DNC Votes To Largely Strip 'Superdelegates' Of Presidential Nominating Power
Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 12:52 PM - Edit history (2)
The Democratic National Committee dramatically reduced the power and influence of "superdelegates" in selecting the party's presidential nominee at their summer meeting in Chicago on Saturday, ahead of what's expected to be a wide-open Democratic field in 2020.
DNC members voted on a proposal to take away the role of elected officials and other party dignitaries in selecting a nominee at the Democratic convention leaving it up to delegates selected in primaries and caucuses only unless the process becomes deadlocked.
Opponents of the move stood down and the measures were adopted in a voice vote. A DNC panel overwhelmingly approved the move earlier this summer.
The reforms adopted also encourage states that hold presidential caucuses, run by state parties, to switch to primaries, administered by state and local election officials. They require caucuses, in-person meetings, to have some provision for absentee participation, citing barriers to participation ranging from military service to child care to disability.
Read more: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process
A step in the right direction if this measure passes today.
edited to reflect new total and vote results. It has passed! Great news.
if needed. If the voters pick the same candidate the SD's like, we won't have an issue.
....vote for it.
We have to stop allowing people who are NOT Democrats to dictate to us how we should run our party.
I think it should be tied to getting rid of caucuses which are so undemocratic.
And how about requiring candidates to actually be a member of the party if they want to run in the primaries!
Also, eliminate caucuses and open primaries.
must have been a registered D for at least the five full years leading up to the day they announce.
Under the new rule, Sanders can pull his bullshit - announce hes running as a D, say he is now a D and then revert to an I when he loses.
The rule should apply only to president. You wanna run for dogcatcher, have at it.
They also need to have won at least one election as a Democrat, and the election needs to be to Congress, a governorship or a state congress.
as the nominee of the largest political party in the country.
The political bar should be very high on this one.
"But...you're keeping Bernie from running as a Democrat!"
Sure am...because he is NOT a Democrat. When he becomes a Democrat and wins election as one, he can use our resources to run for president. Until then, no.
If no one has a majority on the first ballot, then let the super-delegates decide it.
It will weaken and divide our party and the precise time we don't need it!
In my opinion, a mechanism to change the will of the voters and put in another nominee SHOULD NOT exist. If the leadership has existential fears of such an outcome then they should regress to closed conventions and candidate selection for us dumb voters.
If (since) they are meaningless all they do is foster an un-democratic impression of the party. Smoke-filled rooms, etc. Better they go away altogether: the Democratic Party should select its candidate democratically.
And yeah, dump the caucuses as well. Also dump the artificial advantage of Iowa and New Hampshire. Rotate the primary dates and cut the whole schedule down to 3 or 4 (regional?) "super" Tuesdays. Everybody deserves a voice. Even California.
It's the most undemocratic form of voting.
One time, one night, one place, no absentee or early voting.
No simple ballot, but a whole dog and pony show with limited vote privacy.
a non-Dem and other non-DEms may be directing how the DEms conduct their business.And that's called democracy!
and I'm sorry he did and wonder if he is being defensive due to the last primary. I didn't see anything about ending causes which I consider far more undemocratic than 'super' delagates
greatly influence public opinion.
Focusing in and looking at a state like New Hampshire, we can clearly see how superdelegates have effected this race. At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshires pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates. The six votes of support by Governor Maggie Hassan, Representative Ann Kuster, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and DNC members Bill Shaheen, Kathy Sullivan, and Joanne Dowdell, effectively erased the impact of 55,000 Democratic voters on this election.
But to look at the aftermath of the vote count we truly have to critically evaluate the start. Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates. This early lead created the visual that Sanders could not defeat her for many voters, clearly affecting the race.
In effect this year, more than any before superdelegates may have not only decided the Democratic nominee, but they likely also chose the next President of the United State"
"Hillary Clinton may have suffered a big defeat in Tuesday night's New Hampshire primary election. Going by the number of delegates she gained though, she came out in much better shape. Both Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who won with a 22-point lead, walked away even, with 15 delegate votes each.
That's left some supporters scratching their heads asking how that is possible. The answer is "superdelegates."
Sanders Won In Colorado. So Why Didn't He Win More Delegates?
"Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton in Colorado at Tuesday's caucuses, winning by 19 percentage points.
So why are projections, from NPR to Bloomberg, saying the state's 76 delegates will be split equally by the two candidates -- 38 a piece?
Part of it is easily explained: Colorado is not a winner-take-all state. So the projected delegate allocation is based on the percentage of votes won by each candidate. (The details get more complicated, as the Denver Post's John Frank explained earlier this week.)
