Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
February 22, 2016
HCASR discussion
Thank you for participating. If you stumbled on this, the associated thread with explanation is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511310866
Thank you for your participation and civility.
February 22, 2016
Simple question for all: Do you accept that health care is a basic human right?
Please answer "yes", "no", or "reject premise'.
If you don't mind, I'd also like to ask that you identify who you are supporting in the Democratic Primary.
I'm starting a completely separate thread to discuss the pro, cons of the position as well as why you might reject the premise of the question. The title of that thread is HCASR discussion linked here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511310876
Thank you for your participation and civility.
February 22, 2016
Hillary Coordinates with her SuperPac
This question cropped up so ...
How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign
By Matea Gold May 12, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.
On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.
That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.
But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.
The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/
By Matea Gold May 12, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.
On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.
That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.
But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.
The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws....
Hillary Clinton plans to coordinate directly with super PAC
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS May 13, 2015, 10:00 AM
Hillary Clinton's campaign intends to coordinate directly with a newly formed super PAC able to receive unlimited donations, according to a Washington Post report.
The Democratic presidential candidate's campaign will work in conjunction with Correct the Record, an independent rapid-response team, previously a part of super PAC American Bridge, which conducts opposition research on Republican presidential candidates and possible GOP presidential candidates. The New York Times first reported Tuesday that Correct the Record would split from its parent organization to support the Clinton campaign.
Though Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules prohibit direct coordination between super PACs and declared candidates, Correct the Record believes it will be able to coordinate with Clinton without violating campaign finance regulations.
The FEC restricts paid internet political advertisements, making them subject to campaign spending limits and disclosure requirements. However, a 2006 FEC rule exempts "public communications" -- like unpaid posts on websites or blogs -- from such regulations. The rules were initially implemented as a safeguard against regulating the free speech of bloggers and other internet communications...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS May 13, 2015, 10:00 AM
Hillary Clinton's campaign intends to coordinate directly with a newly formed super PAC able to receive unlimited donations, according to a Washington Post report.
The Democratic presidential candidate's campaign will work in conjunction with Correct the Record, an independent rapid-response team, previously a part of super PAC American Bridge, which conducts opposition research on Republican presidential candidates and possible GOP presidential candidates. The New York Times first reported Tuesday that Correct the Record would split from its parent organization to support the Clinton campaign.
Though Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules prohibit direct coordination between super PACs and declared candidates, Correct the Record believes it will be able to coordinate with Clinton without violating campaign finance regulations.
The FEC restricts paid internet political advertisements, making them subject to campaign spending limits and disclosure requirements. However, a 2006 FEC rule exempts "public communications" -- like unpaid posts on websites or blogs -- from such regulations. The rules were initially implemented as a safeguard against regulating the free speech of bloggers and other internet communications...
February 21, 2016
Go to this link to download the original paper:
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38500
Tag: Wealth Inequality
From Dan Ariely's blog:
Wealth Inequality in Motion.
I recently came across this video that some talented person made of a study I conducted on wealth inequality a few years back with Mike Norton. It does a great job covering the main findings regarding the differences between what Americans think the distribution of wealth is (somewhat even), what they would prefer (more even than socialist Sweden), and how wealth is actually distributed (the bottom 40% of Americans possessing less than 0.3% of total wealth, the top 20% possessing 84%). The graphs, and a longer explanation, are also available here.
The only thing I wish he emphasized a little more is how similar the results were for Democrats and Republicans, which I found very hopeful. Even with all the ideological polarization in Washington, the moment we ask the question of ideal wealth distribution in a general and less self-interested way, we seem to be a country that cares a lot about each other.
http://danariely.com/tag/wealth-inequality/
The only thing I wish he emphasized a little more is how similar the results were for Democrats and Republicans, which I found very hopeful. Even with all the ideological polarization in Washington, the moment we ask the question of ideal wealth distribution in a general and less self-interested way, we seem to be a country that cares a lot about each other.
ARTICLE | PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE | JANUARY 2011
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely
Abstract
Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of "regular" Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to "build a better America" by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely
Abstract
Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of "regular" Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to "build a better America" by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.
