national committee members. I think most of them are also chosen by the state party (or at state party conventions), although some get their posts in other ways (such as through particular demographic groups, like Young Republicans or Democrats Abroad). Anyway, I'm not sure how the national committee people are chosen, but I think many are chosen by the state party. If so, your suggested term would be misleading. What about simply "non-PLEO unpledged delegates" (the term you used in your comment)? JamesMLane t c 08:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think the Republican party had PLEO delegates?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether Republican Party rules use that term. I do know, however, that all Republican National Committee members are automatically voting delegates. Like the Democrats' PLEO delegates, they aren't bound to support any candidate. They're party leaders. Are they "PLEO delegates"? I'd say they are. Some sources refer to them as "superdelegates" because they aren't chosen as a result of a primary or caucus. (I agree with you about wanting to clarify all these terms for our readers. The parties and the media make that task difficult by their inconsistent usages, though.) JamesMLane t c 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Detail in the introductory section

This article should explain the concept of superdelegate and distinguish the concept of unpledged delegate. Nevertheless, that's only one aspect of the discussion of superdelegates. The introductory section of the article is supposed to be a general overview of the entire article. It's not the place to try to set out all the detailed rules concerning different types of delegates. I'm going to try to move a lot of that stuff out of the introduction and into the body of the article. JamesMLane t c 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia list of Dem. Superdelegates

I've created one at List of United States Democratic Party Superdelegates. Let's update it with their most recent "endorsement" and get citations for them. --Rajah (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it

Sorry, but the current article doesn't convey the relative voting power of these superdelegate creatures relative to the regular ones. Do superdelegates get to vote twice or their vote counts for more or...what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.98.230 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As delegates... they only vote once. It is confusing.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't bound to vote for any candidate as I understand. Which essentially means they have the voting power of hundreds of people or more when they vote at the convention. Which goes against the principle of one person, one vote, but it's easy to forget that the democratic convention is not really a government election, it's a party election, and the party can choose its candidates however it wishes. They could choose names out of a hat if they wanted to. It's just how it is. It is somewhat interesting that over the last twenty years, the system hasn't been very effective at electing Democratic Party presidents, so its surprising that they havn't reconsidered the elitist concept of letting Democratic Party politicians have the nominating power of hundreds or thousands of voters at their convention. Hrodulf 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.155.227 (talk)

Public Response to Superdelegates

Hey everyone,

In the past couple of days Superdelegates have been getting more and more press. This is mostly affecting Democrats, but does affect some Republicans who may be crossing party lines.

Many people are not just openly criticizing superdelegates they are trying to actively change the way the system works.

I recently added a few lines about this subject but since it is a politically sensitive topic I can understand why certain people may have wanted it removed.

However I think it is a very important part what a superdelegate is and what is currently happening to them.

I believe we need to add some information about this recent surge of political activism aimed at changing the superdelegate system.

What are your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazoulai (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The current text states that the superdelegate rule has been getting more attention lately because Clinton and Obama are so close in number of delegates. It also mentions that there's been criticism of the rule. I think the "Criticism" section is the weakest in the article -- the statement of the "anti" position is skimpy and the "pro" side isn't reported at all. JamesMLane t c 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason for having super or unpledged delegates at either convention. Why not just delegates that represent the states and the percentage of people supporting the respective candidates? My 2 cents worth ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.191.200 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling (although no print to back this up, so don't put it in the article) that if Obama wins the vote based on pledged delegates but Clinton wins due to Superdelegates (or the other way around, but that looks unlikely) the DNP will eliminate superdelegates. I could see that happening. Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Linked from BaltimoreSun.com

Apparently this Wikipedia article has been linked from The Baltimore Sun's website. See [3] (mailing list post) and [4] (the link to the article is on the map). Probably a good idea to keep the article clean, and maybe semi-protect it. *** Crotalus *** 02:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to list of superdelegates

The link to a list of superdelegates was recently changed from this to List of 2008 United States Democratic Party Superdelegates. While I certainly understand the desire to link to a Wikipedia article, the Wiki list is very incomplete, very unsourced, contains many names that are not currently recognized as superdelegates by the DNC, and is really just a mess at this point. The link that was replaced is used by Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 as the consensus source for lists of superdelegates and superdelegate endorsements. Providing a less accurate link to the readers of this article makes no sense. 72.68.108.209 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoted in CNN.com article without attribution

A CNN.com article published 02/17/08 found here clearly quotes this article without attribution. The quote below (emphasis mine) makes a nominal attempt to rephrase, but clearly duplicates Wikipedia text added 02/09/08, over a week earlier.

