Democrats delay change to convention superdelegates

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY LUIS SANCHEZ - 03/10/18 11:03 AM EST

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) couldn’t agree this week on how to reduce the influence of so-called "superdelegates" and has chosen to delay any changes to the role such delegates will play in the 2020 election.

A key DNC panel chose to delay specific action on superdelegates — the unelected delegates that are free to support any candidate for the party’s presidential nomination — until the summer, The Associated Press reported.

The entire DNC is instead expected to move Saturday to ratify a commitment to reduce the “perceived influence” of superdelegates, according to the AP.

During the 2016 Democratic convention, unpledged superdelegates made up roughly 15 percent of the total delegates that got to choose the party's presidential nominee.



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377733-democrats-delay-change-to-convention-superdelegates

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Meet the new boss,

Same as the old boss.

[marble falls]

4. Exactly right. They can't be rid of superdelegates because they refuse to be rid of superdelegates.

[Hortensis]

17. Look, reducing superdelegates would actually reduce

the power of a candidate who lost the popular vote to get the superdelegates to just appoint him the nominee, as happened in 2016. That was a big wake-up call, and we need to make sure no candidate could ever win that way.

At the same time, bad candidates would also try to overset the will of Democratic Party voters in other ways, so we need to also block those. Another way to get the popular vote put aside, of course, is to manipulate state elections so that a candidate can lose the popular vote but end up with more delegates, as the Republicans did in 2010 and 2016. Not good.

Be patient. We'll get there. Itm, always examine what people want for what they might do with it, not what they say. When demands for change are blocked, don't automatically assume the change is good. There's often damned good reason for saying a huge, "Are you kidding? Not in this party!."

[yurbud]

21. for the most part, having them is anti-democratic and corrupt.

[Hortensis]

23. Yurbud, a Democratic Party (!!!) candidate once

tried to use the superdelegate system to overset the popular vote, to set it aside. It is our duty to make sure attempts at election theft like this can never happen.

Further to the subject, though, I hope all understand that NO person who supported that, who didn't immediately disavow that candidate, is qualified to speak on what is democratic and what is corrupt. To put it mildly, what those people supported was intensely corrupt and the very definition of anti-democratic.

ALL honest observers knew claims that state Democratic Parties stole elections were lies. Our parties don't do that, plus all evidence showed that it didn't happen in any state. Dishonest partisans had to carefully avoid the truth that was readily available to pretend it did.

Fortunately, most Democrats were aware and very concerned that THIS could be happening within the Democratic Party, not just on the Republican side, and that we actually had people who so profoundly betrayed the principles of our party, the party of Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln, of democracy itself. An internal weakness we needed to guard against.

And so here we are. All agree our current system needs some adjusting to be both as democratic as possible and as safe against corruption as possible. But we, and that includes you, Yurbud, should also recognize and be proud that it has been working as it should in spite of attempts by ruthless people to exploit its weaknesses to overset the majority of Democratic voters. Surely we can all agree that we need to fix those weaknesses during this current process, and at the same time watch for and scrupulously avoid any attempts to open up further opportunities to corrupt the process?

[Tactical Peek]

25. Lincoln was a Republican.

Not a bad one, but R nonetheless.

[Hortensis]

26. Lol. Glad you think so: Lincoln was a sensible LIBERAL.

Conservatives of those days would no more be in the Republican Party that attracted Lincoln than they'd join us in today's Democratic Party. They loathed and despised it, and most southern states didn't even list Lincoln as the the Republican Party's candidate on their ballots.

The Republican party started out as a mostly liberal anti-slavery continuation of the original liberal Democratic-Republican party founded by Jefferson and Madison. That was because in the early 1800s a bunch of conservatives flooded into the D-R party and corrupted it, requiring people like us to either join other parties in our regions or, as with Lincoln, to join the new party labeled Republican (after our own original D-R party).

After the civil war, the business/conservative branch of the Republican Party increasingly took over, while the Democratic Party that had been taken over by mostly southern conservatives was powerless and irrelevant.

In Teddy Roosevelt's era, after the Republican Party was taken over by business, people like us took back the moribund Democratic Party label, and we've been proud Democratic continuation of the original party of Jefferson ever since.

All Democrats really need to know this and spread proudly that WE are the party of Jefferson, Madison AND Lincoln. Today's Republicans insult Lincoln every time they call him one of them.

[Exotica]

73. The party of Lincoln? Yeah, that was racist too

https://timeline.com/party-of-lincoln-racist-23cb27089dc

In his continuing (and perhaps increasingly desperate) bid to win over black voters, Donald Trump — and many other Republicans — have been framing the Republican party as “the party of Abraham Lincoln” in recent weeks.

It’s ironic that Trump is now repeating the same talking point that anti-Trump Republicans have used for months to distance Trump’s bigotry from the apparently anti-racist GOP. “This is the party of Lincoln,” House Speaker Paul Ryan told CNN in May.

“Our party was founded to defeat slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed the Emancipation Proclamation,” proclaimed Ted Cruz, in his less-than, non-endorsement of Trump at the RNC. It’s become a rallying cry for a party desperate to claim black voters and reclaim moderate voters.

As a thumbnail indicator, the phrase “party of Lincoln” in The New York Times spiked to an all-time high in 2016. (The previous spike was in 1964, when Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee.) But what if the original Party of Lincoln was not at all, in fact, the Party of Lincoln — at least in the way many Americans would recognize?

Despite going down in history as the president who emancipated slaves from bondage, Lincoln — and his party — were not “staunch” advocates of black freedom and civil rights. But don’t tell that to Trump and anti-Trump Republicans of 2016 vying for black voters.


snip

[Hortensis]

74. Notably, theRepubicans have NO great people of their

own to point to. Lincoln was pragmatic, no rigid ideologue, but he'd be leading the battle against today's Republican Party until we won.

[Exotica]

77. I in no way would call him great, and he had his own immense flaws, but IF the Republicans

were so much more like Eisenhower, the nation would be far better off. Instead they are an amalgam of the worst of corporatism, anti-science, greed, war, fundie religion, sexism, homophobia, and racism.

[Hortensis]

79. Eisenhower'd despise today's Republicans, and vice versa.

It's intensive corruption by money, of course, which Eisenhower saw happening and warned against.

[still_one]

81. The Democrats during Lincoln's time were like most white males, highly prejudiced and racist.

During the Lincoln/Douglas debates, Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South at the time, however, Lincoln's views were much more complicated, and while he shared many of the prejudices of his society which was a deeply racist society in both the north and the south before the Civil War, however, there is no question that he hated slavery, and always opposed it.

It was during the Civil War where Lincoln's views evolved, and it was at that time that during the Civil War that Lincoln not only wanted to abolish slavery, but also give African American the right to citizenship.

There were two Lincolns, one before the Civil War and one after, and his transformation was cut short because of his assassination.

