Do you support the existence of unelected "superdelegates" having a say in who our candidate is?

[Nye Bevan]

61 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes.
	11 (18%)
	No.
	50 (82%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[PowerToThePeople]

1. I also don't support corporate media controlling the national narrative.

[bjo59]

4. That's the corker. That's when you know that democracy is largely a sham.

[Hortensis]

39. Profoundly disagree. How can any of you watch what

is happening in this election on both sides and imagine that democracy is a sham simply because it is not pure and perfect?

Neither party has chosen these candidates, and neither can control the outcome. Right-wing plutocrats probably haven't completely given up somehow buying a choice of their own into the White House, but the top of the GOP ticket has so far resisted all attempts by them and the GOP establishment to gain control of/from the people.

And, yes, although I want some tweaking of the Democratic Party's electoral procedures, this year I support the superdelegate system which adds some degree of stability and safeguarding against what can obviously go horribly wrong. Just look to the right.

I don't want to believe Trump would have been nearly as successful if he had elbowed Sanders out of the way and run as the left's anti-establishment candidate, but who knows? I do know that he could easily have been our problem, instead of the GOP's, and that we can never be a party that would allow a dysfunctional, profoundly ignorant and completely unprincipled person like that, the very definition of a fool, to get within reach of the White House.

[silvershadow]

12. That's all that's left after Bill signed the reforms. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Agreed.

[oldandhappy]

2. manipulation and control win over democracy

super delegates are a way to say someone else knows best

[bjo59]

5. Yeah, especially corporate lobbyist superdelegates. That just says it all.

[grasswire]

3. I truly object to the idea that "insiders" should trump the expressed...

...will of the voters. It's an insulting and un-American plan.

[silvershadow]

13. Hear, hear. nt

[hack89]

27. So you oppose Bernie's present strategy? nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Chicken or egg? Unelected superdelegates or Bernie's strategy?

Would there be a "strategy" in the context of superdelegates if they weren't part of the game?

[pnwmom]

6. The Rethugs are wishing they had them because they could have stopped Trump.

So overall, I'm happy we have them and don't see that they've caused any problems. They helped put Obama over the top when he was ahead, even though they were free to do otherwise.

[Urchin]

7. Depends

on how the superdelegates are selected.

[okasha]

8. Yep.

I'm a McGovern survivor.

[silvershadow]

14. I'm a Clinton victim. nt

[Agschmid]

22. Now I get it.

[silvershadow]

25. You should. I have written extensively about the damage the Third Way has

wrought on this country and party (as a 50 year Union Labor man). You sure should get it.

[leftofcool]

30. Me too! What a disaster!

[morningfog]

57. How would today's version of super delegates stop McGovern?

If a full 15% of the delegates available went to another candidate, McGovern still had a majority of the delegates.

[cloudythescribbler]

9. another key question is voting on the platform planks

I am not absolutely certain how every particular of the Convention will be handled, but even if Hillary gets the majority of pledged delegates, it would still be possible to win over enough Hillary delegates on many specific plank issues to make a lot of major changes to the platform

On the other hand, w/the "superdelegates" voting, this possibility will be greatly narrowed, possibly losing the nominee a number of supporters who might have been more inspired by a platform more heavily influenced

One of the planks or issues to be voted on should be the issue of the "superdelegates" itself. I assume that especially if the "superdelegates" get to vote on that issue, it will be extremely difficult to ban them altogether. A possibly passing partial measure would allow ONLY currently elected officeholders and ban ALL lobbyists from a vote. Further, the number of "superdelegates" might be reduced or limited, say to about 500. Finally, the voting power of the "superdelegates" could be vastly diluted by a large INCREASE in the number of pledged delegates for the next election, thus reducing their proportion from about 15% of the total now to less than half that proportion

It would be better if they could be completely removed (politicians who want to be delegates could seek to be pledged delegates) from the process or even more drastically reduced than the outlined compromise, but I am skeptical about whether even that much of a concession will be possible

[2banon]

17. California held Special Delegate caucus Election meet ups today.

I just voted today for 9 delegates to represent my district in California at the State and National Conventions for Bernie, as every congressional district in the state did all at the same time.

The candidates had to work the crowds for our votes if we were not already familiar with the individuals. some of the candidates were part of slates, but we didn't vote for slates, we voted for individuals.

It was a great process, very democratic and a great model for which should be emulated across the nation.

It was thoroughly satisfying to be caucusing in a Union Hall with 1000 other Bernie supporters and over a 100 candidates campaigning for our votes. it was great.