Then there's the superdelegates. Ten of Clinton's delegates here are superdelegates -- elected Democrats and party officials who've already pledged support to the former secretary of state and are not bound by Tuesday's vote. They could switch allegiances before the national convention, but Colorado State University political science professor Kyle Saunders told CPR News' Mike Lamp he doesn't think that will happen.
"A massive surprise ... would provide the political cover for those super delegates to change their minds," Saunders said. "And we just havent seen anything like that yet."
Bernie Sanders takes Wyoming caucus but Hillary Clinton picks up delegates
Bernie Sanders won the smallest state in the Democratic nomination race by a smaller-than-expected margin on Saturday, as he celebrated a seven-election winning streak that has more psychological than mathematical impact.
victory for a 74-year-old democratic socialist in one of the most conservative states the country.
In 2008, Barack Obama defeated Clinton in Wyoming by 61% to 38%, but fewer than a fifth of registered voters in the state are Democrats. Sanders has tended to fare better than Clinton in states using the caucus system rather than larger primary elections.
The small number of registered Democrats in Wyoming means that fewer than 6,000 caucus-goers taking part on Saturday helped to pick just 14 delegates for partys national convention in Philadelphia in July. The result is unlikely to change the race much.
Early indications suggested that Sanders and Clinton would emerge with seven of these pledged delegates each. Clinton had earlier received endorsements from all four of the states so-called superdelegates.
Super Delegates should not exist, period.
However if they must they certainly should not be able to influence primary election like they did in 2016 .
A good number of super D's in 2016 were or had worked as lobbyists. Letting monied interests into the electoral process should not be allowed.
Usurping the will of the electorate is not democratic.
lest we forget Devine came up with the concept and BS was hoping to influence them to his cause, not to mention he was one. And I'll need proof of "A good number of super D's in 2016 were or had worked as lobbyists" that is, aside from Devine. Names and numbers for such a claim.
Also... The will of the electorate was not usurped, the person who rec'd a monumentally greater number of votes won, which is the very definition of democracy.
in support of that disagreement.
"At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshires pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates. The six votes of support by Governor Maggie Hassan, Representative Ann Kuster, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and DNC members Bill Shaheen, Kathy Sullivan, and Joanne Dowdell, effectively erased the impact of 55,000 Democratic voters on this election.
Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
Candidate Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders
Home state New York Vermont
Delegate count 2,842 1,865
Contests won 34 23
Popular vote 16,914,722 13,206,428
skewed rhe primary results and the media publicizing these skewed delegate counts altered public opinion and perception of the race. NH was the just the first incident. Sanders won the primary by 22% Yet all 6 Superdelegates pledged for Hillary. Usurping the will of 55, 000 Democratic voters. Sanders should have received 4 of those 6 delegates from these super d's. So the headlines become Hillary ties Sanders in his backyard. And so on and so on.
This was and is considered rigging the system by many if us and apparently the DNC agrees.
Superdelegates aren't that different than the old "smoke filled rooms" when party hacks picked candidates.
Let the voters choose.
And if the first ballot at a convention is deadlocked,
go on to a 2nd and 3rd one.
but they found some intestinal fortitude in the end.
Now let's work on getting rid of caucuses.
Superdelegates played an outsized role in 2016 by announcing before the primary was decided, giving the impression it was a foregone conclusion.
For those who are worried about another Bernie or non-Democrat winning, the solution is to prevent non-democrats from entering the race. I say this as a Bernie supporter; the chair has the right to allow or deny a non-Democrats candidacy.
Question. Who allowed that to happen in the last election?
This is for those who know.
Should be allowed to use the Democratic party to run. And no chair should agree.
Never mind,it was DWS brilliant idea!
I believe that the candidates will say that. If, for instance, Bernie Sanders were to run, hed say hes a Democrat and will run and would serve as one.
Leahy hasnt done this in Vermont either.
....Leahy has always done this:
Authorizing candidate: LEAHY, PATRICK J, Senate candidate, Vermont, Democratic Party
Right now its simlly a self-report: candidates must say they are a Democrat and will run and serve as one. No further documentation needed.
I do think the idea of setting up a party-run regiatration method would be an alternative as well. The best way to close nomination proceedings to non- Democrats in every state would be to do that -&: have the party run the primaries and not the state governments.
Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)
As a Democrat in the Primary. He said he would not accept it.
He is not a Democrat and Vermont is a tiny state. So is New Hampshire.
No Bernie in a Democratic Primary. If he wants to run third party and get trump elected again, that's up to him.
Thats a true fact.
I think he would be a Democrat if he ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. I see no scenario of the DNC disallowing from him running for that. I understand that others may disagree.
He wants open primaries and more caucuses. No. Not again.
He is not a Democrat.
