The Congressional Black Caucus strongly opposes calls to abolish superdelegates.

[pnwmom]

and to open all primaries to non-Democrats.

African Americans and other minorities are underrepresented in Congress, and the superdelegate system -- although it has never changed the outcome of a primary -- allows members of minority groups to have a larger influence on the process than they would otherwise have.

These articles are from 2016 but the CBC continues to support the existence of superdelegates, for the same reasons as before.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/284065-congressional-black-caucus-keep-superdelegate-system-in-place

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter.

It was sent to both Democratic presidential campaigns, as well as to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“We want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents,” said Chairman G.K Butterfield.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502

"The superdelegate system is not perfect but it has worked for us quite well over the years and frankly the superdelegates have never needed to cast any superdelegate votes to alter what the voters did during the primary elections," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. "Never. That's not the case this year either. The concern many of us have, of course, is that our numbers would shrink in terms of having influence over and involvement with what happens at the convention."

Cleaver added that the CBC would not be swayed on the superdelegate issue.

"The black caucus is immovable on this subject because our number one concern is going to be an always be the highest level of minority participation as possible at the convention," Cleaver said. "You're going to see the same thing with the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. "

[elleng]

1. 2016 articles

[pnwmom]

2. I said that. And their position hasn't changed one iota. n/t

[4now]

3. It would be better to get rid of the undemocratic caucus system

[comradebillyboy]

5. Yes it would.

[pnwmom]

12. I agree. n/t

[loyalsister]

4. "although it has never changed the outcome of a primary"

That can only be proven unless voters reveal whether or not the superdelegate endorsement had an effect on their vote. The superdelegate system is authoritarian and anti-democratic.

[pnwmom]

10. It is silly to think that Barbara Lee, for instance, influences her voters

as a superdelegate more than as their representative in Congress.

But her position as a superdelegate gives her a voice in the convention that she otherwise wouldn't have.

And there is nothing less democratic about having her represent her constituents in the convention than there is in having her represent them in Congress.

[loyalsister]

27. Seriously?

People who have been in congress for a long time have very loyal constituents. Party activists many times get to know their congress members personally and come to trust their judgement. It's not peculiar to the CBC. This happens with white politicians, as well. I have noticed incidences where party leaders have talked about who they are donating to, etc. The point is for super delegates to bring voters with them. It's a process that can easily top the scale in the early stages of a campaign. It's patronizing and anti Democratic.

[pnwmom]

28. Yes. She has loyal constituents by virtue of her being a good representative --

not because they're impressed with her credential as a superdelegate. But that credential does allow her to have more influence in the convention process, which benefits her constituents.

[loyalsister]

29. It's not because she's a super delegate

She's a super delegate because she can bring voters with her. It's a paternalistic way of giving party leaders more power than voters.

[pnwmom]

30. No, you've got it backwards. She's a superdelegate so she can have more influence

in the convention process. Her title as superdelegate doesn't make her constituents any more likely to be influenced by her than they already are.

The Republican delegates knew they were electing a monster but had no choice. If the party had had superdelegates, those people could have acted, along with other traditional Republicans, to keep a pathological narcissist away from the Presidency and the nuclear football.

[loyalsister]

31. I support this candidate and you should too

is the point of having super delegates. It's insulting and infantile and authoritarian. Worst of all, it discourages voters by predetermining the outcome through top down pressure. The GOP wanted to win so they went with the dominant candidate who was running an anti-politician campaign against exactly the best candidate to suit their purpose. That's how it works. The conditions for that anti-establishment campaign were set up with early assumption about who they would be running against.

[EffieBlack]

7. I wish the GOP had a superdelegate system

It might have spared us the nightmare we're living.

[Gothmog]

8. I agree with CBC

[Azathoth]

9. This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard

We don't want to run against our own constituents.

Say what? That's the whole point of an election, for candidates to run against each other. Why the hell are you entitled to participate at the convention? Are you the only black Democrats in your districts and states qualified to be delegates?

This is just about power and entitlement. You got elected, and now that you're in Washington you feel all-important and think your newfound power should include control of the convention as well. Don't bring race into this.