"Superdelegates -- delegates to the National Democratic Convention --are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, but rather based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to choose the candidate they like." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.212.150 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch! As the principal author of the plagiarized language, I appreciate knowing that CNN finds my summary quoteworthy. As for the "without attribution" part, well, O tempora o mores! JamesMLane t c 16:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal Term

What would it take for a term to be formal? If it doesn't have a name and it's coined 'superdelegate', wouldn't that be a formal term? 132.170.52.59 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The status was created by the Democratic Party rules. As stated in the article, therefore, the formal term is the one found in those rules: "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates". JamesMLane t c 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

how does superdelegates work?

I was wondering, how does superdelegates work? According to the stats, Barack Obama has more delegates than Hillary, but Hillary has more superdelegates than Obama? Does this make Hilary closer to be the nominee.--68.162.153.160 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Please read the main article on the selection process. Superdelegates + Pledged delegates = Total delegates. So Clinton's lead in superdelegates can reduce or eliminate her deficit in pledged delegates (selected by the voters).Calwatch (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman

I think the claim that Lieberman lost his superdelegate status due to his endorsement of McCain should be removed from the article. The claim is based on a news article which is based solely on a quote by the Chairman of the Connecticut Democratic Party. Normally, that might be sufficient. But the Wiki article also states "However, Connecticut has always had 11 superdelegates assigned to it, even before the state Democratic party's decision to exclude Lieberman.". The reference cited, the Connecticut Delegate Selection Plan, dated May, 2007, gives CT 11 superdelegates. Currently, CT still has 11 superdelegates.[5]. To me, official documentary proof from the Democratic and Connecticut State Parties should override one quote from the Connecticut Chairman, who, in looking back at the issue, might have been trying to make a political point with her quote.

At the least, we should switch the order and priorities of the statements. We should say - he was never a superdelegate because he's not a Democratic Senator. He also would have lost his status due to his endorsement of McCain, and some have stated that was the primary reason he's not a superdelegate. Simon12 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the allocation for the 11 At-Large delegates. That's different. In the source you cite, the listing for Connecticut in Appendix B (page 37) shows four Democratic members of Congress. I don't understand this on either interpretation of Lieberman's status -- there are four Democratic members of the House plus Senator Dodd, so the entry in that column should be five without Lieberman or six with him. As to your assertion that he's not a Democratic Senator, I don't know if that issue's been addressed authoritatively. He's a Senator and is registered to vote as a Democrat. Arguably that makes him a Democratic Senator, and of course he caucuses with the Democratic Party (and chairs the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, a chairship that's reserved for a member of the majority party). On the other hand, he was elected on a different party's line, defeating the Democratic candidate, and the Senate website lists him as "Independent Democrat". Some of the bloggers who were quick to say that he isn't a Democratic Senator assumed, incorrectly, that he'd re-registered to join the Connecticut for Lieberman Party (the ballot line on which he ran in 2006).

In sum, on the current evidence, I don't see any reliable source or notable spokesperson concluding that, even without the McCain endorsement, Lieberman would not have been a superdelegate. The state party chair states otherwise. JamesMLane t c 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an easy one. Dodd is a Distinguished Party Leader as former chair of the DNC. Please see this list of official superdelegates: [6] Unfortunately, there is no date on this list. However, Lieberman, as far as I know, was never on this list. Unless they were thinking of adding him as an add-on delegate, he was never on the master delegate list. The DNC list was published by the WaPo, a reliable source. Thus, the text stands as written. Calwatch (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That explains the exclusion of Dodd from the list of members of Congress (in Appendix B), but it doesn't answer the question about Lieberman. Given that, as you state, there's no date on the list, it can't support the assertion that "Connecticut has always had 11 superdelegates assigned to it...." Perhaps Lieberman was on the original version of the list. We simply don't know what updating procedures are in effect for the Washington Post list. I note that Florida and Michigan are listed as having zero superdelegates, so this is clearly not the original list; it's been updated to account for the effect of the premature primaries. On the other hand, they didn't update it to account for Tom Lantos's death (he's still listed). My personal guess is that they would've been more diligent about punishing Lieberman for his defection than they would've been about noting Lantos's passing a few days later. Therefore, this list is consistent with the view that Lieberman was a superdelegate until early February, when he endorsed McCain. JamesMLane t c 07:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Connecticut has always had 11 superdelegates per the Call to the Convention, which to my knowledge has the count you list above. The count of 796 is consistent with the number of the names on the WaPo list. Some individuals quoted have noted that Lieberman was not a superdelegate because of his CFL party win, although as you correctly note he is registered Democratic. I think the state party wanted to sort of rub it in his face. Since Lieberman endorsed McCain way back in December, I am surprised no one noted it until February. Calwatch (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Found a list with a date: 1/7/2008 [7] Thus, the state party chair's remark was merely window dressing. Calwatch (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "window dressing" overstates it. There's a serious issue here. How does the rule apply to a Senator who's a registered Democrat and caucuses with the Democrats, but was elected on another line? I feel very confident that the people who drafted the rule didn't even consider that situation (an excusable lapse). The wording is reasonably open to either interpretation. If Lieberman hadn't Zellified himself by endorsing McCain, his omission from the list prepared by the DNC wouldn't be dispositive. He could have challenged it before the Credentials Committee, and ultimately the convention would have decided. There might well be Democrats on each side of the question. Per WP:NPOV, we can report facts about the prominent opinions on each side.

