To the Superdelegate Opponents: Does Trump's Nomination Not Give You Pause?

[ericson00]

what if the Democratic Party got a demagogue who pandered to the extreme fringe left? Don't forget that in history, violence and mob mentality is not limited to the far-right.

If Trump is Mussolini, Jorge Haider, or even Hitler himself, etc., there are indeed Vladimir Lenins, Joseph Stalin, Eric Hoenecker, Mao Zedongs, etc. wannabes of the left. The former were really no better than the latter in terms of brutality, oppression, and even racism (I know the far-left claims to eschew it, but ask about the Holodomor, the Hmong people's fate, Russian supremacy over the other 30 or so ethnic groups in the USSR, etc.).

Luckily, the American's left's far fringes currently aren't as rabid as the American right's far fringes, but they do exist. We should thank the Democratic Party for having superdelegates and accept that the judgement not only of elected officials but of party elders is worth listening to. We don't hate all government and people who want to make careers of government, do we?

To those who want to get rid of superdelegates, or curtail them, please think about what happened last week in Cleveland. There's a reason in governments that pure direct democracy is chillin' with the dodo bird, and a reason in Democratic primaries it also is. Let's keep it that way.

[hobbit709]

1. Not as much as your attitude about direct democracy.

[ericson00]

3. why are there zero direct democracies on Earth today?

ever think it has to do with efficacy? Or its all a conspiracy by the monied elites.

[bluedye33139]

26. 6yr Senate terms

My understanding is that the senators were given six-year terms and staggered elections in order to avoid the danger of the population being overwhelmed by a charlatan. A bulwark against the dangers of mob rule.

[brewens]

2. The farthest left we would get would be similar to Eisenhower Republicans, so it's

not all that scary.

[pangaia]

28. LOL.. Too true..

[glennward]

4. What do we mean by "direct democracy?"

Do we really want a vote result where a person can win by 1 vote in one contest and another person can win by thousands of votes but carry the same weight? I really think proportional awarding of delegates is much more democratic.

[DanTex]

5. Here's the problem with your argument.

If it were really a good idea to have a council of elites, basically a "house of lords", to temper the whims of the mob of ordinary voters, then we should have it where it counts: in the general election. So if you're going to be making the argument that the Democratic Primaries should have superdelegates, for intellectual consistency, you also need to argue that the presidency itself should be decided by some hybrid system where the voters get most of the influence, but then some council of elites gets to determine who wins if the election is close.

I don't think you're ready to make that argument (maybe I'm wrong). So if not, why should the Democratic Primaries have superdelegates but not the presidency itself?

[ericson00]

6. there is no equivalence between GE and primary;

the Constitution has no rules about primary and nominating contests. It does about general. And even then, it did have the electoral college, but the EC is an appendage for the most part; the national and electoral votes have only deviated in terms of winner 4 times out of 57 contests.

[DanTex]

8. Legally, no, but morally there is a very clear equivalence.

If you think that, as a matter of principle, the will of the people needs to be tempered by a council of elites, then you would also be in favor of changing the constitution to have a group of "super-electors" that decide the presidency in case the margin is close.

If you don't think that's a good idea, then why should the Democratic party have the very same anti-democratic rule that you don't think the nation as a whole should adopt?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. Another unforced error, and the timing is horrible.

The story now will be how DWS sabotaged Bernie, and not a display of unity at the convention.

[bluedye33139]

29. Party leadership and non-Democrats

I can't imagine a situation in which somebody who is not a party member receives full support from party leadership. I just don't see how that's part of human nature.

[B Calm]

10. Nope

[Demsrule86]

11. I think we need super delegates who did not cost Bernie the election

and always vote with the people.

[Matt_in_STL]

12. Then why not just let the super delegates vote for the candidate and eliminate primaries?

If the super delegates are always going to decide the candidate, whether with or against the will of the people, why not just have them pick and save us the time and money of going through the motions?

[B Calm]

13. K&R Spot On!

[Her Sister]

15. Nah we want both! Thank you very much!

[Matt_in_STL]

16. But why? The reason for the super delegates is to overturn the will of the people

If the party apparatchik does not agree with the choice made by the people, the super delegates will overturn that choice with their vote. So, in the end, the people can vote for the candidate the super delegates want and will back, or the people can vote for the candidate the party does not support and the super delegates will overturn that choice if they feel it isn't a good choice for them.

So, in the end, the only votes that matter are those of the super delegates. Why not save time and money and just have them give us a candidate. We can all rally around that candidate sooner, which was the cry of many here when Bernie stayed in.

[Laser102]

18. You do know super delegates are individuals and will vote for whoever they want right?

They don't get to vote until the candidate has been elected. I personally like the super delegate process. Why should Democrats who have worked and been elected to office not have a voice? They don't sway elections one bit.

[Matt_in_STL]

19. And they get to vote in the primaries of their respective states

Where their vote equals one vote, rather than equalling thousands of votes as they do as superdelegates.

The question is, why should their voice be any greater than mine or yours?

[FSogol]

22. When have the superdelegates ever choosen against the will of the people?

[Matt_in_STL]

23. Then why have them?

If their only purpose is to create arguments within the party, then what is the reasoning? If your argument is that they will always go with the will of the people, explain why they have a vote equivalent to tens of thousands of voters.