Democratic voters chose you to serve in Congress, not to write their platform for them at their convention.

[pnwmom]

11. Black people are gerrymandered out of fair representation in the House

and therefore their numbers would not be fairly represented in the convention, without the superdelegates.

Fix gerrymandering first. Then decide whether superdelegates are a problem or a solution.

[Azathoth]

13. GOP gerrymandering only applies to general elections

We're talking (presumably closed) primaries consisting only of registered Democrats.

The argument here seems to be that minority voters are entitled to representation beyond their numbers within the party. That's not democratic.

[moriah]

19. And getting minority Democrats in the House requires them winning in the General.

So, again, until gerrymandering is fixed, pwnmom's point remains.

Now, about caucuses -- I don't see why we couldn't essentially allow "absentee caucusing". Essentially have an instant runoff ballot. It would allow those who can't make it to the official caucus be heard, plus save some of the craziness since people who are just coming to vote, aren't going to change their minds about their candidate preference list, and don't want to participate in the networking part of the caucus would use the absentee method.

That would let caucuses remain as a party-building and networking tool, yet not disenfranchise voters.

[Azathoth]

20. Her point doesn't remain because it has absolutely nothing to do with convention delegates

Your caucus idea is great; I'd vote for it.

[moriah]

22. If the issue is that Dems in the House and Senate...

... have seats at the Convention but only if they win the seat in the General, then yes, the fact it's harder to get a minority elected in the General because of partisan gerrymandering does affect minority representation in the DNC.

Which, at least to the extent that I thought understand what she was saying, was the point.

But think about this for a second -- how does strong minority representation in our Party hurt the party as a whole? The idea of the big tent and supporting each other would encourage me, at least, to want us to truly embrace intersectionality and all of us little groups speaking up as one when any of us are deprived of rights. Because it *does* affect everyone when even one is deprived of basic civil rights...

[Azathoth]

25. I think you're misunderstanding what she's saying

She's saying that GOP gerrymandering also means that Democrats will elect fewer African American delegates in their primaries.

I'm arguing that state delegations should be comprised solely of district and at-large delegates.

[pnwmom]

23. Not true. The same district lines that pack African Americans into certain districts

affect their representation in Congress and in the national convention.

[dsc]

37. we choose our delegates based on those districts

so they have a whole big bunch to do with this. There are a number of at large delegates per state but most are chosen from within a congressional district. Different districts get different numbers of delegates based on the percentage democratic a district votes.

[PatsFan87]

14. So if I'm reading the CBC statement correctly, the only reason they want to keep the superdelegate

system in place is to have a presence at the convention. So the question I ask is A) Why do you need to be a superdelegate to have influence over what happens at the convention? and B) If all superdelegates are eliminated, why can't those same people have the same work at the convention without being a delegate for a specific candidate in the primary?

[Azathoth]

15. An even better question is why should they have a right to shape the convention at all?

The convention is where Democratic voters, through their delegates -- who are supposed to be local committed party members, not professional politicians -- decide the direction of the party.

We elect public officials to enact our platform, not write it for us.

[pnwmom]

17. Because otherwise African Americans would be grossly underrepresented in the convention

due to gerrymandering and other factors that keep their numbers down in Congress.

Until we have a more representative Congress, we need the superdelegates to help insure a body of convention delegates that better reflects the diversity of America.

[Azathoth]

18. You have posted this more than once, and you still haven't justified it

GOP gerrymandering affects general elections. The district lines are drawn to alter general election outcomes by either packing or splitting the Democratic vote relative to the rest of the electorate.

The composition of Congress has nothing to do with the delegates that DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ALONE elect.

[pnwmom]

21. You don't understand. Districts are gerrymandered along racial lines to reduce

the number of Democrats, which also reduces the number of African Americans chosen as representatives.

The way district lines have been gerrymandered -- with black voters packed into certain districts -- ALSO reduces the number of African Americans who are chosen to be delegates in the convention.

And I posted this today because of Tim Kaine's new proposal to abolish superdelegates.

