How the DNC uses the "delegate system" to scuttle the competition, even if he wins the popular vote

[AikidoSoul]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bernie-Didn-t-Win-New-Hamp-by-Rob-Kall-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Bottom-up_Democracy_Gerrymandering-160211-723.html?show=votes%23allcomments



It's true. Bernie earned 15 delegates by winning 62.5% of the Democratic vote-- the bottom up democratic way. But Hillary also received 15 delegates. The difference is, she earned 9 delegates because people voted for her. But the anti-democratic, top down Democratic Party provides a system that prevents the people from electing candidates. The DNC enabled her to have six superdelegates. That makes the New Hampshire delegate count a tie-- 15 to 15.

As it stands, Bernie Sanders could continue to win popular votes in more early primary states and lose or tie elections because the DNC gives Hillary superdelegates. This is comparable to intra-party gerrymandering.

This is bullshit, an outrageous obscenity against justice and Democracy. It should go no further.

I demand that the Democratic party eliminate superdelegates ASAP.

We live in a time where the system tries to disconnect us from participation in influencing how things are decided. A handful of elites are in charge of a very top down system and they like it that way. Superdelegates are an invention of the Democratic party-- designed to prevent popular candidates from winning primaries. Superdelegates are elected officials-- members of the senate, the house of representatives. Here, Wikipedia provides more details:

For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories: delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[2] (unpledged PLEO delegates); andadditional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[2]
And here's who the superdelegates are, according to Wikipedia:

"There is no fixed number of unpledged PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates. The number can change during the campaign as particular individuals gain or lose qualification under a particular category. The unpledged PLEO delegates are: all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, members of the Democratic National Committee, "[a]ll former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee."

Originally, Superdelegates made up 14% of the total delegates. It has crept up to 20%, with the additional delegates appointed by powerful people in the party. This has always been bullshit. This is what elites holding top down power do when bottom up movements threaten their power. SNIP

[Mike Nelson]

1. I think Hillary might have...

...won more votes than Obama in 2008. Those are the rules, unfortunately. The electoral college is worse.

[HooptieWagon]

2. Been a registered Democrat for 40 years.

Sticking by through my state's primary. After that, undecided. A good number of my Democratic friends have already said they are leaving. Several Greens and Independants have re registered Dem to vote for Sanders in the primary, but will switch back after. The superdelegates aren't that big an issue, just an overall view that the party no longer represents us. If Clinton continues her current scorched earth tactics, she's going to have trouble in this large swing state.

[AikidoSoul]

3. Even people who follow politics are most often CLUELESS about how delegates

can usurp the popular vote.

I think it's wrong and disgusting. That means that the elite, Third Way Dems will control the show.

I feel stupid to find this out at this late date. And I AM FURIOUS!!!!!!!!!

[HooptieWagon]

4. Well, the pledged delegates are 'urged' to vote for the candidate they represent.

It used to be a requirement. The superdelegates have always been allowed to vote as they wish. They are establishment, though. But voting against the desires of the people carries a risk to them.
The Chicago '68 Convention is an example of the party establishment rolling roughshod over the will of the voters. Cost the '68 and '72 General Elections...the GOP domination would have continued except for Watergate. Carter only in one term, then Reagan and Bush I. Had McCarthy been nominated in '68, he probably would have lost to Nixon. But party unity and morale would have remained strong, and a Democrat could likely have won in '72 and beyond. No Reagan, no Bush I.
So it all boils down to the party establishment recognizing the voters are very unhappy, and relinquishing a little bit of power. If they circle the wagons, they've lost a goodly number of voters, lose in November including downticket races, and become inconsequential.

[Oilwellian]

5. It was designed to discourage new voters, don't buy into the bullshit

This is an excellent piece on the Superdelegate issue and hope it allays a few of the fears I've seen expressed. Here is just a part of it:

(snip)

Q: From everything you’ve told me so far, I can’t understand why you’re calling Superdelegate votes “irrelevant.” It seems to me like they have the same voting power as a normal delegate, and this puts Sanders in a tremendous hole from the word “go.”

A: Here’s why it doesn’t matter: Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.

This has already been an incredibly tense election, and Sanders voters are already expressing their unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general election. When you look at the astounding numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire, where more than 80 percent of young voters have chosen Sanders over Clinton, regardless of gender, it’s clear that Clinton already finds herself in a very tenuous position for the general election. It will be tough to motivate young supporters, but any hint that Bernie was screwed by the establishment will result in total abandonment.

Democrats win when turnout is high, and if the DNC decides to go against the will of the people and force Clinton down the electorate’s throat, they’d be committing political suicide.

The important thing to know here is that Superdelegates are merely pledged to a candidate. We know who they support because they’ve stated it publicly, or been asked by journalists. They are not committed, and can change at any time. If Bernie Sanders wins the popular vote, he will be the nominee. End of story.

Q: But it’s not the end of the story, is it? Hasn’t the DNC pulled some shady shit already?

A: Oh yeah. They totally rigged the debate schedule to limit Sanders’ exposure, and now that he’s gaining ground on Clinton, they’re desperate to add more. Sanders probably won the popular vote in Iowa, but the party elite there are refusing to release popular vote totals, even though that’s exactly what they did in 2008. It’s been an embarrassment of Clinton protectionism from the very beginning.

However, that doesn’t mean they’ll overthrow the will of the people when it comes to the presidential nomination. Assuming Sanders wins the popular vote nationwide, and assuming the Superdelegates put Clinton over the top, let’s consider the consequences:

1. Sanders supporters abandon Clinton completely, cutting off a huge portion of her base.

2. Massive protests at the convention, and a party split in half.

3. Republicans have the easiest attack in presidential election history: “Her own party didn’t even want her!”

4. The perception that Clinton is a dishonest politician grows wings, and even if people are reluctant to vote for the GOP nominee, an independent like Bloomberg could strip away an awful lot of votes.

All of this spells disaster for the Democrats. It may not be too corrupt for the DNC to imagine—they’ve got good imaginations—but it’s too transparent to execute. The winner of the delegate count from state primaries and caucuses will win the nomination, and the Superdelegates will fall in line. Just as they have in every single election since the system was implemented. (Including in 2008, when this same concern was raised—would Superdelegates cost Obama the nomination?)

Even the Democratic power structure isn’t so short-sighted that it would cut off its nose to spite its face.

(Much more)
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html