Nancy Pelosi's daughter pushing for elimination of superdelegates

[w4rma]

Source: The Hill

The state Democratic Party in California Sunday called for the elimination of the use of superdelegates, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The party issued a resolution urging the Democratic National Committee to change its nominating rules for the 2020 presidential election. Though it doesn't have any official power, it is a symbolic statement from the state that holds the largest primary.

Among those supporters of the resolution was the daughter of House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The minority leader endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ahead of the Golden State's primary earlier this month. Clinton has benfitted from the superdelegate system, while Sen. Bernie Sanders has railed against it.

"It's very exciting and healing for our party to be able to make a strong statement that we believe in democracy and that leaders should never trump the will of the voters," said Christine Pelosi, a California superdelegate.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284057-nancy-pelosis-daughter-among-those-wanting-elimination-of

[onehandle]

1. Superdelegates have never been used. nt

[w4rma]

2. And they shouldn't be given the opportunity/threat to be used.

You're arguing that superdelegates are worthless. I'm arguing that superdelegates are un-democratic. Obviously, they need to be gone.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. Exactly:Especially when we have DINOs like Ed Rendell threatening to back Bloomberg over the nominee

Superdelegates, while they didn't directly affect the vote count this time around, were an excellent way for the pundit and political class to tell states that their votes didn't matter because the party elders swung the voting the opposite way. What a demoralizing approach to 'democracy'.

[KPN]

5. Exactly.

Superdelegate commitments are reported like they are pledged delegates creating the public impression that the race is over. No one can credibly debate that. There's no question that impression affects the vote.

If the Democatic Party wants to be a party of, by and for the people (sounds like a democratic party), it will get rid of superdelegates.

[Ash_F]

9. They are used every single election.

When they come out at the start for a candidate, it affects voters.

[LisaM]

4. Sure, if we go to closed primaries.

Otherwise, we cannot depend that Dems can pick our own nominees.

[AntiBank]

6. agreed, trash caucuses, go to semi-closed primaries and trash SD's

"semi-closed" primaries, in which voters who are registered with a political party are barred from voting in opposing parties' primaries, but unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in either primary (but not both)


problem solved

[vdogg]

7. I think the primaries should be closed.

Unaffiliated voters are just that, unaffiliated. They've made the conscious choice to not support either political platform. This is a valid choice, but it should preclude you from having a say in who that party chooses as a nominee.

[w4rma]

11. I think closed primaries piss off independent voters who then decide that they won't vote in the

general election for any candidate that they were disenfranchised from voting for in the primary. I would like to say that semi-closed primaries would be fine, but observation is showing that states get flaky with trying to disenfranchise independent voters by playing with registrations.

[vdogg]

12. This is a false premise

Independent voters are not disenfranchised, they are simply independent. They are free to support an independent candidate, or a candidate from the Green Party, etc. If they wish to support a particular party's candidate, then register with that party.

[Qutzupalotl]

14. New York Indys would have had to change to Dem 6 months before the primary.

That's far too long IMO. We should encourage same-day voter registration as much as possible.

[vdogg]

15. 6 months is a bit long but there should be a time limit

I don't like same day, it gives the opposition too much opportunity for fuckery, especially if they have an uncompetitive primary. I think 1-3 months is reasonable. Let's just cut it to 1 month for arguments sake. How many people really don't know which primary they want to vote in a month out from the election?

[Qutzupalotl]

16. You'll get more participation with same-day.

Lots of people watch the news and make up their minds at the last minute (often too late).

I am highly dubious of rumors of large-scale ratfuckery. I think the positives of convenience-driven participation outweigh any negatives.

On edit: By including unaffiliated moderates in primary voting, you would get results that more accurately reflect the electorate, and our candidates would have better viability in the general.

[Gore1FL]

13. You'll have to change state laws to close them. I don't have to register party in MO.

We should have same-day registration everywhere, anyway. That directly conflicts with closed primaries.

[Amimnoch]

10. Superdelegates serve an important function, but their roles should be revised.

My own list of thoughts,

Super's should be assigned prior to the campaign season beginning, but should be prohibited from declaring their support until after the last primary election is concluded.

If it's an election between only 2 primary candidates.. Majority of pledged delegates should be the call for the election. Supers play no role in the convention.

If the election is between 3 or more candidates, then superdelegates come into play, and can start declaring their support after the last primary is concluded.

Also, all closed primaries elections. No open, no caucus. You want to vote for the Democratic Party candidate, you declare for the Democratic party. I'm also okay with this rule not going into effect until 2024 election process, that way it can't be called a measure specifically for Clinton.