The Civil Rights Act, and Voting Rights Act in 1964 were pushed by a Democratic President from the South At that time it was the Senatorial Republicans who supported the Act, while the most of the opposition came from the Southern Democrats, and it was the key event why many of those Southern Democrats eventually became republicans

[Hortensis]

82. To enlarge, clarity comes with using the words conservative

and liberal for this era when party labels shifted and were often worn by people with radically opposing views. Today's conservatives (most in the GOP) are using this confusion to claim OUR virtues for themselves and OUR advances that we achieved against their passionate opposition.

It's encouraging that conservatives WANT and NEED to claim social advances achieved by liberals, suggesting they see the virtue in them, but they do that because they have none of their own.

For instance, the civil rights Republicans were majority liberal in that era, with some moderate conservatives. Just try imagining today's conservatives fighting to integrate schools. (!) No, they didn't have personality transplants between then and now; whether they were southern Democrat conservatives or Republican conservatives, most fought advances for POC, some with everything they had.

Same for the reforms of the progressive era. At that time most liberals were still in the liberal/progressive wing of the Republican Party, so it was under that party label that WE spearheaded critically needed progressive reforms, along with some sensible progressive conservatives. And the rest of the conservatives, in both the Republican and Democratic parties, fought us tooth and nail then and today are still doing it.

As for Lincoln, I've read that it would be very difficult to overstate just how big the issue of slavery was in the decades leading up to the war. Lincoln's personal feelings about slavery, like those of most far less thoughtful people, were determined long before the civil war. What evolved with history was what he felt could and should be done, what could succeed, at any particular time.

[still_one]

83. I agree with your entire analysis Hortensis

[Hortensis]

84. Wish people badmouthing our party knew this,

Still_One. All the social good America has ever achieved is rooted in liberal ideals and came about because liberals, and a smaller number of decent moderate conservatives, fought for it against conservative opposition.

And today the party of liberalism is the Democratic Party. There is no other.

[ehrnst]

45. So why did Bernie Sanders agree to be one? (nt)

[Hortensis]

54. Yurbud, are we agreed the answer is "situational ethics"?

"Moral relativism?"

"The ends may or may not justify undemocratic, corrupt means, but if we win that's all that counts?"

"Despicably immoral or highly principled strictly depends on WHICH candidate benefits?"

(Please feel free to disagree. I do down to my bones.)

[yurbud]

91. Would you buy a slave if that was the only way you could free them?

Bernie's vote as a superdelegate could cancel out that of some lobbyist, and just being willing to do it gives him a bit more leverage within the party structure.

[yurbud]

63. I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.

[LanternWaste]

89. Convenient response to the question, though not an answer to the question.

Convenient response to the question, though not an answer to the question.

[Demsrule86]

93. I disagree. They vote with the person with the most votes...and I would remind you that

Barack Obama beat Sec. Clinton in 08 with super delegates in place. We would have to change to winner take all if we got rid of them...I like our way better. I shudder to think what would have happened in 16 if they didn't exist. you have to reach a certain minimum to get the nomination which is why I said delegate awards would have to be restructured probably by winner take all primaries.

[Gothmog]

29. Super delegates have never gone against the winner of the popular vote

[Hortensis]

34. Underline this! They've done well. The one time

superdelegates threw their weight in, it was to SUPPORT the candidate who won the popular vote.

I was merely pointing out that some of those especially noisily anxious to do away with superdelegates need to realize that a recent candidate I assume some of them supported tried to use superdelegates to steal the election FROM the candidate a majority of Democrats chose.

AND that the superdelegates performed their role honorably and protected us all from that profoundly dishonorable, anti-democratic, corrupt, anti-democratic rotten, anti-democratic, insidious anti-democratic scheme.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

71. Stop bringing up the 2008 primary.

That's ancient history.



Here is a portion of the letter:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Dear ___________,

The stakes in this election are so high: with two wars abroad, our economy in crisis here at home, and so many families struggling across America, the need for new leadership has never been greater.

At this point, we do not yet have a nominee – and when the last votes are cast on June 3, neither Senator Obama nor I will have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates like you to help choose our party’s nominee, and I would like to tell you why I believe I am the stronger candidate against Senator McCain and would be the best President and Commander in Chief.

Voters in every state have made it clear that they want to be heard and counted as part of this historic race. And as we reach the end of the primary season, more than 17 million people have supported me in my effort to become the Democratic nominee – more people than have ever voted for a potential nominee in the history of our party. In the past two weeks alone, record numbers of voters participated in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. And with 40 and 35 point margins of victory, it is clear that even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they’re not giving up on me – and I am not giving up on them either.

After seven years of feeling invisible to the Bush administration, Americans are seeking a President who is strong, experienced, and ready to take on our toughest challenges, from serving as Commander in Chief and ending the war in Iraq to turning our economy around. They want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and “gets” what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.

We simply cannot afford another four – or eight – years in the wilderness. That is why, everywhere I go, people come up to me, grip my hand or arm, and urge me to keep on running. That is why I continue in this race: because I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President – and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November.

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I’ve enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.

In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee – the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

I am in this race for them -- for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American dream – the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls – and little boys – whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, “See, you can be anything you want to be.” As the first woman ever to be in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to them.

Finally, I am in this race because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case – and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard – everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.

But at this point, neither of us has crossed the finish line. I hope that in the time remaining, you will think hard about which candidate has the best chance to lead our party to victory in November. I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states. I hope you will think about the broad and winning coalition of voters I have built. And most important, I hope you will think about who is ready to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, fight for the deepest principles of our party, and lead our country forward into this new century.

[tammywammy]

72. No need to go to 2008, the Bernie campaign tried to sway them in 2016.

Though Hillary lead in pledged delegates.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

[Gothmog]

78. Hillary Clinton endorsed President Obama early in June before the Texas state Democratic Convention

I was schedule to go argue some issues on some credentials challenges that became moot.

In 2016. Sanders had not conceded by the time of the Texas state convention and we had some nasty incidents.

[Hortensis]

85. Hassin, the discussion is changes to our party rules

for 2018 and the future. What changes are needed, what problems can be solved or created by changes, and why they're needed.

For instance, after what happened with Trump, Koch alliance, Russia and so on in 2016, frankly I think it's in order to question the motives of all knowledgeable people who are agitating to throw our primaries wide open for just anyone to vote, which would, like 2016, include enemies intent on hurting us. That'd not be democracy, that'd be criminal-level stupidity if we went for it.

Fortunately, our people have a good record so far for protecting what needs to be protected and are leading, in fact, this latest round of adjustments to our party rules. Instead of open primaries, the plan seems to be open registration, possibly right up to election days so that late deciders can register Democrat to vote. Yes, some people of hostile intent will use that to breach our walls and try to overset our own choices, but not nearly so many as open primaries would.

[Sophia4]

51. All the more reason to end their existence as voting delegates at conventions.

We don't need them.