[FSogol]

24. They are a safety valve for the party. Why does our legislature have 2 houses? Same idea. n/t

[Matt_in_STL]

25. So you just defeated your original post

They haven't gone against the will of the people but they potentially will, if they don't like the choice of the people. So, why not just let them choose?

[FSogol]

27. I didn't say they potentially will, I said they potentially might. The SDs would only act in extreme

circumstances. I trust the super delegates (mostly the elected members of our party) to do the right thing. That trust hasn't been abused.

[Matt_in_STL]

30. Okay, so they would in cases they feel the people chose incorrectly

So why not just let them choose rather than go through the motions of the primary? Our candidate would get a huge head start over the Republican.

[FSogol]

32. No, I said it extreme cases, not when they felt people chose incrorrectly. Suppose Bill Cosby had

won the nomination and then dozens of women came forward that he had abused. Would the SDs be wrong to pick the runner up in voting?

How will you twist what I wrote next?

[Matt_in_STL]

36. So you can 100% guarantee it is only for extreme cases

So, if Bernie had won the pledged delegates by a handful you don't think Hillary would have won based on superdelegates? I most certainly believe she would have.

[FSogol]

41. No, if Sanders had won, the Superdelegates would have moved to his side. They moved from

HRC to Obama in 2008 so you have the perfect example of how they work. Sorry you haven't gotten over Sanders losing, but blowing up proven Democratic party systems isn't a solution.

[pangaia]

31. ssshhhh..... you will end up in the gulag for saying that..

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Either you trust people or you don't

The (R)s deserve Trump. If the Democratic party ever becomes so broken that it nominates someone like Trump then it would deserve that nominee too.

The current system is inherently corrupt. Rationalizing that corruption is not helpful.

[baldguy]

17. Say "Heuy Long" to them, and they give you blank stares.

[aka-chmeee]

20. Quite agree,

I see them as a safety valve and continuity influence. Of course, I also believe that the people selecting the candidates of the party should be established members of the party and so can't see any good reason for open primaries either. By the time the primaries were over, the only hope Senator Sanders had was the very superdelegates his supporters seem to hate so much. If Hillary had been something like a leftwing Trump equivalent, superdelegates may have been the only way to make a course correction before the GE.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. Welcome to today's edition of " What's Making Me Shit My Drawers Now". nt

[Chathamization]

33. That doesn't make any sense, superdelegates wouldn't have stopped Trump

Superdelegates make up about 15% of the Democratic delegate count. If you gave 15% of Trump delegates to Cruz*, Trump still would have won. And that's with the assumption that Cruz is actually better than Trump, and that superdelegates are going to vote for better candidates than the general population.

*This is worse for Trump than an actual implementation of superdelegates would be.

[Matt_in_STL]

37. If you look at the final numbers, this is true.

However, a lot of what Hillary had going for her was the momentum caused by the flood of superdelegates to her side at the outset, numbers used by the media to show there was an almost insurmountable lead from the start. If the Republicans had that system and they had thrown their weight behind Cruz at the outset, he may have picked up even more than the 15% that superdelegates provide.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Except that Republicans did not need to have that system to throw their weight behind

Cruz or Jeb. They could have done that but they did not. Deeming them 'super delegates' would not really change that. They are allowed to rally around a candidate now, they did not do so because they lack Party cohesion. They don't need to be 'supers' in order to offer strong support to the candidate of their choice. And even if they were 'supers' they'd still need to get up and unify and get that message across. It's not like they rallied for Cruz and the voters said 'So what, you are not superdelegates so who cares'. They let Ted dangle. They let Jeb fall. Delegate status does not change that suicidal apathy into powerful vigor.

[Matt_in_STL]

43. The weight of a voting superdelegate was worth a lot more in momentum

Because the media could report those as actual votes and actual delegates already counted, giving a numerical value to that lead that you don't get with just endorsements. Momentum, when visualized with numbers, is a powerful thing

[Chemisse]

34. The GOP sure wished they had such a thing as superdelegates during their primary.

Clearly there are pros and cons.

I think if we kept superdelegates, they should remain uncommitted until the convention. It really skewed the primaries to have them commit right from the get-go AND be counted in the totals through the whole process.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Sure doesn't not even for a millisecond.

Ultimate power is vested in the people, it doesn't require a check.

If the people elect someone you don't like that is how the cookie crumbles.

[BlueCollar]

38. no

[Bluenorthwest]

39. A Superdelegate count like our own would not have stopped Trump. Not enough of them.

Plus you are simply ignoring the fact that the Superdelegates could be making the wrong choice themselves, to assume such delegates would never support a toxic candidate seems foolish. Those delegates are just people and they too can fuck things up. Republican elected officials who would be 'supers' if they had them voted for Trump or endorsed him, they did not all walk out or leave the Party or abstain. They voted for Trump.

But the main things is that Trump would not have been stopped had the GOP had Superdelegates like we do. So the two things are entirely unrelated.

[ericson00]

42. they would've influenced the voting and voters before contests;

which is what superdelegates do, which might have prevented Trump.