In this case, however, there's a problem. Usually, if Speaker X says "Y is true," we can report that "Speaker X believes Y." There are some cases where we can't do that, though. I wouldn't agree with "Bush believed that Iraq had WMD's." He said he did, but millions of people think he was lying. Similarly, here, as you and I both agree, the state chair's comment isn't definitive proof that she believed Lieberman to be a superdelegate before he endorsed McCain. She had a political motive for saying it.

I'm going to think further about how we should cover this. One problem is that a perfectly accurate and NPOV explanation would probably give the subject more space than is warranted for an issue that, this year, affected only one delegate out of more than 4,000, and now doesn't apply even to him. JamesMLane t c 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you're right that it could have been challenged, but the fact is, we have an official document from the Connecticut Democratic Party, dated May, 2007, which, by giving the number of superdelegates as 11, not 12, therefore effectively states that Lieberman was not a superdelegate in May, 2007. That seems pretty definitive and verifiable to me. Simon12 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the correct number of candidates to win nomination - 2,024 or 2,025?

The article says "A candidate needs a majority of that total, or 2,024, to win the nomination.[11]". Note the 2,024. When reading Reference 11 it says 2,025. When reading the BBC News web site, it also says 2,025.

The news media is a bit behind the reality. The total number of delegates has decreased by two over the last month, with the death of Rep. Tom Lantos, and the move of superdelegate Ken Curtis from Maine to Florida, thereby removing him as a voting superdelegate. So the total number of delegates has decreased to 4047, so it takes 2024 to win. But it will change again, with Congress Special Elections, and potential other changes. Simon12 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cash to Superdelegates

I think I saw a report in the news last week that the candidates had paid the superdelegates a large amount of money -- something around $900,000, IIRC -- to garner their support. If anyone has info on this, I think it should be added to the article. CsikosLo (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this true? -- concerned citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.47.188 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an allegation that a big donor to one of the campaigns had promised a big donation to some Democratic group (a student coalition or some such) if that group's supers supported a particular candidate. It doesn't really relate to explaining the concept of "superdelegate" to our readers. JamesMLane t c 04:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Introductory section

I think the major copy-edit of the introductory section has significantly worsened it. I'm restoring the introductory section from this version but with one substantive change.

Here's my reaction to the new version:

• The article should begin with the title whenever possible.
• To say that the superdelegates “are selected” is misleading, because they are not chosen as superdelegates; they’re chosen to fill some other office, and then become superdelegates as an incidental by-product.
• To define the term with reference to both major parties and then to say that the formal term is “party leader and elected official” is misleading, because that term is from the Democratic Party rules. The Republican Party rules give no automatic vote to any elected officials (unless they happen also to be Republican National Committee members).
• This sentence is unencyclopedic: “The Texas and Ohio Primary results determined that neither Clinton or Obama can win candidacy without superdelegate votes; the Democratic Primary is now under complete control of the superdelegates.” First, such a focus on specific primaries is an example of “recentism” – a couple weeks ago the passage was all hyped up about Super Tuesday. Second, the clause after the semicolon is POV. Finally, neither part of this sentence is supported by the linked reference, which was written a month before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
• The reference to a “brokered convention” is a needless complication for the introductory section. The objective facts are the superdelegates play a greater role, and attract more attention, because the race is close. The prior version didn’t adequately note that last point but was otherwise clearer and more accurate.