They serve no purpose other than to feed the egos of has-been politicians and rich people.

Since they serve no good purpose, end their existence.

No to super delegates.

If what you say is true, they serve utterly no good purpose.

[Gothmog]

53. Not in the real world

The only people in favor of the proposal are some fringe groups who supported sanders. I care far more about keeping groups who are actual democrats happy such as the CBC and the voters these actual democrats represent.

Why do you want to alienate the CBC and the voters who are represented by the CBC?

[Sophia4]

55. How do you define the term "Democrat"?

One of the characteristics of a Democrat in my view is that the person hates corruption, and I see the super delegates as a symptom and sign of the kind of corruption that members of the in-crowd in a political movement that has succumbed to corruption dearly love.

I don't like the super delegate rule because I don't like corruption.

It is like the weighted dice that a cheater keeps in his pocket until the moment he decides he is losing and therefore needs them.

If primaries are honest, super delegates are not needed.

They are only needed if some corrupt person in a high position in the Party wants to change the outcome of the primaries in order to sustain his/her corruption.

Uggggh! Super delegates! The very concept is corrupt.

[ehrnst]

57. Again... Bernie was one of those superdelegates that you say "uggggggh!"

to the very concept of.

Again, I await your silence in response.

[Gothmog]

76. No response yet

I wonder why?

[Gothmog]

59. You should not use terms that you do not know the definition of

You seem to like using definitions in your posts. Here you are using a term that you do not understand. Let.s look at legal definition of the term "corruption" as used in the real world https://thelawdictionary.org/corruption/

What is CORRUPTION?
Illegality; a vicious and fraudulent intention to evade the prohibitions of the law. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. U. S. v. Johnson (C. C.) 20 Fed. 082; State v. Ragsdale. 59 Mo. App. 003; Wight v. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 351; Worsham v. Murchison, 00 Ga. 719; U. S. v. Edwards (C. C.) 43 Fed. 07.

In the real world where I live and work, allowing elected members of Congress such as the CBC, party chairmen and other elected officials to be automatic delegates to the national convention is not corrupt. Members of the CBC are opposed to this proposal in part because these members of Congress believe that they should have the right to have a say in the party. The same is true for the various chairs and vice chairs of each state party. In what strange world is it corrupt for these people to be delegates to the national convention? These officials are senior members of the party and there is nothing wrong or corrupt in these officials being admitted as delegates.

You really should not use terms that you do not understand. Using a legal term such as corruption with respect to super delegates shows that you do not understand the definition of this word or what corruption really means.

I live in the real world and key groups who are actual members of the Democratic Party and who actually work to help elect candidates have no issue with super delegates. Again, African American voters are a key group in the Democratic Party. African American women were key to Doug Jones winning in Alabama https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570531505/black-votes-matter-african-americans-propel-jones-to-alabama-win The fact that some fringe groups want to alienate this key group of votes in part because that group does not support their candidate is sad.

You may not like super delegates but the existence of super delegates is not corrupt. I will be happy to tell Sheila Jackson Lee, Al Green, Texas state party Gilberto Hinojosa, and the other super delegates who I know your definition of corruption. Gilberto, Al and Sheila are all lawyers and they will be amused to find that you think that they are corrupt.

[ehrnst]

61. Damn straight.

[Sophia4]

62. That is a very narrow definition of corrupt and corruption.

adjective

1Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
‘unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials’

1.1 Evil or morally depraved.
‘the old corrupt order’

2(of a text or a computer database or program) made unreliable by errors or alterations.
‘a progressively corrupt magnetic record is usable nonetheless’

3archaic (of organic or inorganic matter) in a state of decay; rotten or putrid.
‘a corrupt and rotting corpse’adjective

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/corrupt

The etymological origins of the words related to "corrupt" tell us even more about the meaning, the broad meaning of the word:

corrupt (adj.)

mid-14c., from Old French corropt "unhealthy, corrupt; uncouth" (of language), and directly from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere "to destroy; spoil," figuratively "corrupt, seduce, bribe," from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + rup-, past participle stem of rumpere "to break" (see rupture (n.)). Related: Corruptly; corruptness.

corrupt (v.)

mid-14c., "contaminate, impair the purity of," from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere (see corrupt (adj.)). Late 14c. as "pervert the meaning of," also "putrefy." Related: Corrupted; corrupting.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/corrupt

Thhe super delegates are corrupting the Democratic Party and one of the reasons (there are many) that Democrats lose a lot of elections especially at state levels. They weaken the natural ability of the Democratic Party to change and to respond to local and state issues.

[Gothmog]

69. LOL-thank you for the laughs

I am laughing so hard that it hurts. Not one of these silly definitions support your silly claim that super delegates are corrupt. You really need to go to a state or at least a county convention and see how the process works in the real world. Not one of these definitions come close to supporting your claim in the real world and it clear that you do not understand the system or how the process works in the real world.

There is nothing corrupt in the real world about allowing an established leader of the party the right to attend the national convention. These elected officials are leaders in the party who are represent the party and its values. I am happy that we have people like Maxine Waters, John Lewis, James Clyburn, Elijah Cummings, Fredericka Wilson, Marc Veasey, Hakeem Jefferies, Al Green, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Sheila Jackson Lee represent our party. Are you accusing the members of the CBC of being corrupt? All of these people have earned the right to attend the national convention and to represent the party.

I was amused by your prior posts where you claimed that super delegates need to be elected by the actual voters because other pledged delegates were elected by the voters. Pledged delegates are not elected by the voters in the real world. I ran and was elected as a pledged delegate in Texas for the 2016 convention and no normal voter voted for me. County party chairs of the counties in my senate district and the delegates who they selected were the people who made this call. Please get out into the real world. Go to a real county or state convention and see how the process works in the real world.. You should be happy to have members of the CBC and other elected officials as super delegates in that real voters actually voted for these elected officials.

You are using a term that you clearly do not understand and none of your silly definitions help. These individuals and the other super delegates are not corrupt. Evidently the fact that most members of the CBC refused to support your candidate has angered you. That is sad but is not a reason to accuse these members of the party of being corrupt. I am disappointed that you are attacking members of our party and calling them corrupt.

I actually live and work in the real world and attend both county/senate district conventions and state conventions. I have served on the rules committee for the party and I understand the process. Your claims of corruption are false. If you want to get rid of super delegates because these delegates refused to help your candidate, then be honest. Do not attack elected officials who are representing our party by calling them corrupt.

[ehrnst]

80. Don't derail this discussion with facts...

[Gothmog]

88. Facts do beat silly definitions that do not support the arguments advanced

Super delegates are not corrupt

[R B Garr]

110. Thank you for an excellent post, Gothmog, and for bringing valued rationality

and actual practical experience to those empty accusations of corruption. It really is beyond comprehension how calling Democrats corrupt just to support one Senator isn't seen for the sheer, empty hostility that it is. I'm glad to see Democrats everywhere have had enough of it and are calling it out.