Go to this link to download the original paper:
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38500
February 21, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
To those who say she has been vetted, I say, "really?"
Hillary took $21,468,000 in speaking fees 2013-2015.
Documentation and details:
(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
More at link aboveTotal Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92
Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
To those who say she has been vetted, I say, "really?"
February 20, 2016
Firewall!!! Firewall!... Firewall..... SQUIRRELSQUIRRELSQUIRRELSQUIRRELSQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!
Note the national poll numbers assumed at the top
Bernie Sanders’s Path To The Nomination
Here are the states he needs to win.
By NATE SILVER
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/
Here are the states he needs to win.
By NATE SILVER
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/
February 20, 2016
http://civicskunkworks.com/democrats-are-holding-back-the-economy-by-not-making-college-free/
DEMOCRATS ARE HOLDING BACK THE ECONOMY BY NOT ADVOCATING FOR FREE COLLEGE
DEMOCRATS ARE HOLDING BACK THE ECONOMY BY NOT ADVOCATING FOR FREE COLLEGE
February 19, 2016 12:30 pm Nick Cassella Economics, Policy
After endorsing Hillary Clinton, Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC) thought it righteous and necessary to come out against the idea of free college – a clear response to Bernie Sanders’ “socialist” proposal. Here are Clyburn’s incredibly shallow, ahisotrical, and insulting reasons to deny such a right:
What a dreamer.
Seriously though, Clyburn’s comments are very disappointing. They come at a time where the average student now exits college with $35,051 in student debt. Combine these record levels of debt with stagnant wages and rising tuition and you wonder what world Clyburn is living in. How does he find the gall to tell young people that there isn’t such a thing as a “free lunch?” Tell that to Wall Street. Or the American auto industry.
Believe me, young people in America know they aren’t getting a free lunch. While Clyburn and many Congressional Democrats advocate for lowering student interest rates to 4.5 percent (oh goodie!), do they not recognize that such policy prescriptions have almost no inspirational quality? How will that stop college tuition from increasing year after year? How will that ease the burden of ever-expanding student debt?
As we often say here at Civic Skunk Works, civic innovation must keep pace with the times. If it does not, our society falls behind. We don’t get the outcomes we desire. Clyburn and Clinton need to recognize that reality as they lecture young people about college affordability.
Ultimately, Democrats like them are trying to pretend that lowering interest rates on student loans is an honest solution to student debt. It’s not...
February 19, 2016 12:30 pm Nick Cassella Economics, Policy
After endorsing Hillary Clinton, Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC) thought it righteous and necessary to come out against the idea of free college – a clear response to Bernie Sanders’ “socialist” proposal. Here are Clyburn’s incredibly shallow, ahisotrical, and insulting reasons to deny such a right:
Well, let me put it this way. I do not believe there are any free lunches and certainly there’s not going to be any free education. I have made the White House aware of my disenchantment with the proposal they came out with because I do believe we ought to make education affordable. But I think for you to believe that they’re going to make education free, I don’t think that’s going to happen, not in my lifetime, and not in my children’s lifetime.
What a dreamer.
Seriously though, Clyburn’s comments are very disappointing. They come at a time where the average student now exits college with $35,051 in student debt. Combine these record levels of debt with stagnant wages and rising tuition and you wonder what world Clyburn is living in. How does he find the gall to tell young people that there isn’t such a thing as a “free lunch?” Tell that to Wall Street. Or the American auto industry.
Believe me, young people in America know they aren’t getting a free lunch. While Clyburn and many Congressional Democrats advocate for lowering student interest rates to 4.5 percent (oh goodie!), do they not recognize that such policy prescriptions have almost no inspirational quality? How will that stop college tuition from increasing year after year? How will that ease the burden of ever-expanding student debt?
As we often say here at Civic Skunk Works, civic innovation must keep pace with the times. If it does not, our society falls behind. We don’t get the outcomes we desire. Clyburn and Clinton need to recognize that reality as they lecture young people about college affordability.