[Azathoth]

24. I don't entirely agree

First, they aren't gerrymandered strictly along racial lines; they're gerrymandered primarily along voting tendency lines. The goal is to dilute Democratic voters (including white Democrats) in Republican districts, not completely eliminate minority groups. So there are still minority voters in many gerrymandered GOP districts, just not enough to swing a general election. In fact, there are minority voters in many deep red districts as well, again just not enough to matter in the general. This means that African-Americans can still run as Democratic delegates in many gerrymandered districts, even if the majority of Democrats that remain in those districts are white. Which brings me to my second point...

... which is the underlying implication here, that white Democrats will follow the same voting patterns as Republicans and vote for white delegates over black delegates. This is the raw, identity-politics message here. White Democrats are being told, "Thanks for supporting our issues, but you vote for your people and we'll vote for ours. We want primaries where black delegates are elected by black Democrats."

Third, all of this ignores the existence of at-large delegates, who are drawn from across the state and who are usually required to be chosen so as to balance the representation of various minority groups. Here's the rule that most state parties use:

In the selection of the at-large delegation, priority of consideration shall be given to African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and women.

Moreover, rules already specify that state delegations be balanced according to gender. If the CBC were merely interested in guaranteeing proportional AA representation at the convention, they could request rule changes mandating that all state delegations be balanced according to state party composition (eg: if African-Americans comprise 20% of the state party, then they should be 20% of the state delegation).

[pnwmom]

26. Because African Americans are so heavily Democratic, gerrymandering along party lines

also discriminates by race.

There are cases about this issue going through the courts right now.

In an ideal world, white Democrats wouldn't be more likely to vote for other white Democrats. But in the real world, white men still have the advantage.

(That "priority" rule for a few at-large delegates doesn't do nearly enough to rectify the inequity.)

[msongs]

16. only democrats vote in primaries. to do otherwise is to commit suicide nt

[CentralMass]

32. IMO the super delegate system is inherentily undemocratic.

It was implemented to prevent "grass roots" candidates from winning the parties nomination over the parties hierarchy preferred candidate.

The will and intent of the voters in each state should determine the nominee.

The super d's are there to override the will and intent of the voters if the party hiearchy feels that the people are wrong.

Additionally the super d's are increasingly drawn from a pool of paid lobbiests that stinks of monied interests being invited into the electoral process


Scrap the super d's

[Kentonio]

33. +1000

[JustAnotherGen]

35. Okay

And close the primaries and scrap the caucuses.

You want to vote in our Primary - woman up/man up and Register Democratic.

And - votes need to be private. Historically - black folks were persecuted for wanting to vote - the Caucuses put us at risk as we could have interlopers from the right who are there to find out how to target us.

I would hope all democratics would want to protect/defend in particular - black women trying to vote since we always vote - vote Democratic - and very often against deeply held religious beliefs in order to advance the common good (white working class men interests).

[CentralMass]

36. I rbink caucuses should be replaced with primaries and the superdekegates should be scrapped.. .

I support one person one vote.

[octoberlib]

40. Agree. Caucuses have no place in our party

and should not be allowed.

[mcar]

34. I stand with the CBC

[dembotoz]

38. 2 things 1 in my state any way... congressperson is automatic super delegate. They don't have to

Compete..they are in. Going to a national convention is good for a congressperson career. Their ticket is punched.
Is this good or bad? Above my pay scale. But it does point out that they have a vested interest.
2. In my state, the primary went one way, the super dels virtually all went the other way...I can understand one of the Congress persons vote as a super.. her district was the only one where the primary loser won. She represented her district. If perhaps the super were required to vote at least one the first ballot for the person who won the primary, I would be happier.
A vote should mean something

[NurseJackie]

39. So do I. SO DO I!!

"The black caucus is immovable on this subject because our number one concern is going to be an always be the highest level of minority participation as possible at the convention," Cleaver said. "You're going to see the same thing with the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. "

Exactly right! Sadly, some people just don't get it.

[disillusioned73]

41. Break down by the former DNC chair...

"unpledged delegates exist really, to make sure that party leaders & elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists" - DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz

Pretty straight forward explanation in my opinion @ the 58 second mark..