Great post.

[Sophia4]

116. Who called "Democrats corrupt just to support one Senator"?

I'm calling the process of having super delegates corrupt no matter who is running.

We should nominate our candidates in the most democratic way possible. Super delegates are not democratically chosen. They may represent the voters who elected them to office, but they do not and were not selected by voters to represent voters in selecting candidates.

The super delegate institution or tradition or rule is what is corrupt, not the people who serve as super delegates (not necessarily anyway although they can be corrupt, but they are not personally corrupt because they serve as super delegates).

[R B Garr]

117. Ive seen previous posts, though.

My comment stands.

This is just an excuse to throw corruption charges around. I find it more corrupt to call people corrupt with flimsy or no proof.

[Sophia4]

114. Nominations for public office should be made by the voters, decided by the voters.

Read up on Tammany Hall.

We got past that over a century ago. And it is corruption when selected "party leaders" get to vote on nominations just because they are selected "party leaders."

The party leaders serve us. We do not serve them, and we cannot be counted on to vote for their choices of nominees.

The leaders of the Party should be able to attend the convention without voting on the nominations.

[Gothmog]

119. Again you were wrong before and you are still wrong

[Sophia4]

120. We are each entitled to his/her opinion.

I think the super delegates are undemocratic and should be, as an institution, abolished.

[Gothmog]

124. But such practice is not corrupt

Calling this practice corrupt was really amusing and wrong

[Sophia4]

125. It is corrupt because it places one person in a much more powerful position

when it comes to deciding who will vote for and choose a candidate than thousands maybe in some states like California even millions of other people. That kind of power is corruption in a democracy.

It corrupts, spoils, the very intent and fabric of democracy.

It is the very essence of corruption.

It isn't just money that is corrupt. Pretending that a system is democratic when in reality a few select, chosen, superior people can easily put their thumbs or their votes on the scale to tilt it in a direction they want it to go is pure corruption. The money follows the choice candidate. The money flows to the candidate and then in many cases to those who made his or her choice possible by putting the right super delegates, the right votes, into the system.

That is why the super delegates are in their very being, corrupt no matter how wonderful they are as individuals. The concept is corruption.

And the concept makes smart voters suspicious of the candidate. Super delegates are one of the traditions in the Democratic Party that drives voters away. And that happens even when they don't really change the outcome of the nomination process. It is a sick, unfair, institution. It places a thumb on the scales institution that makes the Democratic Party look corrupt and possibly just a sham to voters who understand it and who blame it for their candidate's loss. The blaming may be completely wrong. The super delegates may have affected or changed absolutely nothing about the outcome. But the fact of having super delegates demonstrates a readiness within the management of the Democratic Party to ignore the will of the Democratic voters, and that is the problem.

Why have super delegates if they don't significantly change the outcome of the nomination process?

If it is just an honor and it means nothing, why have it? The elected officials of the Party can be invited to conventions without making them delegates. There is no need for super delegates.

Why are super delegates appointed if they don't corrupt the process of nominating the candidate so that the status quo in the Party is maintained?

I think they are an insurance policy to maintain the power of the hired leaders of the Democratic Party. And that is horrible. We need to be able to make changes at the top when the voters want it. Anything else is a form of oligarchy that weakens the Democratic Party.

[Gothmog]

127. Again you are using a term that you do not understand

Your funny post with definitions of corruption and corrupt did not support your claims but did cause me to laugh very very hard.

Words have meanings. The fact that super delegates hurt your feelings by not supporting your candidate does not mean that they are corrupt.

I like living in the real world where the meaning of words is important. Using the term corrupt when such term does not apply hurts your attempt at an argument.

[Sophia4]

128. Super delegates at a convention that is supposed to reflect the outcome of a democratic

voting process is the very definition of corrupt - of spoilage in the system.

The system is supposed to be pure, that is democratic, one vote, one person, and the "leadership" of the Democratic Party inserts itself into the one vote, one person process and places its thumbs, that is, its super delegates, into the mass of elected delegates that reflect the election of the voters, in order to dirty or corrupt the process of electing the candidates.

If you don't like the way I use the word "corrupt," then from now on I will simply use the words, dirty, or manipulate or filthy, or unfair, or some other word. Corrupt means to make a process or a thing dirty, to undermine its purity, its cleanliness, its meaning, to make it filthy or unfair. That is why money is viewed as corrupting politics. That is why favoritism or manipulating an election so that a favored or preferred candidate wins is corruption.

I can only believe that a person would object to my use of the word corruption if they have not read much.

Here is a whole web-page on the meaning of corruption.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/corruption

Choose any word there.

And somewhere behind the choice of super delegates, someone profits. Trust me on that. The super delegate may be a wonderful, pure, sin-free individual. But someone's job or well being relies on getting the candidate that dependent person wants and if that person is helping to choose or choosing the super delegate then money is a factor in the choice.

But money does not have to be directly involved for something to be corrupt. Corruption in the system can exist if choosing a particular super delegate means that one candidate's staff will be paid while another candidate's staff will not. It can also be there if it means that one voter's candidate will not be on the ballot but another will and the reason for the absence of the one candidate and the naming of the other on the ballot is some impurity in the system like a super delegate.

Super delegates make the Democratic Party look terrible. They are just as much a form of corruption as is paying someone to fix the outcome of an election. There purpose is to fix the outcome of elections even if they do not actually do it as far as we know. That is why the institution is corrupt.

[Gothmog]

130. Again, using a term that you do not understand does not help your argument

No one who understands the concept of corruption or corrupt would make such a silly and sad argument. Super delegates are also not dirty or filthy in the real world but keep on giving me something to laugh at.

Again, the real world is a nice place. Please get involve in politics in the real world. Go to a convention. If you cannot get elected as a delegate, then go visit.

I am still amused that you think that delegates are elected by voters. I have shared that claim with three other national delegates and they laughed very hard.

I am sorry that your feelings were hurt because super delegates were mean to your chosen candidate. Your hurt feelings are not a reason to change the system.

Again using words that you do not know the meaning of hurts your attempts as an argument but does give me some laughs.

[Sophia4]

115. The definition of corrupt is much broader than that.

I posted it above. It can refer to anything being spoiled.

The existence of super delegates is corrupt. I'm sure than none of the super delegates are personally corrupt, but the existence of super delegates as an institution, the fact that we have super-delegates is corrupt in the Democratic Party. It certainly causes us to betray and deviate from the name of our Party which denotes the role of the people in picking our candidates.

It isn't my definition of corruption. It is the definition of corruption. It does not just mean paid-off although or financially dishonest although that is one meaning of it. In this case, it means that the super delegates are appointed and the process of appointing them is in and of itself a corruption of our democracy because it is in no way democratic. (small d)

[Gothmog]

118. I responded to that post to show how wrong you were in that post

You were wrong in that post and you are still wrong here. Read the materials posted.

