Is there anything "democratic" about superdelegates?

[panader0]

Why do these elite people have more weight and power than you or me? Who elected them? Who paid them?
I favor a basic, plain kind of democracy--one person, one vote. I'd even like to see the electoral college
go away. A national holiday for voting, a system to ensure all the votes are correctly counted.
The idea that every state has different rules, i.e. caucuses vs primaries, open vs closed and more,
is a mess and needs to be uniform.

[Buzz Clik]

1. The primary process is not democratic at all.

We vote for representatives to meet in a common location and complete the nomination process.

[warrprayer]

2. Your plan

Sure beats what we have now.

[H2O Man]

3. No.

Nothing at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

Recommended.

[woodsprite]

4. Nope! They strictly exist to manipulate. n/t

[libtodeath]

5. None,they are there so the party elites can let us know what our place is.

[brush]

40. They were created in the '80s to prevent what's happening with Trump and the repugs

To prevent a candidate from winning the nomination who is way outside the norms of the party.

[libtodeath]

43. Who gets to judge who is way outside?

[brush]

45. Them, I guess. But we sure don't need a Trump type situation.

[libtodeath]

46. Yeah,sure would hate for the will of the people to count.

[brush]

50. So you're liking the runaway situation with a potential fascist like Trump taking over.

Not me. Creating superdelegates was a safeguard move

How it works now is not ideal and probably needs tweaking — say candidates also win superdelates proportionately as well as committed ones.

[libtodeath]

52. I cant picture a situation ever similar for the Democratic party.

We don't have the crazies they do.

[ladjf]

6. The super delegate setup is a scam to favor the Party Establishment. nt

[stillwaiting]

7. No. Can we begin to form a movement to DEMAND they get rid of them at the Convention?

We need to start this movement now (no matter what happens during the Primary).

[vintx]

47. If we get enough people passing resolutions to change it, the party will have to listen.

The only question is if we can get enough people to present these resolutions, and get enough support to pass them.

[BernieforPres2016]

8. If Bernie wins the regular delegates and the DNC steals it for Hillary with the superdelegates

Hillary will get slaughtered in November and the Democratic Party will be a smoldering wreckage.

Even as corrupt as the DNC is, surely they're not that stupid.

[panader0]

9. "surely they're not that stupid"

I wouldn't bet on that. The DNC is in the bag for HRC. DWS is corrupt.

[rhett o rick]

11. The Oligarchy doesn't care if the Democrats win the general. They want anyone but a progressive.

Clinton is their candidate, but they will settle for a Republicon.

[BernieforPres2016]

13. Well if that's the case Bernie is doomed

No way to win big enough to overcome all those superdelegates.

I don't think the DNC would go through with it. Superdelegates will be getting physical threats.

[dana_b]

28. Howard Dean has been getting it bad on twitter

since we had our back and forth. No physical threats, I don't think. God, I hope not!! People shouldn't go down to that low level.

[BernieforPres2016]

37. I think if it comes down to democracy versus stealing an election

Physical threats are justified.

We're not talking about differences of opinion. We're talking about a ruling class trying to subvert democracy. How about if they try to impose martial law? Do we submit to that too?

[CorkySt.Clair]

42. I love these posts

Tell you what, let me know when you're willing to take to the streets and start breaking shit like they do in France and the U.K. when their pols need a reminder about who they work for.

Until then it's just a lot of tough guy, keyboard warrior talk and hot air.

[BernieforPres2016]

44. I'm ready for it any time

And a lot of other people are as well. The DNC will find that out if they try to steal this with superdelegates.

Do you remember the 1968 Democratic convention? How about Occupy Wall Street?

[CorkySt.Clair]

48. of course

But that was 50 years ago and confined mostly to Chicago.

Occupy was promising then petered out though it is the most relevant recent example as far as the US.

But I'm talking about national strikes involving millions of people. We don't do that here. We're too scared our boss might see, or someone's iPhone might be broken.

But I appreciate your response.

[BernieforPres2016]

51. Too many people have been bled dry over the last 35 years of trickle down economics

and politicians in both parties selling them out. At some point, people reach their breaking points. We've seen it in Ferguson and Baltimore and other African American communities on the issue of of out of control police departments.