[SFnomad]

10. Actually, a little over 1/3 of these Superdelegates ARE elected

They're the Democrats in both the House and Senate and also State Governors who are Democrats.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. I can find no election where they have gone against the will of the Democratic Party.

The Majority of all Super Delegates has gone with the winner of the pledged delegates and the popular vote in the Democratic Party.

I do support their existence. I would not support the Super Delegates going against the will of the Democratic Party and siding with a candidate that does not win a majority of votes or delegates in the primary.

[2banon]

18. I think that happened in 1968, Chicago.

But that was ancient history, I know.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Super Delegates were not created until 1982, so they had nothing to do with 1968.

A Brief History of Superdelegates
To understand the origin of superdelegates, you have to understand one thing: George McGovern and the 1972 election. But let's first step back and frame things a little bit.

The superdelegate system was instituted over the spring and summer of 1982 by the Commission on Presidential Nominations (CPN), a special committee of the DNC that was chaired by then North Carolina governor James B. Hunt. Superdelegates were the most important of several such changes approved by the CPN; others included shortening the primary season, and loosening the rules for pledged delegates (such that it became easier to be a 'faithless' delegate).

There were a number of rationales given at the time for the implementation of superdelegates, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. The primary purpose of this diary will be to explore those rationales, based on a survey of contemporaneous newspaper accounts from the New York Times. However, it is also important to understand the underlying context: as of 1982, the Democrats had had two absolutely disastrous results out of the last three Presidential election cycles.

[2banon]

46. Interesting article, thank you.

As I read this, it seems to allude to the connection.. a sort of 'reaction to the reaction' of
the events of 1968. Followed with events of 1972, followed with events of Carter's defeat, and on and on.

I would argue that it isn't inaccurate to suggest the connection, it just requires a more thorough analysis than I have time to delve into here at this time.

But I DO APPRECIATE you providing this link because I had no idea of the name of the committee the Party Elites formed as a body to enact rules governing the process of selecting their pre-approved candidates in order to prevent "insurgents" (such as McGovern) i.e. Bernie from being allowed a path to the nomination. Thank You!

The "Democratic Party reforms" that Davis refers to were those implemented by a commission led by McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald Fraser, itself a reaction to the disastrous convention of 1968. The most important provision of these reforms was one that required all delegate selection to be "open" -- selected by voters rather than by party leaders -- which effectively ushered in the era of party primaries.

By 1982, however, the sentiment was essentially that the cure (1972, "validated" by 1980) was worse than the disease (1968).

In 1984, superdelegates proved to be helpful in getting Walter Mondale past the threshold he needed to achieve an outright majority of delegates, thereby avoiding a brokered convention. However, in all probability the superdelegates did not alter the outcome of the election; Mondale had a clear plurality of pledged delegates at the time. There is an outside chance that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson could have teamed together to defeat him, but it would have required near-perfect coordination, and would arguably have usurped the public will, as Mondale had a substantive lead in the national polls. Thus, initially at least (and notwithstanding Mondale's eventual defeat), superdelegates were regarded as a helpful innovation

[Agnosticsherbet]

47. I will counter that there were no Super Delegates in 1968. To put them there is to create a false

history.

In this, you are 100% wrong.

[2banon]

49. Yes, you're correct. I concede the point, I misspoke.

That said, in so far as the machinations of the party establishment elites are concerned it really is a minor point in the scheme democratic party electoral history. We could even go as far back as Tammany Hall but I won't belabor the point any further.

[Agschmid]

23. False.

[BootinUp]

15. With em or without em Hillary won. Whats the diff?

[msongs]

16. bernie is ok with them...long as they vote for him. vote for hillary = bad of course nt

[seabeyond]

56. He surely is ok with super delegates being one himself. For sure. Nt

[TheDormouse]

20. well, technically most of them ARE elected

[beachbum bob]

21. if it prevents a 1972 trainwreck, you betcha

[NurseJackie]

35. But ... but ... McRALLIES!

[B Calm]

24. We the people or We the superdelegates? Hmmm, think

I'll choose We the people.

[leftofcool]

31. The people have already spoken. They want Hillary

It's really simple. More pledged delegates and the popular vote.

[B Calm]

33. They haven't all spoken.

[RiverLover]

26. Its just more corrupt rigging of the system by Moneyed Interests. /nt

[flor-de-jasmim]

28. Definitely do not like the idea that they must "save us", presumably from ourselves!

[Cobalt Violet]

32. No, in fact it is really making consider if I want to be part of the "our" at all.

It's against what I stand for. The party seems to moving away from everything I supported the party for standing up for in the 1st place. Nothing much left to support these days.