Again, are you accusing Congressman John Lewis and other members of the CBC of being corrupt?

[Sophia4]

121. I have explained several times that I am accusing an institution, not individuals,

of being corrupt.

[Gothmog]

122. And you are wrong

You silly definitions did not support your claims. your last attempt was funny

[Sophia4]

123. You are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.

The problem with the political stars who get chosen as super delegates is that they have to be "chosen."

Someone chooses them.

Being chosen is a perk, an honor, something that is not won in an election.

Thus, the person (or people) who chooses (or choose) one or more super delegates has a power to influence the outcome of the nomination contest that ordinary voters don't have.

It is granting this power to someone or some people who are anonymous, not elected as delegates, possibly a party bigwig that encourages corruption. It's not necessarily the corruption of financial payoffs. It is the corruption of having the ability to withhold or bestow an honor or power that people would like to have.

And that is what is corrupt about superdelegates. It isn't the people who are chosen who are necessarily corrupt. It's the empowerment of the person who gets to choose the super delegate(s). That happens behind the scenes in private. It is not an open, democratic process. And that is what is so corrupt about it.

So I stand by my opinion, and I have explained why I hold it.

I still haven't seen your explanation about why you hold your opinion. I'd be interested in seeing it. Is the special delegate title an honor? If so, how can I earn it?

Or are the special delegates a means of controlling the final outcome of a close primary? If so, why? If a primary is close, it is all the more important that all voters believe rationally that the process in selecting the final winner was fair.

[Gothmog]

126. You really do not understand the process at all

My opinions are based on the fact that I live in the real world and understand the process. I have run and was elected as a pledged delegate and your posts show that you have no idea as to how the process works in the real world. I have been to several state conventions and will be attending my county's convention next weekend. Right now I am planning on going to the next state convention. In the mean time, I am working to help turn my state blue and will be working on voter protection efforts both for the primary runoffs in May and the general election. The real world is a nice place and I like living in the real world and working in the real world.

As for super delegates, most of these are elected officials such as members of Congress and Senators who are representing the party. There is nothing corrupt or wrong with these individuals being super delegates in the real world. I trust persons like John Lewis to stand for the values of our party. Other super delegates are party chairpersons and vice-chairpersons. Running a state party is a hard and thankless job. I am friends with both the Chair and Vice chair of Texas state party and I have no problem with these people being super delegates.

Please get out into the real world. Go to a state convention. If you are unable to be elected as a delegate, then go as a visitor. See how the process works in the real world.

I understand that your feelings were hurt because super delegates did not support your candidate. Your hurt feelings are not a good reason to change the system

[ehrnst]

129. Why do you think that Bernie participated in what you say is a "corrupt process?"

At least in 2016, when he was a Superdelegate?

And it clearly wasn't too "corrupt" for him to choose to run as a Democrat, knowing the role Superdelegates play at the convention.

[George II]

132. And his top campaign adviser helped create the system of super delegates.....

Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic operative and top strategist for 2016 Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders, told the Guardian: “After the 1980 convention when there was so few party leaders and elected officials on the floor of the convention, the party made a decision about looking at its rules and reassessing the primary process.”

This reassessment happened through the Hunt commission, an internal party panel chaired by the North Carolina governor, Jim Hunt.

Devine, who played a key role on the commission, said that initially the creation of superdelegates was “limited in scope”. While the commission made “the decision to create a category of delegates who would win that position based not on voter participation but status in the party”, even these delegates were elected.

The House Democratic conference and the Senate Democratic caucus would each meet and elect three-fifths of their members to be delegates to the convention. In addition, the chair and vice-chair of each state Democratic party would become superdelegates as well.

After 1984, the number of superdelegates continued to increase. All Democratic congressmen and senators received an automatic vote at the convention, as did all DNC members. There was a brief attempt to reform this in 1988 when, as a result of convention-eve negotiations between Devine, then representing the campaign of presumptive nominee Michael Dukakis, and Ron Brown, representing liberal insurgent Jesse Jackson, a deal was made to limit the number of the DNC members who could serve as superdelegates.

Instead of every member of that committee, superdelegate status would once again be limited to party chairs and vice-chairs. That was immediately reversed after the election when Brown successfully ran to be DNC chair. As Devine noted, Brown “was a very astute politician and decided to run on a platform of restoring status of DNC members as superdelegates”. In an electorate composed entirely of DNC members, this was a very successful message.

...lots more here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/democratic-party-superdelegates-history-rules-changes

[R B Garr]

109. Not everything is a superficial corruption rally cry.

That is a really tired accusation. Who are you to be calling Democrats corrupt. This kind of vacuous attack is only meant to elevate One Man. It is very disingenuous.

[ehrnst]

56. Bernie was a Superdelegate.

Was he one of those "has-been politicians and rich people who serve no good purpose" as well?

I await your silence....

[Demsrule86]

94. We do need them or we need to restructure our primaries in order to get

a clear winner and avoid a mess in a close race. It would saddens me because if we went to winner take all, the most recognizable candidate would probably win most times. Only one candidate ever had issues with super delegates.

[Sophia4]

98. Actually, super delegates were invented because the Democratic hierarchy was not

happy with the result of a truly open convention after the Viet Nam War.

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[15] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

The rules implemented by the McGovern-Fraser Commission shifted the balance of power to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members.[15] As a result of this change the number of primaries more than doubled over the next three presidential election cycles, from 17 in 1968 to 35 in 1980.[15] Despite the radically increased level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carter resulting in landslide defeats.[15] Democratic Party affiliation skidded from 41 percent of the electorate at the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission report to just 31 percent in the aftermath of the 1980 electoral debacle.[15]

Further soul-searching took place among party leaders, who argued that the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of primary elections over insider decision-making, with one May 1981 California white paper declaring that the Democratic Party had "lost its leadership, collective vision and ties with the past," resulting in the nomination of unelectable candidates.[16] A new 70-member commission headed by Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt was appointed to further refine the Democratic Party's nomination process, attempting to balance the wishes of rank-and-file Democrats with the collective wisdom of party leaders and to thereby avoid the nomination of insurgent candidates exemplified by the liberal McGovern or the anti-Washington conservative Carter and lessening the potential influence of single-issue politics in the selection process.[16]

Following a series of meetings held from August 1981 to February 1982, the Hunt Commission issued a report which recommended the set aside of unelected and unpledged delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs (so-called "superdelegates&quot .[16] With the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were to represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention, but when it was finally implemented by the Democratic National Committee for the 1984 election, the number of superdelegates was set at 14%.[17] Over time this percentage has gradually increased, until by 2008 the percentage stood at approximately 20% of total delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Superdelegates exist in order to give Democratic Party officialdom, the big honchos, a decisive say in the nominating process.

Superdelegates are an insult to true Democrats, rank and file grassroots volunteers everywhere. And guess what, I am a rank and file grassroots volunteer, and I do not like superdelegates.