Here's a good article written by a plutocrat of what is coming if things don't change.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

Fast food workers staged a walkout in 270 cities in November protesting for a $15/hour minimum wage.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/11/10/fast-food-strikes-begin/75482782/

[rhett o rick]

49. The DNC is run by the Oligarchy and will do anything needed to keep out a progressive.

Sen Sanders knows this and before he decided to run, wrote that he recognized the risk to himself and family if he ran. You take a yuuugh risk if you come between a wealthy person and their chance to loot more.

[EL34x4]

23. Republicans are playing the same games

And risking the same backlash from their voters. While the GOP doesn't have super delegates, they have similar sneaky rules to rig the outcome.

Makes one wonder what happens if super delegates put Hillary Clinton on the ticket while at the same time GOP convention shenanigans foist Rubio or Romney on their voters?

[BernieforPres2016]

27. There were senior Republicans backing away from the idea of theft at the convention

later in the day when Romney made his speech. They know it would be political suicide.

[jillan]

10. Nope but they are back. CNN is once again adding them to her actual delegate count.

[BernieforPres2016]

14. And Joe and Mika are having another love in with Trump

Didn't Joe just say a couple of weeks ago that Trump's failure to repudiate David Duke and the KKK was "disqualifying"? What a pathetic whore.

[gollygee]

12. The primary process and the electoral vote system are both anti-democratic.

However, it's what we've got. It helps Republicans, as does gerrymandering, so Congress is stacked and it won't go away.

[randome]

15. In a Democracy, you elect representatives to make decisions on your behalf.

Or you belong to a specific political party and agree to abide by their rules. Or you never bother learning the rules and then complain about them when things don't go a particular way.

If you're saying the nomination process -and that's what this is, it isn't an election, you know- should be done differently, then you need to see about changing the rules of the party of which you are a member.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[panader0]

16. Who elected the superdelegates?

it's a rigged system and very un-democratic.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. The super-delegates are mostly former Presidents

and Governors. So, we elected them at one point. Also, party leaders are super delegates (and they are elected by party members).

[islandmkl]

24. 712 supers...more than 'mostly former Presidents and Governors'...

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11070364/list-all-superdelegates

[Dr Hobbitstein]

26. From your link.

The first is through holding political office. All Democratic governors, senators, and House representatives automatically get a spot as a superdelegate. This is why Bernie Sanders will have a spot as a Vermont superdelegate. Superdelegate Bernie Sanders will presumably pledge to support presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — just like President Barack Obama pledged his own superdelegate support to himself in 2008.

The second is through being a DNC member. There are 20 ways in which you can be a member of the DNC, most of which involve being a high-ranking member of a DNC leadership group. (Details in Article 3, Section 2 of the DNC charter.)

The third is being an especially distinguished member of the party. This is a small group, only about 20 people or so. If you're a current or former president, vice president, Senate leader, House leader, or DNC chair, then you're a superdelegate. This is why Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Howard Dean, and George Mitchell are superdelegates.

[randome]

20. It doesn't need to be Democratic since it's not an election, it's the rules for a specific party.

I'm not certain how superdelegates are selected and it doesn't particularly concern me. If it does you, then I suggest you find out the rules for yourself and see about getting them changed.

So far as I know, the system is a hedge against Republicans interfering in the process. You know they'd vote for the least likely winner if they could.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[islandmkl]

21. if THAT'S the reason/disclaimer, then it begs the question of why the Republicans

aren't worried about Democrats interfering with THEIR primary process?

what...they are less paranoid that we are? that is doubtful on any level...

sounds like some bullshit DLC/TW rationale to keep the (their) power structure intact...

and we all understand it's in the 'rules'...doesn't make it democratic, let alone Democratic...

[Downwinder]

17. Does it make sense for Red states to choose the candidate?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. Yes, EVERY Democrat should have a voice.

Not just the ones you think are acceptable.

[Downwinder]

22. With winner take all n the GE, Red state democrats

have no s in the GE. The DNC has written off Red state Democrats.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

25. So?

They should still get a say in who the nominee is. It's THEIR party, too.

Voting in the GE =/= voting in the primary.

Voting in the GE is a RIGHT. Voting in the primary is a construct of the Democratic party, and rules vary state to state in regards to WHO is allowed to vote in said primary.

[Downwinder]

30. The state's delegate count should be based upon

party vote in previous election or registration numbers.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

32. Democrats get to select which Democrat runs for office.

Regardless of where they reside.

Disenfranchising those in our own party based on where they live? That's a shitty way to go about things.