[qdouble]

34. Yes...as long as they don't do anything stupid, I don't see the problem with them

If they were to go against the will of the majority of the party, then the party would revolt anyway...so not worried about that.

[brooklynite]

36. It doesn't bother me, considering the alternative:

1972: McGovern lost 49 States
1980: Carter lost 44 States
1984: Mondal lost 49 States
1988: Dukakis lost 40 States

But if you'd like to change things, here's a suggestion: stop railing against the Party and work to change it from the inside.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Superdelegates picked Mondale and Dukakis.

...and you are suggesting that superdelegates would have saved us from nominating the incumbent president in 1980?

[bigwillq]

37. No.

Moving forward, I would like to see them eliminated. Pop vote--and only pop vote--should count, imo, even if the candidates I support never win an election again.

[Vinca]

38. No.

I don't think it's fair a candidate wins a state and comes out with fewer delegates that the loser.

[Gothmog]

40. This is part of the Democratic party rules

[Octafish]

41. Superdelegates defeat the purpose of Democracy.

So, there's that.

[Rex]

61. The two parties are controlled by private entities not responsible to the people.

I think all this muddles the water in that we are stuck with two bought and paid for political parties, to whatever extent. That illusion of choice we all buy in to year after year.

[LanternWaste]

42. I support these arguments during a non-election cycle when petulant bias is not the stuffing between

I support these arguments during a non-election cycle when petulant bias is not the stuffing between the two Oreo's.

(Insert standard "so this means you support X" fallacy in space below)

[Justice]

44. I support following the rules and not changing them mid-stream. If you don't like the rules,

get involved and change them for next time.

[gollygee]

45. I don't really like the idea of "superdelegates"

But I don't think it's right to argue about it during an election. It becomes more about whether their existence helps or hurts your candidate and less about the election process.

But overall, I'm a huge believer in the democratic process. People vote and the will of the people decides elections. I'd love for everything to be decided by popular vote, and I'd like all primaries to be on the same day. I'd also like that day, and every Election Day, to be a national holiday so people can vote more easily. What I'd like for elections isn't really relevant to what we're dealing with right now though. We have a process, and you can't change it in the middle (or toward the end) of things.

[mythology]

48. Sort of

I don't think they should determine the nominee in normal circumstances. But I don't object to them being there as a known entity for a circumstance where say a nominee dies or something where there isn't the ability to do a revote.

[Chan790]

50. Nope. Had a problem with it in 2008 too...

was basically told here that I was being extreme and that there was no issue with the existence of superdelegates.

Much like other issues, I feel vindicated that the rest of y'all came around to see it my way in time. I get tired of being the trendsetter.

[UMTerp01]

51. Nope. I also have a problem with the notion that superdelegates are a new phenomenon

It just so happens that its not working out for one guy and people want to pitch a fit about it. I don't like superdelegates either. They should be done with. But people who are somehow tying Hillary to them as if she came up with the rules....MISS ME WITH THAT!!!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

52. I think the Republicans would be thrilled to have Superdelegates that could stop Trump

I would hate to see our nominating process hijacked by someone who was not a Democrat.

[stone space]

54. There is an easy way to get rid of superdelegates.

All you got to do is convince them just once to overturn the pledged delegates.

Violla!

Next time around, there will be no superdelegates.

[seabeyond]

55. We have been doing it for decades and I heard not a peep.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

58. I'd prefer they are not "figured in" until after the primary

I do think if you are an elected member of Congress or the Senate or a Governor as a Democrat, you should have a vote on the nominee.

[Garrett78]

59. Have they ever thrown the election to someone who didn't win the pledged delegate battle?

If not, it doesn't seem to matter much.

[Rex]

60. Well people bought into corporations controlling both parties and not the public system.

The DNC and RNC are privately owned entities responsible to no one.

[sadoldgirl]

62. No, they got installed to control the people's

choice. Everyone, who applauds them because of what
Trump is doing to the repug party is wrong.

If Trump wins the nomination it just shows their
party's problems, and that needs to be exposed.

The same should go for the Dems. If the people make
a mistake, then they can learn from it, but not by
superimposing the "PARTY".

Democracy is always experimenting unless the
PTB intend to interfere, which is where we are at.

[Garrett78]

63. As far as I know, they've never overturned the will of the voters.

That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but it hasn't.

[baldguy]

64. Look at the chaos going on in the GOP.

Without SDs or something similar, they're on their way to nominating - by an overwhelming margin - the weakest candidate possible to run against Clinton.

[pampango]

65. No - unless they hand the nomination to my trailing candidate. In that case they are wise

guardians of the future of the Democratic Party and our country.