The democratic process should be respected. We do not need and should not have super delegates.

[Demsrule86]

101. I know what happened...

And consider that McGovern suffered one of the worst defeats in our history and the entire 'grass roots' campaign is a lesson on what not to do. Supers were invented in case another candidate rigged the primary system (concentrating on caucuses no vetting) so they could save the country from another dismal loss...and good on them. We still need saving if you think about what happened in 16 and what would have happened without supers to put Clinton over the top.

[karynnj]

50. As happened in 2016???

Did you mean 2008 when they supported the person with the majority of the pledged delegates. There is nothing in the rules about the so called popular vote. Pledged delegates was what mattered.States with caucuses are grossly underweighted in the tallies, especially when some states that do not report the counts were not counted at all.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. The SD rules have been in

effect for decades! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/2/15/457181/-

No one had a major problem with them until supporters of one candidate in a recent Presidential election who seemingly became a "Democrat" for convenience sake tried to change party rules that had operated in previous elections, basically without problems.

If one assumes a label for convenience sake in order to receive the benefits of that label, one must abide by the rules of that label.

Because I have never understood the sense in the saying, "having one's cake and eating it too" - it seems to me, for example that the whole purpose of having cake IS to eat it - I much prefer the French saying: "On ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre." "You can either have the butter or the money for the butter." IOW, you can't have both.

Too many STILL do not seem to "get" this. If you don't like DNC rules, either work your own way through the delegate process, and earn your stripes in order to change them or create your own party. Please quit criticizing from the outside.

[ehrnst]

38. Bingo. Candidates who run for POTUS on a Dem ticket agree to the rules when they run.

They knew exactly what they signed up for, especially if they were a Superdelegate themselves...

[BlueMTexpat]

40. There seem to be

too many who are faux Dems on DU.

This is a signature issue.

[ehrnst]

43. Well, anyone who runs as a Dem agrees to those rules. Bernie was a superdelegate

and didn't seem to have a problem with it.

[lagomorph777]

90. They only care about "perceived influence"

Just as long as they can keep their real influence.

[George II]

2. If I'm not mistaken, super delegates have never determined our candidate.

This is just another opportunity for people to find fault with the Democratic Party.

[marble falls]

5. If they have no effect, no use, why have them?

[Gothmog]

30. Congressional Black Caucus: Keep superdelegate system in place

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

The Congressional Black Caucus is against eliminating superdelegates, putting the group at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In a letter first reported by Politico, the CBC also said it is against allowing independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries.

Both suggestions have been championed by the Sanders campaign.

"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.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

66. That article was from June 2016. Anything changed since then?

Like maybe losing a presidential election and gaining a rabid right-wing supreme court justice?

[Gothmog]

67. The CBC is still against this proposal

[MBS]

68. Good.n/t

[R B Garr]

112. That open Supreme Court seat was known way before the

Presidential election in November 2016, but it was scoffed at.

[Demsrule86]

95. We have them so we can avoid a Trump like candidate and to avoid a legal mess in the event of a

close election. We could have been at an impasse in 08 and 16. We have proportional elections...that would need to change without supers voting with the clear winner.

[yurbud]

99. Who is the Trump of the left? Unlike Republicans, we don't have brain damaged racist wing

of our party.

[Demsrule86]

100. you can say that after 16? A whole lot of people fell for the Russian crap...and think about this...

two candidates...one wins a majority but not enough to put her/him over the top...both Obama and Clinton needed supers to put them over the top...so it is not far fetched, but this is a primary where people are angry and digging in ...no one gives in...lawsuits...a big mess unfolds and we lose the general. Supers prevent that...and without them, we have to go to a winner takes all sort of primary which I think is not as good as our present system...only one candidate ever complained about supers...only one. And I read where they did not get rid of supers but will probably end caucuses which would be great. you could make it so Supers don't endorse any candidate until the primary is over...that might help those who think that Democrat don't realize that in the early part of the primary...vote tallies except from state votes are meaningless.

[yurbud]

103. the bottom line is it's a check on democracy, and that's how Hillary used it

by lining them up ahead of time and the press announcing her tally of superdelegates at every turn, but especially when Bernie was doing well.

[yurbud]

104. What evidence is there that people voted based on the "Russia crap"

rather than being sick of how the two major parties do things or other candidates stands on the issues?

Did Russia force the networks to give billions in free media time to Trump?

Also, we have tried to influence elections in other countries like Venezuela with a lot more money and failed. Why would a much smaller investment by Russia get the job done?

[Demsrule86]

105. It is pretty clear the Russians attacked our elections and tricked many into voting for Stein...

didn't you read the posts?

[yurbud]

108. Were there a lot more votes for Stein than in the past?

It is also surreal that the same Democrats who called it conspiracy theories when progressives talked about Republican voter suppression, vote rigging, and uncontested right wing media have no problem shouting about the same thing when they can blame it on Russia.

It seems like they are more afraid of hurting their Republican colleagues feelings than they are of starting a world war.

That said, that they mentioned any RFing by the GOP at all, is a dramatic improvement.

[George II]

10. How did super delegates determine the nominee?

[INdemo]

14. read the article

[George II]

16. I did, they didn't.

[Igel]

12. But that's sort of close to the target.

Fails to hit the target, much less score a bull's eye.

The first two have the assumption that superdelegates would have served their intended purpose. It's not an effect; it's an assumption projected backwards in time to say the facts wouldn't have turned out as they did.

In other words, super delegates didn't determine the candidate in those two years, and assumptions can vary about how alternative histories would have gone. The claim at issue is that super delegates have never determined the candidate.


Did the super delegates determine the candidate in 2016? No.

HRC got more pledged delegates (those other than superdelegates) than Sanders did. Had the superdelegates gone wild over Sanders and most of them vote for him he could have won the nomination. But the superdelegates didn't override delegates determined by popular vote in a state-by-state election.
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_National_Convention,_2016 based on what happened in July 2016, not what was asssumed in March 2016 would happen 4 months later.

The assertion stands.

[INdemo]

15. The point I was making with this reference was

that Super Delegates most certainly make a difference.

[ehrnst]

44. In what way? And why would anyone have run on a Democratic ticket if

those rules were abborhent to them?

Bernie was a superdelegate himself, so he knew exactly what that was about.

If superdelegates, as you say, are corrupt and undemocratic, doesn't that implicate anyone who decides to serve as one?

[George II]

60. Disclaimer - this is NOT refighting the primary (although others apparently are), but.....

....after the third primary Clinton had taken the lead in pledged delegates and kept the lead throughout all the way to the Convention.

After Iowa she was ahead by two, after New Hampshire she was behind by four, but after Nevada she was back ahead by one and maintained the lead the rest of the way.

The super delegates have never determined the nominee.