For these reasons, I'm restoring the prior version but with elaboration of the superdelegates' possibly decisive role at the convention.

I don't have time right now to look at the rest of the recent edits. JamesMLane t c 09:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for checking my edits and for explaining your rationale for revising. I disagree about the article's style, though I take your word about the technicalities of the content. As a copy-editor, I find that the old intro (2008-03-05T23:59:48) is hard to read and uninformative. The newest version (2008-03-07T00:31:14) is not much better. I hope we can improve it with your expertise:

• The first sentence should define the subject as clearly and accurately as possible, and state its importance. Currently it only says superdelegates are delegates of the DNC. It should say that they are not elected and that they are free to support any candidate.
• If I am not mistaken, superdelegates are only relevant during presidential nomination. If so, that crucial context should somehow be made clear in the first sentence.
• Since the DNC is a somewhat technical thing to know about, the sentence should mention it after the US Democratic Party and presidential nomination in the sentence, which are more widely known and easily understood. This makes the first sentence more accessible for readers who are encountering the topic for the first time.
• That the DNC is quadrennial is not important enough for to be in first sentence. It's not defining for the topic. In fact, it should probably not appear in the intro at all. By contrast, it is crucial to know that superdelegates have to do with presidential nominations.
• It also less important that "superdelegate" is an informal term. That can go in a second or third sentence, and can be implied by stating the formal name in parentheses. Treating the subject as a "term", "word" or "name" in the first sentence should be avoided. For example, "An apple is a fruit that ..." is much clearer than "Apple is the common name of a type of fruit that ..." It is the more important information and what the reader first wants to know.
• The sentence about the Republican Party contradicts the first sentence. It says that some Republican delegates are chosen as described, but "superdelegates" usually applies to Democratic delegates. This implies that sometimes those Republican delegates are called "superdelegates". My edits reworded the first sentence to describe the general concept, and explained the specific usage later.
• Although WP:MoS says the topic should appear as early as possible, it is better to first introduce the context of the topic when the sentence would otherwise be too long. This has been so on many featured articles.
• I completely agree about the 2008 primaries. But my edits merely moved the general and pertinent information to the top of the paragraph, reducing recentism. The whole paragraph should be moved out of the intro, corrected and cleaned of POV.
• Ditto for "brokered convention"

-Pgan002 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• I agree that the first sentence should define the context, but we can’t get all the information into the first sentence. We need to set the context that these are Democratic National Convention delegates. Then the second sentence says that they aren’t selected through primaries and caucuses. (To say they’re not elected is inaccurate.)
• The major importance of superdelegates is in the presidential nomination but they, like other delegates, have other roles as well. In some years the convention has had hotly contested votes about particular planks in the party platform. Superdelegates can vote on such issues. Nevertheless, I see your point about including the nominating process instead of “quadrennial”.
• If you think the party should be mentioned first, we could change it to this:

  "Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the United States Democratic Party’s presidential nominating convention (the Democratic National Convention).

  I think that’s an awkward construction, though. The current version is easier to follow, even for a reader who’s never before heard of the convention. The inclusion of the statement that it’s the presidential nominating convention, as you suggested, should be enough.
• “Apple” and “superdelegate” are fundamentally different. “Apple” has a clear meaning. Because “superdelegate” is an informal term, though, it’s used in different ways. Sometimes it means only the unpledged PLEO delegates. Sometimes it includes them plus the unpledged add-on delegates. I’ve even seen it used to include the pledged PLEO delegates. Then, as noted in the article, some people use it to describe Republican National Committee members, while other writers state that the Republican Party has no superdelegates. We can’t state “the formal name” in parentheses because there is no the formal name. Characterizing it as an informal term helps alert the reader to the imprecision.
• You criticize the reference to the Republicans: 'This implies that sometimes those Republican delegates are called "superdelegates".' Yes, that’s exactly the point. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t.
• The net effect of your edits was to restore the recentism and “brokered convention”. I guess this is because I had removed them only minutes earlier, and you were working off the earlier version. You and I agree that the material doesn’t belong.

