What if the Super Delegates agreed to proportional support based on their states?

[Armstead]

This was just an impartial thought I had as a result of the questions about SDs.

Suppose the SD's agreeed to split their votes in a way that reflected the proportional votes in their states?

So, to use very round numbers for illustration, if Clinton were to get 55 percent of primary/caucus votes in a state and Bernie gets 45 percent (or vice versa) and a state has 10 SDs, then they'd agree to split their votes in a way that is roughly equivalent.

The numbers would not work out exactly but at least it would be more representative as a reflection of the actual votes in the primaries.

[Renew Deal]

1. The problem in general is why there are "super-delegates" if they can't vote as they wish.

if its not their choice, they don't need to exist.

[JaneyVee]

4. I think superdels are necessary....

As long as we have open primaries and caucuses.

Which can and do get hijacked by other party members.

[MadBadger]

5. This

I feel like most of us would like to see them go away, but for me, not till 2024 (hopefully). You don't change the rules in the middle of the game

[Renew Deal]

8. I agree that you can't change it now

[JaneyVee]

11. I agree

You dont change the rules mid game, especially when both candidates are using them strategically. I also think they are necessary in a process that allows open primaries and caucuses.

[ShrimpPoboy]

7. That's what I'm wondering as well

If the party wanted a popular vote primary only, they could have set it up that way.

[JaneyVee]

2. Here

[Renew Deal]

3. Right

Under that scenario they are just additional delegates. But then we don't need named delegates if they don't have a choice. Just remove them all together.

[Armstead]

9. I'm just referring to this election cycle

The bigger issue is something to be looked at when the dust settles after Nov

[Renew Deal]

13. I know, but it's all the same

The super-delegates aren't really a problem unless the go against he regular delegates. If the line up, it's not a major issue. Longer term I wouldn't have a problem of going to a more limited group or none at all.

[Armstead]

6. Please note the word Impartial in my OP

However it works out.

[MineralMan]

10. They could do that, of course,

but the rules do not require them to. They're "unpledged" delegates and can vote as they please, which I'm sure they will do, except that many would change to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. In a two-person race, one candidate will almost certainly have a majority of pledged delegates, who are proportionally allocated according to primary election or caucus results.

That candidate with the majority will be the nominee. The superdelegates will ensure that, I guarantee. They're all Democrats, and Democrats honor the majority rule principle.

[HereSince1628]

12. LOL, that would, of course, ruin the purpose of superdelegates.

Remember, the party doesn't exist to represent voters. The party, especially in the minds of it's politicians, exists to facilitate the election of dem politicians, especially INCUMBENT politicians.

The dems don't and can't trust their voting base. They especially can't trust them in an election cycle where there is a revolt against the traditional and prevailing thinking of incumbent and former politicians: "They Have No Where Else To Go".

The superdelegates are former and established politicians who are the product of an entire generation dominated by New Dem/3rd-Way/DLCers who have no patience with little people who want to push agendas.

[Armstead]

14. I know....Just tossing in an idea based on the quaint theory that we live in a democracy

[HereSince1628]

16. democratic in democratic party isn't an adjective, it's merely a brand label

[Onlooker]

15. Superdelegates should support whoever wins the most elected delegates

I don't think superdelegates are awarded proportional to their state, so your idea while a good one, might not resolve the problem. I think unless the race is extremely close (say a difference of 3 or 4 delegates), superdelegates should be expected to choose the candidate who won the most pledged delegates. If the race is extremely close, then it's a more complex problem because both sides will be playing a lot of games to try to prevail; in that case, superdelegates might need to vote en masse to prevent chaos at the convention.

[Armstead]

17. Just throwing in an idea that will never happen....But it could be proportional among the national

Perhaps instead of state-based sm0oke filled rooms to decide that, it could be a national smoke filled...Whatever might best reflect the distribution of support the candidates have among states