What is really unfair, perhaps undemocratic, and perhaps "corrupt" (a word some are throwing around here) are the caucuses, where attendees can be badgered, bullied, and intimidated into voting for a particular candidate. Another aspect of the primaries that is unfair is open primaries, which give non-Democrats the opportunity to participate in determining the Democratic nominee. That's ridiculous.

[Tactical Peek]

19. The linked article cites no nomination determined by superdelegates,

nor does it make any claim that the superdelegates have determined any nomination ever.

George II is correct.

[INdemo]

20. the article was in March of 2016 and Hillary already had 496 Superdelegates.

I was pointing out that Super Delegates do make a difference ..you really do need to read the article and do some research on the Democratic Primary and Super Delegates. You will not find any references that would indicate that Super Delegates do make a difference in choosing the nominee.
Then of course enter Debbie Wassermann Schultz who made up the rules as the Primary just moved along.

[Tactical Peek]

22. I read the damn article.

Having previously read it, and I should note that English is my mother tongue, I demand that you now quote the claim that you erroneously assert is contained therein, namely that superdelegates have ever determined the Democratic candidate.

Let's get that settled first, and then we can take up your admonition that I "do some research" and so forth.

Research that article and cite the claim you say is there, please.

[ehrnst]

48. She had worked with many of them for decades.

And superdelegates (of which Bernie Sanders was one, so he knew exactly what he was getting into by running as a Dem) can change their support at any time, as we saw in 2008.

That comes from being a team player for decades.

If your colleagues won't endorse you, what does that say about your efficacy?

[Gothmog]

31. Congressional Black Caucus balks at two political reforms being pitched by Bernie Sanders

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

I agree with the CBC https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/19/congressional-black-caucus-balks-at-two-political-reforms-being-pitched-by-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.f11b38ba20af

In a letter sent to Sanders and Clinton on Saturday, the Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus said they oppose changes in both areas.

The Democrats utilize a system under which candidates win pledged delegates based on their performance in primaries and caucuses, but also seek support from superdelegates, Democratic elected officials and other party elites who have a say on the nomination but are not bound by the results in their states.

The letter, first reported by Politico, said that the current system “has worked quite well” because it allows members of Congress to serve as superdelegates “without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.”

“There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change,” said the letter, signed by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

[Champion Jack]

27. bingo

[ehrnst]

39. Bernie was a Superdelegate, so he knew exactly what he was signing up for

when he ran as a Dem.

[ehrnst]

42. Not seeing where they selected the candidate - the voters did.

By a large margin.

[BlueMTexpat]

36. Exactly.

But too many jump on the bandwagon to criticize.

[ananda]

3. Say what?

???

[CentralMass]

6. Eliminate them.

[Gothmog]

32. Black Caucus plans to defend Democrats' use of superdelegates

I support the CBC http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/superdelegates_black_caucus.html

The Congressional Black Caucus, on the other hand, says the super delegate system provides for minority representation that otherwise wouldn't exist at the party's national convention.

Sanders, who hasn't yet conceded the race to Clinton but has no conceivable way to win the nomination, is reportedly still trying to get rid of the super delegate mechanism before he steps aside.

But black lawmakers intend to hold the line. Democratic strategist Doug Thornell, who was formerly the Congressional Black Caucus' communications director, told Politico, "Sanders did a lot of things right in this campaign, he did a lot better than expected. At the same time he seemed to have a lack of understanding or lack of relationships with black leaders that you saw ultimately hurt him in South Carolina and other states with big black electorates. And this is something that the CBC is going to be very passionate and push back against. This is a way that African-American officials can represent their district and have a say in the process. They're not going to go along with this at all."

[Javaman]

7. I'm surprised, I tells ya, completely bowled over!!!

[Upstate One]

8. What about the caucuses?

Will anything be done about the undemocratic caucuses?

[Igel]

13. Why?

They're "undemocratic" only in the sense that they have a different set of known rules that limit participation.

In a way, they're more socially oriented because they have people take responsibility for their votes after having discussed the reasons for a vote with other people. Much less isolationist, at least in principle.

I do think they should be well run. The only caucus I've ever attended was flatly contrary to the rules in so many ways.

The way we do elections is "undemocratic". Not everybody votes; in fact, as we've made it easier and easier the number of people voting hasn't really changed. It's not access for most people; it's motivation. But the only anecdotes we hear in that particular debate are about people for whom it is about access. Anecdata isn't data.

On the other hand, both caucuses and polling stations are fully democratic. Sort of depends on the precise definition you're using.

[ehrnst]

47. Caucuses are the antithesis to the popular vote.

Low voter turn out

It’s common knowledge that voter turnout in America is lower than most nations, but compare the numbers of voters who vote in primary systems to those who vote in caucus systems and it’s hard not to conclude that the process of the caucus system fosters lower voter turnout. In the all- important Iowa Caucus, heralded for its importance in deciding who ends up winning the nomination, a mere 16.1 percent of the voting eligible population took part in the last presidential election, whereas the equally important New Hampshire primary election had a voter turnout of 53.6 percent.

Fringe groups control the process

With so much time being required to fully participate in caucuses it would make sense that those that choose to participate are those that are most passionate about politics. And those who are most passionate often have views that differ from the general populace. With such a small amount of the voting populace participating in the system it is easy to conceive that a small radical group would be able to commit the time needed to pick delegates and candidates whose viewpoints would appease their own, but likely differ from the views of the majority of people. While some would argue that it is their reward for taking the time to participate, looking at the numbers of those who participate in primary elections it can be fathomed that the caucus system itself discourage the average voter more so than the primary system.

Candidates in a district/state that use caucus elections are responsible to a small group of voters

Rather than having to worry about appeasing everyone, a candidate could, with some validity, seek simply to appeal those groups that have been historically active in caucuses and have security in attaining their delegates. While those who champion the caucus system as it stands points out that candidates no longer have to spend millions on ad campaigns to gain recognition as they would in a primary, those against can simply argue that a candidate simply has to focus on the people who they need to worry about showing up.

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=599&sid=17982638

[BlueMTexpat]

37. I sincerely hope so! eom

[Devil Child]

11. DNC once again teases with notions of reform

Lots of talk, never any action. I hope this delay is temporary and the DNC takes steps towards minimizing the role of superdelagates or eliminating them outright which I would prefer. But it looks like we get more empty words and continued distrust of voters with comments such as "ratify a commitment to reduce perceived influence."

If the party leadership feels so strongly in having a "safety valve" in case us voters are too dumb to make the right choice then just close the conventions and appoint a candidate for us to vote for.

[Gothmog]

33. From the article cited in the OP

There are good reasons to keep the superdelegates http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377733-democrats-delay-change-to-convention-superdelegates

There are DNC members who want to remove superdelegates from the Democratic Convention’s first ballot altogether, allowing the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates earned through the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination.

Other DNC members believe they have earned their uncommitted vote through years of participation in the party.