I'll revise the reference to the convention per the above. JamesMLane t c 13:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If the word does not always describe DNC delegates, the first sentence should not say it does; otherwise the contradiction later on is confusing. How about this as a first sentence:

Superdelegates are special delegates in a political party's presidential nominating convention, that are not chosen based on party primary elections and caucuses but are appointed based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials; they are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

If this is true in all uses of the word, it is the most general definition. I still think the alternative is clearer:

In a political party's presitendial nominating convention, superdelegates are special delegates that are not chosen based on party primary elections and caucuses, and are free to support any candidate for nomination.

The rest of the sentences can then say

The term is informal, and usually refers to delegates of the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party. Specifically, it usually refers to "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates", as defined in Democratic Party Rule 9.A. It sometimes refers to other unpledged delegates that state parties choose, or to pledged delegates. Rarely, it refers to Republican Party officials that are seated as delegates without regard to primary or caucus results. This article is about the first meaning.

You left the para about the 2008 convention in the intro. Do you mind if I move it to section "In 2008"?

-Pgan002 (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The trouble is that it's really inaccurate to say that they're "delegates in a political party's presidential nominating convention", implying that it's a general term. The term is usually not used except with reference to delegates to the convention of one particular American political party. For clarity's sake, we can later note the occasional uses to refer to one other party (the Republican Party), but that's the exception and shouldn't be prominent in the explanation. Also, as a minor point, they shouldn't be called "special delegates". There's nothing special about them once they get to the convention. Each delegate has one vote, for the most part. The only "special" delegates are those representing Democrats Abroad, who have half a vote each, but let's not get into that!

As for the 2008 convention, I think this short reference in the introductory section is appropriate. The introductory section should help the reader decide whether s/he wants to read the entire article. To that end, it's useful to note that the superdelegates are about one-fifth of the total. (For example, if the status were limited to one of the current categories, namely current and former Democratic Presidents and Vice Presidents, there would be only four of them -- Carter, Mondale, Bill Clinton, and Gore. Some readers might choose to skip the details in an article that covered only 0.1% of the delegates.) The percentage has changed over the years, so this information must be keyed to 2008, not stated generally. Also, this section should summarize the important points of the article, and the criticism of the system is one of the important points covered. Superdelegates have gotten a lot more attention this year because of their potentially pivotal role, so I don't think it's recentism to note that. JamesMLane t c 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Including the add-ons

In this article's early stages, it focused only on the unusual situation of the unpledged PLEO delegates, who, unlike all other convention delegates, were not chosen specifically to be delegates. As the article grew, however, editors wanting to include specific numbers followed the common media practice of treating superdelegates as consisting of those unpledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.A) plus the unpledged add-on delegates (Rule 9.C), for a total of just under 800 superdelegates. Thus, the numbers in the article were inconsistent with the statement, "This article discusses only the unpledged PLEO delegates."

I've now deleted that sentence and otherwise revamped the definitional portion to make the article consistent with the common media usage. The distinction between the two types of superdelegates is important, though, so I've tried to continue to make it clear. JamesMLane t c 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

James, the term "unpledged delegates" is officially used by DNC (see the last table on the Call to the convention, appendix B), so I think we can use it to describe the superdelegates and then highlight that they are divided into two categories, making clear the correlation informal term: "superdelegates" VS formal term:"unpledged delegates". Moreover I think that referring to pledged PLEOs in the same paragraph could lead misunderstandings. I would use separate sentence like that in the "2008 Superdelegates page": Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with Pledged PLEOs (9.C), which are allocated to candidates as part of the primaries and caucuses. Finally Pledged PLEOs are not "automatic delegates" (as unpledged PLEOs,"delegates seated based on other positions they hold") but have to be chosen, so the are deeply different (long more comparable with Pledged At-Large). So I propose the following reformulation (taking wide part of your formulation):

The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate". This article follows the most common media practice in using the term "superdelegate" to refer to not pledged delegates. The formal description is "unpledged delegates". This term refers to two categories [reference to 6.C article]: 1) delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as Unpledged Party Leaders and elected Officials[1] (Unpledged PLEOs); and (2) additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party, who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as Unpledged Add-ons[1].

Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with Pledged PLEOs (described in Rule 9.C), which are allocated to candidates as part of the primaries and caucuses.

6.C article says: "...For purposes of this rule, the entire delegation includes all pledged delegates and alternates and unpledged delegates (including unpledged party leaders and elected official delegates and unpledged add-on delegates)."