Ultimately, Democrats like them are trying to pretend that lowering interest rates on student loans is an honest solution to student debt. It’s not...
http://civicskunkworks.com/democrats-are-holding-back-the-economy-by-not-making-college-free/
February 19, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
The transcripts are a red herring to whitewash taking the money
So the same press that has shut out Bernie for 6 months now; the same campaign and media that set up these choreographed debates and town halls to promote Hillary and destroy Bernie, is now suddenly trying to play gotcha with Hillary?
Nope.
They are setting up the false premise that the transcripts owned by Hillary are not being released because those transcripts prove that she is engaged in nefarious behavior.
After all, almost no one trusts Hillary, right? How do you overcome that and the receipt of millions of dollars in direct payments to the candidate?
Isn't the corollary to this manufactured narrative one that, when the transcripts show nothing but a little clubbiness, it means she didn't do anything wrong?
"Of course she made money when she could" they will say.
"After all, who wouldn't, right?"
"We're all a little greedy, right?"
I mean think about it, what is supposed to be going on at these talks that could be harmful to Hillary?
Hillary's part of a rigged system, not an idiot.
This big deal being made about the transcripts is intended to direct attention away from the real issue - the money was paid to gain access. In fact, the very existence of the topic seems tailor made to clean up an otherwise disqualifying act by the candidate. Can you imagine any other candidate getting away with it?
The storyline being created by the Clinton campaign and the media, by design, diverts attention away from the fact that the money bought access to the presidential candidate.
Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
More at link aboveTotal Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92
February 18, 2016
Petition by Ilya Sheyman
To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates
The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.
That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.
There are currently 164,096 signatures. NEW goal - We need 175,000 signatures!
PETITION BACKGROUND Bernie won New Hampshire. And by a hair, Hillary won Iowa. In other words, there's a long Democratic primary ahead, possibly fought all the way to the convention.
But there's a problem: There are 712 superdelegates—made up of Democratic elected officials and other prominent party leaders—who have the power to tip the scales, potentially shifting the vote at the convention to whomever they choose. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.
In 2008, when the primary looked like it could boil down to superdelegates, MoveOn launched a similar campaign calling on the superdelegates to hold off making their decisions until the voters had spoken.
Now, as we face a similarly contested primary, it's critical that we speak out again for the integrity of our voting process. Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.
Sign the Petition: http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=none&fb_test=0
MoveOn Petition: Superdelegates: Let the voters decide
Superdelegates: Let the voters decidePetition by Ilya Sheyman
To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates
The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.
That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.
There are currently 164,096 signatures. NEW goal - We need 175,000 signatures!
PETITION BACKGROUND Bernie won New Hampshire. And by a hair, Hillary won Iowa. In other words, there's a long Democratic primary ahead, possibly fought all the way to the convention.
But there's a problem: There are 712 superdelegates—made up of Democratic elected officials and other prominent party leaders—who have the power to tip the scales, potentially shifting the vote at the convention to whomever they choose. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.
In 2008, when the primary looked like it could boil down to superdelegates, MoveOn launched a similar campaign calling on the superdelegates to hold off making their decisions until the voters had spoken.
Now, as we face a similarly contested primary, it's critical that we speak out again for the integrity of our voting process. Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.
Sign the Petition: http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=none&fb_test=0
February 18, 2016
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-tasini-superdelegate-veto-hell-no-article-1.2529854
Please Sign the Petition
Superdelegates: Let the voters decide
Petition by Ilya Sheyman
To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates
The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.
That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.
There are currently 164,096 signatures. NEW goal - We need 175,000 signatures!
PETITION BACKGROUND Bernie won New Hampshire. And by a hair, Hillary won Iowa. In other words, there's a long Democratic primary ahead, possibly fought all the way to the convention.
But there's a problem: There are 712 superdelegates—made up of Democratic elected officials and other prominent party leaders—who have the power to tip the scales, potentially shifting the vote at the convention to whomever they choose. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.
In 2008, when the primary looked like it could boil down to superdelegates, MoveOn launched a similar campaign calling on the superdelegates to hold off making their decisions until the voters had spoken.
