Attempting to Unravel the Head-Ache Inducing US Electoral Process.

[shadowkat]

Good luck understanding the crazy electoral system in the US. I don't totally understand it and I went to law school, studied political science, history, and have a bit of a background in it.

1. Each State runs its own electoral system, yes, they have to follow the Federal Laws to an extent.
But when it comes to primaries, zoning, and districting...that's more or less left up to the States. The Voting Rights Act, which basically flipped the Southern Democrats to Southern Republicans when it was passed in the 1960s, took away a little of that power, insisting that the States not discriminate against people based on where they lived, education, or race.


The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities. Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.

Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.


So that's the extent that the Federal Government can interfere.

2. Presidential Candidates are chosen by a lengthy and somewhat complex process of caucuses, primaries, write in ballots, conventions, leading to a general election, which in turn is not decided by a popular vote but by electoral votes. In other words, the US is a Republic not a straight Democracy. That's the meaning of the phrase, "and the Republic for which we stand". It's not a secret, we do state it in various songs, hyms, and the pledge of allegiance. "Battle Hymn of the Republic" for example. I mean, if you've ever learned the pledge of allegiance, you know the US is a Republic.

Each State's Primaries are different. Iowa for example doesn't have a primary, it has a caucus. Some states have "superdelegates" which aren't necessarily decided by majority vote. Some don't. Some states have what is called a "closed" primary.

A closed primary is a type of primary election used to choose candidates who will run in the general election.[1]

In a closed primary, only voters registered for the party which is holding the primary may vote. For example, if the Republican Party is holding a closed primary, then only voters registered as Republicans are permitted to vote in the primary.[2]

In some states, parties may have the option to invite unaffiliated voters to participate in a closed primary. Generally, unaffiliated voters will not be permitted to participate in a closed primary unless they choose to give up their unaffiliated status.[3]

The Following States Utilize a Closed Primary or Caucus System:


Alabama (Democrats only)
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho (Republicans only)
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oklahoma (Republicans only)
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota (Republicans only)
Utah (Republicans only)
Washington
Wyoming


New York and Arizona have closed-shut primaries, apparently. A closed-shut system means that the state does not invite unaffiliated members to vote in the primary or caucus. In other words, if you live in NY and are NOT registered as Democrat, you cannot vote in the Democrat Primary.

3. Delegates and Superdelegates

In order to become the Republican party's 2016 presidential nominee, hopefuls need to win the support of a majority of the 2,472 delegates to the GOP National Convention. The Democratic nominee will need to win a majority of the 4,765 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The total number of delegates includes those who are pledged and unpledged. Each state party determines how each of type of delegate is allocated within the state. In cases where states use local caucuses or primaries to elect delegates to a state or congressional district convention, the AP projects how many delegates each candidate will be awarded. The AP interviews unpledged delegates to learn their preferences, which are also reflected in the delegate totals.

Here is the Delegate Tracker

Superdelegates:

Superdelegates are "unpledged" in the sense that they themselves decide which candidate to support. (In other words, they are not allocated according to voter preferences as the majority of delegates are.) Pledged delegates can change their vote if no candidate is elected on the first ballot and can even vote for a different candidate on the first ballot if they are "released" by the candidate they are pledged to. Superdelegates, on the other hand, can change their vote purely of their own volition. With the exception of the eight DNC members from the Democrats Abroad, who each receive a half-vote, all superdelegates are entitled to one vote (including when a sitting official or distinguished party leader is also a DNC member). Consistent with DNC rules,[3] throughout this page those who may fall into two categories are considered as DNC members first, then as sitting officials, and as DPLs last. (For example, a sitting senator who is also a DNC member is listed as a DNC member).

If you think this is undemocratic, remember, Republic not Democracy.

According to Wiki:

there are 719 unpledged delegates (commonly known as superdelegates) who will cast a vote at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, to be held July 25–28 in Philadelphia. The 8 unpledged delegates from Democrats Abroad carry half-votes at the convention, yielding a total of 715 votes. Unpledged delegates represent about 15% of the overall convention votes (4,770 delegates, 4,766 votes) and come from several categories of prominent Democratic Party members:

450 elected members (with 446 votes) from the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state's Democratic Party)
186 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates from DC and territories)
45 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
18 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia)
20 distinguished party leaders (DPL), consisting of current and former presidents, current and former vice-presidents, former congressional leaders, and former DNC chairs.


This site has an in-depth take on Superdelegates

They make up 15 percent of all delegates (714 out of 4,765) - down from 20 percent in 2008. And they are free to support the presidential candidate of their choice at the convention. According to NBC News' latest count, Clinton leads Sanders in superdelegates, 460-38. One catch: Superdelegates have to be present at the convention for their vote to count.

Among pledged delegates, Clinton leads 1,288 to 1,042.

Can superdelegates switch sides?

Yes. And this is one of the arguments that Sanders' campaign has made - that the superdelegates who are supporting Clinton now might back Sanders later. "We think some of these superdelegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us," Sanders told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last month. But some caution here: In the 2008 race, no more than about 30 superdelegates switched from Clinton to Barack Obama before Clinton dropped out of the race in early June 2008, according to former Obama campaign officials. And that is after Obama took the lead in pledged delegates.