I hope this formulation could be a synthesis of all our discussion.--Subver (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's much improved, but I still have an issue with the phrasing ""unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not be PLEOs." in the lead. By the definition of PLEO as defined in Rule 9, all add-ons are PLEOs. Simon12 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I previously removed the "and need not be PLEOs"...which I think is redundant. --Subver (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "unpledged delegates" is in the rules but "superdelegate" is not. It's misleading to imply that "superdelegate" has a fixed meaning. It's better to say, as both versions do, that the meaning given here is a choice, one based on media usage. (For example, on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008, one editor has been arguing for the exclusion of unpledged add-ons from the scope of "superdelegate", based on history. I think including them is more useful but it's a judgment call, given that "superdelegate" has no formal meaning.)

We should also remember that most readers won't be as immersed in the details as all of us are. For ease of comprehension, I think it's best to describe each specific category first, and only then start generalizing about them. You seem to have a strong preference for getting that general idea of "unpledged delegates" in early, though, so I'll try a compromise that does that without raising other problems.

As for "need not be PLEOs", I don't consider it redundant. As I noted above, to be a delegate under Rule 9.A or 9.C you must hold some elective office or party position before you become a delegate. To be a delegate under Rule 9.B, there is no such requirement. That means that the universe of those eligible for one of the PLEO positions is much, much smaller than the universe of those eligible to be an unpledged add-on. That's a very important distinction that should be pointed out to the reader. The happenstance that Rule 9.B is nestled between PLEO rules doesn't change that substantive distinction. Nevertheless, to try to compromise with the view that all delegates (or at least all unpledged add-on delegates) are, ipso facto, PLEOs, I'll change it to "need not be PLEOs before their selection as delegates".

Some comparatively minor points: The unpledged PLEOs aren't allocated "as part of the primaries and caucuses". The allocation of these slots is based on the primary and caucus results but occurs later in the process. As a matter of style, quotations from the rules should be exact. The rules do not capitalize such terms as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates", so we shouldn't. Also, because neither that term nor "unpledged add-on delegates" is a synonym for the article title, neither should be boldfaced. JamesMLane t c 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't understand (1) why you deleted the unpledged delegate as formal description of all not pledged delegates and the relative source (Rule 6.C or equivalently other official sources as the header of the table in Appendix B of "Call to the Convention"); (2) PLEOs is strictly a formal description of some delegates, and so I think "need not to be PLEOs" is redundant and as correct as "are not PLEOs" or similarly. In my opinion PLEOs are only who is in 9.A (unpledged PLEOs == automatic delegates) or 9.C (pledged PLEOs). So, to underline your right distinction (automatic delegates-unpledged PLEOs VS nominated delegates-Add-ons) I suggest the sentence "have no formal requirements about specific positions they should hold".

Moreover it could be useful to indicates some exceptions, for instance DC Statehood Representative (Mike Panetta) is automatically a DC Add-On delegate as a Rule in "Call to the convention" document (and so the position he hold is important!). And theoretically you're right saying that possible Add-ons are more than possible PLEOs, but in practice the states select as Add-Ons the highest level party leaders (PL in general sense!) who are not already members of DNC, nor Congresspeople, nor DPL, nor Governors. I hope and I think this discussion is productive :-) --Subver (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) That the rules use the term "unpledged delegate" doesn't seem to me to be important enough for the introductory section. Does it help the reader's understanding to mention it at all, in the body of the article? (2) I reworded the discussion of Rule 9.B to remove the term "PLEO" -- I hope this meets your objection.

I haven't looked beyond the introductory section right now. Exceptions like Panetta might be worth discussing in the body of the article. JamesMLane t c 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IP User adding prostitution language in reference to Spitzer.

IP User 72.83.166.241 added spitzer-prostitution references to this page and the list of superdelegates page as well.

While I appreciate your interest in spitzer's situation, the purpose of this page is to articulate and explain what superdelegates are -- not as a sounding board for scandals regarding individual superdelegates. Your contribution is not germane to this article and should be covered on the Eliot Spitzer page (if it's not already).

Similarly, IP User 72.83.166.241's contributions are also not germane to the list of superdelegates page, which has as its function tracking superdelegates and their endorsements.

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV for a discussion of Wikipedia's policy regarding germane content and the determination of POV.