Now, as we face a similarly contested primary, it's critical that we speak out again for the integrity of our voting process. Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.
Sign the Petition: http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=none&fb_test=0
Re Superdelegates
If Hillary wins the primary by getting more delegates via the election process, she will have my full support in the General Election.
If Bernie wins more delegates via the election process and the super delegates give the election to Hillary, I will consider the primary election to have been stolen and will resign from the Democratic party.
I am 100% sure that Hillary will lose the General Election if such a theft via rigged rule-making takes place.
Superdelegateveto? Hell no: A Bernie Sanders surrogate warns against insiders swaying the nomination
BY JONATHAN TASINI NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Tuesday, February 16, 2016
We correctly criticize undemocratic elections in countries with dictators or one-party systems. That said, our self-satisfied view of other countries’ shortcomings is blind to our own creaky, often flawed, election system. No better example beckons than the possibility that the Democratic nomination will be decided by an unelected group of people who will thwart, in a backroom deal, the actual desires expressed by real voters.
To win the Democratic nomination, either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton must amass a majority of the 4,764 delegates to the Democratic convention, which takes place in Philadelphia in July. Most voters think those delegates are all allocated by votes held in primaries or caucuses. Unfortunately, that's not true: A full 15% — 712 — are unelected so-called superdelegates.
Let's understand who these 712 superdelegates are. Elected Democrats in Congress and the party's governors make up a significant chunk (whose numbers have shrunk due partly to the dismal leadership of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz). The remaining bloc are Democratic National Committee members, who are a mish mash of other elected officials, party functionaries and heads of partly-aligned groups such as unions and leading advocacy organizations.
Most of these people are capable and legitimate activists — solid Democrats who have, in their own right, been elected by voters to serve in their respective positions. And, almost by definition, they are part of the party establishment.
The key point, however, is that they never ran on, nor were they ever elected by voters...
BY JONATHAN TASINI NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Tuesday, February 16, 2016
We correctly criticize undemocratic elections in countries with dictators or one-party systems. That said, our self-satisfied view of other countries’ shortcomings is blind to our own creaky, often flawed, election system. No better example beckons than the possibility that the Democratic nomination will be decided by an unelected group of people who will thwart, in a backroom deal, the actual desires expressed by real voters.
To win the Democratic nomination, either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton must amass a majority of the 4,764 delegates to the Democratic convention, which takes place in Philadelphia in July. Most voters think those delegates are all allocated by votes held in primaries or caucuses. Unfortunately, that's not true: A full 15% — 712 — are unelected so-called superdelegates.
Let's understand who these 712 superdelegates are. Elected Democrats in Congress and the party's governors make up a significant chunk (whose numbers have shrunk due partly to the dismal leadership of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz). The remaining bloc are Democratic National Committee members, who are a mish mash of other elected officials, party functionaries and heads of partly-aligned groups such as unions and leading advocacy organizations.
Most of these people are capable and legitimate activists — solid Democrats who have, in their own right, been elected by voters to serve in their respective positions. And, almost by definition, they are part of the party establishment.
The key point, however, is that they never ran on, nor were they ever elected by voters...
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-tasini-superdelegate-veto-hell-no-article-1.2529854
Please Sign the Petition
Superdelegates: Let the voters decide
Petition by Ilya Sheyman
To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates
The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.
That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.
There are currently 164,096 signatures. NEW goal - We need 175,000 signatures!
PETITION BACKGROUND Bernie won New Hampshire. And by a hair, Hillary won Iowa. In other words, there's a long Democratic primary ahead, possibly fought all the way to the convention.
But there's a problem: There are 712 superdelegates—made up of Democratic elected officials and other prominent party leaders—who have the power to tip the scales, potentially shifting the vote at the convention to whomever they choose. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.
In 2008, when the primary looked like it could boil down to superdelegates, MoveOn launched a similar campaign calling on the superdelegates to hold off making their decisions until the voters had spoken.
Now, as we face a similarly contested primary, it's critical that we speak out again for the integrity of our voting process. Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.
Sign the Petition: http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel?source=none&fb_test=0
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