1. Candidates for the Democratic nomination for ANY office must be registered Democrats
2. Superdelegates can ONLY vote for registered Democrats
Would the Democratic Party itself set up a register of party members? Ive thought of that itself. That would be like the British Labor Party.
Never again,and if Perez says yes he needs to go,too.
Terry McAuliffe would have never stood for what took place. And Terry is available again.
He built a new headquarters and made the DNC solvent.
And now,he is on the road again! Former Governor of Virginia.
It was definitely an important vote that I think changes the dynamics of the 2020 race. I do think that reforming caucuses to foster participation would be good. Perhaps caucuses could be turned into party-run primaries where states dont allow for state-run primaries.
Stand for this kind of chicanery IMO.
Meaning they won't vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 becasue they changed the rules on superdelegates? And re-elect trump? Seriously?
And Terry McAuliffe. All are right there and Biden recomended Perez.
a positive step toward making sure our nominee is determined democratically while at the same time growing the party. More voters equals more ability to enact the Democratic Party platform.
voices need to be heard. The future belongs to them and they should have the say. I have never missed a caucus and have seen very few people under 40 and even fewer in their 20's. They are undemocratic and too time consuming.
you could participate. If you weren't you were SOL. It's too restrictive for young people with work and children.
And distort ther vote. We saw that very thing in the primaries.
If others states have open caucuses that's just stupidity on their part.
For example, California's left-wing Peace and Freedom Party nominated Roseanne Barr for president in 2012 and she ran as a leftist in Calif, maybe other states too. Turns out she stank and now is a RW loon but who knew then? That's the kind of thing I think supers would prevent. But noooo.
She was a disaster.
Yeah, and ignoring the objections of the Congressional Black caucus.
They're horribly undemocratic, but the Saint Bernard folks wouldn't dream of losing the one place they could win
As a devout Saint Bernardist I'm very supportive of closed primaries and elimination of caucuses.
I only say this of course as it appears the Sanderista "DNC coup" was successful today!
Superdelegates which have never been needed to select a nominee are eliminated from the process, and sanders supporters are no longer allowed to complain endlessly about their existence. Works for me.
Back in the 60s and 70s and even the 80s, you learned a lot about candidates after 6 months of political tests. Superdelegates are part of those who must be convinced, and they protect the party and the country from fringe candidates who either can't win, or are far from the political mainstream and mores.
We gain nothing by ditching superdelegates. Or by loading the primaries into 2 months with states vying for importance by being bigger and going first. In fact I'd almost say we're better off if the bigger states are loaded into the last 3 months, randomly, to settle the contest after the candidates have shown their hand for several months.
Maybe superdelegates could be partly chosen along the way, instead of pledged insiders from the start.
Here is the wording of the rule
Sanders could have signed such a statement in 2015. Not that it's bad, just not very much.
If you want to benefit from the machine, you should be a functioning part of it.
Now reverse the stupid f@cking idea of accepting donations from the fossil fuel industry.
a pyrrhic victory at best. The only truly positive thing about this decision is that it is one less thing about the Democratic Party that will be misrepresented by the M$M and too many pseudo-Dems who have NEVER understood the history behind SDs.
The role of Superdelegates has largely been misunderstood by far too many who have raged against and opined about them. The fact is that SDs - since their creation in the 1970s - have NEVER gone against the winner of the popular vote in the primaries - and they never would have. In 2016, the overwhelming winner of the popular Democratic primary vote was Hillary Clinton. That she also had the overwhelming majority of SDs was basically moot.
Even now, SDs will still have some power, however.
There were two things about these "reforms" that encouraged me: 1) that caucuses will allow for absentee voters and 2) that states are encouraged to have primaries instead of caucuses.
I know that my state (MD) will resist the idea of an open primary and I will stand with it on that.
recently we had a primary with 10 candidates, about 5 which I would have been happy with. I know many people were like me, standing in line to vote and we STILL hadnt made up our minds!
I would have loved to have been able to rank them and feel like a more true reading of the voters' wishes would have emerged.
I think most of us are fine with the nominee (who got about 40% of total vote), but it just illustrates what could be a possible problem - what if so many candidates run and none emerge as a real front runner? How then does the nominee get selected? Isnt that kind of the reasoning behind superdelegates to function sorta as a tie-breaker?
Its kinda like what happened w repubs last time - the majority of voters wanted Not-Trump, but due to so many candidates splitting up the vote - they got Trump.
Of course we are not in any danger of getting anyone THAT preposterous, but still it could be hugely contentious and divisive if there is not a majority and not some clear mechanism in place for a fair selection.
Thats kinda what happened with
Ignoring Democratic voters in favor of delegates in Washington was outrageous in 2016.