[EndElectoral]

36. Good question. Of course they should, BUT. ..

With superdelegates the Democratic Primary is about as undemocratic as you can get. However, the whole process of introducing superdelegates was to put up the most competitive candidate in the GE. Not necesarily the one with the most popular votes ,but the most competitive. So, if one buys into this then one also has to buy into the idea that some states electorally are more important to the GE than others.

So, a swing state like Ohio is critical to the election. So are states that seem to vacillate between red and blue frequently. Hence, you need a strong candidate in these states for the GE. Also states that take large numbers of electoral votes are important.

Winning a state like Mississippi is well and good, but how much does it contribute to a winning GE which is the ultimate goal. For a Democrat Mississippi's 6 electoral votes have gone for Republicans going all the way back to 1976 when they went for Carter, a popular Georgia governor campaigning against a northern appointed President Ford. So 40 years ago Mississippi went Democrat.

Is it wiser to be "fair" and allow states like Mississippi have as much say in determining the Democratic nominee as it would be a West Virginia? West Virginia has 5 electoral votes (similar to Mississippi), BUT the state is primarily democratic, but swung to Romney in 2012 and has trended recently to Repubs in Presidential elections, but did vote for Bill Clinton in 96.

In today's world, it may be "wiser" instead of super delegates to award MORE delegates to states who have voted Democratic the last election, AND for those who lost closely contested matches EXTRa delegates as well.

for example,

Say NY went Democratic last election. NY would get their normal allotment of delegates, plus say 20% more delegates for supporting the nominee in the GE. Say OH went Republican in last election but it was a contested race quite close -1 or 2%, then OH would get its normal delegates plus 10% more delegates. And then other states like Missippi woudl get their normal allotment of delegates.

To me this is a better use of a delegate system that rewards states for voting Democratic in the GE with additional say in the next voting cycle.

[EndElectoral]

29. As Donna Brazile said, "Closer it gets, the more people have to be nice to me."

No, the super delegate process is a sham to the concept of democracy.

It is a stain on the name Democratic Party that a single superdelegate or "better than delegate" can subvert the will of the people from a region which voted for another candidate. Can one get anymore undemocratic than that?

[islandmkl]

31. some light reading with the 2016 Convention rules...

http://demrulz.org/wp-content/files/12.15.14_2016_Delegate_Selection_Documents_Mailing_-_Rules_Call_Regs_Model_Plan_Checklist_12.15.14.pdf

[DesertRat]

33. Talk to Bernie's top adviser about that

Tad Devine was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process. And he has often defended their existence.

[oldandhappy]

34. No, super delegates are not democratic

I suspect the electoral college belongs in the same not democratic basket.

[mmonk]

35. Nope. It's essentially the smoke filled room of party bosses.

[George II]

38. No one heard all this moaning and groaning in 2012, or 2008, or 2004, or 2000.......

[Ace Rothstein]

39. There was quite a bit of moaning and groaning in 2008.

I was honestly shocked that they are still around in 2016 after the 2008 fiasco.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/superdelegates-retained-b_n_669171.html

[George II]

41. Even without the superdelegates, Sanders would have to win:

54% of all the remaining pledged delegates - meaning he has to win each and every one of the remaining 29 states by at least 54.3%.

If he wins any state by less than that or if he loses any state outright, that 54.3% goes up for all the states voting after that.

It simply isn't going to happen.

[procon]

53. Superdelegates owe no allegiance to the voters,

their job is to safeguard the interests of the party, not appear to be "democratic" to the public. Even most of the pledged delegates only have to remain loyal to their state's majority voters for the first round of balloting. Since this is a republic and not a direct democracy, our duly elected representatives have the power to perpetuate the party system and run it as they see fit, just as they can make up all the arcane rules for the Senate and the House to keep their side in power.

See, the Constitution is quite detailed about voting for a president through the Electoral College, so if you want to switch to one person, one vote system, you'd need to rewrite our founding documents; and that's not going to happen, yeah? Remember, the U.S. Constitution does NOT guarantee Americans a right to vote. Our cagey Founding Fathers deliberately omitted that right because they didn't think the common people should even be allowed to vote, but rather favored the upper class, the educated, wealthy white, male property holders -- like themselves -- to decide who would get elected.

That same Constitution you want to change, also places the election process squarely in the hands of the states. Maybe an argument could be made for federal elections that were uniform and open to all, which may in turn, exert downward pressure on states to make their local election conform to the national standard.