Any proposal to change the power of superdelegates would need two-thirds support from the DNC’s 447 members to pass.

The committee has until June 2018 to complete its work, "which includes the crafting of any rules, bylaws, or charter amendments necessary to implement the major reforms agreed upon," according to a DNC press release. Those measures will then go to the full DNC for consideration this summer.

[murielm99]

24. WTF is that supposed to mean?

I like her. Her district likes her. She was unfairly maligned here. The posts here about her were misogynistic and not based on facts. They were made by Bernie supporters who would do anything to tear down those who did not fawn all over their preferred candidate. Their aim was to intimidate Wasserman Schultz. We do not need that crap in our party.

I agree with the above post that caucuses need to be eliminated. Closed primaries, with lots of opportunities for early voting, are the most Democratic.

[ehrnst]

46. Do you think he is transgender?

Can you be more specific?

[Gothmog]

28. I am not surprised at this

It takes a vote of two-thirds of the DNC to approve this change and the CBC is against such a change

[Catch2.2]

49. If the Dems want to repair their image

...getting rid or reducing the influence of Super Delegates would be a good start. Same old establishment Dems, this will turn a lot of people off and cost them valuable support that they need.

[ehrnst]

58. So Bernie Sanders - who was a Superdelegate in 2016, was one of "the same old establishment Dems?"

[Gothmog]

75. Who is pushing for this change other than some splinter groups?

I am not seeing any real grassroots support for this proposal other than from some groups who supported a certain candidate.

I am happy to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus in their opposition to this change. The CBC and the voters who are represented by the CBC are key parts of the party

[Hortensis]

86. I don't think you understand the image problem is

mostly lies. Surely you don't want to be like all those republicans whose belief systems are based on lies? We can't force people to respect truth, all we can do invidually is refuse to spread the lies, to not be useful idiots for our enemies.

First you need to realize that the entire planet is in an era of diffusing power away from centers. The DNC and RNC epitomize this. The are both now very weak in this era. The big decisions are all made by the kind of people who decide to put someone on the DNC for those tasks it does do, not by the DNC. It's an ancillary organization these days.

For at least 2 years before each campaign season, each candidate works independently, like a startup business, first in their own state, putting together their campaign and power base, getting on the state ballots, and expands his or her campaign across the nation, gathering power as they go. Or not. Clinton did tremendously. Sanders, as we know, was not active in most of this period.

Meanwhile, the DNC itself has virtually nothing to do with any of this. They come into play when the candidates have developed themselves into agglomerations of powers and purposes.

All the arguments that the Sanders campaign performed weakly because of the DNC are at best profound misunderstandings based on ignorance. It came in weak, performed better than expected because of real enthusiasm for the message, because the DNC took out the 9 weakest candidates before any of us knew their names but left Sanders in, because the DNC provided funds and other support, because of massive press dishonesty (puffing a second candidate up to create a horse race so they wouldn't have to report Clinton several laps ahead for a year), and because of conservative spoiler votes inflated his numbers. And then it lost -- as all indications said it would from beginning to end. Passionate hopes, wishful thinking, and the ignorance needed to support both changed nothing.

[NNadir]

52. Superdelegates introduce sanity in to counter populists, an example of which is Trump.

There is a reason that Madison's constitution tempered popular sovereignty.

[MBS]

70. " " " " n/t

[question everything]

64. If superdelegates assure that the candidate is a Demcorat

not someone who wants to get the to be the candidate, someone who has never been a Democrat, who actively campaigned against Democratic candidates, then I am all for leaving the system intact.

[NurseJackie]

107. Yes. This. Thank you.

[mcar]

65. Good

It's a dumb idea.

[KitSileya]

87. The funny thing is, that if they got rid of superdelegates, the winner would be clear earlier

If they had gotten rid of superdelegates, Bernie would have had to concede in March, April at the latest. He wouldn't have been able to refuse to concede until nearly the Convention, because it would have been much clearer that he didn't have a mathematical way forward. That would have been preferable for the local races, since a lot of the donations that Hillary raised couldn't be released until we had a nominee, and we didn't have that until Bernie conceded. That lost us several months of strongly financing local campaigns.


As it was, the superdelegates could have changed the race if they had gone against the will of the voters, and voted for the candidate with less pledged delegates (not that they have ever done that, in fact, they have done the opposite and switched when Obama got more pledged delegates than Hillary in 2008).

Personally I think super-delegates are a good idea. Long-time members of the party, former elected representatives or people who have held important offices in the party do have a steadier view of who can be elected. They are also not occupying slots as pledged delegates, so that newer, more recently engaged party members have a better chance of participating in the process.

[GulfCoast66]

92. The most glaring Irony is those pushing to eliminate superdelegates,

Which have never behaved in an un Democratic manner are in full support of keeping and expanding the most un Democratic institution in our election system, caucuses.

That is all I need to know about the motivation of the proponents of this proposal.

[R B Garr]

111. Bingo. It is not about democracy, after all

It's about Vermont.

[alarimer]

96. They are an undemocratic vestige of "smoky back rooms."

We can have democracy, just not too much.

[nolabels]

97. Color me suprised

[jmowreader]

102. The most important reason to KEEP superdelegates is sitting in the White House

If the GOP had used a superdelegate system in 2016, Trump would never have made it past the primaries. The entire GOP establishment was aghast at him; Trump got his people to the polls and caucuses during primary season.

With no Trump on the ballot there would have been no need for Russian meddling; none of the other 92 Republican candidates on the GOP ballot owes Russia any money, much less so much money he can't ever repay it.

If you want to thin it down some, grant each state one superdelegate per electoral vote, plus one for every governor, one for every Member of the US Congress, and one for every retired president or former presidential candidate.

[NurseJackie]

106. Thank you! (I'm totally in favor of superdelegates...

... for the reasons you've described and more.)

[Blue_Tires]

134. +1

[Blue_Tires]

113. Good... I'm still waiting for a better reason than

"Bernie would have won were it not for superdelegates!" to turn the system upside down...

Hell, if it were left up to this crowd, every state would have open primaries...

[NurseJackie]

133. I know... weird, huh?

[jmowreader]

135. No...every state would have caucuses

Two problems exist with caucuses: that’s not how we vote in November, and the candidate whose supporters are the worst bullies does the best in caucuses. Being obliged to support a candidate because you believe you’re going to get beaten up if you don’t is not the essence of democracy. Similarly, leaving a caucus or not going at all because you don’t have eight or nine hours to spend being bullied because you like a particular candidate is not the essence of democracy.

If you absolutely insist on getting rid of superdelegates, would you accept closed primaries in all 50 states?

[R B Garr]

136. Yes, this is about Bernie's loss and tossing around the word corruption as

if to spam that Bernie would have won except for some corrupt Democrats. Calling Democrats corrupt is the goal -- changing the system to suit one person is what is actually more corrupt.

[KPN]

131. Seems like as a party we either stand for democratic principles or not.