Do they reflect the will of how their states voted?

No. Superdelegates can support whomever they want, despite how their state voted. Sanders and his campaign have argued that superdelegates should be mindful of these voters' preferences. "In … states where we've won by 25 or even 30 points, I think it is not unreasonable for the people of those states to say to their super delegates, 'Hey, how about representing the people of our state and the outcome of the caucus or the primary?'" Sanders also told Maddow. Yet even under such a system - where superdelegate support goes to the candidate who won the state or territory - Clinton would still top Sanders in superdelegate pledges, 260 to 138.

And only the Democratic Party does "superdelegates", the Republican's to my knowledged don't. And the idea/concept was established in 1984 during the Regan Era, when the Republicans had an iron grip on the White House. (Remember what I said, the two parties don't have the same rules. Nor do all the states. It varies.)

They were established beginning in the 1984 presidential cycle as a way to give party leaders more say in the process, superdelegates have never changed the outcome of the primary season. "The superdelgates are politicians, and politicians generally try to agree with voters and follow the will of the voters," said Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution, who was on the 1980s commission creating the superdelegates. But Kamarck - who happens to be a superdelegate supporting Clinton - says they view that voter will with more of a national than state-by-state focus.

And that's just the primary process...we haven't even gotten to the Conventions and Electoral College yet.

Seriously, could this be any more complicated?

Comments

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

Superdelegates are largely elected officials. The only difference with the Republicans is that there are fewer elected officials who are automatically delegates and they are not independent of the pledge process from their states. (i.e. they have to vote however their state says on the first convention ballot.) I suspect the Democrats actually came up with superdelegates to avoid having another fiasco like they had with George McGovern, where a candidate popular with Democratic voters, but totally unelectable in the general election drags down other Democratic candidates. With some of the yo-yos the Republicans are running for President it might not matter, but I think clearly most of the elected officials of the party would rather run on a ballot with Clinton than Sanders at the top.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The Republican Convention should be interesting...considering no one is going into it with a definitive majority, and while Trump has the popular vote (similar to McGovern), the party doesn't back him. Also, apparently delegates at the Republican Convention can switch sides, they don't have to stick with the candidate that won the primary. In other words, just because Trump won the Primary in say Arizona, doesn't necessarily mean all of Arizona's delegates will stick by him.

Same deal with the Democrat Convention - and you're right the party isn't exactly backing Sanders. Can't think why. ;-)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Pledged delegates at the Republican Convention are bound on the First vote. Depending upon state rules, many of them become unbound on following ballots. (Some on the second, some on the fifth...)

Beyond that, the Republican convention currently has a rule (40b) that a candidate must win at least 8 state contests (Convention, Caucus or Primary) to be selected as presidential candidate. Given that Cruz and Trump delegates will be the majority of the Convention rules committee, that is unlikely to change.

Which means - if Trump does not win 1237 pledged delegates ahead of the Convention, Cruz will almost certainly win the nomination on the second or third ballot.

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

The Founding Fathers must be constantly spinning in their tombs...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Considering a lot of this was their fault....history has not been kind to the founding fathers in recent years.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.

This part is very important. In the aftermath of Shelby County, Republican legislatures almost immediately passed as new series of Voter Restriction laws that would previously have been subject to preclearance and oversight, but no longer are. The primary intent being to reduce the number of votes cast by poor and minority voters, usually under the guise of anti-fraud measures in places where miniscule fraud has been proven to occur despite rather vigorous efforts to find fraud.

There have also been increased efforts to reduce funding for, and reduce the hours and number of locations of, polling stations. For similar reasons, and with similar expected outcomes.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think that was what happened in Arizona, which had previously been covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Due to it no longer being covered, Arizona got away with only 60 polling places open instead of 200 during the primaries. (It's also a closed primary, so that added to the confusion.)

The General Election is going to be a nightmare in those previously covered states.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

That was 60 instead of 200 polling places in Maricopa County. Some Arizona counties did much better but not all. I don't know what the plan is for the general election, but there have been some very serious hearings about what happened already and the officials involved have not been ducking responsibility. Since I vote by mail I didn't pay a lot of attention to the polling places till that day when the lines were on the news that evening. We are having a "special election" next month for a couple of state issues which would predictably have a low turn out. There will be 62 polling places in the county for that election, none of which would be convenient for me. Pima county (where Tucson is) has about 1/4 the population and will have about 3 times as many polling spots. But again remember I haven't been to the polls in many years, but have voted in every election over those years by mail.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Maricopa County was amongst the political subdivisions of Arizona that had been previously covered under Section 4a of the Voting Rights Act? Not all of Arizona was covered, just certain political subdivisions. I found that tid-bit interesting.

There was a public outcry in NYC during the 2008 election, with long lines, and people waiting hours to vote. This resulted in various adjustments, like keeping the polls open longer, permitting people to vote ahead of time, and
computer scan machines as opposed to the lever machines.