I don't oppose providing a full treatment of the prostitution scandal, but it is inappropriate in the context of these two pages. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Unpledged Delegates

There seems to be some debate on the history of unpledged delegates. Were they created by the Hunt Commission? Or did the commission merely expand its membership to include more elected officials? Were unpledged add-ons included at that time? Did they already exist? Did they come about later? And are add-ons themselves considered "party leader and elected officials"? These questions seem relevant certainly to the general history presented here as well as the history of the term "superdelegate". In my spare time I'm trying to find answers to these questions. Certainly the report of the Hunt Commission would be useful as would the call to convention for the 1980 and 1984 Democratic National Conventions. So far I have been unable to find any of those three documents. I have found the following http://www.terrymichael.net/PDF%20Files/DNC_PrezNomProcess.pdf which is a guide to the 2000 delegate selection rules written by Terry Michael (former DNC press secretary). In a summary of the history of the process he states the following which I found enlightening:

All delegates from 1972 to 1980 were “pledged.” Concerned that many party leaders and elected officials weren’t participating in reform era conventions, the 1984 rules created a new class of “unpledged” delegates—party leaders and elected officials who don’t have to sign advance pledges of support for candidates. For 2000, unpledged delegates total 801 (as of March 2000, subject to change by intervening election results and other circumstances), and include: all Democratic National Committee members; all Democratic Governors; all Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate; current and former Democratic Presidents and Vice Presidents; former Democratic U.S. Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, U.S. House Speakers and Minority Leaders, and DNC Chairs; and a number of “add-on” seats, to equal one for-every-four of the 56 parties’ DNC member convention votes, for assignment to other elected and party officials. (page 3)

This source is still second hand and may not be the last word on the subject. Still I think it is important to note that according to this source the Hunt Commission created (or at least brought back) the class of unpledged delegates. It did not merely expand the class. Thus the term "superdelegate" even from its inception seems to have referred to this class. Secondly, the class of unpledged add-ons was created sometime between 1984 and 2000 and at least in Michael's opinion was for assignment to "other elected and party officials". Galois E (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry,a little more detail is provided on page 9 of Michael's guide above

Reacting to increasing criticism of the diminished role for party leaders and elected officials at conventions, the 1984 rules created a category of “unpledged” party leader and elected official delegates, including all state party chairs and vice chairs, 60% of the U.S. House and Senate Democratic caucus and conference, and other party leaders and elected officials, with special preference given to governors and big city mayors. Comprising about 14% of total convention delegates, these unpledged delegates didn’t have to sign the formal advance pledges in support of candidates (though they weren't precluded from making informal endorsements of, or commitments to, candidates at any time in the process they saw fit.) In the rules for 1988, the category of “unpledged delegates” was modified to include: (1) all Democratic National Committee members, (2) 80% of the U.S. House and Senate Democratic caucus and conference, (3)all Democratic governors, and (4) former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, House Speakers and Senate Majority Leaders. Those categories were retained for 1992, and a new category of “add-on” unpledged delegates—equal to one-for-every-four DNC member delegate votes—was added in the 1992 Convention Call to accommodate other elected and party officials. Unpledged delegates were about 18% of all 1992 delegates. The 1996 rules retained all of the previous categories of unpledged delegates and added more unpledged seats, giving delegate status to all Democrats in the House and Senate, plus the Democratic President and Vice President and former Chairs of the DNC. Unpledged delegates will now account for about 18% of all 1996 delegates. (Michael, pages 9-10)

So the unpledged add-ons didn't come about until 1992, but they still fall under the same category of unpledged delegates originally created by the Hunt Commission for the 1984 convention.Galois E (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A little addon history:[8]

As Mr. Devine tells it, the add-ons were invented after the Rev. Jesse Jackson complained that he wasn’t getting his share of the delegates in 1988, despite winning five Super Tuesday primaries. To avert a rules fight, Michael Dukakis, that year’s Democratic nominee, agreed to a new category of superdelegates—the add-ons—who would reflect the winner of the popular vote.

The party eventually dropped the add-ons’ link to the popular vote, says Mr. Devine, who represented Mr. Dukakis in the late-night negotiations. But the states held on to the delegates, using the spots to reward party activists or to accommodate officeholders who don’t fit either the superdelegate or PLEO definition.

Define Acronym PLEO

Should define the acronym PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) the first time it's used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.26.60 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The first time it's used is in the introductory section, in this passage:

delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" (unpledged PLEO delegates)....

That definition is in the context of unpledged PLEO delegates, and there are also pledged PLEO delegates, but in either context it means "party leaders and elected officials". JamesMLane t c 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Geraldine Ferraro's support for Clinton?

