Question for thoth_of_nd and my other government geek friends

[sethrak]

I'm checking out CNN.com about yesterday's caucuses (BTW, Iowa Republicans, are you all huffing the fumes from fermenting corn silos? Huckabee???) and I noticed something odd. Several candidates, from both parties, are listed as having zero delegates from Jan 3rd, but total delegates or one or more. Upon clicking these candidates' names, I find their delegates are either Democratic "superdelegates" or "unpledged RBC delegates", from states that have yet to hold elections any time soon.

CNN.com does not give much information on how these superdelegates and unpledged delegates work. Can someone give me a layperson's explanation?

Thanks.

Comments

[geoduck.livejournal.com]

It's my understanding that certain elected officials (US representatives, senators, and IIRC, governors) are "superdelegates" and may cast their votes in the convention however they wished. It's only a Democratic party thing.

I have no idea how the Republican unpledged delegate system works.
Of course, the whole primary/caucus delegate system is a Byzantine mathematics all on its own.

(I think you may be selling Huckabee a bit short. When I first went to look at his policies and positions, I was prepared to mock, but I left feeling quite a bit of admiration for the governor. Despite the fact that I disagree with him on many political issues, I would be very tempted to vote for him in the general election, which is more than I can say for Mitt Romney.)

[thoth-of-nd.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. To use a local example, Kent Conrad (D-ND) has publicly stated that he supports Obama, and will vote in the convention accordingly.

"Byzantine" is an understatement. I had to understand the process as a district chair. It made my head hurt then--mainly because filling the delegate positions was a cast iron, royal pain in the behind--and it still does.