"It’s preposterous — these 473 people basically have the same power as 2,926,000 actual voters."

[kentuck]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-superdelegates-corrupt-tool-party-establishments-article-1.2555210

<snip>
If 473 people in a developing country were somehow responsible for 2.9 million votes in an election, we’d call that fraud. Our government would refuse to recognize such a leader — particularly if those 473 people didn’t represent anything remotely similar to the actual will of the people. We’d call the election a sham and demand they do it over in a “free and fair” manner.

This system we have right now is anything but fair.

If 7 million people have voted and Sanders has won 42% of the states, it’s borderline criminal that he has only received 4.7% of these superdelegates.

If we’re not going to have a one person-one vote system, delegates have to be fully representative of the true will of the people.

Otherwise, our democracy isn't as true as we make it out to be.


(Thread was locked and GD and requested to be moved to GDP)

[JaneyVee]

1. Bernie does not have 2.9million votes.

Hillary does have 4.2million votes though.

[ibegurpard]

12. irrelevant to the point being discussed

[Faux pas]

2. K N R-ed

[hill2016]

3. well

anyone is free to set up their own party with their own rules

[Coincidence]

4. Not really, not if you want to participate in any meaningful way. Ask Jill Stein...

The two parties have teamed up in a rare bipartisan effort to set the deck, guaranteeing only R's & D's are allowed to participate in American Style Democracy™.

[stevenleser]

10. Perhaps but that is a consequence of the electoral college system, which

anyone on any part of the Democratic Party, Liberal or Progressive spectrum would vote to do away with if given the opportunity. The problem is that it would fail as a constitutional amendment in the small states who get representation from it beyond their fair share.

If no one gets one more than half of the electoral college votes, the House of Representatives picks the President. So if we had more than two viable parties getting electoral college votes, the House would pick the President on a semi regular basis.

[Coincidence]

13. Not only the electoral college as well as the massive $cost, but being allowed to debate is vital nt

[stevenleser]

14. Bernie seems to be doing quite well on both of those counts so it can't be that bad

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. Superdelegates. Democracy. Pick one.

And only one...

[liberal_at_heart]

6. You mean like how a handful of people own all the conglomerates including the media,

all the money, and the government? That seems to be the way our entire society is set up.

[stevenleser]

7. I love all of this angst about the Superdelegates. They are going to be a non-issue this year.

Hillary is winning the pledged delegates by a wide margin and judging from the polls its going to stay that way.

The Superdelegates wont be deciding the nomination.

[KingFlorez]

8. Superdelegates are going to vote for the pledged delegate winner

And at this point most of them are backing the pledged delegate leader, so it's not like they are usurping the will of the votes.

[stevenleser]

9. Yep. They exist to prevent the disaster that I think is about to befall the GOP, I.e a

a very messy, ugly and contentious brokered convention. The GOP has its own method of trying to prevent this from happening, the winner take all states, but I think that will fail to prevent it this time.

[Chichiri]

11. The Democratic Party is not a government organization. nt