2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThere is a compromise amendment to get rid of 2/3 of superdelegates
From Josh Fox @joshfoxfilm
https://twitter.com/joshfoxfilm/status/756999090689417216
There is a unity amendment in front of the rules committee which would establish a commission that could abolish 2/3rd of Super Dels. #dnc
Those remaining would be elected officials.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Four words.
TRUMP WAS A DEMOCRAT!
merrily
(45,251 posts)The slot is a reward to large donors--as if they don't already buy enough influence.
Personally, I prefer democracy to the plutonomy.
moriah
(8,311 posts)One of Arkansas's SDs. Yes, as her personal finances grew she donated more, but it was her dedication, not her money, that got her spot.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The convention. Starting with 400 delegates is a tough road to over come for challengers.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The super delegates switched after he had locked it up.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)years before Bernie ran for the POTUS nom.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Voters do not have to take part and anyone who can read knows that most Americans are already making that choice. I'd say that telling voters elections are not democracy is exactly the sort of thing that encourages people to avoid participation, why would they bother when those inside the system announce openly that it is not democratic and is in fact rigged?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the message that it's all corrupt is the biggest reason for plunging turnout for both parties.
Imo, making being elected to office by citizens a qualification for being a superdelegate would be a big democratizing move. Not direct democracy, of course, and parties are NOT democracies, but that way no one who had never actually been approved by voters could be a superdelegate.
The 2/3 is a question. The number, perhaps combined with other safeguards, needs to be sufficient to have some reasonable chance of blocking a toxic candidacy.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)In a close election, you should not alienate a major portion portion of your electorate.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)and that it was not because of the super delegate vote alone. That was not because of bias, that was because people did vote for another candidate. You can argue this forever but so far as I am aware, over 90% of dem. voters now intend to vote for the Clinton/Kaine ticket. That percent is inclusive of so called 'Bernie supporters'.
What you seem to want is a one vote system. However I don't believe that the Sanders group, if in fact that's who they are, will get it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)One function of party faithful superdelegates was to help offset possible independent and crossover Republican disruption in our party primaries and caucuses.
They have never been needed, and have always voted for the Democratic nominee out of the popular national vote/bound delegates.
Making all delegates bound by open popular vote would be the end of the Democratic Party. Which has a lot of support - from independents and Republicans.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'Real Democrats' because we voted for Bernie. They say this repeatedly. About millions of Democrats. So closed primaries do not please those who are just upset that other people vote differently than they do.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)My state has open primaries, and we picked Hillary in a landslide.
What I'm talking about is the purpose of superdelegates.
glennward
(989 posts)sit on the sidelines and whine.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I support getting rid of all SDs and let the people decide entirely.