I think it's appropriate to mention that Geraldine Ferraro was part of the Clinton campaign. Should I incorporate that in? The sentence is:

On the other hand, Geraldine Ferraro, who served on the Hunt Commission, has defended the inclusion of superdelegates as being beneficial to the party; she argues that they should exercise independent judgment in voting for a presidential nominee.

Change to something like:

On the other hand, Geraldine Ferraro, who served on the Hunt Commission and was a part of the Clinton campaign, has defended the inclusion of superdelegates as being beneficial to the party; she argues that they should exercise independent judgment in voting for a presidential nominee.

Pingveno 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason to quote Ferraro is that, on a controversial issue, we try to present all points of view. In doing so, it's better to write that a specific named person holds an opinion, rather than using weasel words like "It has been argued that...." It's not to establish Ferraro as an unbiased expert. For that reason, I think that mentioning her preference in this year's race is too tangential. It might help the reader assess Ferraro's opinion, but it doesn't do very much to enhance the reader's understanding of "superdelegate".

If you're upset by the quotation without this information, another alternative would be to find a similar opinion voiced by a prominent spokesperson who's not identified with either candidate, or to find a citation from Ferraro or someone else that predates the 2008 race. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset, and I realize that Geraldine Ferraro's views are important. It just makes sense that Geraldine Ferraro's role in the Clinton campaign should be noted if this particular quote is kept. I don't have a whole lot of time right now to track down quotes (big take-home test from a college class), but I'll see if I can find some time. Pingveno 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We state that there are online petition drives for the opposite point of view. Should we state that the major such drive is by Moveon.org, which has endorsed Obama? If Ferraro's role is noted, I don't see how we'd fail to note Moveon's, and then we're in a position of implying that everyone who opines on the superdelegates does so only for the purpose of influencing the 2008 race. (That might be the truth, or close to it, but we have no basis for the assertion.) I think it's more useful for the readers if we confine ourselves to a quick summary of the substance of the criticism and of the response. JamesMLane t c 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

POV in "See also" references

By this edit and this edit, User:Dr. B. R. Lang added a "See also" section that contained unexplained references to articles about various elites. The linked articles say nothing about superdelegates. The only justification I can see for the links is to convey the criticism that the superdelegate rule is undemocratic, but that criticism is already reported in the text of the article. We should not adopt the criticism by including these links. I agree with User:Andrew c's revert of the first addition, and I'm reverting the second. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

References/critique

The references for this article need to be cleaned according to the cite web template. Also, The process of selecting Democratic Party delegates is described here and here. is kind of a lazy way of explaining the process of selecting a superdelegate. miranda 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Glenn Beck is to be believed, he has a video which explains The History of Democratic Superdelegates and the process of selecting them in easy, concise form. Asteriks (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits re terminology

Wkhelp has made extensive terminological changes, but they don't accord with common usage.

• Virtually all mainstream media stories that I've seen use "superdelegate" rather than the hyphenated form "super-delegate". You can readily see that if you just look at the list of references in this version of the article, before Wkhelp changed the actual titles.
• I don't recall seeing any source that counted the pledged PLEO delegates as superdelegates. I think some sources might have restricted the term to unpledged PLEO delegates, excluding the unpledged add-ons, but that was a minority view. Pledged PLEO delegates are certainly taken into account in determining a nominee or a presumptive nominee, but so are all other delegates; that doesn't make them superdelegates. Considering the term "superdelegate" to include unpledged PLEO's under Rule 9.A and unpledged add-ons under Rule 9.B, but not pledged PLEO's under Rule 9.C, is the approach taken by our article listing all 800+ superdelegates and by DemConWatch.
• The Democratic Party rules use the term "unpledged" rather than "not pledged", so we should stick with that.

For these reasons I'm reverting these terminological changes. I'm also removing the addition about the nominee's selection of a running mate, because that topic has no particular connection to superdelegates and is better covered in other articles. JamesMLane t c 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SuperDelegate Replacement

In 2008, the Democrats had 2 superdelegates die before the convention (Bill Gwatney & Stephanie Tubbs Jones), but the article makes no mention of this. Were they replaced, and if so, how? CFLeon (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwatney was replaced by his widow, Rebecca Gwatney. [9]. Tubbs-Jones' congressional seat was not filled until October, so her superdelegate slot was not filled, and this caused the total number of delegates at the convention to decrease by one. This is also mentioned in the 2008 superdelegate article - see link at top of this article page. Simon12 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)